Like the right, the National Socialists adopted a militaristic, nationalistic state.  Like the left, the National Socialists adopted a socialistic state.

And so, right wing nationalism+left wing socialism= National Socialism.

Thus in America, policies of both right and left wing politicians combine to foster a National Socialistic-type state.

This is not to say that the left and the right in America are exactly like the Nazis.  But the similarities are far from insignificant.

Nationalism and socialism (wherever they may be found) each radically expands the state’s power of the sword, which expands the state’s ability to attack other nations, as well as to commit genocide—just as the Nazis did.

The left and right’s similarities to National Socialism are not just in these points:  Darwinism, which influenced the Nazis to commit genocide, also influences the left and right (each to varying degrees) to promote infanticide.

National Socialists approved of sodomy (and their leadership was infected by it), as do the left and right (again, to varying degrees).  National Socialists believed the state was the solution to nation’s problems, as do the left and the right (in one way or another).

The ultimate problem is that like the National Socialists, the left and right deny Christ is Lord over all (including civil government), and refuse to conform their political platform to His law.

Unless they repent, they will continue leading the nation down a path of destruction.  God does not bless national rebellion.  The history of mankind testifies to this.

But the problem (ultimately) is not with liberals, but with those of us who profess Christ as Lord.  We are supposed to set the standard by being a light to the world (Matt. 5:14), and this entails acknowledging that Jesus is Lord over all things (Matt. 28:18), and living according to, and teaching, the law of God (Matt. 5:17-20; Deut. 4:5-8).

But instead, many professing Christians let the world set the standard for them.

In the political realm, many if not most Christians reject the idea that civil government should officially recognize Jesus as the King of Kings, and the only true God.  This is because they embrace political polytheism; they hold to a pluralistic philosophy of the state.

Political pluralism and polytheism both blasphemously base civil law on the notion that all gods are equal, and thereby all laws—whether moral or immoral—are equal.

Thus, in agreeing with non-Christians that our legal system should be based on the views of many religions (i.e., agreeing with the will of the people and not the will of God), there is a sinful desire to be like the other nations (like in 1 Sam. 8:5, 20)—in this case, like non-Christian Americans.

But in the civil realm (as with all realms), prioritizing the will of the people over God is a rejection of God:

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.’ But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, ‘Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.’” (1 Samuel 8:4-7)

Darwinism falsifies itself in not living up to its “survival of the fittest” philosophy.

If Darwinism is true, the very nations that hold to Darwinism—the secular humanist West—would possess the greatest population rates.

This is because if this were a Darwinian world,  the West’s “enlightened” knowledge of Darwinism (not to mention, for example,  its superior technological advancements) would be evidence that the West is more evolved than the rest of the world.

But the more the West embraces Darwinism, the more it self-destructs.  Today, Westerners either have very few children, no children at all, or murder their children.  Muslims—whom Darwinists consider primitive—are gradually taking over Western nations via birthrates.

Thus, Darwinism is self-defeating. The Darwinian secular humanist nations–which hold to “survival of the fittest”–are the least fit to survive, i.e., populate.

Perhaps they’ll more likely survive if they repent, give up their Darwinian worldview, turn to Christ, and embrace the Christian worldview.

^“And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”

However, this is voluntary benevolence—not coercion, which socialism requires of the state.   Thus contrary to socialism, the apostles did not squeeze money out of well-off Christians with threats of imprisonment or death.

Moreover, Acts 2:44, 45 involves the church—not the state.  We cannot determine state policy by examples of what the church did.

To do so would violate the biblical basis for separation of church and state (2 Chronicles 19:11).  (Separation between church and state is different than separation between God and state.  While the church does not rule over the state, the state must acknowledge God and His law [Ps. 2:10-12; Eph. 1:20-22; Rom. 13:1-4].)

If the socialist insists on basing socialism on a text meant for the church, then logical consistency demands that he also bases socialism on all texts meant for the church.

This would undermine socialism, though, since the Apostle Peter affirmed Ananias and Sapphira’s private property rights.

When Peter confronted Ananias for his dishonesty regarding the proceeds of a piece of property that he sold, Peter acknowledged Ananias’ right to that property, saying:

^“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4a)

Not only this, but if fully consistent, the socialist must also insist that it the duty of the state to engage in such things as administering the sacraments, and handling church discipline (e.g., excommunication).

This, of course, is extreme, but nevertheless the logical outworking of using the Bible to justify socialism.  Indeed, socialism itself is extreme.  It leads to economic instability at best, genocide at worse (consider Stalin, Lenin, and Mao).

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

Prior to the conception of John the Baptist, his father was told by an angel that John “will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15b)

One must have a  soul to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Neither do those without souls leap for joy within the womb, as John the Baptist did:

“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.’” (Luke 1:39-44)

This brings us to another point:  There are those who justify abortion by  attempting to distinguish between being a human being and being a person.  (A distinction that we reject.)

In this view, being a human being is not enough to have a right to live; one must be a “person” as well.  Therefore, they claim, unborn children have no right to live, since they supposedly do not possess “personhood.”  According to these pro-abortionists, one of the criteria for being a person is the ability to experience emotion.

But as the example of John the Baptist shows, John the Baptist experienced emotion in the womb—he “leaped for joy.”

Of course, neither the ability to experience emotion nor arbitrary definitions of personhood are the standards for whether someone should have human rights.  The standard is whether someone is human, period.

That the unborn have souls is proof enough that they are human, and deserve protection.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3