Covetousness Is Worse Than Government Sanctioned Murder?

Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, or the right to decent housing, or the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God's commands make some things right and other things wrong. -- John Robbins

It is truly amazing when a so-called Scripturalist becomes a libertarian and then says something that is just so far beyond the pale that it approaches the level of Donald Trump's ludicrous remarks.  The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark was a Puritan who upheld the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) as the basis for civil and criminal law in our nation.  But we have Sean Gerety over at the God's Hammer blog completely rejecting the Decalogue as the basis for laws passed by the civil magistrate and replacing it with economic policy instead.  This is really nothing more than blatant liberalism and secular humanism.

Gerety says:

Many people think the worst and most pressing sin confronting our nation today is abortion.  After all, well over 54 million babies have been slaughtered since abortion on demand was first declared the “the law of the land” by the Supreme Court in 1973. Today we see videos of the butchers at Planned Parenthood wining and dining while discussing the price of fetal body parts to be sold for medical research that would have made the Nazis proud.  As grizzly and inhuman as wholesale legalized abortion is, the fact that abortion is legal doesn’t mean that a single baby must die.  A moral God fearing people would simply refuse to murder their own children.  Besides, the government isn’t lining up pregnant women forcing them to undergo abortions at gun point … at least not yet.

God's Hammer:  The Sins of Nations

Following this logic, criminal laws are unnecessary and should be done away with and so should jails and prisons.  After all, "a moral God fearing people would simply refuse...." to do anything wrong.  But how do we know what is right and wrong in the first place?  The only way to know right from wrong is from the revealed moral commands in the Bible. (Romans 3:20; 7:7). This is what both Dr. Gordon H. Clark said and what Dr. John Robbins said.  Gerety claims to be a Scripturalist and he claims to follow the theology and apologetics of John Robbins.  But even John Robbins would be appalled at Gerety's blatant disregard for the Ten Commandments and his disregard for Scripture:

Clark's ethical philosophy is also derived from the axiom of revelation. The distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes some actions right and others wrong. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong.

This may be seen very clearly in God's command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God's command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, or the right to decent housing, or the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God's commands make some things right and other things wrong.

John Robbins, "An Introduction to Dr. Gordon H. Clark,"  Trinity Review, July/August, 1993.

Further, it should be noted that the Decalogue or Ten Commandments is ordered in descending order of importance with the first four commandments, addressing what God commands in regards to Himself, taking priority over the second table of commandments, what God orders in regards to human relationships.  Although the fifth commandment is to honor one's parents and is more important than even the command not to murder, the command not to murder, commandment number six, is still a higher priority of importance than the command not to covet.  This is so simple that even a very young child can understand it.

The Westminster Confession of Faith clearly says that the obligation of the civil magistrates or civil authorities of nations is to uphold the moral law of God.  The only way to know this moral law is from the revealed commands in Holy Scripture:

CHAPTER XXIII—Of the Civil Magistrate

  1.      God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. (Rom. 13:1–4, 1 Pet. 2:13–14)

  2.      It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: (Prov. 8:15–16, Rom. 13:1–2, 4) in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; (Ps. 2:10–12, 1 Tim. 2:2, Ps. 82:3–4, 2 Sam. 23:3, 1 Pet. 2:13) so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. (Luke 3:14, Rom. 13:4, Matt. 8:9–10, Acts 10:1–2, Rev. 17:14, 16)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

It's not clear to me how Gerety decides what morals the government should be enforcing since according to his libertarian axiom, the Bible cannot be the basis for civil or criminal laws.  The only axiom of libertarianism is do not hurt anyone.  But isn't the murder of the unborn hurting babies and even the mother who murders the child?  The government selectively decides to enforce laws against stealing and certain instances of murder.  But the murder of the unborn is apparently not a violation of man's relative laws that change from one century to the next, one decade to the next, and one year to the next.  Maybe next year the government will decide that the execution of Evangelical Christians is a public good?

As for the government not forcing women to have abortions at gun point, Gerety's logic is again faulty.   That's because the government is forcing babies to die.  The unborn child is cruelly and maliciously murdered by government approved sanctions.  But the Declaration of Independence says that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Of course, Thomas Jefferson deduced these rights from the Bible.  And Jefferson rightly said that the self-evident axiom for a just government is that all men are "created equal".  Following the logic of Jefferson's argument, it would be just for a people to reject the authority of the government in regards to the abortion issue because it denies the rights of unborn children to live:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

And for those who who try to say that Jefferson was a forerunner of atheism, Jefferson clearly says that it is "nature's God" that entitles them to these rights.   (Romans 1:18-21).  Of course, natural revelation alone cannot lead to truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Matthew 4:4; Isaiah 8:20; Isaiah 55:11; Jeremiah 23:29).  The rocks cannot tell us what is right and wrong.  But it is very apparent that Jefferson deduces more from Scripture than from nature. 


Sean Gerety unwittingly places the rights of women above the unalienable rights of a child to live, have liberty, and to grow up to pursue happiness.  No one has any right to break God's law.  Governments and nations that break God's moral laws will suffer God's wrath at some point in the future.  His argument is therefore  no better than the arguments of liberals.



It is increasingly apparent that Evangelical Christians are more content to argue for their own comforts than to stand for what is right and true.  The reason the whole nation opposes an Evangelical Christian like Ted Cruz for the office of President of the United States is that everyone wants to decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong instead of believing that God alone has the authority to decide what is right and wrong (Deuteronomy 12:8).  Without the Scriptures right and wrong do not exist.  Instead what we have is arbitrary laws that men change from one minute to the next.  Donald Trump contradicts himself from one minute to the next and so do the reporters in the media.  But God's written Word never changes.  (Psalm 119:89).  God's moral law is as unchanging as God Himself because God is eternally immutable.  He is from everlasting to everlasting the same God who never changes His eternal plans or purposes (Psalm 90:1-6; James 1:17; Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19).


God can and does punish nations for their gross immorality.  There really is no reason for God to spare the United States of America.  He can wipe our nation out at any moment and there would be nothing we could do about it.  Having a strong military cannot protect a nation from God's wrath.  (Isaiah 31:1).

Psalm 59:5 (NKJV)
⁵ You therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, Awake to punish all the nations; Do not be merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah
Amos 3:6 (NKJV)
⁶ If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?

Of course, some who profess to be Christians and Scripturalists are more than willing to sacrifice unborn children in exchange for the creature comforts they will gain from having a robust economy, limited government, and libertarian licentiousness.  I would say that these people are not Christians or Scripturalists at all.

Ezekiel 33:6–9 (NKJV)

⁶ But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’ ⁷ “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. ⁸ When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. ⁹ Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

As Christians we are to warn the nation of God's coming judgment.  We cannot stand by and say nothing when millions of unborn children are murdered.  (2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 32:35).  And further, it our responsibility as Christians to stand against ungodly laws that take the lives of children who have no voice.  Sean Gerety ought to be ashamed to place women's right to murder their child above the right of the child to live.  God does not take this sort of thing lightly in my opinion.

And finally, has Gerety forgotten the doctrine of total depravity?  (Romans 3:10-23).  Only God can raise the spiritually dead.  (Ephesians 2:1-5).  The fact is God is sovereign and He has not ordained that entire nations will repent and believe.   In a civil society the criminal laws are to be based on the general equity of the Ten Commandments so that evil can be restrained by the sword of the civil authorities.   (Romans 13:1-5).  It is wishful thinking and even Pelagianism to think that people will just decide to become Christians and stop killing their babies.  It is our responsibility as Christians to stand against evil and to pass laws that preserve a Judeo-Christian value system in our nation.

Post Script:  In an earlier blog post I critiqued Gerety's liberalism and secularist views.  (See:  Sean Gerety and Co-belligerency with Van Tilians, Libertarians, Secular Humanists and Atheists.  See also:  Scripturalism, Libertarianism, Relativism and Sean Gerety).

The Trinity Manifesto -A Program for our Time, by John Robbins

The Trinity Manifesto -A Program for our Time

by John W. Robbins

PDF Download the PDF version of this review. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat installed on your system please click here on Adobe Acrobat Reader to download.

Download the E-Book version of this review.

Download the Kindle version of this review.

The fundamental crisis of the twentieth century is neither political, nor social, nor economic. It is intellectual, and the primary intellectual problem is neither metaphysical nor ethical: It is epistemological. No attempt to solve the various problems and end the seemingly interminable crises of the twentieth century will be successful unless it is recognized that the justification of knowledge is always the ultimate problem, and that unless this problem is solved, no other problem can be.

In past centuries the secular philosophers have generally believed that knowledge is possible to man. Consequently they expended a great deal of thought and effort trying to justify knowledge. In the twentieth century, however, the optimism of the secular philosophers has all but disappeared. They despair of knowledge. Like their secular counterparts, the great theologians and doctors of the church taught that knowledge is possible to man. Yet the theologians of the twentieth century have repudiated that belief. They also despair of knowledge. This radical skepticism has filtered down from the philosophers and theologians and penetrated our entire culture, from television to music to literature. The Christian in the twentieth century is confronted with an overwhelming cultural consensus-sometimes stated explicitly, but most often implicitly: Man does not and cannot know anything truly.

What does this have to do with Christianity? Simply this: If man can know nothing truly, man can truly know nothing. We cannot know that the Bible is the Word of God, that Christ died for sin, or that Christ is alive today at the right hand of the Father. Unless knowledge is possible, Christianity is nonsensical, for it claims to be knowledge. What is at stake in the twentieth century is not simply a single doctrine, such as the Virgin Birth, or the existence of Hell, as important as those doctrines may be, but the whole of Christianity itself. If knowledge is not possible to man, it is worse than silly to argue points of doctrine-it is insane.

The Age of Irrationalism

Historians have christened the thirteenth century the Age of Faith and termed the eighteenth century the Age of Reason. The twentieth century has been called many things: the Atomic Age, the Age of Inflation, the Age of Envy, the Age of Aquarius. But it deserves one name more than the others: the Age of Irrationalism. Contemporary secular intellectuals are anti-intellectual. Contemporary philosophers are anti-philosophy. Contemporary theologians are anti-theology. The irrationalism of the present age is so thoroughgoing and pervasive that even the Remnant-the segment of the professing church that remains faithful-has accepted much of it, frequently without even being aware of what it was accepting. In some circles this irrationalism has become synonymous with piety and humility, and those who oppose it are denounced as rationalists-as though to be logical were a sin. Our contemporary anti-theologians make a contradiction and call it a Mystery. The faithful ask for truth and are given absurdity. If any balk at swallowing the absurdities of the anti-theologians, they are frequently marked as heretics or schismatics who seek to act independently of God.

There is no greater threat facing the true church of Christ at this moment than the irrationalism that now controls our entire culture. Communism, guilty of tens of millions of murders, including those of millions of Christians, is to be feared, but not nearly so much as the idea that we, as Christian men, do not and cannot know truth. Hedonism, the popular philosophy of America, is not to be feared so much as the belief that logic-that “mere human logic,” to use the religious irrationalists’ own phrase-is futile. The attacks on truth, on revelation, on the intellect, and on logic are renewed daily. But note well: The misologists-the haters of logic-use logic to demonstrate the futility of using logic. The anti-intellectuals construct intricate intellectual arguments to prove the insufficiency of the intellect. The anti-theologians use the revealed Word of God to show that there can be no revealed Word of God-or that if there could, it would remain impenetrable darkness and mystery to our finite minds.

Nonsense Has Come

Is it any wonder that the world is grasping at straws-the straws of mysticism and drugs? After all, if people are told that the Bible contains insoluble mysteries, then is not a flight into mysticism to be expected? On what grounds can it be condemned? Certainly not on logical grounds or Biblical grounds, if logic is futile and the Bible mysterious. Moreover, if it cannot be condemned on logical or Biblical grounds, it cannot be condemned at all. If people are going to have a religion of the mysterious, they will not adopt Christianity: They will have a genuine mystery religion.”Those who call for Nonsense,” C.S. Lewis once wrote,”will find that it comes.” And that is precisely what has happened. The popularity of Eastern mysticism and of drugs is the logical consequences of the irrationalism of the twentieth century. There can and will be no Christian revival-and no reconstruction of society-unless and until the irrationalism of the age is totally repudiated by Christians.

The Church Defenseless

Yet how shall they do it? With only a few exceptions-really only one exception-Christendom is being taught by the irrationalists. The seminaries, which annually train thousands of men to teach millions of Christians, are the finishing schools of irrationalism, completing the job begun by the public schools and colleges. Some of the pulpits of the most conservative churches (we are not speaking of the apostate churches) are occupied by graduates of the anti-theological schools. These products of modern anti-theological education, when asked to give a reason for the hope that is in them, can generally respond with only the intellectual analogue of a shrug-a mumble about mystery. They have not grasped-and therefore cannot teach those for whom they are responsible-the first truth: “And ye shall know the truth.” Many, in fact, explicitly deny it, saying that, at best, we possess only “pointers” to the truth, or something “similar” to the truth, a mere analogy. Is the impotence of the Christian church a puzzle? Is its legalistic antinomianism a riddle? Is the fascination with Pentecostalism and faith healing among members of conservative churches an enigma? Not when one understands the sort of studied nonsense that is purveyed in the name of God in the seminaries.

The Trinity Foundation

The creators of The Trinity Foundation firmly believe that theology is too important to be left to the licensed theologians-the graduates of the schools of theology. They have created The Trinity Foundation for the express purpose of teaching the faithful all that the Scriptures contain-not warmed over, baptized, secular philosophies. Each member of the board of directors of The Trinity Foundation has signed this oath: “I believe that the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God and, therefore, inerrant in the autographs. I believe that the system of truth presented in the Bible is best summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. So help me God.”

The ministry of The Trinity Foundation will be the presentation of the system of doctrine taught in Scripture as clearly and unambiguously as possible. We do not regard obscurity as a virtue, nor confusion as a sign of spirituality. Confusion, like all error, is sin, and teaching that confusion is all that Christians can hope for is doubly sin.

Proving All Things

The presentation of the truth of Scripture necessarily involves the rejection of error. The Foundation will expose the irrationalism of the twentieth century, whether its current spokesman be an existentialist philosopher or a professed Reformed theologian. We will oppose anti-intellectualism, whether it be espoused by a neo-orthodox theologian or a fundamentalist evangelist. We will reject misology, whether it be on the lips of a neo-evangelical or those of a Roman Catholic charismatic. To each error we will bring the brilliant light of Scripture, proving all things, and holding fast to that which is true.

The Primacy of Theory

The ministry of The Trinity Foundation is not a “practical” ministry. If you are a pastor, we will not enlighten you on how to organize an ecumenical prayer meeting in your community. If you are a housewife, you will have to read elsewhere to find out how to become a total woman. If you are a businessman, we will not tell you how to develop asocial conscience. The professing church is drowning in such “practical” advice.

The Trinity Foundation is unapologetically theoretical in its outlook, believing that theory without practice is dead, and that practice without theory is blind. The trouble with the professing church is not primarily in its practice, but in its theory. Christians do not know, and many do not even care to know, the doctrines of Scripture. Doctrine is intellectual, and Christians are generally anti-intellectual. Doctrine is ivory tower philosophy, and they scorn ivory towers. The ivory tower, however, is the control tower of a civilization. It is a fundamental, theoretical mistake of the practical men to think that they can be merely practical, for practice is always the practice of some theory. The relationship between theory and practice is the relationship between cause and effect. If a person believes correct theory, his practice will tend to be correct. The practice of contemporary Christians is immoral because it is the practice of erroneous theory. It is a major theoretical mistake of the practical men to think that they can ignore the ivory towers of the philosophers and theologians as irrelevant to their lives. Every action that the practical men take is governed by the thinking that has occurred in some ivory tower-whether that tower be the British Museum, the Academy, a home in Basel, Switzerland, or a tent in Israel.

In Understanding Be Men

It is the first duty of the Christian to understand correct theory-correct doctrine-and thereby implement correct practice. This order-first theory, then practice-is both logical and Biblical. It is, for example, exhibited in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, in which he spends the first eleven chapters expounding theory and the last five discussing practice. The contemporary teachers of Christians have not only reversed the order, they have inverted the Pauline emphasis on theory and practice. The virtually complete failure of the teachers of the professing church to instruct the faithful in correct doctrine is the cause of the misconduct and cultural impotence of Christians. Twentieth-century American Christians are children carried about with every wind of doctrine, not knowing what they believe, or even if they believe anything for certain.

The chief purpose of The Trinity Foundation is to counteract the irrationalism of the age and to expose the errors of the teachers of the church. Our emphasis-on the Bible as the sole source of truth, on the primacy of the intellect, on the supreme importance of correct doctrine, and on the necessity for systematic and logical thinking-is almost unique in Christendom. To the extent that the church survives-and she will survive and flourish-it will be because of her increasing acceptance of these basic ideas and their logical implications. We believe that The Trinity Foundation is filling a vacuum in Christendom. We are saying that Christianity is intellectually defensible-that,in fact, it is the only intellectually defensible system of thought. We are saying that God has made the wisdom of this world-whether that wisdom be called science, religion, philosophy, or common sense-foolishness. We are appealing to all Christians who have not conceded defeat in the intellectual battle with the world to join us in our efforts to raise a standard to which all men of sound mind can repair.

The love of truth, of God’s Word, has all but disappeared in our time. We are committed to and pray for a great instauration. But though we may not see this reformation of Christendom in our lifetimes, we believe it is our duty to present the whole counsel of God because Christ has commanded it. The results of our teaching are in God’s hands, not ours. Whatever those results, his Word is never taught in vain, but always accomplishes the result that he intended it to accomplish. Gordon H. Clark has stated our view well:

There have been times in the history of God’s people, for example, in the days of Jeremiah, when refreshing grace and widespread revival were not to be expected: The time was one of chastisement. If this twentieth century is of a similar nature, individual Christians here and there can find comfort and strength in a study of God’s Word. But if God has decreed happier days for us and if we may expect a world-shaking and genuine spiritual awakening, then it is the author’s belief that a zeal for souls, however necessary, is not the sufficient condition. Have there not been devout saints in every age, numerous enough to carry on a revival? Twelve such persons are plenty. What distinguishes the arid ages from the period of the Reformation, when nations were moved as they had not been since Paul preached in Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, is the latter’s fullness of knowledge of God’s Word. To echo an early Reformation thought, when the plough man and the garage attendant know the Bible as well as the theologian does, and know it better than some contemporary theologians, then the desired awakening shall have already occurred.

*********

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

October 1978

- See more at:   Trinity Manifesto, The Trinity Review.

John Robbins Quote of the Day: Utilitarianism Leads to Totalitarianism

A logically competent defense of a free society requires divinely revealed information; all other defenses fail. Sennholz, almost alone among eminent free enterprise economists, rests his defense of a free society on revelation. --  Dr. John Robbins

By Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

Utilitarianism. 

Since economics is a descriptive science, those interested in defending a free society must find their means of defense elsewhere. Ludwig von Mises chose Utilitarianism. It was an odd choice for a refugee from totalitarianism, for if Utilitarianism could justify any political regime, it would surely be totalitarianism. The “greatest good of the greatest number” is a slogan that has been used to justify all sorts of (at the time) politically correct murders and depredations in the twentieth century. But Utilitarianism, though it purports to offer ethical guidance, is an ethical failure. It can provide no ethical guidance, for the calculations of pains and pleasures that it requires are simply impossible.(1) Utilitarianism commits the naturalistic fallacy as well, for the fact that men are motivated to act by pain and pleasure does not imply that they ought to be.   --  Dr. John Robbins

- See more at: The Sine Qua Non of Enduring Freedom

What most people do not get is that all this emphasis by the far left on helping the poor is not to help the poor.  It is to get their way whatever the cost.  The end justifies the means taken to get there.  According to the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, progressives are always moving the goal posts.  In other words, they are never satisfied and really do not know what the end is which they have in mind.  If they were ever to arrive at an end progressivism would cease to be progressive.

The gay/lesbian/transgender movement and atheistic socialism has made huge advances under the Obama administration, while conservative and fundamentalist religion has been openly attacked through blantantly obvious propaganda and even federal laws thinly disguised as "health care."  An example of that was the attempt to make religious institutions, which inherently oppose both homosexuality and abortion, subsidize those very immoralities and ethical violations of God's moral law through forced insurance policies covering these deviations.

The agenda of the Democratic Party was made obvious in the last Democratic convention when for a brief time the party withdrew all affirmation of faith in God as part of their platform.  In short, they openly admitted their socialist and atheistic agenda.  The Declaration of Independence, however, contains an unproven axiom that is drawn from Holy Scripture.  That axiom reads,  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."  When we throw out God's moral law and reject the Holy Scriptures as the basis for our democratic principles, totalitarianism, despotism, and communism are not far behind.  

The political tactic of the far left is to demonize the Christian worldview and portray political conservative philosophy as "McCarthyism."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Stalinists of the left are brilliant at their propaganda.  But logic seems to be lacking.  The very basis of communism is the dialectical philosophy of Hegel adopted by Marx as "dialectical materialism."  The Hegelian theory tries to synthesize polar contradictions into a new synthesis.  Such is the approach of all who despise the law of contradiction. 

What the majority of people in this nation do not realize is that the atheistic left will stop at nothing to silence the voices of conservative and fundamentalist Christians.  They will openly lie, steal, corrupt and do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda.  If you do not believe me, take a hard look at the advances they have made toward abortion, euthanasia, gay rights, trans-sexual rights, and socialistic atheism.  Of course, religion is just an opiate of the people to be suppressed.  The way to achieve this is to deny supernatural revelation and stress the "social sciences" as "general revelation" from God.  Their view is that the Bible is not really special revelation or the plenary verbal, infallible and inspired Word of God.  It is to them merely a human book with good advice.  Religion to them is a human myth that expresses itself in multi-variant forms.  You can see this through Bill Moyers and  the PBS television program based on Joseph Campbell's book, The Power of Myth.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark tackled this question in his book, Religion, Reason, and Revelation:

Is Christianity a Religion? 

Is there such a thing as religion of which Christianity is one manifestation? This question is important for two reasons: Its answer will influence and reveal what a person believes Christianity to be; and on a broader scale it will determine the method that ought to be used in formulating a philosophy of religion. Therefore let us ask the question a second time in a slightly different form. Is Christianity a species of a genus? Whether this is answered affirmatively or negatively, certain further problems are introduced. If Christianity is a species of the genus religion, how is religion to be defined and what are Christianity’s differentiating characteristics? If it is not, what sort of philosophy of religion can there be, and what sort of philosophy of Christianity can there be? Apparently the first step in examining these questions must be the definition of religion. What is religion?

Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 262-271). The Trinity Foundation.

[See also the three lectures posted at The Trinity Foundation:  Is Christianity a Religion Part 1, Part 2, Part 3].

Since Christianity is not defined by the social sciences or philosophy, a better answer must be found.  Christianity is defined by special revelation in Scripture, the only infallible rule for faith and practice.  The Bible is without error in any part of the whole.   (Acts 20:27).  The best systematic summary of the propositional truths of Scripture is to be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Moreover, the Bible claims that it is not myth, but that it is the very words of God in inscripturated form:

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (2 Peter 1:16 NKJ)

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJ)

Of course, Christianity cannot prove that the Bible is God's Word.  Since all philosophies and worldviews begin with unproven axioms, the beginning axiom for the Christian worldview is that the Bible is God's written Word (2 Timothy 3:16).  I am forever indebted to the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark for bringing this point home.  

Even more to the point, the founding fathers knew their logic well.  They understood that even democracy is founded on an axiom drawn from Scripture:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."  In other words, democractic principles cannot be proved from so-called "science" or the "social sciences."  Democracy itself is founded on God's Word, an axiom that is called "self-evident" by the founders of our nation.  It is a supreme irony that President Obama quoted these words with the thinly disguised agenda of rejecting the very Bible upon which that axiom is based.  Obama quoted it to endorse his godless and atheistic view that homosexuality is acceptable.  (Cf. Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)  Since he believes, in line with Joseph Campbell, that religion is a myth, his words that homosexuals are "created" equal rings hollow.  It is merely a propaganda device used by the president to undermine God's moral law and to promote his secularism and his atheistic agenda.

We should never forget that before God humankind has no rights.  There is only one King who can command absolute obedience.  The Tri-Personal God revealed in Scripture owes no one anything other than eternal punishment in hell.  That God grants mercy to the undeserving sinner is called "grace."  True liberty can only come to a nation when that nation truly does submit to God.  The irony is that such submission cannot come by any other means than by accepting the special revelation of God's Holy Scriptures.  Homosexuals do not have the "right" to violate God's moral law.  Any inalienable rights  we have as humans can be and must be based solely on God's Word.  Antinomianism leads only to totalitarianism.  I am not a theonomist or a reconstructionist, but I do recognize that it is impossible to be free unless freedom is defined.  The only freedom that is truly free is the freedom we have in Jesus Christ:

"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD." 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21 NKJ)

A logically competent defense of a free society requires divinely revealed information; all other defenses fail. Sennholz, almost alone among eminent free enterprise economists, rests his defense of a free society on revelation. --  Dr. John Robbins

- See more at: The Sine Qua Non of Enduring Freedom

What Is Thinking? Part 1, Lecture by John Robbins

John Robbins Quote of the Day: Most Churches Reject the Gospel

Neither the liberals nor the conservatives, the humanists nor the Arminians, have a Saviour.  The liberal "Christ," at best, is a brave soul who endures injustice rather than renounce his belief in humankind; the conservative "Christ" is a wimp who begs people to let him into their hearts.  -- John Robbins

In these days of health care for all, education for all, rights for all, and opportunity for all, it seems almost inevitable that the Gospel of Jesus Christ would be obscured by the popular religious teaching  of salvation for all.  The democratic ideals of equality and equal opportunity have  invaded theology  as well as politics.

Most churches in the United States  that call themselves Christian reject  the Gospel.  They teach, if they are liberal, that Jesus was a good man--even a martyr--but he died in no one's place; or, if they are conservative, that Jesus died in everyone's place, desires all men to be saved, and offers salvation to all.  But it really makes no difference whether a church is large, respectable, liberal, and teaches that Jesus died for no one; or enthusiastic, growing, conservative and teaches that Chris died for everyone.  The result is the same: Jesus Christ actually saves no one--no one at all.  Both liberals and conservatives agree that people save themselves by an exercise of their wills.  The conservative "Christ" makes salvation possible, if people will only let him  into their hearts; the liberal "Christ" points the way to salvation, if people will but follow his example.  Neither "Christ" saves.

The liberals are perhaps more forthright in denying the Gospel; they say that Jesus was  just a good example or a good teacher.  They don't pretend  to present a Saviour.  The conservatives  disguise the fact that they have no Gospel--no good news--by saying that God loves everyone and offers salvation to all.  But the meaning of both the liberal message and the conservative message is the same:  Neither a good moral teacher nor a mere offer of salvation saves.  Neither the liberals nor the conservatives, the humanists nor the Arminians, have a Saviour.  The liberal "Christ," at best, is a brave soul who endures injustice rather than renounce his belief in humankind; the conservative "Christ" is a wimp who begs people to let him into their hearts.

-- John Robbins, Foreword, The Atonement, by Dr. Gordon H. Clark.

Know Thyself, John Robbins