I shall now address Universalism

I've mentioned elsewhere how I wish Universalism were true, but the testimony of Scripture simply does not allow it to be.  I've read universalist arguments, hoping to be convinced.  But they simply don't stand up under scrutiny.

The core argument is a claim that the Greek words Aion and Aionion, which they say are translated incorrectly as "eternal", actually mean a fixed period of time, often a very long one but still one that will end.  And thus Gehena/the Lake Fire being described as "eternal" doesn't make it permanent.

Here is the problem, it's only Aionion that is translated Eternal.  Aion's meaning is what they say it is, it's where the English word Eon comes from, and can be viewed as a synonym for Age and Era, but the KJV also sometimes translates it World, however it is distinct from Kosmos.

Aionion is derived from Aion, but that doesn't mean it must also contain the "will end" element of it.  It could be related like how Age is to Ageless, or End to Endless, or Time to Timeless.

I'm not a Greek expert, but I know this much. Aionion (translated as both Eternal and Everlasting) is not just used to describe how long the people sent to Gehena/Lake of Fire spend there.  It's also used to describe the Life promised to those who Believe.  We are promised we will NEVER die.

What they combine with that flawed Greek lesson is that Revelation 22:15 to them seems to describe those earlier sent into the Lake of Fire as now merely being locked outside of New Jerusalem.  However those are in fact not the same group of people as I explain in my Outer Darkness study.

They will make a claim that all the Greek early Church Fathers unanimously believed in Universlaism, and it was translations into Latin that caused Aionion to start meaning Eternal.  I have read some quotes of the early fathers that sound universalist, but I've already expressed why I don't view them as authoritative.  It adds an amusing context to the desire enemies of Eternal Security have to point to the Church Fathers.

You may be thinking "aren't you by definition a believer in Eternal Security if you're a Universalist?"  Technically no, a Universalist (a Christian one at least) still likely believes you're given the opportunity to avoid going to Gehenna even temporarily when you accept Jesus as your Savior.  So they can therefore disagree among themselves on whether or not your get out of Gehenna free card can be forfeited.

Critics of Eternal Security probably fear that believing in Eternal Security is part of a slippery slop toward Unviersalism.  But in truth the importance of defending the Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security is likely to have less resonance to a Universalist.

Universalisim is like any other works salvation in a sense.  They believe even those who go through the Lake of Fire are Saved because of Jesus.   So they are saying that what Jesus suffered sometimes needs to be added to.  The role of the Lake of Fire in Universalism is not unlike Salvation by works.  It also suggests the completed work of Jesus on the Cross sometimes needs to be added to.

If any universalist who sees this thinks they can refute my arguments, please, I invite you to leave a comment, brief or lengthy.  I'm open minded.

Patriotic Idolatry

I am increasingly bothered by how much modern American Evangelicals marry their Faith to their Patriotism.  Because wrapping up the Cross in the American Flag is idolatry, and also the Sin of Pergamos.

When I see a church put the Flag right up there next to the Cross I think "abomination".  And sometimes they'll sing Patriotic songs in church, churches that otherwise would never approve of singing secular music in church, or even Christian music that seems secular to them by being too "Contemporary".

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is an act of Idolatry that makes the Flag an Idol, as is putting your hand on your heart during the National Anthem, and other similar activities.  Yet Christians have decided to develop some devotion to the pledge simply because idiotic Liberals whine about the meaningless "Under God" phrase that doesn't clarify which god and wasn't originally in it anyway.

I could also go into how the Pledge was written by a Socialist specifically to spread his Socialist ideals, which is why it's stupid for any Political Conservatives to like it (and Ironic that modern liberals now hate it).  But that's technically off topic.

Point is, Christians should not be Pledging allegiance to any Earthly Nations, we are supposed to think of ourselves as Citizens of God's Kingdom first and foremost, and remember that the Kingdoms of this World are all currently owned by Satan.

There is nothing wrong with having a nice healthy Patriotism (but never blind loyalty to the government type patriotism).  I value some of the ideals of our Founding Fathers (there is a reason Captain America is my favorite Marvel Superhero and Winter Solider my favorite MCU film.), and think many of them would agree with what I'm saying here.  But "American Exceptionalism" is absolutely idolatry that makes the Nation itself an Idol.  Israel is God's only Earthy Covenant Nation, when we declare any other nation "exceptional" we're attacking God's covenant with Abraham whether we realize it or not.

Same with Divine Providence which spawned Manifest Destiny.

I recommend this response to David Barton's narrative.

Also, I feel all these military themed Patriotic Holidays like Memorial Day and the Fourth of July and Veterans Day and so on, are days that Christians need to be doing Spiritual Warfare against Mars the god of War.

There is significance to that I said Mars rather then Ares, (you see I generally prefer using the Greek names of the Classical Olympians over the Roman names).  The Greeks did not generally think much of Ares, he was often the joke of the Pantheon.  They considered him necessary, but they mostly never desired to define themselves by their capability in War.  Even the Spartans didn't as much as our flanderized perception of them makes us think they did.  It was not easy for Leonidas to convince the Gerusia to go to war.

But for Rome, Mars was their Patron deity, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They considered their strength to come mainly from their might.  And Sadly modern America has developed that same problem, democrats as well as republicans.  That is why I believe Mars is the "God of Forces" mentioned in Daniel 11:38.

But sadly Churches instead join right in on the Military worshiping festivities, doing Military themed sermons, where they sing the most military themed of the Patriotic songs I talked about.  I even remember one service I was at where the Pastor mentioned how he thinks it's Cowardly to refuse to fight.  I was disgusted.

People will think I'm being disrespectful to Veterans.  Guess what, many Veterans often become depressed on those holidays.  It's not healthy for them either that we do this.  So yes during the Spiritual Warfare I suggest we pray for the Veterans and their family members, as well as those overseas victimized by American foreign policy.

On my Prophecy blog I've done a post about the possible eschatological significance of this problem.

How should Libertarians approach Gay Marriage?

Obviously all or at least most Libertarians agree that we ultimately are uninterested in legal marriage altogether.  It should be just between the individuals being married, and if their religious then they're God or possibly Church. Mosque, Synagogue, Temple ect.  You shouldn't need a certificate from the Government at all.

The question is as long as we do have legal marriage, should we not care about the what kinds are allowed?  Some Libertarians seem to take that approach and focus only on the ultimate goal.  And I feel they do this largely to try not to alienate social conservatives and Christians.

But I believe we need to firmly hold that as long as it is a legal institution there should be no restrictions on it.  Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages, ect.  Anything between Consenting adults.  I believe it's taking away the state's ability to restrict it that will cause legal marriage to crumble.

We're not gonna get our goal over night.  Just as a full end to the drug war begins with legalization of Marijuana.  So the war against government control of marriages has a beginning fight too.

I know some feel like expanding legal marriage is only expanding government power.  I feel in this context legal marriage should be viewed just as a binding contract more them more then one indivdual, and and eligibility for that contract should not be limited.

As I said before a desire to not alienate "conservatives" is why some Libertarians don't want to say that.  Problem is I feel the Ron Paul campaign of 2008 and 2012 won us all the converts we're gonna get out of the right for the time being.  It's that the Left sees us as merely a variation of Conservatives that we need to counteract in order to grow our movement.

At any rate I've elsewhere on this Blog I've laid groundwork for how to convince Fundamentalist Christians to be ok with legal Gay Marriage, whether they morally approve of it or not.

Response to Al Mohler

I've done prior posts about being a Libertarian Christian.  I saw a Video on YouTube I want to respond to against Libertarian Christians.

Others have responded to this too.

It contains a lot of strawmen and misconceptions.

The interviewer keeps putting Abortion at the top of his list, Abortion is an issue Libertarians are divided on, even secular libertarians (yes secular Pro-Lifers exist).

The whole "all the Government does is enforce morality" thing is stupid.  Yes everything that even the most hardened Libertarians agree should be illegal is also immoral.  But correlation does not equal causation  Those things are immoral for the same reason their illegal, (because their harmful to another person's life liberty or property).

He makes traffic laws his example, yes it is immoral to drive like a psychopath with no concern for other people's safety.  But that's not why it's illegal, it's illegal for the same reason it's immoral, because it endangers other people.  But also traffic laws don't exist just to restrain those nuts who won't care about them anyway.  They're also there to help the people with good intent know how to drive safe.  Because if different people had different ideas on the correct thing to do in certain situations then harm could happen with no willful Sin being committed at all.

He eventually gets to the Sexual Morality.  He mentions Incest, first of all many Libertarians do oppose Incest laws.  But those that do not do so only because of the perceived harm to the child that could be conceived of it.

All libertarians are internally consistent in their belief about Vicitmless Crimes.  Or the "Non aggression Principle" a term I generally prefer not to use.  But like within any other large philosophy there are debates about certain grey areas.  And those disagreements are purely on whether or not there is a victim in a given situation, no true Libertarian knowingly allows exceptions to this principle.

He calls it Idolatrous, I think opposing Libertarianisim is Idolatrous.  It makes the State your Idol.

He does a guilt by affiliation thing with Ayn Rand who was vocally anti-Christian.  Lots of beliefs of socially conservatives Christians have ties to dangerous secular ideas too.