Your New Religion

I'm inventing a new religion. (Or so I'm told.)

AI-generated overview: Click here.

I would like to persuade you to adopt my new religion as Your New Religion.

I'm being a bit facetious. No, I don't think I'm another Moses, Jesus, Paul, Buddha, Muhammad, or even Martin Luther. (I would be OK being likened to J. Gresham Machen, but he was a far better scholar than I am. Don't know who Machen was? We'll get to him in a minute.)

But I'm actually being a bit serious, and I'd like to pose some life-changing questions based on my experience and study.

I claim to be a Bible-believing Christian. I've been told I'm not a Christian (details below). OK then . . . so I must have invented a "new religion." (I think it's just taking the old religion seriously). If you claim to be a Bible-believing Christian, I would like you to take your religion so seriously that people who don't will say you're not a Christian.

Lots of New Religions

There have been many new religions in history.

Jesus said the Pharisees had invented a new religion, and the traditions of their religion were a substitute for God's religion (Mark 7:6-13). The Pharisees said Jesus was the one with the new religion, and they killed Jesus.
Stephen said "the church in the wilderness" (Israel after Sinai -- Acts 7:38) had apostatized and was no longer following the true religion. He was stoned to death.
Martin Luther said trying to buy your way into heaven was a false religion, and the Catholic Church said "anathema" to him, the ultimate curse.
J. Gresham Machen said Protestantism had apostatized into "liberalism," which is no longer the Christian religion. He was pushed out of the Presbyterian Church.
Machen founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and I joined that church, but was kicked out of that church by Greg L. Bahnsen, who said that being removed from church membership is the same as being removed from the roll in heaven. That is, being excommunicated is a declaration that you're not a Christian. So I guess I must have invented some other religion.
All of the people in this list who formed "new" religions only thought they were following the true religion, not inventing a new one. They said the "old" religion had become a "new" religion by apostatizing from the "old" one.
I'd like to suggest that you're part of an apostate religion, and need a "new" religion.

Everyone has a "Religion." You do too.

When I say "I would like you to make my new religion Your New Religion, there are two responses:

1. No thank you, I like my current religion

2. No thank you, I don't have a religion and I don't want one.

If your response is #2, I would like to move you to #1 by proving that you do have a religion.

Paul Tillich was one of the five highest ranking professors at Harvard University. He defined "religion" as "ultimate concern." In this sense everyone is religious, though some people live out their religion with passionate devotion, and other people are just duds. Many people in America today are duds. Maybe they're clinically depressed. Many people work a boring job, watch boring TV, then go to bed, to repeat the same thing the next day. They don't seem very "concerned" about their "ultimate concern," but there is an "ultimate" concern, and Prof. Tillich says that's their religion. The "ultimate concern" of the video game player, six hours a day, is a religion by one description, an "addiction" by another. Maybe the game itself is not the "ultimate concern," maybe it' the feeling, the adrenaline. But everyone has a "concern" that is "ultimate," according to our Harvard Professor and the Apostle Paul.

Romans 1: The Impossibility of Atheism

Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

Romans 1
¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For from the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

The Apostle Paul begins his letter to Christians in Rome by saying there's no such thing as an atheist. Everyone knows God exists. All humans are created in the Image of God, and we can read the facts of nature and know that we are not meaningless accidents, the product of random collisions of molecules. We were created. There is a Creator. But the Creator is also a Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22), and we may not want to obey His laws. So we suppress the facts of nature.

Obviously, evolutionists deny Paul's claim. Celebrity evolutionist Richard Dawkins claims

there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

On this philosophy, there is no difference between a nurse and a serial rapist/murderer. Both do what they "like" to do, and both "like" to do what their DNA programmed them to enjoy. Shake up two cans of soda, and put them on the table. Pop the tops. They fizz. The cans of soda are not having a "debate" or a "relationship." They just fizz. The evolutionist says a rape is just a collision of two collections of atoms, just like a mother's tender kiss of a baby. It's all just meaningless fizzing. It's just the laws of chemistry and biology.

If you object to the claim that rape is no different from love, then you agree with the Apostle Paul. You agree with the Declaration of Independence (1776) which says we are morally obligated to obey the laws of nature's God, and will one day be held accountable for our actions by "the Supreme Judge of the World." America was built on the Bible, and became the most prosperous and admired nation in history. Then the Bible was banned, and evolution was substituted in its place, and prosperity was transformed into bankruptcy and admiration into loathing and ridicule.

If you say you have no religion, my goal is to persuade you to adopt the Christian religion that gave birth to the Declaration of Independence, and abandon Darwin's religion of denial and meaninglessness.

If I can do that, you'll be at Position #1 above, content with your American/Christian religion, but not interested in making my new religion Your New Religion.

I understand that. I'm pretty confident that if I were to go back in time to 1776, there isn't a clergyman in North America who would let me become a member in his church. My new religion would be considered unorthodox, or a heresy. More on that in a minute.

True Religion Defined

Here's where I begin defining my new "religion."

James the brother of Jesus wrote in his letter:

James 1:27
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

If you are completely indifferent to the needs of widows and orphans, you have an impure, defiled religion.

The Biblical definition of "religion" is not incense, clerical vestments, cathedrals, sacraments, and rituals. Some of that comes from the Old Testament, but the prophets said that entire temple system of religion was going to be replaced. Jesus predicted that He was going to destroy the temple in Jerusalem, and He did, in AD 70. All that is now fake religion, according to my new religion.

Postage stamps can be very pretty, and there's nothing wrong with having a stamp collection, but it's not a very good religion. In itself, there's nothing wrong with fancy cathedrals, fancy costumes, or the smell of incense, but they are no substitute for the "pure and undefiled" religion of James 1:27, and could well be symptoms of being "spotted by the world."

James said if you don't control your tongue and you say mean things to widows and fatherless children, your religion is worthless, useless:

James 1:26
If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.

I don't want you to have a worthless religion.

being indifferent to the plight of widows and fatherless children is a worthless religion. Or worse:
not controlling your tongue around widows and fatherless children is a worthless religion. Or worse:
tormenting or traumatizing widows and fatherless children is a worthless religion. Or worse:
creating widows and fatherless children by murdering husbands and fathers is a particularly worthless religion. Not just "impure," I would say it's an evil religion.

Are You A Dud?

As I said above, everyone has a "religion," but some people are very passionately devoted to their religion, while others are duds.

Jesus said He prefers "extremists" over those who are duds.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have no need of anything,” and you do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked,
Revelation 3:15-17 NASB

So let's break down the options:

True Religion	Practiced passionately	Practiced lukewarm-ly
Fake Religion	Practiced passionately	Practiced lukewarm-ly

A person can profess/practice the true religion (Christianity) or a false religion. Better to wave the banner of true religion.

Whether a person practices a false religion in a lukewarm or in a passionate way doesn't matter: it's still a false religion.

If a person practices the true religion in a lukewarm manner, that makes Jesus want to vomit him out of His mouth. Being a true Christian in name only is as bad as having a false religion, like "The Religion of Secular Humanism."

My goal is to persuade you to become an "extremist" Christian. If you claim to be a Christian already, I'd like to make sure you're not a lukewarm Christian. If you are a lukewarm Christian, it may be that you're a liberal, and you actually need a new religion.

Some liberals may be misled; other liberals actively hate the God of the Bible.

(We'll talk more about "liberalism" below.)

Origin Story

Let me briefly describe the origin of my "heretical" "New Religion."

When I was in high school I was introduced to a man named Rousas J. Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation, which Newsweek Magazine identified as the "think tank" of the "religious right." Rushdoony appeared to me to be a very Godly and dignified man, and he taught me that the Bible is the Word of God and governs every area of human life. This view is called "Christian Reconstructionism." I am deeply indebted to Rushdoony. He profoundly changed the direction of my life. I can't remember whether I was still in high school or in college when I resolved to become "The Next Rushdoony." That never happened. I'm still an undignified dweeb, 50 years later. But to this day I still agree with The Five Points of Christian Reconstruction.

In college I was part of a small church in Anaheim, CA, called "Reformation Bible Church." I shared the pulpit with David Chilton, a remarkably gifted writer. I started passing out papers or newsletters under the banner of “Vine & Fig Tree” and formed a non-profit tax-exempt organization by that name.

Home page: www.VineandFigTree.org

That website spells out most of my "heretical" doctrines. Fifty years later, that's still my new religion. I hope it will become your new religion.

Chalcedon published the first article I wrote before I graduated from college. I went on to write a monthly column for their flagship publication, The Chalcedon Report.

Jon Zens was the publisher of a journal called The Baptist Reformation Review. He opposed the Christian Reconstructionist view, but invited me to write an article representing the Reconstructionist view, to get "the other side," which I did. I got some feedback on a draft of the article from Greg L. Bahnsen:

Review of Chantry

Zens introduced me to the Anabaptists of the 16th century. Zens said they represented a view contrary to the Reconstructionists. I thought the Anabaptists had many good things to say, and raised some valid criticisms of the "Magisterial Reformers" (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.). I eventually wrote a book evaluating these two competing champions of "Reformation":

A Theonomic Defense of the Anabaptists

I felt that in many ways the Anabaptists anticipated many things I was coming to believe under my banner of “Vine & Fig Tree.” And I was coming to reject some of the competing views of the Reconstructionists.

I'm not entirely sure why, or on what grounds, but I was soon to be fired from Chalcedon by Rushdoony. I was disappointed but not angry. I think I had already realized that my future was with “Vine & Fig Tree” rather than Chalcedon.

To continue with my interaction with the 16th century Anabaptists:

Fascism!

Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531) is a clear example of the contrast between my “Vine & Fig Tree” system and the Reformed/Reconstructionist "magisterial" worldview. I call Zwingli a "Calvinist" even though he preceded John Calvin (1509-1564) and was killed in battle before Calvin published his "Institutes." In the 1520's, Zwingli and other "Calvinists" in Zurich came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Mass was idolatrous. There was talk about Zurich churches celebrating a Protestant version of the sacrament, but Zwingli quashed that conversation, saying that Protestants must continue celebrating the idolatrous Roman Catholic Mass until the Zurich political authorities ordered the churches to make the change. Those who became known as the "Swiss Anabaptists" refused to wait for political powers to permit them to follow Scripture, so they began meeting in house-churches and implementing Protestant theology. Zwingli hunted them down like wild boars. Zwingli believed in using the sword to promote religion. He was known for using harsh measures, such as economic sanctions (blocking wheat, salt, and wine) against Catholic regions. He was killed fighting in the Second War of Kappel on October 11, 1531.

'Economic sanctions" is a major part of U.S. imperialism today. See below.

I'm inclined to call Zwingli a "fascist," but scholars dispute that label on the grounds that "fascism" is a 20th-century phenomenon, and it would be anachronistic to use that label against someone in the 16th century. So perhaps "proto-fascist" is the term to use for someone with a penchant for the military and a powerful comprehensive state.

There arose a division among "Christian Reconstructionists." Gary North, in Tyler, Texas, embraced what I would call "ecclesiocentrism" -- a church-centered worldview. Rushdoony, in Vallecito, Calif., advocated what North called "Baptized Patriarchalism" -- a family-centered worldview. David Chilton lined up with Tyler, I lined up with Vallecito, and little Reformation Bible Church split. David moved to Tyler. Since I had been preaching, it was somewhat "logical" that I would continue preaching at what remained of Reformation Bible Church. I was double-minded at this time. I didn't want to become a "clergyman" for RBC, because of my anti-ecclesiocentric inclinations, but I didn't want to appear publicly as some kind of anti-ecclesiastical rabble-rousing rebel, so I became a member of Bahnsen's church nearby. Wiser heads warned me that this was a mistake. They were right.

Bahnsen began tutoring me one-on-one to become ordained in the OPC, following the older "apprentice" system rather than the modern "seminary" method. I knew this wasn't going to work out. I told him that instead of working through Systematic Theology, he should review some of the more heretical themes in "my new religion" to see if he wanted to continue to pursue ordination. He agreed. We started going through my "95 Theses on Anarcho-Patriarchy." (The Theses have been given different names over the years.) We also started going over a book I wrote called "The Elder's Checklist," arguing that every Christian should become an "elder" in a non-ecclesiastical sense, replacing conventional "clergy." That did not go over well with Bahnsen. When I first joined Bahnsen's church, he only knew me as a writer for Chalcedon. Now he's learning that I not only reject the idea of a "separation of church and state" (see below, "Theocracy"), but I believe in "the abolition of church and state."

I naively felt that this "tutoring" was of great value. I loved having a razor-sharp mind like Bahnsen point out weaknesses in my argument, which helped me to strengthen my exposition. I felt I had Biblical answers to all his objections. Bahnsen was trying to convince me to repudiate my “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview, but he ended up making me more confident in the direction I was moving. Valuable for me -- and enjoyable, as I loved the "sparring" -- but (looking back) very frustrating for Bahnsen.

I had something of a debate on some of these themes with Greg Bahnsen, pastor of the church of which I was a member. I don't think he ever fully grasped the depth of my disagreement with the "Magisterial Reformers." We only discussed a couple of my disagreements, and he failed to persuade me that I was wrong.

Excommunication

I don't remember how much, if any, of my writing on the Anabaptists was reviewed by Bahnsen. But somewhere along the line I mentioned my conclusion that "the magisterial Reformers" were "fascist."

Bahnsen excommunicated me for saying this. He explained that excommunication means being removed from the membership rolls of your local church. And when your name is removed from the membership roll of a local church, a faithful church, then your name is also removed from the roll in heaven, the membership roll of heaven. In other words, being excommunicated is a public declaration that you are no longer a Christian. So, Bahnsen was implying, I'm not a Christian. Or never was a Christian. Unless I repent and get un-excommunicated.

So, my question is, if I am not a Christian, according to Greg Bahnsen and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is my religion a false religion or a true religion? Obviously I think I'm closer to the true religion of the Bible.

I'm a "Bible-believing Christian." I agree with the first 22 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but I believe some parts of the remaining 11 chapters do not conform to the Bible. I think I could win an Oxford-style debate with any Westminster-friendly theologian regarding my claim that there are unBiblical doctrines in some of those chapters.

By saying I'm not a Christian, Bahnsen was saying I have a different religion, a religion other than Christianity. [ note ]

So I'm going to run with that. If I'm not a Christian, I guess I must be the inventor of a new religion. (I say that somewhat facetiously.) I hope my new religion will become Your New Religion. (I say that in all seriousness.)

I say I'm a Bible-believing Christian. Bahnsen said otherwise. I'm not going to say that Bahnsen was not a Christian. But I guess I'm forced to say that his system of Christian theology and my system are mutually exclusive. We might both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. Maybe we'll both meet in heaven, maybe we'll both meet in hell. Although Bahnsen consigned me to hell, I will not return the favor. I turn for confirmation to J. Gresham Machen.

J. Gresham Machen's "New" Religion

J. Gresham Machen wrote a book in 1923 entitled Christianity and Liberalism. By "liberalism" is meant denominations like today's United Methodists, Episcopalians, and the Presbyterian church which would eventually suspend Machen from the ministry (Presbyterian Church in the USA) . Machen's thesis was that Liberalism is not just a different form of Christianity, but is an entirely different religion than Christianity.

That's quite a bold claim.

Most folks wouldn't say that liberal churches like Methodists and Presbyterians aren't preaching a form of Christianity. Atheists would see no difference between the church that suspended Machen from the ministry and the church that Machen would eventually form (Orthodox Presbyterian Church); they're both Christian, the atheist would say. Machen said they're not just different Christian denominations, but entirely different religions. Liberalism is not the Christian religion. "Liberalism" is a naturalist religion that denies the supernatural claims of Biblical Christianity. Liberals deny the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith, like the virgin birth of Christ.

Machen didn't go so far as to say that every person in a liberal church was not a heaven-bound Christian. He wouldn't have said "Liberals are not Christians." He would have said "Liberalism is not Christianity." Some people can be members of a liberal church, and because liberals use Christian terminology, that person might hear a different message from the pulpit than the liberal preacher intended. Or secretly believed. Machen's claim is not about individuals, but about "-isms." Liberalism is not the same religion as Biblical Christianity, even though it pretends to be Christian and speaks with many of the same Christian terms.

I agree with Machen in opposing "liberalism." I don't want the job of judging which individuals are actually Christian and where everyone goes when they die. But I do have an opinion about intellectual systems. Liberalism is not Christianity.

So Machen was proposing a "New Religion." He created a New Seminary and a New Church for his "New Religion." (It was actually the old religion.)

Seminary: Machen and other members of the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary formed a new seminary in 1929, Westminster Theological Seminary, after Princeton chose to take a liberal direction during the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy. [ note ]

Church: Liberals took over the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) to promote a non-Christian religion, and Machen was then driven from ministry in 1935. So he formed his own church, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Bahnsen's church -- the church of which I was a member, and from which I was excommunicated -- was part of this denomination. Machen's new church was actually a new religion. Or more accurately, Machen's old religion (and the religion taught at "Old Princeton") was a different religion than Liberalism.

(I'm probably only confusing things with the use of the words "new" and "old." Machen and "Old Princeton" represented the Protestant Reformation. "Liberalism" broke from the Reformation in favor of the Enlightenment. Machen said this was a new religion, an entirely different religion than Christianity. Machen broke from liberalism to form a "new" seminary which was "Old Princeton 2.0," and a "new" church which was actually "old" Presbyterianism.)

Gary North wrote a lengthy history of the take-over of the Presbyterian church by liberals. It's an extraordinary tale, and an extraordinary book:

I would say my New Religion is older than Machen's old religion, which was older than Liberalism. The “Vine & Fig Tree” religion is older than Machen's "magisterial" religion. The “Vine & Fig Tree” religion is as far from Machen's magisterial religion as Machen's religion is far from Liberalism. The difference between Machen's religion and Liberalism was "doctrinal." The difference between the “Vine & Fig Tree” religion and Machen's religion is ethical. The gulf between these religions is equally great.

I might be wrong about all that, but it's interesting to think about. I'd like to think that the libertarian Machen would want to put us in the same camp, while still excluding Liberalism. I'll argue my case for this distinction below.

Bahnsen excommunicated me for using the term "fascist" to describe "magisterial reformers" who hunt down Anabaptist Calvinists, invading their house-churches, and putting them to death. Rather than debate me on the actual issues, Bahnsen charged me with "slander." A long-established defense against the charge of "slander" is to prove that the "slanderous" claim is in fact true. I was willing to support my language with historical evidence, but Bahnsen ruled that simply uttering the words were sinful.

For a defense of my use of the word "fascist," see below.

John M. Frame, then teaching at Westminster Seminary in California, intervened as a mediator in my case, and persuaded Bahnsen to un-excommunicate me. Frame persuaded me that I should meet Bahnsen halfway and stipulate that using words like "fascist" was inflammatory and "divisive" -- even though I thought a clear statement of the historical evidence would lead anyone to draw that same conclusion.

It's now been 40 years since I was excommunicated. It's clearer to me now than it was back then that fascism is a dangerous trend. I am still blocked or shunned by every pro-Bahnsen Facebook group I know of, and am treated as though I were not a Christian. None of these people care about the fact that I was technically un-excommunicated, and they shouldn't be shunning me, but separation and shunning seems to be a core element of "Machen's Warrior Children." I somewhat regret capitulating to Frame's agreement. Frame is still my favorite living theologian, but I think it was permissible, prudent, and even urgent to use the words I used, to sound the alarm. I feel I gained nothing by being conciliatory.

Let's define three controversial terms:

Heresy
Religion -- defined above
Cult -- defined below

Is "liberalism" a "heresy" or a completely different non-Christian religion? I don't want to get too deep into the theological and ecclesiastical weeds, but we do need to examine some issues; namely, what is a "heresy" and how does a "heresy" differ from what Machen considered to be a completely different religion.

I don't claim to be an expert on this topic; I only hope to provide good reasons for you not to reject the idea of making my new religion Your New Religion.

Heresy!

Acts 24:14

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul was accused of being a "heretic" by the Pharisees, by the religious establishment of his day, the mainstream, if you will. He was a heretic in their eyes. But he embraced the charge.

I admit that my distinctive views are "heresies." They deviate from church confessions and creeds.

The word "heretic" comes from the Greek word for "choose." (Word Study)

Everybody is a "heretic" in someone else's eyes. Joshua said "Choose ye this day whom you will serve." Elijah told the people, "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him." Elijah was a heretic in the eyes of the prophets of Baal.

The Bible lays on us a moral obligation -- a duty -- to become a "heretic." Either a "heretic" like Paul, Joshua, and Elijah, or the kind of heretic that chooses Baal, the world, or the city of man rather than the City of God.

We must choose between the Word of God and the word of man. Cornelius Van Til famously said, "There is no alternative but Theonomy and Autonomy."

The Bible says "Choose Life" (Deuteronomy 30:19); choose Theonomy (Proverbs 6:23; 13:14). That means being a "heretic" in someone's eyes.

I think my "heresy" is that of Paul and the Law and the Prophets. Paul chose to pledge his allegiance to Jesus as the Christ/Messiah of Israel. His persecutors had an entirely different religion. Judaism and Christianity are two completely different religions, not just "sects" of the same religion, as Caesar might have thought initially.

Paul's "heresy" is probably not the religion you now have.

I admit that Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and other Magisterial Reformers, and those who follow them, even Machen, would say that several points in my the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview qualify as "heresy." So why should you continue reading about my new religion?

It challenges what you believe. It challenges beliefs you were taught to believe during 13, 17, or 20+ years of atheistic schooling, and continue to have reinforced by mainstream media; you're not even aware you believe those things, but when I challenge those beliefs, alarms will go off. You've been trained to react that way. But that's OK. My “Vine & Fig Tree” ideas will create "cognitive dissonance" which will force you to think about what you believe. Even if you don't agree with my conclusions, you'll be a better person for wrestling with the competition between ideas you've heard but never really thought about, and new ideas that come as a shock to you.

Consider these three verses:

Acts 17:10-12: Now these [The Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the Word with all readiness of the mind,
searching the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
Proverbs 27:17: Just as iron sharpens iron,
friends sharpen the minds of each other.
Proverbs 18:17: "The first to state his case seems right until another comes forward and examines him."

The Bible encourages study of the Bible. The Bible discourages letting it accumulate dust on the shelf. My goal is to drive you to the Bible, to learn the Bible, love the Bible, and live the Bible.

Machen: Political Pacifism = "Heresy?"

The difference between me and Bahnsen/Machen (and everything to the right of "moderate evangelicalism") is as great or greater than the distance between Machen and liberalism (everything to the left of "moderate evangelicalism").

“Vine & Fig Tree”

Atheism → Liberalism → Moderate Evangelicalism → Machen/Bahnsen → Rushdoony

I don't think Machen would say "moderate evangelicalism" is not Christian, nor would Cornelius Van Til, despite Van Til's unmistakable distancing of his views from "evangelicalism." Perhaps Machen and Van Til would say "evangelicalism" is infected with "Liberalism," but not fatally.

I would say Machen was infected with Liberalism. He bought into the evolutionist religion of Charles Lyell. That's "naturalism." That's another story.

Politics (or "statism") is naturalism. It denies Providence: the reign of the Messiah. It asserts the need for natural action, since supernatural action cannot be trusted. It is worshiping and serving the political creature rather than the Creator (1 Samuel 8:7; Isaiah 33:22; Romans 1:25).

Machen's response to that claim would be simple: "Romans 13." I have a website on that:

Romans13.com
Start here: Exousiai -- Demonic "Powers"

Trusting in politicians, bureaucrats, and SWAT teams is a different religion than the "Anarcho-Theocracy" of “Vine & Fig Tree.”

Some of my pet issues have never been the subject of an ecumenical church council. But I concede that the vast majority of "Bible-believing" theologians would say they are "heresies."

"Swords into plowshares" is one of my pet issues. Some people call this "pacifism." I don't believe pacifism has ever been condemned by any church council as a "heresy." But I've met quite a few Christians who say pacifism is evil or even "pagan."

A logically consistent "pacifist" (opponent of violence, aggression, etc.) would be branded as an "anarchist." Christian pacifists like Leo Tolstoy would be called "anarchists." Not because they are caped, bearded, bomb-throwing assassins, fomenting chaos and lawlessness (the comic-book character our public school teachers warned us about), but because they oppose the uniformed bomb-droppers and ICE agents of the State. This is Theme 10 of my 23 Themes below:

Theme 10: No Fear of Violent Sword-Bearers

Political Pacifism and Salvation

The Jewish economist Murray N. Rothbard labeled consistent opposition to State aggression "anarcho-capitalism," that is, a society in which "the public sector" repents of violating God's commands against theft and aggression and goes out of business, and only "the private sector" is left; where everything that happens in the economy happens on a voluntary, consensual basis and there's no government coercion or compulsion.

Machen would be very sympathetic to that view because he had strong libertarian leanings, but I think he would agree that 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism

0% socialism
0% fascism
0% communism
0% Keynesianism
0% oligarchy
0% democracy
0% any other system of institutionalized aggression, theft, kidnapping, or murder

was a flawed belief, probably because of Romans 13. I don't know if he would call it a "heresy" or not, but he would say it certainly violates the Westminster Confession (chapter 23).

Most Christians today don't understand "capitalism." Those under 40 favor "socialism." Those over 40 might get the right answer on a poll, and indicate their distrust for socialism, but can't explain to those under 40 why socialism has always failed, and why capitalism leads to peace and prosperity. This basic failure to understand economics explains why Christians cannot understand how Christ can reign as Messiah and Prince of Peace without sitting on a throne in Jerusalem and sending believers -- armed with little rods of iron -- out into the world to enforce the Messiah's decrees through "magisterial reformation."

Part 1: Capitalism and the Division of Labor: Astonishing Providence
Part 2: Jesus Made Your Pencil

It will take a few months to get grounded in capitalist economic theory. This should have taken place in our public school years, but didn't (for obvious reasons -- why would an anti-capitalist institution like the state want to raise up little anarchists?).

This is really important. Why does capitalism work and socialism fail? Why is “Vine & Fig Tree” better social theory than "magisterial reformation?" How does Jesus the Messiah organize human society into the “Vine & Fig Tree” world? This is the Biblical/holistic concept of "salvation." Read every verse in the Bible that has the word "save," "savior," or "salvation." Are these verses talking about going to heaven when you die, or are they talking about the “Vine & Fig Tree” ideal of peace, prosperity, and an orderly human society? How does this holistic concept of "salvation" come into being: through "magistrates" (socialism) or businessmen serving consumers ("the Customer is King").

Socialism and Capitalism are different religions, just as much as Machen's religion was a different religion from the New Princeton and the New Presbyterianism ("liberalism").

Liberalism is Deism. Deism is infidelity. Socialism is political deism: God does not interfere in the "natural" economy, bringing social salvation; we must earn social salvation by armed works.

Should Non-Pacifists be Excommunicated?

You might think that's a ridiculous question, but let me re-frame it in a way you might find challenging and thought-provoking.

Suppose your Sunday School group or Bible study wants to have a "movie night" or outing to a restaurant. What's an easy way to find out what the group wants to do?

There's a website that will help you with that:

https://ElectionRunner.com

You can run an "election" and whatever movie or restaurant wins the election will be your group outing.

Suppose a member of your Bible study group hates the President of the United States. He runs an "election" on that website:

> If I get enough votes, I will assassinate the President. <

And he's "dead serious." And everyone knows it. This website creates a working "election," which will result in murder if there's an "electoral mandate."

Should he be excommunicated from your church? Even if he doesn't get around to murdering the President?

Suppose another member of your Bible Study "votes" in that "election" to assassinate the President? Should he be excommunicated?

Of course, if someone genuinely repents of their sin, they should not be excommunicated for their sin. Only unrepentant sin should lead to excommunication.

What if the government runs an election, and the only candidates you have a chance to vote for promise to assassinate a foreign President? What if he promises to assassinate all Jews, all homosexuals, all Muslims? Is it a sin to vote in that election? Will you be able to say to "the Supreme Judge of the World," "Well, I had to vote. I just had to. So I voted for 'the lesser of two evils.'" Will that be a good defense?

A private election to assassinate the President is both "illegal" and sinful.
A "public" election run by the government in which you can vote for assassinations and mass murder is "legal" but it is still sinful.

Should church members who vote in elections be excommunicated?

Is voting murder?

I dig deeper into this question, and conclude that it is -- morally -- murder, even if it's "legal."

Is Voting Murder?

Voting for War = "Heresy?" = "Sin?" = "False Religion?"

It might be the case that the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview could be described as a different religion than mainstream Christianity. But let's look carefully at James's definition of religion. James's definition of religion is,

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion is guarding or protecting widows and fatherless children and keeping unspotted from the world

That's his definition of a pure religion. If you ignore widows, your religion is worthless. If you are mean to widows and fatherless children, if your tongue is not controlled (James 1:26), James says you're deceiving yourself and your religion is worthless. Obviously, if you're not just being mean with your tongue to widows and fatherless children, but if you are tormenting them, traumatizing them by dropping bombs on their home, or their school, or their hospitals, or their grocery stores, if you're making their life hellish [ note ], if you're doing that to widows and fatherless children, homeless victims of disease and famine, then James says, I think indisputably, your religion is worthless. It's not a pure religion. It's a defiled and impure religion. And of course, if you're creating widows and orphans by murdering husbands and fathers, your religion is not just worthless, it's evil. It's just evil.

But it's still a "religion." It expresses your "ultimate concern," as Prof. Tillich would say.

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus adds to James' list: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner.

So, what would James say about Christians today with their nice churches who ignore widows and orphans, aliens and prisoners, and basically engage in entertainment on Sunday mornings, and vote for politicians who promise to create widows and orphans by killing fathers and husbands. And you vote to take money away from people like me, who don't want to kill people, but you threaten violence against me if I don't give money so you can buy weapons to kill people so you can advance your cause -- the cause of creating widows and orphans by killing husbands and fathers. Millions of people around the world suffer and weep because of elections staged by the U.S. government, and most people in church pews are silent. I would say the religion of most churches today is, as James says, worthless, a useless religion. Their "ultimate concern" is not the ultimate concern of Jesus.

Utter indifference to mass murder around the world is a false religion. It's an anti-religion. If religion is defined as Christianity, it's a false religion.

This is perhaps the biggest reason you should make my “Vine & Fig Tree” religion Your New Religion.

Swords into Plowshares in "the Last Days"

Micah says that "in the last days" the Messiah will set up His Kingdom and believers will obey His commandments and walk in His paths ("Theonomy"), and beat "swords into plowshares" and not learn war anymore.

There are four interpretations of the phrase "last days":

1. A short period of time right before the second coming of Christ or the end of the world

2. The last days of the old covenant

3. The period of time between Christ's first advent and His second coming.

4. The period of time before the end of the world and the destruction of planet earth.

Interpretation #1 is never used in the Bible to refer to a period of time in our future, that is, thousands or millions of years after the closing of the Biblical canon. It may have been used to speak of the days right before Christ's coming in judgment against Israel in AD 70, but see Interpretation #2, next.
Interpretation #2 is never in the minds of the Apostolic writers, but it is nevertheless objectively true. I'm willing to have my mind changed on the question of what the writers were thinking. They were in fact living in the final days of the old covenant, whether they thought/wrote that or not.
Interpretation #3 is plausible, but those who advocate that position are not taking it seriously.
Interpretation #4 is impossible, because that would mean that the Apostles were completely, utterly mistaken.

New Testament writers repeatedly said they were living in "the last days." What were they thinking?

I think a legitimate argument can be made that those who were alive in New Testament times were living in "the last days" of the Old Covenant. Those of us alive in 2026 are not living in the last days of the Old Covenant, but in the first days of the New Covenant.

But there are some theologians who say that we're now living in "the last days", and I respect them, and I wouldn't say they're not Christians. These theologians say that "the last days" is the period of time that extends from Christ's first coming in the first century to His "second coming" -- maybe a thousand years from now. We are currently in "the last days," they say, and they don't necessarily mean that we're in the very last few days before the rapture and Jesus is about to come and the world's about to come to an end, or anything like that. What they mean is the entire period of time from Jesus' first advent until His "second coming" -- which could be millions of years from now -- this whole period of time is called "the last days." And that interpretation is not obviously wrong.

But it has serious implications.

The crucial thing is that although they say we are in "the last days," and although Micah says that "in the last days," Christ's Messianic reign would begin, and Christians will be following in God's paths and following His Law ("Theonomy"), and as an expression of their obedience of God's law they are beating their swords into plowshares and not training for war. In other words, they're abolishing West Point in Annapolis, and they're abolishing the Pentagon (That's what "swords into plowshares" must mean. That's what "not learning war" means.) . . .

. . .although that's what is said to occur in "the last days," these theologians who say we are now in "the last days" would deny that we have a moral obligation to do al those things. They would say it's okay for the government to steal trillions of dollars from taxpayers to make bombs to create homeless widows and orphans by killing husbands and fathers and destroying their homes. It's OK for Trump to increase "defense" spending by 50% by stealing money from me and others like me.

And I would say that turns a reasonable and possible interpretation of the phrase "last days" -- it's not unreasonable; it's possible to say, yes, we are living in "the last days" -- into an indictment. If you say we're living in Micah's "last days" right now, then I would say you have a duty to beat swords into plowshares. You have a duty to abolish West Point and stop training for war. That's what the text plainly says.

Why Postmillennialists Must Be Pacifists

That's what Jesus means when He commands us to "Love your enemies" and be willing to serve enemy soldiers when they enslave you, instead of killing them in "self-defense" (Matthew 5:39-41). Like America's Founding Fathers tragically did:

www.Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day.com

Liberals deny the miraculous; patriotic conservatives deny the self-sacrificing. That's why we need a new religion.

There's no indication that Micah's words are merely metaphorical or hyperbole, that we're going to continue killing people when the Messiah reigns. We're going to continue creating widows and orphans and traumatizing them by bombing their homes and their grocery stores and their hospitals. There's no authentic interpretation of that passage which allows for killing people, murdering people, murdering millions of people, as we've been doing my entire life.

What About Holy Wars?

It is simply not an honest use of the Bible to say that God's commands for Israel to exterminate the residents of the Promised Land under Joshua is a justification for the U.S. to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Iran or Venezuela in order to benefit U.S. oil corporations, or to exterminate Christians in Iraq. This is what the U.S. has done. It cannot be Biblically justified.

"Holy War" and "Capital Punishment" vs. Jesus

These theologians would say beating "swords into plowshares" is "impractical," "unrealistic," "reckless," or "dangerous," because disarmament could lead to our being invaded, killed, or enslaved. I reply that their claim of danger is another way of saying God cannot be trusted to keep us safe from invasion, even though the Bible promises that He will -- if we obey His commandments.

"Vine & Fig Tree" Verses: "Dwell Safely"

What these theologians are saying is that we cannot obey the command to beat "swords into plowshares" until after all the ungodly evil nations obey God, and beat THEIR swords into plowshares, and then WE can follow their lead, and beat OUR swords into plowshares, and world peace will ensue. We're the godliest nation on earth -- until we actually have to start obeying God.

I don't want to be the judge of who's a Christian. I don't want to be a judge of anybody's eternal destiny. I can say they are advancing a false religion, but maybe they'll be saved. I don't know. Maybe they'll go to heaven when they die. I don't know. That's not my job. I don't want that job. But I will say this: dropping bombs on widows and orphans is a false religion. But that is the official religion of the United States. Every 12 Minutes, the United States Drops a Bomb Somewhere. Mass murder is our god, our "ultimate concern." "It's good for our economy."

The Poor Cry Out

During my lifetime, the federal government of the United States has murdered or maimed or made homeless tens of millions of innocent, non-combatant non-white civilians. The estimates vary between 50 and 80 million people. And that's just in my lifetime.

I was born in in the year of Sputnik, the Russian satellite that inaugurated "The Space Race," which was a part of "The Cold War," which was filled with "hot" wars. I was born after the Korean War, not included in that 50-80 million estimate, a number that also doesn't include World War II, which adds another 50-80 million casualties, mostly innocent non-combatant civilians. It doesn't include World War I. All these ridiculous and totally unjustifiable wars that the United States has prosecuted or funded or participated in in the 20th century: it's insane. It's evil. Hundreds of millions of suffering people.

Isaiah 5:7
The vineyard of the Lord Almighty is the nation of Israel,
and the people of Judah are the vines He delighted in.
And He looked for justice, but saw bloodshed;
for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.

Exodus 22:22-24
“You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; 24 and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. 27 And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.

The blood of tens of millions of innocent people cries out against the United States, which has murdered them, maimed them, or made them homeless. They lose their lives, or the lives of their loved ones, they lose their homes, they lose the neighborhood hospital and grocery store to our bombs. They cry themselves to sleep every night. God hears their cries. If you don't hear their cries, you need a new religion.

Other governments are no better. During the 20th century the world's "governments" killed or legalized the killing of 10,000 people per day. More were crippled or made homeless. Human beings become "the least of these" at the hand of "archists."

Jesus Indicts the "Archists"

Jesus says in Mark 10:42-45 that "the kings of the Gentiles" are accounted by their conquered people to be "rulers" or "archists." That's the Greek word from which we get our word "anarchist." An-archist: "not an archist."

An "Archist" is someone who believes they have a right to impose their own will on others by force or threats of violence. They have a right (they believe) to invade, conquer, declare "jurisdiction," and steal, kidnap, or kill those in their "jurisdiction." (The word "jurisdiction" comes from two Latin words meaning "Speak the Law." Issue a decree and enforce it with force or threats of violence.)

The kings of the Gentiles are described in Mark 10 by the word "archist." And Jesus says his followers are not to be archists. That's the literal meaning of the word "anarchist," -- not an archist, -- someone who believes a peaceful and prosperous society is possible without archists. And I would say that if you believe we need archists or that it's legitimate to be an archist, or OK to vote for an archist, you're denying the plain teachings of Jesus and Micah, where he says we have an obligation under biblical law to beat swords into plowshares. Replace the sword-based "public sector" with the persuasion/service-based "private sector."

"Dual-Use Targeting"

When the United States doesn't like a particular foreign leader, the U.S. will impose "sanctions" on "his" nation. Food, medical supplies, construction equipment, etc., will be denied as trade is cut off to that nation. The strategy suggests that when the people are fed up with pain, misery, suffering, sickness, and even death under U.S. sanctions of "their" current government, they will rise up and overthrow the U.S.-hated government.

After the U.S. helped keep Saddam Hussein in power during his conflict with Iran (which could be thought of as either "sanctions" or "proxy war"), the U.S. decided Saddam must go. "Sanctions" were imposed on Iraq. These "sanctions" killed a greater number of children than people of all ages were killed by the nuclear bombing of Japan.

January 1991, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency produced a study titled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities.” The study concluded that we could get more bomb for the buck or death for the dollar by destroying water purification plants, because more people would be killed by cholera than could be killed by a direct hit with a bomb.

That's not a legitimate religion. That's not the Christian religion. That's a different religion. A sick, murderous religion. "Governments" cause more sickness, famine, and homelessness than "Mother Nature."

And I would say archism is a different religion from Micah's “Vine & Fig Tree” religion. James says true religion is protecting the weak, which certainly excludes killing or creating widows and orphans. Jesus in Matthew 25, the third section, adds to this list of the recipients or beneficiaries of pure and undefiled religion: The homeless, the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the imprisoned, and the stranger. The way we treat those, "the least of these," is the way we treat Jesus. And so, I'm okay to say with Paul (Acts 24:14) that after the way which "church" and "state" call "heresy," so worship I the God of the fathers, believing all things which are written in the law ("Thou shalt not kill") and the prophets (beat "swords into plowshares").

And this is why I call myself technically an "anarchist," not a violent bomb-throwing assassin and rioter like we've been trained in government-run schools to think of when we hear the word "anarchist," but a person who believes that it is a sin to be an archist.

The U.S. spends a trillion dollars a year on swords to kill people whose standard of living is much below ours. That's $3,000 a year for every man, woman, and small child in America. And since Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans don't pay income tax, that means if you pay even one dime in taxes, you're covering for them. That means you're paying about $6,000 a year for each member of your family to murder "the least of these." If you're a family of four, do you give $24,000 a year to your church? Yes, you do, because your real church is the Pentagon.

I would agree with Machen that the religion of liberalism and naturalism (and evolutionism) is not the same religion as biblical Christianity. And I would say that most churches today have a different religion than Machen (and I'm being generous by saying "most," implying that there is at least one group of Christians who call themselves a "church," and they embrace the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview, the worldview of Paul and Micah and Jesus).

Technically, the mainstream religion in the last 2,000 years would say beating "swords into plowshares" and creating 100% pure swordless laissez-faire capitalism is a heresy. But I would say it is definitely a different religion than the religion of bombing millions of people and not beating swords into plowshares. Most Church-goers would ever consider beating swords into plowshares because the professors of political science will say, "Well, then you're an 'anarchist.' And you can't be an anarchist and be a Christian. You have to be an archist to be a Christian" -- which is the exact opposite of what Jesus said. But we put the generals and the university professors ahead of Jesus. So, I'm willing to say “Vine & Fig Tree” is a different religion. I would say it's the religion of Abraham, the religion of Noah, the religion of Jesus, and Micah.

Actually, “Vine & Fig Tree” is not a "new" religion. America was built (largely but inconsistently) on this "new" religion, and became the most prosperous and most admired nation in history. The Constitution was ratified by 13 Christian "Theocracies." Then America abandoned this "new" religion and replaced it with what the Supreme Court of the United States called "The Religion of Secular Humanism." That turned America's prosperity into bankruptcy and admiration into loathing and ridicule. America, once a "City upon a Hill," has become the Empire of the United States, an atheistic global bully.

But it is a different religion than maybe the religion you have right now. And I would say, make “Vine & Fig Tree” your new religion.

Preterism

Then there's also the concept of preterism. Preterism, coming from the Latin word for "past," asserts that Micah's prophecy was fulfilled or inaugurated in our past. The dominant religion today says that Micah's prophecy will not begin to be fulfilled until Christ's second coming, maybe thousands of years from now, in our future.

Micah prophesized the birth of Christ in Micah 5:2 in Bethlehem and that he would become the Messiah and that his kingdom would be established in "the last days" as Micah describes it. Preterists note that everywhere in the New Testament, the apostles say that they were living in "the last days." Now, either they meant by that they were living in that period of time spoken of by Micah (and Joel, see Acts 2:16-21), "the latter days," or the Apostles were saying they were living in "the last days of the old covenant."

Either one of those are valid interpretations of the phrase that Micah and the Apostles use, "in the last days." The Messiah will begin his kingdom in those days. Sometimes the King James Version says "end of the world," but the Greek word in every case is "age," not "planet." But if they were saying they were in "the last days" of the old covenant age, or old covenant "world," then the old covenant came to an end when the temple was destroyed in AD 70.

Jesus said many things that perplex "futurists," but are understandable to "preterists."

Matthew 16:28
there are some of you standing here who will not taste death before you see the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory in His Kingdom,

The "coming" spoken of here is not a coming thousands of years in the future, but an exhibition of the power of the Kingdom of God against the false kingdom of those who collaborated with Rome to kill Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.

The apostles repeatedly say the coming of Christ is "near," it's "at hand," it's going to happen "soon," Christ is standing "at the door." The Preterist says these are all descriptions or prophecies of Christ coming in judgment against a false religion, coming to take vengeance against those who murdered their Messiah. A "coming" that took place in AD70, when Jesus sat on the Throne of His Glory and passed judgment on apostate Israel:

Luke 21:20-2
“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled

This is actually the theme of the Book of Revelation, not some future "antichrist" (the word "antichrist" does not even appear in the Book of Revelation). David Chilton wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation:

Days of Vengeance

The dominant theme of the New Testament is Israel, not the United States in 2026:

We begin with sinful Israel:

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Father's, and of the holy angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom with power. When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, even they which have pierced Him, and all the tribes of the land shall wail because of Him.

We end with sinful Israel.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Mark 8:38-9:1 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” 9:1 And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

Matthew 19:28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even they which have pierced him, and all the tribes of the land shall wail because of him. Yea. Amen.

It certainly seems impossible that some prophecies could have been intended for the last days of the old covenant, rather than being something that has yet to take place. Consider this one:

Matthew24: 29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days: The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not shed its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the celestial powers will be shaken.

Surely that did not happen in the past. But Jesus said a couple of verses later,

I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.

Atheists have said this proves Jesus was wrong. Stars falling from heaven obviously didn't happen when Jesus said it would. It would have obviously destroyed the entire planet.

It was around 1979-80 when Rushdoony recommended that David Chilton and I read a book by J. Marcellus Kik, former Associate Editor of Christianity Today, entitled An Eschatology of Victory. In essays originally found in the Westminster Theological Journal in the late 1940's, Kik points out that in Matthew 24 Jesus was quoting Isaiah 13 when He talked about the moon and the stars, etc. Isaiah was not talking about the end of planet earth, and neither was Jesus. The subject was not astronomy, but politics The subject was not the end of a planet, but the end of an empire.

The way to arrive at correct interpretations of the Bible is to let the Bible interpret the Bible. The way to interpret Matthew 24 is to let Isaiah 13 do the heavy lifting. Ancient Hebrews understood that the prophets were speaking politically, not astronomically. Kik's book changed everything. But Kik's book has sold only a few thousand copies, while Hal Lindsey's book sold tens of millions, becoming a cultural phenomenon.

It turns out that interpreting the Bible is just as easy as interpreting the Constitution -- and just as rare.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," wrote:

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers. . . . What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.
(to Henry Lee, June 25, 1824 [emphasis added])

Our ideas about "religion" and "the separation of church and state" bear no resemblance to America's Founders. We have been brainwashed by Secular Humanists and the modern Supreme Court.

All of the Founders agreed that "religion is the duty man owes to his creator" (See Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance.)

But now the US Supreme Court has said that atheism is a religion, and non-belief is entitled to the same protection as belief. This is not what the Founders believed.

We must use their understanding of terms if we are to understand the Constitution. As Jefferson admonished Supreme Court Justice William Johnson:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
(June 12, 1823)

US Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, said:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.
(Works, "Lectures on Law Delivered in the College of Phila.; Introductory Lecture: Of the Study of the Law in the United States.")

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a leading constitutional commentator:

The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and the intention of the parties.
Commentaries on the Constitution, (Boston: Hilliard, 1833) vol III, p. 383, sec. 400

The Founding Fathers did not intend to give us an atheistic God-free nation. That's how to interpret the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

If we study the history of America, the acts of the Continental Congress, the ratifying debates, the Federalist Papers, and other public writings of the Founders, it becomes obvious that they did not intend to purge God from the public square. It is clear that the nation they founded was in turn founded upon God and His Law.

To say that the thoughts and intentions of the men who drafted the Constitution take second place to the way WE "interpret" the Constitution is to change our government from one of "laws, not of men" to one of silly putty based on contemporary views of political correctness.

The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.
Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819

The Constitution has been twisted to evade the Bible, just as the Bible itself has become "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the theologians."

David Chilton went on to write a book about prophecy based on this idea of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, and asking "What did the author intend to say, and how did his original audience understand what he said." Not "What interpretation would make a blockbuster Hollywood movie?"

The Great Tribulation

The image of “Vine & Fig Tree” is a reference to the Garden of Eden and Micah would say that the Garden is being restored.

Paradise Restored

Estimates indicate the global population was roughly 200 million people in Micah's day, around 700 years before Christ. The world population today is approximately 8 billion, and is roughly 38 to 40 times larger than it was in Micah's day. Micah would be absolutely astonished that there are presently 8 billion human beings living on this planet. He might have assumed that under those conditions of incomprehensible over-population, all of human life would be in a war of all-against-all, struggling to find food. But the standard of living of most human beings has vastly increased beyond anything Micah could have even imagined. Christians in America could end the remaining poverty throughout the world for the entire human race if they wanted to, and if they only tithed. But Americans would rather bomb them than trade with them and help them create businesses.

The number of people who worshiped the God of Israel in Micah's day was a minority, but today a majority of human beings on earth claim to worship the God of Abraham. Micah would be awestruck. (I admit, this "majority" has not adopted my new religion as their new religion, but I believe that will dramatically change in the next decades or centuries. It would help if the U.S. Federal Government stopped dropping bombs on them just because certain lobbying groups want the bombing to continue).

Micah would agree that Jesus became the Messiah and His Kingdom began at the end of the Old Covenant world. There is a Christian-looking religion that blinds self-identified Christians from seeing what Micah would see. To say that the messianic reign of Christ began in the past is considered by some people to be a heresy.

Once you make Micah's religion Your New Religion you open a door you can never shut, and it leads to places you can't yet imagine. And you've been trained to say that even thinking this way is "heresy." Because if you look at every verse in the New Testament that talks about future events ("eschatology"), an amazing conclusion emerges:

There isn't a single verse, not a single verse in the New Testament, which was intended by the author and understood by the original audience to be describing a momentous, historically discontinuous event thousands or millions of years in the future. All the verses were talking about an event that would occur within their lifetime.

Christ's Coming to Judge the World

There's not a single verse which says there's going to be a big event that will happen a hundred, a thousand, or a million years in the future. But saying that is a heresy. Technically speaking, all the ecclesiocrats agree: that's a heresy. It goes against something the institutional church has taught for a long time.

The same church that worked hard for centuries to make sure non-clergy did not have access to the Bible.
The same institution that has been blessing deism and murder for 1500 years. Bahnsen and I barely scratched the surface of deism und murder; we never even got started on the subject of eschatology and prophecy.

Not a single verse was intended by the author and understood by the original audience to be teaching what best-selling books and popular movies have been telling us is in our future.

My new religion says "Search the Scriptures to see if that's true" (Acts 17:11). I'll bet your old religion says "Don't question church authority." "Your understanding of the Bible cannot go beyond what the church fathers said more than a thousand years ago." That's a good reason for making my new religion Your New Religion.

Read a couple of hundred verses here:

www.Not Coming Soon.net

Machen’s Warrior Children

If you're not part of the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, John Frame's article Machen’s Warrior Children will seem like inside baseball. I take two lessons from it:

Some things are worth arguing about.
Whatever is worth arguing about is worth arguing in a Christlike manner.

During my lifetime, "my" government in Washington D.C. has murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world, creating or traumatizing millions of widows and orphans. As I read the Bible, that strikes at "pure religion" (James 1:27). I'm tempted to ask, what could be more important than this issue? And what about the trillions (not just billions, but thousands of billions) of dollars spent on creating such misery and suffering? I suppose if I asked John Frame, he would say there are some issues more important than these, but I have trouble imagining what those issues would be.

Frame wrote:

3. One slogan of the Machen movement was “truth before friendship.” We should laud their intention to act according to principle without compromise. But the biblical balance is “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). We must not speak the truth without thinking of the effect of our formulations on our fellow Christians, even our opponents. That balance was not characteristic of the Machen movement.⁶⁶

4. Reformed people need to do much more thinking about what constitutes a test of orthodoxy. Is it really plausible to say that, say, Gordon Clark’s view of incomprehensibility was unorthodox, when neither Clark’s nor Van Til’s positions are clearly set forth in the Reformed confessions? But again and again through the history described above, writers have read one another out of the Reformed movement (and even out of Christianity) on such dubious bases. The assumption seems to be that any difference of opinion amounts to a test of fellowship, that any truth I possess gives me the right to disrupt the peace of the church until everybody comes to agree with me. But surely there are some disagreements that are not tests of orthodoxy, some differences that should be tolerated within the church. Examples include the disagreements over days and the eating of meat described by Paul in Rom. 14, and the disagreements about idol food which he discusses in 1 Cor. 8-10. In those passages, there is no suggestion that people holding the wrong view should be put out of the church. Rather, Paul condemns the party spirit and calls the disagreeing parties to live together as Christian brothers and sisters. In my judgment, the Machen movement thought little about the difference between tolerable and intolerable disagreements in the church.

5. Scripture often condemns a “contentious” spirit (Prov. 13:10, 18:6, 26:21, Hab. 1:3, 1 Cor. 1:11, 11:16, Tit. 3:9) and commends “gentleness” (2 Cor. 10:1, Gal. 5:22, 1 Thess. 2:7, 2 Tim. 2:24, Tit. 3:2, Jas. 3:17). The Reformed community should give much more attention to these biblical themes.

Frame says: "surely there are some disagreements that are not tests of orthodoxy." Someday I'm going to get up the nerve to ask Frame if "anarcho-preterism" is a test of orthodoxy. I think he would say it is. In his article he says, "In my judgment and that of many others, extreme preterism is unorthodox." I don't know if anarcho-pacifism is "unorthodox." I don't know which one (anarchism or preterism) is more likely to get people in a tizzy.
I admit I often "speak the truth [or what I think is the truth] without thinking of the effect of our formulations on our fellow Christians, even our opponents". I do not regret using the "f" word. I think my book on the Anabaptists leads up to that conclusion judiciously.

Roman Fasces
U.S. Mercury Dime

How Hard is it to Become a Christian?

Or to stay a Christian . . . .

You might think you don't need a new religion. Many people have thought that, and they were surprised when Jesus straightened them out. Though by that time it was too late.

The “Four Spiritual Laws” and other evangelistic programs make it seem very easy to “become a Christian."

From one perspective, it truly is easy to become a Christian. It’s harder, in fact, not to become a Christian. Saul relentlessly resisted becoming a Christian, until Christ Himself warned him:

It is dangerous and it will turn out badly for you to keep kicking against the goad [to offer vain and perilous resistance]. Acts 9:5

Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for placing unBiblical man-made obstacles in the path of those who would be saved.

Matthew 23:3-4
do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders;

Matthew 11:29-31
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

But Christ also indicated that many had been deceived into believing that they were Christians, and that becoming a Christian was a cake-walk:

Luke 13:24-25
Strive [Gk.: agonize] to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,'

Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many deeds of power in Your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from Me, you evildoers.'

How can Jesus justifiably call someone an “evildoer” if he prophesies, casts out demons, and maybe even heals a few people -- all "in the name of Chee-zus?"

Have YOU ever cast out a demon or healed anyone? What have YOU done that makes you think you’re a Christian?

Maybe you're not a professional religionist, and you're not on stage doing all these religious works for the spectators in the audience. But are you more Christian than they are for being a mere spectator?

Millions of “graduates” of the “Four Spiritual Laws School of Theology” could be followed around for days (especially Monday-Saturday) by the Apostles and give no evidence of being any different from millions of non-believers. What would Christ think of the decisions they make, the candidates they vote for, and the people and actions they tolerate? Do their friends, neighbors, and co-workers think of them as an “extremist,” or just an average, normal person? Jesus said “average” and “normal” makes Him sick:

“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16

While there’s something superficially impressive about our computers, televisions, microwave ovens, and other technology, perhaps our pursuit of these trinkets reeks of a fundamental selfishness and materialism.

Do you recall Jesus saying this to people who evidently considered themselves Christians, and even called Jesus “Lord?”:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in: naked, and ye clothed Me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited Me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

When was the last time you visited someone in prison?

I'm often frightened by the number of passages in Scripture in which someone has complete confidence that they're headed for heaven, or paints a picture of them standing before "the Supreme Judge of the World" and hearing Jesus say "I never knew you. Depart from Me." There are so many people in the world who assume they're going to be in heaven.

Jesus says we better examine ourselves:

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many deeds of power in Your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from Me, you evildoers.'

2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

But for many church-goers, "ignorance is bliss." Better to just not think about the possibility.

Maybe that possibility might prompt someone to consider their religion. Maybe it might help you consider making my new religion Your New Religion.

There are many warning texts aimed at false assurance—people who feel secure about heaven, but whose confidence is self-deceived, presumptive, or untested. Scripture has a lot to say to that person. Below is a curated set, grouped by theme.

1. Direct Warnings Against False Confidence

Luke 6:46
“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”
→ Verbal allegiance without obedience is meaningless.

Matthew 25:11–12 (Foolish Virgins)
“Lord, lord, open to us.” But he replied, “Truly, I tell you, I do not know you.”
→ They expected entry. They were wrong.

Luke 13:24–27
“We ate and drank in your presence….”
“I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil.”
→ Proximity to Jesus ≠ belonging to Jesus.

2. Self-Deception Exposed

James 1:22
“Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”
→ Assurance can be a form of self-deception.

James 2:14
“What good is it… if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”
→ A rhetorical question with an implied no.

1 John 2:3–4
“By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.”
“Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar.”

3. False Peace, False Security

Jeremiah 6:14
“They say, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.”
→ God condemns manufactured reassurance.

Jeremiah 8:11
Same warning, repeated for emphasis.

Amos 6:1
“Woe to those who are at ease in Zion.”
→ Comfort can be a spiritual danger.

4. Religious Credentials That Don’t Save

Romans 2:17–24
Jews who rely on the law yet break it bring dishonor to God.
→ Confidence rooted in identity, not obedience.

Philippians 3:18–19
“Many… live as enemies of the cross of Christ… Their end is destruction.”
→ Paul says this with tears—not mockery.

5. Testing Assurance Is Commanded, Not Optional

I already cited 2 Corinthians 13:5, which is key. Pair it with:

1 Corinthians 10:12
“Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”

Galatians 6:3–4
“If anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.”

Hebrews 3:12
“Take care… lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart.”
→ Written to professing believers.

6. The Ultimate Diagnostic Question

Matthew 7:24–27
Two builders both hear Jesus’ words.
Only one does them.
One house falls—with catastrophic confidence.

How These Function Together

Scripture does not attack assurance.
It attacks unexamined assurance.

Biblical confidence is:

grounded in allegiance,

evidenced by obedience,

confirmed by fruit,

and continually tested.

False confidence is:

verbal,

inherited,

institutional,

or emotional.

Indoctrinating Yourself Into Your New Religion

Here's the program to indoctrinate yourself into Your New Religion.

First, Read Micah 4:1-7
Second, Read a 23-minute sermon on the passage. This sermon has 23 one-minute points.
Third, Read a ten-hour book on the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview. Each of the 23 chapters in this book takes an average of 15 minutes to read. Some more, some less. The book is basically the V&FT Homepage: www.VineandFigTree.org
Each of these 15-minute chapters contains a link to a separate book-length treatment of each chapter. It will take you a couple of years to read all the links.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a reading buddy? Wouldn't it be great to mentor someone else who's just a few chapters behind you?

Here is the passage which inspired the formation of my organization -- my "new religion" -- “Vine & Fig Tree”:

Micah 4:1-7

¹ But it shall come to pass,
in the last days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established
in the top of the mountains,
and it shall be exalted above the hills;

and people shall flow unto it.
² And many nations shall come, and say,
Come, and let us go up to
the mountain of the LORD,
and to the house of the God of Jacob;
and He will teach us of His ways,
and we will walk in His paths:
for the Law shall go forth of Zion,
and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

³ And He shall judge among many people,
and rebuke strong nations afar off;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruninghooks:
nation shall not lift up a sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

⁴ But they shall sit every man under
his vine and under his fig tree;
and none shall make them afraid:
for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

⁵ Although all people will walk
every one in the name of his god,
we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
for ever and ever.

⁶ In that day, saith the LORD,
will I assemble her that halteth,
and I will gather her that is driven out,
and her that I have afflicted;
⁷ And I will make her that halted a remnant,
and her that was cast far off a strong nation:
and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.

The vision of everyone dwelling peacefully under his own vine and fig tree is the original "American Dream." The “Vine & Fig Tree” verses were the most popular Bible verses in America three centuries ago. But do they work in the 21st century? Not only will they work, but it's never been more important to let these verses be our blueprint.

These verses contain 23 themes.
It's like a "Systematic Theology."
But it's also like the Unabomber's Manifesto, at least in the eyes of the government. According to ancient Jewish traditions, especially the Talmud and some apocryphal writings, Micah may have been assassinated by King Joram or other leaders because of his prophecies against political corruption and idolatry. The kings brought war and chaos. Governments didn't like the prophets. And yet the prophets brought "good news" to those who loved the LORD. The best news imaginable.

Micah's Big Picture:

A Messiah is coming,
this King will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2),
and His Law is a path to world peace.

Let's look at the words of the “Vine & Fig Tree” text (Micah 4:1-7) by way of introduction, then unpack some of the details. There's a lot here to uncover.

Micah's "New Religion"

This outline has links to a fuller discussion on our home page.

Here is a quick survey of 23 Themes that I find in this passage, which are spelled out in greater detail in numerous passages of the Bible.

Theme 0. The Bible is the Word of God:

Theme 1. God is Sovereign:

Theme 2. The Reign of Christ Began in the Past:

Theme 3. The Mountain is Eden:

Theme 4. Global Conversion

Theme 5. God's Law

Theme 6: Education

Theme 7: Spontaneous Obedience

Theme 8: The Messiah Reigns:

Theme 9: Peace

Theme 10: No Fear of Violent Sword-Bearers

Theme 11: The Family

Theme 12: Service

Theme 13: The Garden

Theme 14: The Fall of Man

Theme 15: Salvation

Theme 16: Jerusalem versus Athens

Theme 17: Community

Theme 18: Charity

Theme 19: The Gospel of the Kingdom

Theme 20: Justification

Theme 21: The Church

Theme 22: Eternity

Our starting point:

Theme 0. The Bible is the Word of God:

This theme is called "Theme 0" because it's "Ground Zero." Or it's "Patient 0," sending Micah's "vector" all over the world. All the other themes spread from this initial vector. God communicates with human beings through the Bible.

Micah 1:1
The Word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth
in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

Micah 4:4
For the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

Micah 4:6
“In that day,” says the Lord,

Theme 1. God is Sovereign:

Micah says

¹ it shall come to pass,

Question.: How does Micah know what will come to pass?

Answer.: God told him. (See Theme 0.) This is seen in verse 4:

⁴ for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

Question.: How does God know what will come to pass?

Answer.: God is Sovereign. God is in control.

Theme 2. The Reign of Christ Began in the Past:

Next, Micah says,

the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established

Question.: When will this establishment of the reign of the Messiah come to pass?

Answer.:

in the last days

What is meant by the phrase "the last days?" Turn on the TV and the prophecy preachers will tell you we are now living in "the last days."

They are mistaken.

Perhaps Micah meant "in the distant future." But the writers of the New Testament consistently affirmed that they were living in "the last days," and the best interpretation of this phrase is that they were living in the last days of the Old Covenant. Either way ("last days of the Old Covenant," or "distant future") the New Testament writers said they were living in "the last days." They were also living in the first days of the New Covenant. We are not living in the last days of the Old Covenant.

Again, Micah says,

the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established

Let's look at three components of that phrase:

mountain
house
established

First of these three:

Theme 3. The Mountain is Eden:

that the mountain

The original "mountain" was the Garden of Eden, from which flowed four rivers (downhill). The temple on Mt. Zion was a model of the Garden of Eden. The Bible treats the Garden of Eden as literal history.

I'm working on a massive website on this subject, and its relation to another of these themes.

the house of the LORD

The "house" of the LORD is the temple. The temple of the LORD: Where is it today? It was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans. This definitively ended the Old Covenant. The New Testament writers say that the new temple is made up of God's People. This is Theme 21, down below.

shall be established

This "establishment" has already happened. The new temple (God's People) was being built even before the old temple had been destroyed. The virgin-born Jesus of Nazareth was seated in His new temple as the Messiah of Israel (Acts 2:36). The word Messiah = King. This Kingdom was established in the past, and we are not waiting for a second coming of the King in our future. This was Theme 2, above.

Next, Micah says the Messiah's Kingdom has rightful jurisdiction over all other kingdoms. It will be established

in the top of the mountains,
and it shall be exalted above the hills;

The nations around Israel built their own "high places" in an attempt to imitate God's Mountain-Garden. The neo-conservative woke regime in Washington D.C., as well as the UK, UN, EU, NWO, WEF, the "former" USSR, etc. are all rival "mountains." Christ has a superior jurisdiction over them all. This is

Theme 4. Global Conversion

and people shall flow unto it.
² And many nations shall come, and say,

This began happening in Acts 2, and has continued since, with ups and downs through history. "The People" and "the nations" are more likely to flow to Christ's Kingdom when they can see it being practiced.

Theme 5. God's Law

God's Law is better than man's law. The people of all nations will agree (Deuteronomy 4:6).

Come, and let us go up to
the mountain of the LORD,
and to the house of the God of Jacob;
and He will teach us of His ways,
and we will walk in His paths:
for the Law shall go forth of Zion,
and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Too many Christians today think there is a conflict between "Law" and "Gospel." Micah didn't think so. God's Law is "good news' because it is a light on our path (Psalm 119:105; Proverbs 4:18; Isaiah 42:16).

Theme 6: Education

Notice the words of exhortation and education: "Let us go!" That's our job today: teach and encourage (Matthew 5:19; Mathew 28:18-20). Persuasion, not coercion.

Theme 7: Spontaneous Obedience

Notice the words of confidence and freedom: "We will walk in His paths."

Theme 8: The Messiah Reigns:

³ And He shall judge among many people,
and rebuke strong nations afar off;

Who is "He?" It is clearly Jesus the Messiah. The first nation He judged/rebuked was the nation of Israel, who murdered their King. This took place in "the last days" of the Old Covenant. Perhaps Jesus is about to judge the U.S.A., a once-Christian nation.

Theme 9: Peace

and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruninghooks:
nation shall not lift up a sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

Peace is a major theme in the Bible. Yes, there are many historical accounts of wars in the Bible, but what is the point of this history? What are we to learn from ancient Israel's faithless wars and gross idolatry?

Jesus is "The Prince of Peace." Many (if not most) Christians today claim that wars must increase until the "Second Coming" of Christ, sometime in our future. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of Matthew 24:6. There are fewer wars today than there were in Micah's day. Christians have enough financial and electoral power to end all the wars currently taking place in the world today. That sounds like a crazy claim until you prayerfully think it through.

I understand why it seems nuts to think this prophecy could be fulfilled in our day. During my lifetime, the federal government in Washington D.C. has murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent, non-combatant civilians around the world. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not steal." But theft and violence are the lifeblood of the government, which is why it will not allow teachers in your local public school to teach students "God says don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."

Q.: What would happen if Christians never voted for any politician who promised "Peace through Strength," that is, "peace" through killing millions of innocent people?
Q.: What would happen if Christians never voted for any politician who promised to use the power of the sword (the State) to engage in extortion ("taxation") to fund mass murder by the military?
Q.: What would happen if "the Law shall go forth" out of the New Temple of God's People, and they never voted for any politician who promised to violate God's commands against murder and theft?

A.: All of today's politicians would have to resign from "the public sector" and get jobs in "the private sector."
The "Public Sector" ("the sword") would be abolished.
"Public Schools" exist to brainwash you into believing that beating swords into plowshares would be a terrible thing.

Theme 10: No Fear of Violent Sword-Bearers

and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruninghooks:⁴ But they shall sit every man under
his vine and under his fig tree;
and none shall make them afraid:

he is actually advocating a swordless or stateless society.

Q.: Who bears "the sword?"

A.: The ones who make other people afraid.

The great Jewish sociologist Franz Oppenheimer called them "Political Man."

Q.: Who uses the "plow?'

A.: People who raise our standard of living.

Franz Oppenheimer called them "Economic Man."

“Private Sector”	“Public Sector”
Non-“Government” Sector	“Government” Sector
Competitive Sector	Monopoly Sector
Persuasive Sector	Coercive Sector
Peaceful Sector	Violent Sector
Productive Sector	Parasite Sector
Servant Sector	Archist Sector
"Economic Man"	"Political Man"

We currently spend a trillion dollars a year on "swords." Three thousand dollars a year for every man, woman, and small child in America. Every year. It diminishes -- it does not raise -- your standard of living.

Theme 11: The Family

⁴ But they shall sit every man under his
vine and under his fig tree;
and none shall make them afraid:

This was the most popular Bible verse in America 300 years ago. This was the original "American Dream."

The Family is God's plan for human beings. Peace, personal property, and prosperity through service is God's vision for ordinary people like you.

Theme 12: Service

⁴ But they shall sit every man under his
vine and under his fig tree;
and none shall make them afraid:

What does a vine and fig tree mean? They raise our neighbor's standard of living when we cultivate them and sell them. Our goal is service. Our neighbors find us useful because we work in a way that benefits others. This goes back to the first commandment Scripture records God giving man: Exercise dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28).

Dominion = work = service

Theme 13 The Garden

The land is cared for when it is owned. The word "property" means it's personal. Owning land makes one responsible. By taking care of land we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Theme 14: The Fall of Man

⁴ But they shall sit every man under his
vine and under his fig tree;
and none shall make them afraid:

Why are there some people who make others afraid? The answer goes back again to the Garden of Eden, where Satan tempted Adam and Eve: "Ye shall be as gods." Descendants of the first Adam like to have power over other people. But if they are born again as descendants of the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), they have a new nature, and want to serve other people.

Theme 15: Salvation

The Hebrew word usually translated "salvation" or "save" includes the ideas of victory, security, prosperity, peace, health, welfare.

Throughout the Bible, the words "salvation," "save," and "savior" all point to deliverance: being delivered from those sword-bearers who make us afraid. If we will get on God's Path (Theme 5), God will deliver us from our enemies.

Theme 16: Jerusalem versus Athens

²for the Law shall go forth of Zion,
and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

⁵ Although all people will walk
every one in the name of his god,
we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
for ever and ever.

There is a contrast between the people of "Jerusalem" and those outside. The early church father Tertullian (c. 155 AD – c. 220 AD) spoke of the outsiders as "Athens."

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?... Our instructions come from “the porch of Solomon”.... Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus...!
Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics (VII).

Perhaps in his day Christians were being told to "Listen to the Academy!" just as Christians in our day are told "Listen to the Science!" But Micah says the temple of the living God will not be corrupted by the temple of man the would-be god.

Augustine wrote about the conflict between "The City of God" and the city of man. Where is your "citizenship?" You are called to walk on Jerusalem path which leads to the “Vine & Fig Tree” world, not the Athens path which leads to meaninglessness, chaos, and war.

Theme 17: Community

²for the Law shall go forth of Zion,
and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

⁵ Although all people will walk
every one in the name of his god,
we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
for ever and ever.

We don't have to do this alone. Christ promises us a community of mutual support.

Theme 18: Charity

Next, Micah says,

⁶ In that day, saith the LORD,
will I assemble her that halteth,
and I will gather her that is driven out,
and her that I have afflicted;
⁷ And I will make her that halted a remnant,
and her that was cast far off a strong nation:

God rebukes unbelieving nations, but then restores them and gives them faithful obedience.

God's People -- the Body of Christ -- are part of that process, by extending mercy to those God has rebuked (Matthew 25:31-46). The Christian home is a shelter.

Theme 19: The Gospel of the Kingdom

and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.

The word "gospel" means "good news."

What is the "good news" of the Bible?

First and foremost, it is a "gospel of the Kingdom" as the Bible repeatedly states, but seems to be ignored in our day.

Theme 20: Justification

The great dispute during the Protestant Reformation was over "Justification." Are we "justified by works" or are we "justified by faith." Both options are incomplete. When we consider that the Gospel is a "gospel of the Kingdom," then we see that we are justified by our allegiance to this kingdom and its King. This gives Biblically appropriate weight to our works and defines our faith.

Theme 21: The Church

In the Bible, the "church" is a community of believers, not select hierarchy of clergymen.

Theme 22: Eternity

we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
for ever and ever.

and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.

The Kingdom that Christ inaugurated in "the last days" of the Old Covenant lasts forever.

Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end
Isaiah 9:6-7

Here is a quick survey of 23 Themes that I find in this passage, which are spelled out in greater detail in numerous passages of the Bible.

Theme 0. The Bible is the Word of God:

Theme 1. God is Sovereign:

Theme 2. The Reign of Christ Began in the Past:

Theme 3. The Mountain is Eden:

Theme 4. Global Conversion

Theme 5. God's Law

Theme 6: Education

Theme 7: Spontaneous Obedience

Theme 8: The Messiah Reigns:

Theme 9: Peace

Theme 10: No Fear of Violent Sword-Bearers

Theme 11: The Family

Theme 12: Service

Theme 13: The Garden

Theme 14: The Fall of Man

Theme 15: Salvation

Theme 16: Jerusalem versus Athens

Theme 17: Community

Theme 18: Charity

Theme 19: The Gospel of the Kingdom

Theme 20: Justification

Theme 21: The Church

Theme 22: Eternity

Word Study: "Heretic"

Strong's #138 - αἱρέομαι - hairéomai
- Thayer's Definition
  1. to take for oneself, to prefer, choose
  2. to choose by vote, elect to office
- Philippians 1:22
  
  But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour yet what I shall choose I wot not.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:13
  
  But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
- Hebrews 11:25
  
  Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Strong's #139 - αἵρεσις - haíresis
- Thayer's Definition
  1. act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
  2. choosing, choice
  3. that which is chosen
  4. a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
    1. of the Sadducees
    2. of the Pharisees
    3. of the Christians
  5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims
- Acts 5:17
  
  Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
- Acts 15:5
  
  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
- Acts 24:5
  
  For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
- Acts 24:14
  
  But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
- Acts 26:5
  
  Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
- Acts 28:22
  
  But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
- 1 Corinthians 11:19
  
  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
- Galatians 5:20
  
  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
- 2 Peter 2:1
  
  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Strong's #140 - αἱρετίζω - hairetízō
- Thayer's Definition
  1. to choose
  2. to belong to a sect
- Matthew 12:18
  
  Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Strong's #141 - αἱρετικός - hairetikós
- Thayer's Definition
  1. fitted or able to take or choose a thing
  2. schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine
  3. heretic
- Titus 3:10
  
  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Is this "New Religion" a "Cult?"

How do I know if my church is a cult - Google Search

You can tell if your church is a cult by looking for signs of excessive control, isolation, and unquestionable leader authority, such as discouraging critical thinking, isolating members from outsiders, demanding absolute loyalty to a leader (who acts above scripture), punishing dissenters, using "us vs. them" mentality, and controlling major life decisions, all while using shame and fear to maintain conformity. Healthy churches encourage questions and accountability; cults suppress them.
Key Warning Signs: Authoritarian Leadership: A leader who claims to be above questioning, whose word is considered law, and who demands loyalty over scripture.
Isolation & "Us vs. Them": Discouraging fellowship with other churches or family members outside the group, creating a sense of spiritual superiority and distrust of outsiders

Suppression of Doubt: Healthy inquiry is punished, and questioning leads to guilt, shame, or being labeled rebellious or unfaithful (spiritual gaslighting).

Control Over Life Decisions: Expecting permission for choices like jobs, relationships, or moving; leaders dictate personal lives.

Shunning & Fear: Former members are demonized or shunned; members fear leaving, believing it brings damnation or spiritual death.

Lack of Transparency: Secrecy around finances or leadership decisions, with no accountability.

Extra-Biblical Rules: Connecting righteousness to extra-biblical rules or specific doctrines not found in the Bible.

Thought-Stopping Clichés: Using phrases like "don't touch the Lord's anointed" or "doubt your doubts" to shut down critical thought.

Love Bombing & Exhaustion: Intense initial affection (love bombing) followed by demands for constant involvement and overworking members.

What Healthy Churches Do vs. Cults:

Healthy: Welcome questions, value accountability, encourage outside relationships, focus on Christ, allow for healthy disagreement.

Cult-like: Punish questions, demand allegiance, foster isolation, focus on a leader, demonize dissent.

If you recognize several of these signs, it's worth seeking outside perspectives from trusted family or counselors to evaluate the situation.

I don't think “Vine & Fig Tree” is a "cult" by this definition:

Suppression of Doubt: I'm all about questioning: your church, your church's creeds, and everything on this website. Test everything against the Scripture. Acts 17:11.
Control Over Life Decisions: I admit I don't make great decisions for myself; I certainly don't propose to make important life decisions for you.
Shunning & Fear: I am the shunnee, not the shunner. I never give up hope on anyone. Your complaint is that I might hunt you down and make you read the latest page on my website, not that I would stop talking to you.
Lack of Transparency: I have no finances to speak of, and no leadership roles. I would be flattered if someone paid any attention to me and started asking questions. Happy to provide answers.
Extra-Biblical Rules: I try to limit my rules to God's rules.
Thought-Stopping Clichés: I don't stop thoughts, I encourage thoughts, much to the consternation of most clergy.
Love Bombing & Exhaustion: I'm not very good at affection. Unless your "love language" is "epistemological self-consciousness."

“Vine & Fig Tree” is not a "church," but the comparison between "healthy" church and "cult-like" is a valid distinction.

Liberalism is Naturalism

Liberalism said Christ's birth was a natural birth.

Liberalism denied that God supernaturally parted the Red Sea allowing the Israelites to go across the Red Sea on dry ground, and Pharaoh's Army was miraculously drowned in the Red Sea when the waters came back together.

And Liberals denied the first line of the Apostles Creed which says "I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and Earth." Liberals did not believe that God was the supernatural maker of heaven and earth -- the earth and all the planets -- the entire Cosmos. They believed it naturally came about. "Evolution."

So, what did J. Gresham Machen say? Machen was defrocked and pretty much put out of the liberal Presbyterian Church, and that's why he founded a new church, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He said, liberalist churches were denying essential doctrines of the faith. These doctrines were called it one time, "the fundamentals of the faith," which is where we get the word "fundamentalism."

Liberals denied fundamental doctrines of the faith, like the virgin birth, just as an example. But in general, Machen said liberals tried to naturalize Christianity, make it a natural religion, not a supernatural religion. They wanted to have a non-supernatural religion.

They wanted a natural explanation for the birth of Christ. They wanted a natural explanation for the parting of the Red Sea. They wanted a natural explanation for the Bible.

So, naturalism is the fundamental tenet of liberalism.

Fascism

I'm not claiming that Zwingli wore black shirts or read Mussolini. I'm arguing that a statist or "magisterial" worldview (which the "Magisterial Reformers" all had) is contrary to the Bible's “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview.

The word "fascism" comes from a weapon of subjugation called a "fasces." It dates back to ancient and Rome. Google defines it this way:

The fasces is an ancient Roman symbol of power and authority , consisting of a bundle of wooden rods (usually birch or elm) tied together, often surrounding a projecting axe. It represented imperium (executive authority) and magistrate jurisdiction, symbolizing that unity (rods) equals strength and that the state holds the power to punish.

This is supposedly an image of Polycarp before the Proconsul, over 1500 years ago. The two guys in back are each holding a "fasces." Does that make them "fascists?"

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
[I]n face of the modern tendencies toward a deification of government and state, it is good to remind ourselves that the old Romans were more realistic in symbolizing the state by a bundle of rods with an ax in the middle than are our contemporaries in ascribing to the state all the attributes of God.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, 1949

"Fasces" from the shield of the
Partito Nazionale Fascista

The Fasces: Weapon of Political Thugs
see fascism

"New Deal" fasces,
Mercury Dime

Notice the "fasces" on U.S. currency. Does that mean the U.S. is a "fascist" nation?

Our fascist dime - Numismatic News

The article doesn't want to say the U.S. is a fascist nation, but that conclusion is inescapable, and here's why:

The fasces symbolizes power, that is, violence. The fasces says, "I have the right to inflict pain on you." Every professor of political science in every university on planet earth will admit that the essential nature of "government" or "the State" is the right to engage in violence. It is the right to sin, to violate God's commandments against hurting people and taking their stuff. Every government is "fascist," not by name, but by definition. Every government says "I have a right to use a fasces -- or some other implement -- to force other people to do my will."

And every State claims a monopoly on fascism:

The State: A Monopoly of Violence

To put it in Biblical terms, the State claims a monopoly on sin. "I can sin, citizen, but you can't." "I can wield a fasces (or some other weapon), but you can't."

Don't think that "fascism" has to look like a Leni Riefenstahl movie.

Leni Riefenstahl "Triumph of the Will"

It doesn't matter if you use a fasces or a can of mace:

You're not acting peacefully in the "private sector," you're acting violently in the "public sector." You're a "fascist" because you're a bad guy, not because you read Mussolini.

ChatGPT defines "fascism" as follows:

I. Defining Fascism (Structurally, Not Chronologically)

To avoid 20th-century baggage, here is a trait-based definition rather than a historical one. Strip away Mussolini, Hitler, uniforms, and party names, and define fascism by institutional behavior and moral logic.

A careful, defensible definition might look like this:

Fascism is a political–religious order in which:

The state is treated as the highest earthly authority, claiming moral jurisdiction over the whole of social life.

Collective unity is enforced through law, ritual, and coercion, suppressing dissent for the sake of social harmony.

Violence or the threat of violence is regarded as a legitimate and even purifying tool for preserving or advancing the common good.

Religion is subordinated to the aims of civic order, functioning as a moral glue for the state rather than a transcendent judge over it.

Individual conscience is overridden when it conflicts with political or communal objectives.

The community is imagined as an organic whole, whose survival justifies discipline, punishment, and war.

This definition does not require:

modern nationalism

industrial capitalism

mass parties

racial ideology

It requires only statism, sacralized power, and coercive unity.

ChatGPT then describes Zwingli:

II. Describing Zwingli Under That Definition

Now describe Zwingli historically, sticking closely to what he did, not what he would have called himself.

1. The State as Moral Sovereign

Zwingli did not treat the church as a body standing over against the magistrate. Instead, he argued that the Zurich city council was God’s ordained instrument for reform, including:

regulating worship

enforcing doctrine

suppressing dissent

mandating religious conformity

In practice, the magistrate became the executor of theology, and theology became the justification for political authority.

The state was not merely protecting the church; it was defining and enforcing the faith.

2. Coercive Unity and Suppression of Dissent

Under Zwingli’s influence:

The Mass was abolished by civil decree.

Religious practices were criminalized.

Dissenters (especially Anabaptists) were imprisoned, exiled, or executed.

Unity was treated as a moral necessity, not a voluntary good.

Those who appealed to conscience or Scripture against the council were not tolerated as sincere believers; they were treated as threats to social order.

This is not persuasion.
It is enforced ideological conformity.

3. Sacralized Violence

Zwingli did not merely permit violence; he theologically justified it.

He argued that:

God worked through the sword of the magistrate.

War could be a righteous instrument of reform.

Zurich’s military actions were part of a divine mission.

He personally accompanied troops as a chaplain and died on the battlefield, not as a persecuted martyr but as a defender of a politicized religious order.

Violence was not an unfortunate necessity—it was morally integrated into the system.

4. Religion as Civic Instrument

Zwingli’s theology consistently framed Christianity as a discipline-producing force for the city:

Moral reform was legislated.

Worship was standardized.

Theology served civic stability.

The Gospel functioned as a tool of social cohesion.

Rather than the state bowing before Christ, Christ was recruited to underwrite the state’s authority.

This is not the church judging the powers.
It is the powers using the church.

5. The Eclipse of Conscience

Perhaps most tellingly, Zwingli rejected the idea that individual conscience could stand against the magistrate when properly informed by Scripture as interpreted by the authorities.

Once the council had ruled, resistance was rebellion—not faithfulness.

That logic leaves no space for:

prophetic dissent

nonviolent resistance

allegiance that transcends civic order

So even if I never used the term "fascist," what other conclusion could someone draw? ChatGPT answers:

III. Letting the Conclusion Emerge

At this point, I don’t need to say the word fascism at all.

I simply ask the reader:

When a society fuses religious truth with political power,
enforces moral unity by law,
sanctifies violence for the sake of order,
suppresses conscience for the common good,
and treats the state as God’s primary instrument in history—

what else should we call it?

I might add—carefully and honestly:

The label did not yet exist.
But the structure did.

That’s not sloppy history.
That’s conceptual clarity.

IV. Anticipating the Objection (and Defusing It)

If critics say, “Zwingli can’t be a fascist because fascism didn’t exist yet,” my reply is simple:

“Neither did ‘totalitarianism,’ but Pharaoh qualifies.”

“Neither did ‘statism,’ but Nebuchadnezzar practiced it.”

“Neither did ‘ideology,’ but Babel enforced one.”

Names change.
Patterns repeat.

Bottom Line

I'm not arguing that Zwingli wore black shirts or read Mussolini.

I'm arguing that his theology produced a coercive, militarized, state-centered social order in which:

Christ served the magistrate,

conscience yielded to law,

and violence defended unity.

If the reader reaches the conclusion ("fascist") on their own, I've won the argument the right way.

But I never had a chance to make this argument in a "heresy trial."

I admit that AI will often tell you what it thinks you want to hear. But is the above in error?

I also admit that using the term "fascist" was an arresting, attention-getting move. That was my intended effect. I learned this "advertising" technique from Gary North and Rushdoony, who, speaking more theologically than politically, accused the Magisterial Reformers of "Blasphemy."

NONE DARE CALL IT BLASPHEMY

Nevertheless, I guess I'm technically a Christian after all, since I was technically un-excommunicated, but the theological issues were never resolved. They never got a hearing. I haven't been a member of any church since then, roughly 40 years. There might be a group of Christians calling themselves a "church" who would let me become a member if they knew what I believed, but then such a "church" likely does not have "members." No other "church" out of several hundred thousand in the U.S. would let me in the front door.

It's not "my" religion, it's just the religion of the Bible. I hope you'll embrace it.

Final Summary

Why the Bible should be our standard in every area of life:

Review of Your New Religion

Theme 0. The Bible is the Word of God:: The Bible was "breathed-out" by God through "human penmen." They wrote the exact words God wanted written so He could communicate with His image-bearers. See Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1.
Theme 1. God is Sovereign:: God knows the future because He created it. "Calvinism!"
Theme 2. The Reign of Christ Began in the Past: The Messianic Kingdom was established in the past, at Christ's first advent; we do not wait for a "second coming." "Preterism!"
Theme 3. The Mountain is Eden:: Creationism, not Evolutionism
Theme 4. Global Conversion: Optimillennialism, not Pessimillennialism
Theme 5. God's Law: Theonomy, not Dispensationalism
Theme 6: Education: Carried out in homes and family businesses
Theme 7: Spontaneous Obedience: Theonomy becomes habit, becomes character
Theme 8: The Messiah Reigns: Theocracy/Christocracy in every area of life
Theme 9: Peace: Pacifism, end of war, vengeance, retaliation, hatred,
Theme 10: No Fear of Violent Sword-Bearers: Anarchism, statelessness
Theme 11: The Family: Patriagora
Theme 12: Service: The Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) is a mandate for work and service of others.
Theme 13: The Garden: Stewardship of the environment, centrality of the farm.
Theme 14: The Fall of Man: "Ye shall be as gods (Genesis 3:5); archists
Theme 15: Salvation: Holistic salvation = deliverance, victory, health, prosperity, peace
Theme 16: Jerusalem versus Athens: Theonomy vs. Autonomy
Theme 17: Community: Beyond the nuclear family
Theme 18: Charity: True religion (James 1:27; Matthew 25:31-46)
Theme 19: The Gospel of the Kingdom: Not the gospel of individualism
Theme 20: Justification: Justification by Allegiance
Theme 21: The Church: The body of Christ, not an imitation state
Theme 22: Eternity: Christ's Kingdom has no end

Notes

#1: This "Historical Pedigree":: Calvin → Machen → Rushdoony → Bahnsen → Me → You
is, hopefully, an inaccurate oversimplification. I descended from Rushdoony rather than Bahnsen, and you (and I) should consider ourselves descended from the Bible, not any human authority. Certainly not "me."

#2: This is "clickbait" or something. Bahnsen never ruled on the substance of "my new religion." He excommunicated me because I said the "Magisterial Reformers" were magisterial, and magisterialism = "fascism." Bahnsen never said -- in the way Machen said liberalism was not a species of Christianity -- that "my new religion" was not a species of Christianity. I was excommunicated for "slander" (for using words like "fascist"), not "unorthodoxy," "heresy," "apostasy," or anything like that. I admit I'm trying to milk "excommunication" for more than it's actually worth. And as I said, I was eventually un-excommunicated.

#3: "Old Princeton" was home to great reformed thinkers like Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, A.A. Hodge, and Geerhardus Vos. Westminster Seminary was committed to preserving the doctrines found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Warfield authored one of the booklets in the series called "The Fundamentals" in 1910. So did another Princeton faculty member, Charles Erdman, but Erdman, while having conservative credentials, turned out to be an ally of the liberals. It was the "Moderate Evangelicals" -- as much as the liberal wolves -- who fatally undermined Old Princeton.
This was a headline from the April 6, 1925 issue of The New York Times:

DR. ERDMAN DEPOSED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS; Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Removed as Student Adviser. OPPOSED BY DR. MACARTNEY His Enemies Win by a Close Vote Following a Faculty Contest -- Dr. Wilson Succeeds Him.

The controversy over Princeton Seminary and the Presbyterian church was big news back then. Things have changed.

#4: Making life "hellish." General Sherman under Lincoln said, "War is hell." And by that, he did not mean war is something to be avoided, but rather something to make as hellish as possible in order to win, in order to achieve victory quickly and decisively. The U.S. creates hell on earth, in order to "promote democracy."

My "new religion" is actually the old religion of the Bible -- the old religion of Jesus and the apostles and the law and the prophets -- but it may be new to you. Your conception of "Christianity" may be the "liberalism" than Machen fought against, or it may be a hybrid of Christian-sounding terms and Roman imperialism dressed up with newer terms like "constitution," "social contract," "democracy," and so on.

I asked ChatGPT for comments on this website. He/she/it told me that most readers would be shocked, disoriented, and overwhelmed by this website unless I provided a 5-minute introduction. I'm not sure I agree with that strategy. Here's the intro:

Five-Minute Introduction
Please Read First
I consider myself a "Bible-believing Christian." But I’ve been told I’m not a Christian at all.

Not because I deny the Bible.
Not because I reject the Trinity.
I'm even a six-day creationist.

They say I'm not a Christian because I believe two things the "institutional church" has denied for at least 1500 years.

I believe Every human being is morally obligated to obey God's commandments, specifically:

"Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15; Matthew 19:18; Ephesians 4:28).

"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Romans 13:9).

"Leave vengeance to God." (Romans 12:19; Deuteronomy 32:35).
No human being has God's permission to violate these commandments. Anyone who violates these commands will be judged and condemned by God for doing so. No exceptions.

I believe Deism is not true.

By "deism" I mean belief in a "clockmaker god" who creates the world and winds it up and then steps away and never gets involved in the creation, never alters the "natural" course of history. Deism is "infidelity."

You might be scratching your head, wondering "What church doesn't believe those things?"

As far as I know, there isn't a group of people anywhere on planet earth who call themselves a "church" who doesn't carve out a "Zone of Lawlessness," in which certain people are allowed to violate God's Commands, and a certain "Zone of Powerlessness" where God cannot intervene, "violate the free will of man," and bring about a "happy ending." Every church says I'm wrong about these two things.

1. What is The Real War?

Most Christians think the great conflict of our time is Christianity vs. secularism.

I don’t.

I believe the deeper conflict is between two rival religions, both of which use Christian language.

One of them is the religion of the Bible.
The other is a religion that borrows Christian vocabulary while pledging ultimate allegiance to a false god who is no god at all.

This is not a new claim.

In 1923, J. Gresham Machen argued that “liberal Christianity” was not a corrupted form of Christianity but a different religion altogether. His argument was not about personalities or sincerity; it was about systems, presuppositions, and ultimate authority.

I accept Machen’s method.

I am simply applying it farther, more rigorously, than he did.

2. Why YOU Need a New “Religion.”

The Bible tells about one true religion and many false religions.

James writes:

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this:
to care for widows and orphans in their distress,
and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:27)

That definition is not about ceremonies.
It is not about church membership.
It is about ethics.

Jesus reinforces this standard in Matthew 25, where judgment turns not on correct slogans or institutional loyalty, but on how people treated “the least of these.”

By this standard, a religion is judged by how it treats the vulnerable, especially widows, orphans, the poor, the stranger, the imprisoned, and the powerless.

James’s definition of religion is ethical, but it is not without doctrine or theology.
Ethics flow from theology. False gods produce false social orders.

Socialism is a religion. It claims to solve the problem of "the least of these." But Socialism is political deism: it denies that God actively governs, provides, and blesses obedient societies. Political deists feel they must erect armed human institutions to compensate for a "clockmaker god."

This definition creates a serious problem—one most churches never come to grips with.

3. An Inescapable Question

If pure religion is defined by protecting the vulnerable,

what should we call a system that:

not only ignores widows, but regularly creates widows and orphans through war and mass destruction,

funds mass killing through extortion: compulsory taxation,

treats civilian death as “collateral damage,”

and blesses all of this as morally necessary?

The system does not mourn in sackcloth and ashes over the deaths of millions of people, a tragic result of a "necessary evil." It throws ticker-tape parades for the executioners. "We're the greatest because we kill the most! We have the biggest bombs! U-S-A!!"

By James’s definition, that system cannot be called pure religion.

It may be "legal."
It may be "patriotic."
It may be normal.

But biblically, it is an abominable evil.
It is justified by slogans and bumper-stickers, not exegesis.

This does not require judging individual souls. Machen was careful here, and so am I. Individuals may be sincere, confused, repentant, or saved despite the systems they inhabit.

But systems themselves can be judged.

And a system that routinely creates widows and orphans is not merely a flawed Christianity. By the Bible’s own definition, it is a different religion.

4. Why This Matters

Many Christians today would agree with Machen that liberalism is a false religion.

Few are willing to apply the same test to:

statism,

militarism,

political messianism,

or the assumption that a monopoly of violence is necessary for social order.

I am willing to apply that test.

If that makes me a heretic, then I stand with the Apostle Paul, who said:

“According to the Way which they call heresy,
so I worship the God of my fathers,
believing everything written in the Law and the Prophets.” (Acts 24:14)

5. A Choice

If you believe Christianity is compatible with:

voting for war,

funding mass killing through extortion.

trusting armed rulers to bring peace, prosperity, and social order

then what follows will seem offensive or absurd.

But if you suspect—however faintly—that Jesus meant what He said about loving enemies, rejecting political office “like the kings of the Gentiles” (Mark 10:42-45), and beating swords into plowshares (Micah 4:3; Isaiah 2:4), then you may want to continue.

Everything below this point exists to argue, from Scripture and history, that what I call the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview is not a new religion at all—but the old religion of the Bible, long displaced by a rival faith that few Christians recognize as a competing religion.

Proceed if you’re willing to examine that possibility.

America's Many Revolutions

According to the U.S. Department of State:

On July 4, 2026, America will celebrate 250 years of independence. “With a single sheet of parchment and 56 signatures, America began the greatest political journey in human history,” said President Trump of this momentous anniversary.

Would the men who signed the Declaration of Independence say that Americans are free in 2026?

I don't think so. If you pay one dime in federal income tax, you pay 20-30 times more in taxes than America's Founders. Taxes collected and spent by an atheistic ("secular") government.

Americans today are either delusional or hypocrites.

In light of this year's celebration of the Declaration of Independence, consider this quiz:

In which country does the government prohibit teachers in government-run schools from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence (1776) is really true:
        a. Iran
        b. North Korea
        c. Communist China
        d. The United States
        e. All of the above

That's correct:

The U.S. Federal Government prohibits a school teacher in a government-run school from teaching students that the Declaration of Independence really is true.

that there really is a God, and His existence is a "self-evident truth"
that our rights really are the product of the intelligent design of our Creator
(not a gift from the government)
that all Americans really are obligated to conform their lives to
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
that one day our actions really must pass judgment with
"the Supreme Judge of the world"
that all Americans should have "a firm reliance on
the Protection of Divine Providence."
that Americans have a duty -- not just a right
-- to abolish any government
that becomes a tyranny.

That's what America's Birth Certificate -- the Declaration of Independence -- says.

None of these things can be taught as truth in a school controlled by the atheistic ("secular") government of the United States.

The Federal Government says that teachers in government-operated schools paid for by your local property taxes cannot "endorse" or "promote" these ideas. Oh, sure, students can be taught by their smug teacher that a long time ago some primitive people believed the Declaration of Independence was true, but teachers today cannot say The Declaration of Independence really is objectively true, regardless of whether any human being or any government believes it to be true, and that students should stand up and risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in defense of those unchanging true principles.

Why is it now "unconstitutional" or "illegal" for public school teachers to endorse this Theocratic document called "The Declaration of Independence?"

The word "theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God governs." Most people confuse "theocracy" with "government by clergy," forgetting that there's another word for that: "ecclesiocracy." If you turn "theocracy" ("God rules over the nation") upside down, you get "One nation under God." Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that America was a nation "under God." The Constitution was ratified by 13 Christian "Theocracies." In 1892 the U.S. Supreme Court proudly boasted that the United States was a "Christian nation." The Court's opinion was a warning about what was taking place in America at that time. That was 100 years ago. And that's when the most significant revolution in American history took place -- far more significant than the change from the British Constitution to the U.S. Constitution in 1776-1787.

I propose another revolution.

Or perhaps it can be called a "Reformation," and if I may be so bold, a Reformation far more radical than the one that Martin Luther led in 1517.

Revolution or Reformation begins with a "Conspiracy Theory."

Martin Luther said that Roman Catholic clergy conspired to keep the Bible from laymen and raise revenue through a corrupt gospel.

Samuel Adams and John Hancock said that the British government conspired to strip the American colonists of their rights.

Two significant revolutionary things happened at the turn of the 19th-20th century, and not one American in a million can say what they were.

1. Church
The Confessional Standard of Princeton Seminary and the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) was repudiated.

This conspiracy was front-page news in the New York Times.

2. State
The Confessional Standard of the United States of America -- the Constitution of 1787 -- and the form of government created by that document -- was repudiated. President Woodrow Wilson openly admitted this conspiracy. Wilson said the Constitution and its form of government was "Newtonian," and Wilson wanted a new form of government that was "Darwinian." Isaac Newton -- one of the greatest scientists in history, and certainly a greater scientist than Charles Darwin -- was a Bible-believing "young-earth creationist." (Another fact today's public-school graduates are unaware of.)

These two revolutions were not "formally adopted."

Church: Liberal clergymen took an oath of allegiance to the confessional standards of the Presbyterian Church (Westminster Confession and Catechisms). They lied. They took their ordination vows with "Crossed Fingers."
State: There is a legal procedure for formally repealing the Constitution, found in Article V. That procedure was not followed, but the government of the Newtonian Constitution was replaced with a Darwinian system known today as "The Administrative State."

The older forms were not formally repudiated. These revolutions took place "within the shell of the old," to quote a slogan promoted by the socialist "Industrial Workers of the World" (IWW) in the early 1900s. The confessional forms (Constitution, Westminster Confession) remained, but everyone knew they were being emptied of the content.

With regard to Princeton and the Presbyterian Church, this was known as the "Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy."
With regard to the Constitution, the shift was from a theory of "representative republic" to a theory of "Administration." Government functions were no longer carried out by "representatives" of the people, but by "Administrators," like Philip Dru: Administrator, a fictional account written by one of Wilson's closest political advisors.

Woodrow Wilson was the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers, and was himself a lifelong Presbyterian and ruling elder in the PCUSA. But Wilson was a "liberal" or "modernist," both theologically and politically.

Another important figure in these revolutions was J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937). Machen, a professor at Princeton and Presbyterian minister, fought against Wilson's "liberal" or "modernist" revolution. Machen said "modernism" or theological "liberalism" was not Christian. It was a different religion altogether. That claim outraged the liberals, who pretended to be Christians, just as politicians would have been offended if anyone had said they were traitors to the Constitution (which they were). Machen was suspended from the ministry by the PCUSA. He formed a new seminary (Westminster Theological Seminary) and a new denomination (Orthodox Presbyterian Church). This was front-page news in the New York Times during this period.

I joined a church in Machen's denomination. I was excommunicated from this church. The church explained that excommunication is a public declaration that the person being excommunicated is no longer a Christian. The church will tell you that I'm a nice guy; polite, not a hot-head. But I came to a conclusion similar to Machen himself, that the church -- Machen's own church, ironically -- had abandoned true Christianity (or perhaps never had it?), just as Machen indicted "liberalism" in Princeton and the PCUSA.

The OPC said I was not a Christian, so I must have invented some new religion.

And I want to persuade you to make my new religion Your New Religion.

The British government in 1776 believed that America's Founding Fathers deserved death.

Machen's "warrior children" said I deserve hell.

In that article, Frame says the six says of creation should not be a test of orthodoxy. I would be willing to debate that claim. Machen was not a young-earth creationist. I think this is related to the fact that Machen was a defender of segregation and racism. Frame's tremendous book on the history of Philosophy and Theology needs a parallel column on the history of the Evolution Idea. This synthesis needs to be complemented with a third column on the history of archism/fascism. I've tried to outline this third column here.

Anarcho-Creationism

Your New Religion

Lots of New Religions

Everyone has a "Religion." You do too.

Romans 1: The Impossibility of Atheism

True Religion Defined

Are You A Dud?

Origin Story

Fascism!

Excommunication

J. Gresham Machen's "New" Religion

Heresy!

Machen: Political Pacifism = "Heresy?"

Political Pacifism and Salvation

Should Non-Pacifists be Excommunicated?

Voting for War = "Heresy?" = "Sin?" = "False Religion?"

Swords into Plowshares in "the Last Days"

What About Holy Wars?

The Poor Cry Out

Jesus Indicts the "Archists"

Preterism

Machen’s Warrior Children

How Hard is it to Become a Christian?

1. Direct Warnings Against False Confidence

2. Self-Deception Exposed

3. False Peace, False Security

4. Religious Credentials That Don’t Save

5. Testing Assurance Is Commanded, Not Optional

6. The Ultimate Diagnostic Question

How These Function Together

Indoctrinating Yourself Into Your New Religion

Micah's "New Religion"

Theme 0. The Bible is the Word of God:

Theme 1. God is Sovereign:

Theme 2. The Reign of Christ Began in the Past:

Theme 3. The Mountain is Eden:

Theme 4. Global Conversion

Theme 5. God's Law

Theme 6: Education

Theme 7: Spontaneous Obedience

Theme 8: The Messiah Reigns:

Theme 9: Peace

Theme 10: No Fear of Violent Sword-Bearers

Theme 11: The Family

Theme 12: Service

Theme 13 The Garden

Theme 14: The Fall of Man

Theme 15: Salvation

Theme 16: Jerusalem versus Athens

Theme 17: Community

Theme 18: Charity

Theme 19: The Gospel of the Kingdom

Theme 20: Justification

Theme 21: The Church

Theme 22: Eternity

Word Study: "Heretic"

Is this "New Religion" a "Cult?"

Liberalism is Naturalism

Fascism

I. Defining Fascism (Structurally, Not Chronologically)

II. Describing Zwingli Under That Definition

1. The State as Moral Sovereign

2. Coercive Unity and Suppression of Dissent

3. Sacralized Violence

4. Religion as Civic Instrument

5. The Eclipse of Conscience

III. Letting the Conclusion Emerge

IV. Anticipating the Objection (and Defusing It)

Bottom Line

Final Summary

Review of Your New Religion

America's Many Revolutions