Comissão: Requisito Fundamental do Pregador Reformado

O requisito fundamental para o pregador, na concepção reformada, é comissão. A pregação pública do evangelho é tarefa primordial dos ministros da Palavra, isto é, de homens chamados por Deus, reconhecidos como tais pela igreja, e ordenados por imposição de mãos de um presbitério para o ofício. "Pregação", escreveu Lloyd-Jones, "não é alguma coisa que um homem decide fazer. O que acontece, isso sim, é que ele se torna consciente de um chamado".[i] As razões bíblicas para esse requisito já foram consideradas, e podem ser assim resumidas: primeiro, o próprio termo grego para pregador designa um porta-voz especial mente comissionado para a proclamação pública oficial da vontade do soberano que representa; segundo, no Novo Testamento, apenas pessoas comissionadas por Deus especificamente para a tarefa (Cristo, João Batista, apóstolos e evangelistas) são encontradas como sujeitos legítimos do verbo em grego; terceiro, de acordo com Romanos 10: 15, pregação pressupõe comissão: "E como pregarão se não forem enviados?”[ii]. A advertência divina em Jeremias 23 :21 ,31-32 revela o que Deus pensa a respeito da intromissão desautorizada no ministério da Palavra: "Não mandei esses profetas, todavia eles foram correndo; não Ihes falei a eles, contudo profetizaram ... Eis que eu sou contra esses profetas, diz o Senhor, que pregam a sua própria palavra, e afirmam: Ele disse. Eis que eu sou contra os que profetizam sonhos mentirosos, diz o Senhor, e os contam, e com as suas mentiras e leviandades fazem errar o meu povo; pois Eu não os enviei, nem Ihes dei ordem..."

Isto não significa que os crentes de modo geral não possam evangelizar e testemunhar da esperança que neles há, individual e informalmente. É dever de todo crente estar preparado para explicar as razões da sua fé (1 Pe 3: 15). Também não significa que não possam instruir-se, aconselhar-se, exortar-se, encorajar- se e confortar-se mutuamente (conferir Colossenses 3: 16 e I Tessalonicenses 5:11,14). Significa, sim, que apenas aqueles que foram comissionados interna e externamente por Deus, estão por Ele autorizados para, em nome dele e com a autoridade dele, se levantar publicamente e solenemente proclamar: "Assim diz o Senhor", pois para isso foram autorizados.

Esse é o ensino reformado sobre o assunto. Lutero, por exemplo, afirma no seu comentário sobre a Epístola aos Gálatas:

"A vocação [para o ministério] não deve ser assumida leviana- mente, pois não é suficiente que uma pessoa tenha conhecimento. Ele precisa estar certo de haver sido devidamente vocacionado. Aqueles que exercem o ministério sem a devida vocação almejam bom propósito, mas Deus não abençoa os seus labores. Eles podem ser bons pregadores, mas não edificam".[iii]

Comentando Romanos 10:15, "como pregarão se não forem enviados?", Lutero escreve:

Isso é dirigido contra todos os mestres presunçosos e instrutores arrogantes. Essas quatro assertivas (10: 14-15) seguem-se de tal modo que uma conduz à outra, mas de maneira que a última se constitui no fundamento sobre o qual as demais se firmam. Logo, 1. É impossível que preguem aqueles que não forem enviados. 2. É impossível que ouçam aqueles que não têm um pregador. 3. É impossível que creiam em quem não ouvem. 4. É impossível que invoquem Aquele em quem não crêem. A essas, deve ser acrescentada uma última, qual seja: 5. É impossível que aqueles que não invocam o nome do Senhor sejam salvos. Assim, portanto, toda a fonte e origem da salvação dependem disso: que Deus comissione alguém (um verdadeiro ministro da Palavra). Se Ele não enviar alguém, então aqueles que pregam o fazem falsamente, e a pregação deles não é, de modo nenhum, pregação... Com essa citação o apóstolo mostra que só podem pregar aqueles que forem enviados (por Deus). Não podem pregar a Palavra divina e ser mensageiros de Deus aqueles que não forem enviados e a quem não foi confiada a sua Palavra.[iv]

Calvino também trata do assunto. Ele afirma nas Institutas que "ninguém deveria assumir um ofício público na igreja, sem um chamado (Hebreus 5:4; Jeremias 17: 16). Portanto, para que qualquer homem seja considerado um verdadeiro ministro da igreja, deve primeiro ser devidamente chamado; e, em segundo lugar, deve responder ao seu chamado, isto é, deve assumir e desempenhar o ofício que lhe for designado".[v] Comentando Jeremias 29:30-32, ele observa que Semaías foi condenado, "porque assumiu o ofício profético, sem um chamado"; e conclui:

"Ninguém deve ser considerado um mestre legítimo, a não ser que demonstre que foi chamado do alto. Eu já mencionei em diversas ocasiões que a vocação tem dois aspectos; a vocação interna foi primordial quando a igreja estava em estado de desordem... Mas, quando a igreja está correta e regularmente formada, ninguém pode arrogar-se pastor ou ministro, a não ser que seja também chamado pela escolha de homens".[vi]

Thomas Smith, biógrafo de Calvino, observou que “a autoridade para pregar o evangelho também procede da comissão que Cristo deu a todos a quem ele, na qualidade de único Cabeça da igreja, a quem todo o poder foi dado nos céus e na terra, qualificou para a tarefa”.[vii] Sinclair Ferguson, no prefácio de A Arte de Profetizar, de Perkins, afirma que "para Perkins, profetizar [pregar] é tarefa do ministro do evangelho, como alguém colocado na grande sucessão dos profetas bíblicos e apóstolos que, expuseram a Palavra de Deus..."[viii] Charles Bridges adverte que "onde o chamado é manifesto, a promessa é assegurada. Mas se formos sem ser enviados, nossos labores não serão abençoados".[ix] Ele acrescenta:

Na antiga dispensação, a intromissão [desautorizada] no ofício sacerdotal era considerada a mais perigosa presunção (ver Números 18:7 e 2 Crônicas 26: 16-20). Também não constitui um ato de menor usurpação assumir, sem autorização, autoridade na igreja de Cristo. Nosso próprio Cabeça apresentou-se com autoridade delegada, e não auto-comissionado... (Isaías 48:16; 61:1; João 8:16,42)... Não podemos conceber um arauto, um embaixador, um mordo mo, um vigia, um mensageiro, um anjo, com uma autoridade auto-comissionada... Ambas as vocações [interna e externa], embora essencialmente distintas quanto ao seu caráter e fonte, são indispensáveis para o exercício da nossa comissão... a vontade de Deus é a única norma da vocação de qualquer homem, e o único portão pelo qual ele pode entrar para o Ministério. [x]10

Os símbolos de fé presbiterianos também atribuem aos ministros da Palavra o ofício da pregação e do ensino. A Forma de Governo Eclesiástico Presbiteriano reconhece quatro ofícios ordinários ou permanentes na igreja: "pastores, mestres, e outros governantes eclesiásticos [presbíteros], e diáconos".[xi] Aos pastores (ministros da Palavra) e aos mestres (uma especialização do ministério da Palavra) compete regularmente a leitura e pregação públicas da Palavra e a ministração dos sacramentos."[xii] Os ministros da Palavra devem ser legitimamente vocacionados e ordenados pela imposição de mãos de outros ministros da Palavra do presbitério.[xiii]" Segundo o Catecismo Maior, a pregação da Palavra de Deus é função exclusiva daqueles que foram chamados, comissionados e habilitados para esse ministério. A resposta de número 158 afirma: "A Palavra de Deus deve ser pregada somente por aqueles que têm dons suficientes, e são devidamente aprovados e chamados para o ministério".[xiv] A Constituição da Igreja Presbiteriana do Brasil define o "ministro do evangelho", como "o oficial consagrado pela igreja, representada no presbitério, para dedicar-se especialmente à pregação da Palavra de Deus, administrar os sacramentos, edificar os crentes e participar, com os presbíteros regentes, do governo e disciplina da comunidade".[xv] Já o "presbítero regente é o representante imediato do povo, por este eleito e ordenado pelo Conselho, para, juntamente com o pastor, exercer o governo e a disciplina e zelar pelos interesses da igreja a que pertencer".[xvi]

Como alguém pode certificar-se de haver sido chamado? Quais os requisitos que devem ser buscados em alguém que aspira ao episcopado? Seria o entusiasmo de jovens recém-convertidos, prazer e aptidão de falar em público, ou coisa semelhante? Obviamente, não. No terceiro capítulo da primeira carta a Timóteo e no primeiro capítulo de sua carta a Tito, Paulo relaciona urna série de qualidades necessárias ao ministério. Entre essas qualidades estão: boa reputação moral (temperança, sobriedade, modéstia, liberalidade e domínio próprio), maturidade na fé (não deve ser neófito), apego e fidelidade à Palavra (de onde provém o verdadeiro poder para exortar e convencer) e aptidão para o ensino (e para o estudo, é claro). Em adição a essas, há outras qualidades ou requisitos altamente desejáveis para o exercício do ofício específico de ministros da Palavra, mencionados pelo apóstolo em outras passagens bíblicas.

Transcrito de Introdução à Pregação Reformada, Paulo Anglada, Knox Publicações, pp. 86-91.

Jim Wallis: Consistently Applying the Two Kingdoms Theology

When Jim Wallis declares that he opposes “American exceptionalism,” no one should be surprised. Wallis’s first commitment is Marxism. He started his career in activism not as a church minister nor as a Christian, but as a member of the Students for Democratic Society, a socialist organization originally known as League for Industrial Democracy (LID). LID was started in 1905 with significant help – financially, intellectually, and organizationally – from the British Fabian Society. While the SDS was rather radical in its activity, even experimenting with domestic terrorism (some of its members became part of the Revolutionary Youth Movement and the Weather Underground Organization), Jim Wallis kept closer to the original tactics of the British Fabian Society. He took the “religious” path, assuming the clothing of a Christian church minister, as was the original goal of the Fabians, presenting his radical socialist-Marxist ideas under the disguise of Christian teachings. He, of course, continues to claim that he has nothing to do with the political labels of “left” and “right.” But his alliances and his political teachings clearly identify him as a Marxist; he is widely recognized by the liberals and the socialists in America as one of their own. And Democrat politicians, usually vehemently opposed to any kind of Christian influence in politics, willingly invite him to their meetings and have him as their speaker. There is no doubt about that: Jim Wallis is a Marxist wolf in a pastor’s clothing. He has learned to use the Bible in a way indistinguishable from the way the conservative pastors and theologians use it; while at the same time promoting the radical agenda of violent Marxism, government tyranny, and the destruction of individual liberty and private property.

And as with all Marxists out there, America’s unique Christian libertarian heritage of freedom, private property, and individual liberty is a threat to Wallis. So he has to reject any notion of American exceptionalism. America as a nation that is unique in its original purpose and founding has always been an ideological threat to Communism; it has always proven that self-government under God produces better results than tyranny under a socialist elite. Wallis must attack that Christian libertarian heritage if he wants to promote his Marxist agenda.

None of this is a surprise. The Fabian tactics of the original Fabian Socialists has been with us for a long time now, and we have learned to recognize it. But what is important for our analysis here is not so much Wallis’s agenda. It is his choice of main argument that we need be mindful of. Strangely enough, in order to promote his agenda, Wallis doesn’t need to devise a new theology. He only need to take the existing theology of the conservative evangelical pastors and leaders, and apply it consistently.

His main argument is this:

We set this up so that it would not be a Christian nation for any religious framework. . . . Where in the Bible is there a special place for America? Where do we get that that’s bad theology . . . just bad theology.

He gives additional argumentation:

There is no special covenant with America here.

And then he concludes:

Most of us in the faith community believe in religious liberty and that we should be a diverse and pluralistic nation in terms of our faith traditions and want to respect and affirm and live out of that mutual respect and collaboration. So we’re not a Christian nation. I’ve said that on Al Jazeera, on Voice of America — because I want people to know this is not a Christian nation in which other religions should be afraid.

Amazing, isn’t it? What would the Founding Fathers say about such claims? Would they agree that America is a place where all religions – including the most barbarous and bloodthirsty ones – should feel comfortable? Would the Founding Fathers accept a religion which sacrifices children to Molech? Or one that requires eating human flesh? Wallis’s claims are absurd and false, and he is way off the mark when he talks about how America was founded.

But can we blame just him?

No. Jim Wallis in fact took this main theological argument not from his Marxist books but from the words of some of those that are considered “conservative” theologians and pastors. In fact, he took it from Christian celebrities who claim to be “Reformed” but espouse the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms Theology. The rejection of the idea of a Christian nation is in fact epidemic among the “celebrities” in Reformed circles. For example, John MacArthur, considered by some to be a “Reformed” pastor only because he got one doctrine of the Reformation right – the doctrine of grace – has the following to say when he discusses “The Gospel and Politics”:

God is not calling us to wage a culture war that would seek to transform our countries into “Christian nations.”

Moreover, the next sentence sounds like coming right out of Jim Wallis’s ideological arsenal:

To devote all, or even most, of our time, energy, money, and strategy to putting a façade of morality on the world or over our governmental and political institutions is to badly misunderstand our roles as Christians in a spiritually lost world.

A culture war for a Christian nation, says MacArthur, is nothing more than “putting a façade of morality.” In his theology the spiritual war can not be a cultural war; any cultural war is by default only superficial, not spiritual.

Albert Mohler, a well-known proponent of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine, is also hostile to the idea of a Christian nation. Just like Wallis, he asks the question directly, “Is America a Christian Nation?” And he answers just like Wallis: No, it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be. Oh, yes, he admits that American citizens are overwhelmingly Christian. But those Christian citizens do not and should not work to make their nation Christian, as far as the law of the land is concerned. And just like Wallis, Mohler insists on religious pluralism with words that sound every bit the same as Wallis’s:

As America recognizes and respects the diversity of the beliefs of its citizens, we should expect to see more symbolism representing different religions rather than less. Christians should not be offended by the public display of the Menorah at Hanukkah or the display of other religious symbols at other occasions.

Mohler, like Wallis, doesn’t even stop to consider the question: “What’s wrong then with other religious traditions?” For example, that of Molech and burning little babies alive at his altar? Are we going to ban the Molech tradition if someone revived it? On what basis?

Michael Horton of the Westminster Seminary West has the same advice as Wallis: no Christian nation, it is a dangerous thing. He says:

The very idea of a Christian empire or a Christian nation was a serious confusion of these two cities.

Then he continues that Luther and Calvin opposed that idea of a Christian nation – a statement that is so blatantly absurd and historically inaccurate that one wonders what standards exactly Westminster West use to hire their “professors.” Horton, like Wallis, has a negative opinion about the idea of America as a Christian nation:

In our Christian circles in the United States today, we can discern a “Christendom” view, where some imagine America to be a Christian nation invested with a divine commission to bring freedom to the ends of the earth.

And just like Wallis, who claims there is no special place for America in the Bible, Horton believes that that “Christendom” view he criticizes actually confuses Israel’s theocracy with modern America. Of course, Israel’s theocracy wasn’t a Christian nation and therefore can’t be used in this context; but Horton has never very careful about what arguments he uses anyway.

The list of Reformed “celebrities” who agree with the Marxist Jim Wallis about America as a Christian nation can go on and on and on. After 1995, when the terminology of the “two kingdoms – previously the operational theology of the compromised churches of Nazi Germany – was revived by the faculty of Westminster West to use as a rhetorical tool against theonomy, many have adopted it, despite its obvious exegetical insufficiency. Wallis didn’t have to invent new theology. It was given to him by the conservative pastors and theologians themselves.

Why is Wallis so happy to use the arguments of the Two Kingdoms Theology for his “social gospel” agenda? After all, the critics of theonomy have always accused theonomy of being similar to the “social gospel” in its call for application of the Gospel every area of life. And yet, when it comes to the theological foundations of the Marxist “social gospel” of Wallis, and the Two Kingdoms Theology of the neo-Reformed, they are all based on the same principle: no national covenant with God, no Christian nations, no such thing as specifically Christian culture, civil government, or legal codes. What is there in the Two Kingdoms Theology which makes Wallis use it for his agenda?

It perfectly fits the goals of the Marxists.

Jim Wallis knows well one thing: The greatest obstacle to the spread of Marxism in the United States is not the limited, truncated “gospel” of pietism which calls for individual piety only and leaves the civil realm to the “natural law”; it is the consistent theology of the continuing validity of the Law of God for every area of life, called theonomy. If a nation is officially a Christian nation, if it is in a covenant with God, then it will officially acknowledge the Law of God as its legal foundation. And the Law of God is strongly opposed to any kind of socialism and statism, the true religion of Wallis. Any nation in covenant with God will apply in its legal practices and its government policies the Ten Commandments, and specifically the Eighth Commandment which prohibits theft and compulsory redistribution of wealth both by individuals and governments. Wallis knows there is no recourse against the Law of God once a nation is determined to apply it and obey it.

All that the fallen man can oppose to the Law of God is laws of men. And laws of men always fail in comparison to the Law of God. But if a nation abandons its covenant with God and denies the validity of the Law of God in our days, then the only alternative is laws of men. And when it comes to laws of men, socialism has proven that it can impose its own laws much easier and faster than any of its competitors. All that a Marxist like Wallis needs is to get God out of the way as the Lawmaker for civil government and culture. Once God is out of the way, the rest is a piece of cake: socialism and statism triumph.

And the Two Kingdoms Theology, with its rejection of theonomy and its reliance on “natural law” (as opposed to God’s Law) is the perfect starting point for him. All he needs to do is to adopt it, and apply it consistently. The neo-Reformed preachers and teachers like MacArthur, Mohler, Horton, and others have provided the tools for Wallis’s agenda. They have been inconsistent; Wallis takes their own theology to its logical end, to their own detriment, and to the detriment of their listeners and followers. Just like the churches in Germany, paralyzed by the Two Kingdoms Theology, surrendered Germany to Nazism, modern America churches, paralyzed by the same theology, are surrendering America to Marxism.

The answer to Wallis, and to his conservative accomplices, is simple: A nation doesn’t have to have a special place in the Bible to be Christian, just like a person doesn’t have to be specifically mentioned in the Bible to be a Christian. What is important is whether the Bible has a special place in the heart, culture, and the legal codes of a nation. I have shown how the argument against a Christian nation is illogical and unbiblical (“If There Can’t Be a Christian Nation, Can There Be Anything Christian at All?”). But those who reject the Law of God as their comprehensive guide to righteous action, both individually and corporately, reject God as King, and prefer men to rule over them. And Wallis and his political masters are only too happy to oblige.

Like I said elsewhere, our greatest problem in America is not socialism. Socialism, even if it achieves political power, eventually dies under its own pressure. Our greatest problem are our own Christian celebrities, popular preacher, seminary professors, pastors of big congregations, who by their positions of authority are empowered to give us false teachings concerning the Law of God, and thus dumb down our consciences concerning the application of the Gospel in all areas of life. While I am warning about this problem, Jim Wallis is taking advantage of it. And he doesn’t have to do much, for most of the work is done for him by those Christian Reformed celebrities I mentioned above. All he needs to do is apply their theology consistently.

By Bojidar Marinov

Ministro defende cumprimento da Lei do Piso em encontro de secretários

Natal - O ministro da Educação, Aloizio Mercadante, defendeu nesta quinta-feira, 8, na abertura da reunião ordinária do Conselho Nacional de Secretários de Educação (Consed), em Natal, o reajuste de 22,22 % aplicado ao piso nacional de salário do magistério. "Sei que para alguns estados e municípios, o reajuste pode ter sido forte e gerar dificuldades, mas, estamos falando de apenas dois salários mínimos", disse.

Mercadante lembrou que alguns secretários e a governadora do Rio Grande do Norte, Rosalba Carlini, que estava presente, eram parlamentares quando o piso e a forma do seu reajuste (proporcional ao custo aluno do Fundeb) foram aprovados no Congresso Nacional, em 2008. "Nós votamos na lei e não houve objeção. Ao contrário, houve um grande consenso. Se não recuperarmos o valor do piso dos professores não teremos como atrair os jovens para a carreira. E todos sabemos que somos carentes de professores em todas as etapas da educação", ponderou.

O ministro ressaltou ainda que o dispositivo da lei que assegura um terço da jornada dos professores fora da sala aula também deve ser cumprido e lembrou que o Supremo Tribunal Federal votou pela constitucionalidade da lei ao examinar uma Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade proposta por cinco governadores. "Mas é preciso discutir essa questão dentro de um processo pedagógico. A hora atividade é para melhorar a educação, a aprendizagem e para o professor avaliar seus alunos, preparar as aulas, dedicar-se à sua formação", lembrou.

Mercadante concluiu sua intervenção fazendo um apelo aos secretários estaduais para que mobilizem suas bancadas parlamentares para aprovar com urgência o Plano Nacional de Educação para o período 2011-2020. "É fundamental aprová-lo este ano. Não podemos nos dar por satisfeitos. Precisamos aumentar os recursos para a educação", disse.

Neste sentido, o ministro ainda apelou aos secretários para que componham uma grande mobilização pela vinculação dos recursos do Pré-Sal para a educação. "Não podemos perder esta oportunidade".

Aloizio Mercadante passa esta quinta-feira em Natal. Depois da abertura da reunião do Consed, ele participa da entrega de 120 ônibus do programa Caminho da Escola, adquiridos pelo governo do estado. Anuncia também a construção de três novos campus do Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Norte, nos municípios de Canguaretama, Ceará-Mirim e São Paulo do Potengi. 

Fonte: http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17569

Chuck Smith Says the End is Near – AGAIN!

Chuck Smith is predicting that the end is near – again! At a three-day conference, with 8000 in attendance and the usual suspects misinforming thousands about Bible prophecy, Smith, the founder of Calvary Chapel, delivered “a strong message of hope in a fallen world,” the Christian Post reported. And what is the message of hope?

“We’re on the verge of, it looks like, a war in the Middle East that could expand into a global conflict of nuclear proportions. The economy is tanking. Many nations are on the verge of bankruptcy and our own nation is so many trillions of dollars in debt. It’s just amazing.”

How is a “global conflict of nuclear proportions” a “strong message of hope”? It’s simple. Smith believes Jesus is on the verge of returning to “rapture” His church so Christians won’t have to go through this period of tribulation. Here’s Smith in his own words:

“How can you make, you say, all these dire predictions with a smile on your face? Well, because the outlook for the Church is very bright. We’re almost there and I know how this story ends and that it’s always comforting when you know that it ends and ‘they all lived happily ever after.’”

 I wonder if the 8000 people in attendance at the conference know about Chuck Smith’s penchant for date setting going back nearly 40 years. I wonder if the Christian Post reporter knows of Smith’s poor prophetic track record. Maybe he’s too young to know the history.

In his 1976 book The Soon to be Revealed Antichrist Chuck Smith writes, “we are living in the last generation which began with the rebirth of Israel in 1948 (see Matt. 24:32–34).” You will search in vain in the three verse’s Smith references to find any mention of “the rebirth of Israel.” He repeats the claim in his 1978 book End Times: “If I understand Scripture correctly, Jesus taught us that the generation which sees the ‘budding of the fig tree,’ the birth of the nation of Israel, will be the generation that sees the Lord’s return. I believe that the generation of 1948 is the last generation. Since a generation of judgment is forty years and the Tribulation period lasts seven years, I believe the Lord could come back for His Church any time before the Tribulation starts, which would mean any time before 1981. (1948 + 40 – 7 = 1981).”[1] If this prophetic math sounds familiar, it’s because the same end-time logic was used by Hal Lindsey in The Late Great Planet Earth in1970.

In order to cover himself against charges of date setting, Smith wrote that “it is possible that Jesus is dating the beginning of the generation from 1967, when Jerusalem was again under Israeli control for the first time since 587 B.C. We don’t know for sure which year actually marks the beginning of the last generation.”[2] A 1967 starting point to begin calculations and a 40-year generation would mean the rapture should have taken place before 2000. While it sounds like Smith is simply engaging in conjecture, in his book Future Survival, which was first published in 1978 and updated in 1980, his prophetic dogmatism is retained:

We’re the generation that saw the fig tree bud forth, as Israel became a nation again in 1948. As a rule, a generation in the Bible lasts 40 years. . . . Forty years after 1948 would bring us to 1988.[3]

Keep in mind that it’s not only important to show where Smith was wrong in his predictions, it’s crucial that we understand that he is using an interpretive model that leads him to make these predictions.

Smith wrote in 1980 that from his “understanding of biblical prophecies, he was “convinced that the Lord [would come] for His Church before the end of 1981.” He did add that he “could be wrong” but went on to say in the same sentence that “it’s a deep conviction in my heart, and all my plans are predicated upon that belief.”[4] Notice the last statement. He may have voiced some doubts, but actions speak louder than words. He made plans based on his beliefs that were founded on his “understanding of biblical prophecies.”

On December 31, 1979, Smith told those who had gathered on the last day of the year that the rapture would take place before the end of 1981. He went on to say that because of ozone depletion Revelation 16:8 would be fulfilled during the tribulation period: “And the fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.” In addition, Halley’s Comet would pass near Earth in 1986 and would wreak havoc on those left behind as debris from its million-mile-long tail pummeled the planet.[5] Here’s how Smith explained the prophetic scenario in his book Future Survival which is nearly identical to what appears on the taped message:

The Lord said that towards the end of the Tribulation period the sun would scorch men who dwell upon the face of the earth (Rev. 16). The year 1986 would fit just about right! We’re getting close to the Tribulation and the return of Christ in glory. All the pieces of the puzzle are coming together.[6]

Nothing significant happened in 1986 related to Halley’s Comet, and there is no reason why it should have since it’s been a predictable phenomenon for more than two millennia as it makes its way around the sun every 75 to 76 years.

 To be fair, in a March 30, 1989 interview with William Alnor, Smith admitted that he “was guilty of coming close” to “date setting,” and this was wrong.[7] But when we look back over Smith’s statements about the timing of specific prophetic events, we can see that he did more than come close to date setting. He wrote, “We’re the generation that saw the fig tree bud forth, as Israel became a nation again in 1948.” We are now more than 60 years removed from the 1948 founding of Israel. The interpretive methodology used by Smith, Lindsey, Dave Hunt, and others making the 1948–1988 connection was fundamental to their claim that they were following a literal hermeneutic. If a literal hermeneutic results in near certainty of when prophetic events will take place but ends in a colossal miscalculation on a key element of their system, how should the interpretive methodology that brought them to that calculation be evaluated? To paraphrase Jesus, “An interpretive tree is known by its fruit, and the 1948–1988 generation has turned out to be rotten fruit no matter how it’s sliced.”

Em defesa de uma moralidade legislada

Um dos mitos mais absurdos do nosso tempo é que “você não pode legislar moralidade”. Nada poderia estar mais longe da verdade. Toda lei é uma moralidade legislada.

Leis são promulgadas para proteger pessoas e propriedades ou para promover a saúde e a segurança. Leis dizem que algo é bom, então a sociedade a protegerá, ou que algo é mau, e portanto será regulado ou punido. Leis contra roubo e assassinato são declarações morais sobre o direito à propriedade privada e sobre a santidade da vida. Até mesmo um sinal de pare é uma lei moral. Um sinal de pare diz que você não tem o direito de arriscar a vida de outras pessoas por dirigir de maneira imprudente. Muito tem sido dito em anos recentes sobre aborto e atividades homosseuxais como passando de um pedido de aceitação para um status legal favorecido. Isso é verdadeiro e representa uma progressão lógica. Primeiro, o homossexualismo e o abordo foram exigidos como direitos, isto é, a moralidade como vista pela lei foi buscada e adquirida. Então, favores e proteções para o que a lei considera moral e digno de proteção têm sido progressivamente exigidos e concedidos. A exigência da liberação do casamento gay é baseada nos “direitos” concedidos pela decisão moral anterior.

Não podemos legislar pessoas morais, mas legislaremos moralidade. Leis contra roubo e assassinato nunca foram feitas para tornar alguém melhor, nem pretendem fazê-lo. Elas têm o intuito de dissuadir as pessoas imorais de um comportamento imoral por meio do medo da justiça. Nem parar num sinal de pare faz você uma pessoa moral; o intuito não é torná-lo moral, mas fazer você dirigir de uma forma que proteja a vida e propriedade dos outros. Os magistrados, diz o apóstolo Paulo, devem ser um terror para os malfeitores; seu propósito é controlar as pessoas que querem fazer o que a lei diz ser errado.

Não é apenas o anti-cristianismo de fora que é o nosso problema hoje; estamos também lutando contra o elemento anti-lei de Deus (antinomiano) que tem atacado o Reino de Deus dentro dos seus próprios portões.

A moralidade sobre a qual nossas leis são baseadas são sempre religiosas em natureza. A ética moral de um cristão será diferente daquela de um humanista, ou hindu, ou muçulmano. Quando mudamos de religão, nossa moralidade mudará e nossas leis eventualmente reflitirão isso. Temos visto uma mudança progressiva da fé e lei cristã para uma lei mais vigorosamente humanista em décadas recentes.

O inverso também é verdade. Quando mudamos nossa moralidade, estamos mudando nossas pressuposições religiosas, e nossa própria religião é mudada. Não é apenas o anti-cristianismo de fora que é o nosso problema hoje; estamos também lutando contra o elemento anti-lei de Deus (antinomiano) que tem atacado o Reino de Deus dentro dos seus próprios portões.

Todos cremos na lei, de forma que todos cremos em legislar moralidade. Eu creio na moralidade de Deus. Em qual moralidade você crê?

Por Mark Rushdoony

Tradução: Felipe Sabino

Mercadante defende piso dos professores como uma questão de valorização

“A questão do salário do professor não é apenas trabalhista, mas uma questão de valorização”, afirmou o ministro da Educação, Aloizio Mercadante, durante audiência pública realizada nesta quarta-feira, 29, na Comissão de Educação, Cultura e Esporte do Senado Federal. Ao defender o piso nacional dos professores, o ministro observou que a docência deve ser uma carreira bem remunerada e valorizada, caso contrário não será possível trazer os melhores profissionais para as escolas.

Mercadante fez uma exposição sobre as principais metas e diretrizes do Ministério da Educação, apresentando os planos da pasta, desde a educação infantil até a pós-graduação. Também fizeram parte da mesa o presidente e o vice-presidente da comissão, Roberto Requião (PMDB-PR) e Paulo Bauer (PSDB-SC).

No debate, o ministro apontou a importância da alfabetização até a idade de oito anos. De acordo com ele, a alfabetização – saber ler e escrever e fazer contas matemáticas simples – na idade certa permitirá melhor desenvolvimento no restante do processo educacional, reduzindo a evasão escolar. “Alfabetização na idade certa tem que ser a prioridade das prioridades deste país. Temos que atacar esse problema na origem e olhar para a valorização e capacitação dos 200 mil profissionais que fazem a alfabetização.”

Entre os temas de sua apresentação, o ministro fez questão de dedicar especial atenção ao uso de novas tecnologias e ideias inovadoras na sala de aula, entre eles o projetor digital e os tablets, que serão distribuídos às escolas e professores. Para Mercadante, a escola precisa ser o caminho de acesso do jovem aos recursos tecnológicos, para que ele tenha maior acesso ao conhecimento. “É preciso educar nossos jovens para o século 21”, disse.

Um programa nacional a ser lançado, sobre educação no campo, pretende impedir que escolas sejam fechadas nas zonas rurais, além de aumentar a escolarização da população dessas regiões. O projeto prevê a distribuição de material didático voltado para o campo, formação inicial e continuada de professores, educação de jovens e adultos, educação tecnológica voltada para atividades rurais, além de empreendedorismo e atendimento a escolas quilombolas.

Diego Rocha

Libertarianism: A Presuppositional Approach

In my libertarian activities in Bulgaria I often had to confront questions by secular libertarians about the connection between Christianity and libertarianism. My reply was that one can not be a libertarian without the true source of liberty. And the true source of liberty is Jesus Christ. Therefore I can not be a libertarian without Christ. I wrote about it in an earlier article, “Can I be a Libertarian Without Christ?”I also showed in other articles that there is no true libertarianism without Christianity. Secular libertarianism can not defend private property (“Classical Liberalism Has No Place to Stand”; “The Only Possible Defense of Private Property”). It can not present a consistent intellectual defense of liberty (“No Other Single Principle but God and His Image in Man”). It has to borrow all its presuppositions from Christianity to be able to stay coherent and consistent (“Is There a Non-Christian Way to Fly a Plane?”). Not that I am an original thinker who came to this conclusions on my own; I learned from men greater than me. R.J. Rushdoony has shown in many of his books and articles that secular humanism and paganism, when developed to social theory, can not produce anything but statism; it can not produce ideas of individual liberty, rights, property, or limited government, the essence of libertarianism. Gary North has shown in his economic commentaries, as well as in his Political Polytheism, that in the political realm the conflict between God and Satan is translated in a conflict between Moses and Pharaoh: the decentralized, libertarian social order based on individual self-government vs. the centralized, statist order based on central planning and government control. And indeed, these two theonomic writers have based their social theory on the Law of God in the Bible; and the Law of God clearly speaks against centralization of power, and places the burden of social government on the individual, the family, the church, and only lastly, and in a limited way, on the civil government. And even then, the civil government is limited to local decentralized units, the cities.
The history of the Christian civilization also shows that Christians in the past have understood the Biblical political mandate for political decentralization and individual liberty. It was Bishop Ambrose who first told an Emperor that he has no right to enter a private person’s home, a statement that was nothing less than revolutionary for the world at the time. Europe – unlike the non-Christian civilizations in history – never united politically. Quite the opposite, it developed to perfection the ideal of the republic: the complete decentralization of powers, even to the point of judicial and legislative independence of the smallest social units like universities and villages. And of course, it was the abandonment of the Christian political ideals that led back to the centralization of political power and the loss of individual liberties in Europe. The history of the American Republic is another great example of Christian political ideals applied in practice: political decentralization, individual liberty, private property, self-government at every level, extremely limited central government.
Libertarianism as a political philosophy, with its ideals of limited government, individual liberty, private property, free markets, self-government, was a product of the European Christian civilization. And it was not a mere coincidence, nor chance. Libertarianism was the logical outcome of the development of the Christian social theory.
Given all that, I have never thought that I would ever meet Christians – theonomic Christians at that, or at least claiming to be theonomic – who would reject the idea that a Christian is by default libertarian. Now, of course, I have met non-theonomic Christians who have statist views – but that’s because they reject the Law of God as valid today, and therefore need to go to the state for their source of law and social order. If God is not the source of law, then it is going to be the state, that is logical.
But theonomic Christians, anti-libertarian? And yet, I met a few of them, speaking against libertarianism with arguments not based on Biblical presuppositions, nor on systematic Biblical theology. At the end, of course, eventually, the argument comes to trying to achieve godly goals – which is the “theonomic” part of the argument – through statist means, that is, more government control, centralized government, and less individual liberty. Somehow the Biblical ideal of self-government and decentralization has been replaced by “godly” statism. Moses has been replaced by a Pharaoh who is supposed to stop abortion and punish sodomy.
The main argument, of course, against libertarianism, starts like this:
“Many libertarians believe…”
That is, because there are people out there who call themselves “libertarians” but hold to some anti-Christian views, therefore Christians should reject libertarianism. In other words, our acceptance of a concept should be based on reactions to what other people are doing, not on whether the concept is in agreement with the Biblical presuppositions.
Seldom do the critics stop to think that such argument applied across the board should lead us to abandon almost every concept, practice, or area of dominion out there. Let’s see:
Many scientists believe that science is incompatible with Christianity. Therefore Christians should reject science as a concept.
Many pagan religions teach patriarchy; it was the center of the social life in pagan Greece and Rome; and in fact, it is central to one of the worst rivals of Christianity, Islam. Therefore Christians should abandon the concept of patriarchy.
Many politicians and political theorists believe that religion should not mix with politics. Therefore Christians should stay out of politics.
Many businessmen believe the moral rules of the Bible to not apply to business. Therefore business can not be a Christian undertaking.
The majority of movie makers in the world are anti-Christian. Therefore Christians should not be involved in making movies.
Many lawyers in the US are self-consciously anti-Christian and believe that legal theory should be divorced from any Christian influence. Therefore there can not be such a thing as a “Christian attorney.”
And so on.
Even worse, such attitude can make Christians be easily manipulated by their cultural enemies. What if enough secular humanists start gathering together on Sunday morning for a mock worship and call their gatherings “church services”? Many secularists have church on Sunday morning. Do we abandon the very concept of a church service because of that? Or, many sodomites call their perverted cohabitation with a person of the same sex “marriage.” Do we abandon the institution of marriage then?
And then, the other argument against libertarianism is a version of the first one: “The definition of libertarianism doesn’t include anything that points to Biblical presuppositions.”
A definition by whom? Usually it turns out it is the definition by Wikipedia, or by the Libertarian Party, or some other non-Christian source. Of course. The definition of “science” given by Wikipedia or by Richard Dawkins doesn’t include anything that points to Biblical presuppositions. We should expect that atheists will twist all the definitions of every good thing out there to erase any Biblical presuppositions from them. But does that make science “anti-Christian” in itself? Do we oppose science as a concept just because of Richard Dawkins and Wikipedia?
But no matter what Richard Dawkins or Wikipedia say about science, are there any non-Christian presuppositions that can lead to the emergence of science as we know it? That’s the question we should ask. That’s the question that a Christian who uses a presuppositional approach should ask about every concept, practice, or idea.
And therefore, our Biblical presuppositional approach to libertarianism must start with the very presuppositions for libertarianism, and the origin of those presuppositions.
Libertarianism, of course, is first and foremost not a religion; it is a political and social philosophy. It is primarily concerned with how the society must be ordered, and how the political order – the civil government – should be established and organized. As a political philosophy, libertarianism in all its forms and nuances promotes the following three principles: freedom from coercion, individual liberty, and the defense of private property. (One may notice that these three correspond to the three basic rights considered by the Founding Fathers to be given by the Creator: Life, Liberty, and Property.) Given the fact that in all societies from the beginning of time the main danger to these three principles of social and political organization has been the political order, or the state, libertarianism has a very specific negative principle in its foundation: limited government, that is, political order that has very limited functions in a society, and also decentralized government, that is, a system of checks and balances, and also of competition between the levels and the institutions within the political order itself. It is important to note that the principle of limited and decentralized government is not conditioned by what kind of government it is, good or bad. Centralized tyrannical government which rules well by good legislation is just as undesirable and immoral for a libertarian as a centralized tyrannical government which rules tyrannically by bad laws. Libertarianism looks to the individual and his self-control as the foundation for the social order.
What are the presuppositions for these principles of libertarianism as outlined above? Do they come from the Bible? Or do they come from any pagan religion or secularist philosophy out there? Or are they shared as presuppositions between the Bible and the pagan religions – which, of course, will mean that there is no antithesis between the Bible and the pagan religions?
A careful analysis of these principles of libertarianism will show us that none of them can be found anywhere in any pagan religion or secular ideology. First of all, of course, there is no pagan religion that looks at the individual as an entity of itself which has a transcendent right to life, liberty, or property. Pagan religions are by default humanistic, that is, unlike the Biblical faith, they do not create human worshipers of a transcendent God. The pagan deities are looked at as serving humans in their human pursuits. “Worship” is not true worship in the Biblical sense, serving a transcendent, absolute God. It is only a means to manipulate and “bind” a deity to do the bidding of a human being. And this bidding is usually set against a universe of other human beings whose will and person must be subdued. Pagans call to their gods when they need to win a battle, plunder a city, prosper economically at the expense of others, or manipulate others to do their bidding. The ultimate example of it is the voodoo practice or manipulating another person against their personality and will through a doll which represents the victim. The gods are not there to provide liberty for another person; nor are they there to enforce an objective, transcendent moral order which favors no person.
Pagan religions, therefore, are always religions of power. The morally high ground is the ground which allows for oppression, manipulation, and immoral appropriation of another person’s property or of the fruits of their labor. If they are not religions of power, they are religions of escapism, of completely erasing the individuality of the worshiper himself, and therefore of surrendering all rights or claims to life, liberty, or property. It is only natural that the end result of all pagan religions is not liberty nor anything close to as libertarian society but an empire: a world of rulers and ruled, a society whose moral order is completely subservient to the ruler or the ruling class.
Secular humanism is not any better than that. It’s ideals do not look at the individual as an entity which deserves to have its own fulfillment or ideals. As the Humanist Manifesto III puts it, “Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.” An individual is not “fulfilled” if he serves his own ideals. Neither is he “fulfilled” if he serves divine ideals. The individuals has existence and fulfillment only insofar as he serves the collective humanity, the total entity of humans. Of course, the final end of all secular humanism is a society where an elite class controls the individuals and sets the goals and the ideals for all. Life, liberty, and property can have any meaning only in the context of the collective existence and the goals of the ruling class. There is no place for libertarianism in secular humanism.
Only in the Biblical worldview can libertarianism’s ideals and principles find presuppositional support and vindication. Only the Bible explicitly establishes the right of the individual to be secure in his life, liberty and property. Only the Bible explicitly subject the political order to the same requirements as the individual. Only the Bible mandates the decentralization of the society into different levels and institutions of government. As R.J. Rushdoony pointed out, the Biblical social order doesn’t limit “government” to civil government only; it establishes the equal ultimacy of the different governments in the society – self, family, church, state. A Biblical social order is therefore a libertarian social order: where the civil government is only minimal, just as the libertarians want it. Rushdoony actually used quite strong words about the libertarian nature of the Biblical social order when he said that “theocracy is the closest thing to radical libertarianism that can be had.” The attempts of some to claim that Rushdoony did not mean it, or that he only used “libertarian” to describe his view of the Biblical social order in a conditional way, not really meaning it, are not supported by the evidence in his books. Not only did he mean that the Bible mandates a libertarian social order, he also called himself a “Christian libertarian.” And there was a good reason for that: R.J. Rushdoony knew very well that libertarianism can not come out of any pagan doctrine or religion; it is Christian by origin and by default. Just like science can only be based on Biblical presuppositions, libertarianism can only be based on Biblical presuppositions to be true libertarianism. If there are atheist scientists, who reject the Bible, they still need to borrow Christian presuppositions to do science, as Van Til pointed out; in the same way, even if there are atheist libertarians, they still need to borrow Christian presuppositions to defend their libertarianism. Without Christian presuppositions there can be no talk about lifer, liberty, or property. Without Christian presuppositions, there is only society that can be had: statism.
Gary North’s original title for his economic commentary on Exodus 1-19 was aptly called, Moses and Pharaoh. Indeed, the political battle between a centralized, statist order and a libertarian, decentralize order was not a side issue in the spiritual war. It was the very embodiment of the antithesis between the Law of God and the laws of men. God did not set out to create a theonomic society in Egypt, under Pharaoh and his centralized authority. There was no offer to Pharaoh to institute or enforce the Law of God. The thought didn’t even cross God’s mind, and God never ever envisioned a centralized order which will be theonomic. (In fact, later, in 1 Samuel 8, when the Israelites wanted a king “like the other nations,” God told Samuel that that was because they rejected God as their King.) The very foundation of a theonomic society, the Law of God, started with a clear declaration: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” A theonomic society could not be built under a centralized order; a political liberation was needed before such a society could be built. Conversely, like we saw in 1 Samuel 8, when a people start losing their faith in God, their first desire is not for more freedom but for less; they want a king to control them and rule them, and to enforce the law over them. A rejection of the libertarian social and political order can come only from a rejection of the Christian faith.
Libertarianism, therefore, is simply the political philosophy of the Bible. Men must be free from other men, and secure in their life, liberty, and property, for God’s Kingdom to be able to advance on the earth. Conversely, the alternative to libertarianism is statism, and statism is the political philosophy of paganism and secular humanism. Christians who reject libertarianism are by default statists – they do not understand, or they self-consciously reject liberty as a Biblical value for the social order.
Indeed, those professing Christians who speak against libertarianism usually defend a statist view, expecting a centralized government to take over the civil functions of the local governments, or even of the self-government of the individuals. “The Federal government,” said one of them, “must defend life, and therefore it must pass laws against abortion”; forgetting, apparently, that the defense of life in the Bible was given to the local governments (the cities), not to a centralized royal power. Not to speak about the fact that a government that protects life also takes life away. Can such power be given to a monopolist government which has no competitors? What about the cities of refuge in the Law? How would such check and balance to a judicial power work in a centralized political order? Another claims that the Federal government must enforce laws against prostitution and drug abuse; but in the Law of God these two are sins but not civil crimes. Fornication (as distinct from adultery where the innocent partner takes the adulterer to court, or from a father of a daughter who takes a rapist to court) and consumption of drugs are left to the self-control of the individuals, not to the civil government to control. Others just don’t see what the big difference is between centralized government and local governments, as long as they “enforce the Law of God.” The size of the government or the political system is believed to be morally neutral by some and not subject to the Biblical Law. (“There is nothing in the Bible against centralized government.”) Others yet believe that liberty and political decentralization must come later, after the “important things,” like sodomy and abortion, are first dealt with according to the Biblical Law, even if it takes centralized action in Washington DC to achieve it. Some even say that it is dangerous to claim that the individual must be free from government control because freedom from government control is the same as freedom from God. And others yet find the talk about taxation, the Federal Reserve, regulations, unions, etc., unnecessary and unimportant for a Christian.
All these Christians have basically surrendered to a statist view of society, whether they admit it or not, or whether the are aware of it or not. If a Christian’s political goal is not a theocratic order which is the “closest thing to radical libertarianism that can be had,” then his political goal is statism of some kind. If a Christian, in his political efforts and participation, does not aim at limiting the civil government to the size prescribed by the Biblical Law, then he is not seriously trying to establish the rule and the prerogatives of the other institutions in the society whose place the state has taken: the family and the church. Even worse than that, if a Christian does not work to destroy the centralized political power in the society and decentralize society, he is not working to expand the rule of God as the only centralized Ruler in a society. The Kingdom of God can expand only where there is maximum political and social liberty for the individual, simply because the Kingdom of God is primarily based on self-government, not on political dictate.
Such views make just as much sense as the claims that Christians should not withdraw their children from the public schools but to try to convert the public schools. One can not achieve godly goals through evil means. Godly goals can not be achieved by statist means, as Mark Rushdoony said when commenting on the libertarianism of his father. And R.J. Rushdoony said that for a Christian to be a statist is to “involve a serious contradiction.” And he also called it a “practical denial of Christ.” Indeed, in the final account, no matter how much these Christians expect a central government to enforce the Law of God, it never will. Central governments are by default a consequence of an anti-Biblical ideology; they never enforce Biblical laws; because if they did, the first thing a central government should do is to dismantle itself. The expectation that a centralized government will enforce Biblical laws is schizophrenic.
So, to summarize, libertarianism, in its presuppositions, can be only Christian and nothing else. Granted, there are many who call themselves libertarians but reject Christianity; but just like secular scientists, they are forced to borrow Christian presuppositions to be true libertarians. A Christian must be a libertarian in his political and social philosophy if he wants to be faithful to the Bible. Those professing Christians who reject libertarianism, have adopted a statist worldview, whether they admit it or not, or whether they are aware of it or not. The end of such view is more tyranny, more oppression, and more wickedness. The kingdom of God can only grow in a decentralized society where self-government is the main and first form of government. And that is libertarianism, in its pure and true form.

By Bojidar Marinov