Skip to content

Is Ron Paul a Christian & why it doesn’t matter

May 21, 2007

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.–Psalm 2:10-12

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.–Psalm 118:8-9

People suddenly want to know everything about Ron Paul, and many are searching the Internet trying to learn whether he is Christian. Scoop: God’s Book of Life has not yet been opened.

According to a former aid to Congressman Paul, the candidate who’s shaking polls and unnerving neo-cons attends an Episcopalian church. He identifies himself as a Protestant. He did not identify himself in the California debate as one who does not believe in the theory of evolution.

Ron Paul has consistently demonstrated in his ten terms in Congress that he votes according to Constitutional principles, not according to the pragmatic lusts of special interests. The Constitution is his beacon and he doesn’t alter his course to win a primary. He seldom votes with the majority. He doesn’t need a job; his candidacy is about his message. But if elected, he will serve and faithfully execute his duties as President of the United States to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is a humanist document, but its wellspring is the moral law of God. Need we ask more than a president’s deference to God’s moral law? As a Reformed Christian, I bid we need not.

Principles concerning the Civil Magistrate and their Biblical authority are compactly set forth in Chapter 24 of the London Confession. The chapter consists of three brief paragraphs. First, God ordains our leaders for his own glory and the public good. Second, it is lawful for Christians to hold office–which implies that not all lawful magistrates are necessarily going to be Christians. Third, God requires his people to subject themselves to and pray for his ordained civil authorities.

Three presidential candidates–Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo–identified themselves during the California GOP debate as not believing in evolution. I would not be able to vote for any of them because I find liabilities in other areas of their thinking that would effect their conduct as president. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to oversee creation. There is more to being a Christian than declaring belief in the Biblical account of creation, although I consider this important.  Certainly in the history of God’s dealings with men through civil government,  not every ruler he appointed was a man after his own heart.

Rain falls on the just and unjust alike: common grace may be an anointed means of Godly rule, as seen in the early days of the American republic. Ron Paul invokes the same principles of individual liberty, national defense, the common good, and local, accountable government that the Framers of the Constitution evinced.

God ordained a Constitutional republic for this nation, and the nation’s first generation comported more closely to the Biblical example of how to treat people within and without our borders than any other time in our history.  Ron Paul is the only candidate declaring his fidelity to the principles honored during that time. That is why I am supporting him, and that is what I present to other Christians as the most important criterion to evaluate in a potential executive. Besides, principles in action, civil policy, and a sense of history are criteria we can competently evaluate. If you are looking merely for a professing Christian to run the country, you might as well draft Madonna.

  1. May 21, 2007 12:30 pm

    Well said.

    Would that all of our leaders understood that they are not charged with overseeing Creation. Rather, they are charged to discharge their appointed duties. In our country, those are quite limited.

  2. May 21, 2007 12:36 pm

    Precisely–or at least originally they were quite limited. And would that our voters understand that they should have separate lists of desirable traits for spouses, pastors, pin-ups, and presidents.

  3. kamelda permalink
    May 21, 2007 2:13 pm

    The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to oversee creation. ” This is so classic. And yet don’t we expect politicians to stand in the place of God….

  4. Flo Hoffman permalink
    May 21, 2007 7:59 pm

    Ron Paul is a Christian he walks the walk and doesn’t need the talk.
    He won’t use his christianity as a cataput to the Presidency. If God willing he will win. He refuses to be beholden to any group of people that would try to use him to further an agenda. This is why people admire him.
    Just my two cents,

  5. Dar permalink
    May 21, 2007 11:49 pm

    I think Flo makes a good point. Though I’m curious about his spiritual life, his virtues stand out. Ron Paul has my support and he is in my prayers.

  6. Dar permalink
    May 27, 2007 12:36 pm

    I pray for a thousand angels to protect Ron Paul. On some days I feel compelled to ask for a million.

  7. Josiah permalink
    October 2, 2007 1:27 am

    Ron Paul may not be very outspoken as a Christian, but he definitely understands the need for God in America and the attack that secularists are making on both Christianity and the constitution.

    His kingdom come, His will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

  8. October 29, 2007 3:52 am

    For the record, he was raised Lutheran, his brother Davis Paul is a Lutheran minister. He did attend an Episcopalian church for some time, and his five children were baptized in the Episcopalian church. However, he now considers himself a Baptist.


  9. October 29, 2007 3:56 am

    I meant David Paul, not Davis. Oops. Anyways, here is a quote from Dr. Ron Paul:

    “I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God.”


  10. Ormely permalink
    November 7, 2007 10:10 pm

    I am, and have been, a Ron Paul supporter for years now, precisely because of his unwillingness to vote for anything which is not Constitutionally supportable. I do have a argument with one point in the text above where it is stated that; “Third, God requires his people to subject themselves to and pray for his ordained civil authorities.” This idea is an unfortunate misinterpretation of the writings of Paul (specifically: Romans 13: 1-5) that has come down through the ages and has resulted in masses of Christians through history, being conned (usually by some civil authority) into the belief that they should be subject to “civil” authorities. The fallacy though, is that Paul was referring to the Church authorities – not the civil authorities. Paul was writing to the congregation in Rome, which was having, at the time, a rift between traditional Jews, and those believing in Christ as the Messiah (for no actual separated Christian church existed yet), as well as with a third group – gentiles – who had come to faith in Christ, and thus were associating with the synagogue, but not believing that they should have to follow all the old “Jewish” rules (including paying of the temple tax). Paul’s letter was pointing out the consequences of leading a life without faith in God, and instructing them (all in the church) on how to live within the church together, interrelate despite their differences, and work together. Part of that was that they should all be in subject to the authorities of THE CHURCH – and (as Paul writes elsewhere) specifically NOT to follow civil authority as the civil world is quite often leading a lifestyle against God’s law and will. A book by N. Nanos entitled “The Mystery of ROMANS” can give a more scholarly insight to anyone interested here. Briefly though, the actual earliest Greek texts use Greek words which infer the actual meaning to be to be subject to the “congregational authorities”. The Early church (generally 1st and 2nd century) congregation in Rome was a congregation which based the majority of their time and actions on and around the synagogue and their congregation. Indeed, the Jewish church (at that time) had significant legal civil governing authority over those within the church. The church members of the time of Paul’s writing saw the Roman Emperor as only a civil authority (albeit stronger in physical strength, but low in true authority) and certainly not one of God’s choosing – often indeed rather one of the choosing of a wicked gentile society living in opposition to God’s will.

    It was not until after Constantine’s conversion, when the politicos within the church grabbed that verse and turned its meaning around in order to justify to the uneducated masses, their crowning of certain persons as Kings, and creating the doctrine of divine authority of the King (as God’s representative in the kingdom so to speak). Kings, then being seen by the people, as God’s anointed, returned the favor to the church leaders, and provided political support for the Roman Bishop. This relationship (strained as it may have been at times) worked for centuries to keep those families of power, in power, while keeping the Pope’s politically supported. They needed each other despite their often hatred of each other. And this one passage, bastardized by the corrupt church leaders wanting their earthy castles more than a house in heaven, was used on the common people (most all of whom were illiterate in Greek and Latin) in order to use their own faith in God, against them. This idea has become so engrained in the past centuries that some modern translations of the Bible actually insert the term “civil authorities” [or the like] into the text, as if that was what the Greek said.

    Now let’s face it, such an interpretation of the passage has probably never actually sat well with any of you who are familiar with the rest of the Bible. And let’s face it, to interpret it to mean the civil authorities it just doesn’t make sense, given all the civil authorities through history (and today) which are down-right evil. Nor does such an interpretation agree with the rest of the Bible’s teachings – let alone Paul’s other writings, or even the rest of Romans for that matter.

    Indeed this was one of Hitler’s favorite passages of the Bible.

    The bottom line though is that we should personally see God’s will as our goal, and thus God’s ordained leaders (those of the church) as our leaders, and that they are over the leaders of any secular State. Yet so many of us have, for years, simply from that one misrepresented verse in the Bible, believed that we Christians are to see the church as a second-class authority under the State. The devil at work……..

    Our Constitution was drafted by people of much better character than me, but today, I do not see but one person in Washington who is cut from the same stock as our forefathers. The only Candidate I see who would restore our liberties such that we may actually practice our faith (and others, theirs), and who does not see the Federal Government as the ultimate power in our nation, is Ron Paul.

  11. November 7, 2007 10:58 pm

    I adhere to the London Confession, Ormely, which, like the Westminster Confession, holds, and I believe correctly, that Paul refers to our duties to obey the civil magistrate, as God has ordained these offices and their office holders. I will certainly post your comment but I will issue a caveat as to the competence of the hermeneutic on which you evidently rely for your take on Romans 13.

  12. Ormely permalink
    November 8, 2007 9:34 pm

    Thank you for your open-mindedness, and willingness to allow opinions not completely in harmony with your own, to be presented – allowing the people the right to examine various sides of an issue, and seek out the truth by their own means and effort. This is exactly what our country needs in our leaders –trust in the people to do the right thing without being legislated to act in some artifical way. Also, thank you for the kind reference as to the source of the foundation of your faith – the London and Westminster Confessions, and why you see Paul’s writings in a different light than I. These Calvinistic creeds have indeed helped many in Great Britain and America stay the course of the faith through many a turbulent time. The 1647 document was, of course, promulgated by the leaders of the civil magistrates (Parliament) themselves, so it is of no wonder why they would continue in the manner of the day, and hold to the position that Paul was speaking of civil authorities – to deem their positions honorable in the system which they were demanding all to swear an oath by.

    Chapter XXIII of the document (discussing the role of civil magistrates) assumes a civil government which also oversees the church (i.e the England of post-Anne Boleyn) and that the two are not separate entities, as in the US (or modern England’s reality). In England, these magistrates were/are indeed a true part of the church, and have say over many church activities, albeit not over doctrinal or theological questions and debate. Thusly, for the case of England, it would be true that Paul’s writing in Romans 13, would include such leaders – but only because they are indeed, by their civil position, also thus, leaders in the church. Therefore, in a nation, which is by law a Christian nation, by definition, the civil magistrates there are church leaders, and the point concerning Paul’s position becomes moot (for there is no distinction between the two groups in such a situation). But in a nation where the civil government is separate from that of the church government, (i.e. first Century Rome, and the USA) such is not the case. Here church leaders and civil leaders are two different groups, and independent of each othre. Still, one can only serve one master – I believe Paul chose Christ, and he was admonishing the congregation of the church in Rome to do the same and be n suject to the church authorities.

    To elaborate further on this, in subsection IV of the same chapter, it becomes less clear as to the role a magistrate would have in overseeing the church activities, should he not actually be following the regulations of the church, but the document assumes that even a heretical magistrate would act to protect the church, and the call is to still have the people be in subjection to the authority of such a magistrate. History shows us that in numerous instances, the people of Great Britain rose-up and did away with evil or unrighteous magistrates. So where was the subjection in these instances? Were the people wrong in God’s eyes when they acted to “un-subjugate” themselves and boot out the old buggers?

    Then again, the rise of an American nation which had no such intertwined church-civil governmental relationship, as did England, created a new problem, and thus the creed had to be adjusted to accommodate the American system of government. The American version of section III (and I do not know when it was changed) binds all (even non-Christian) magistrates to still work to make certain that for all the people under their charge, all religious freedoms are protected. This is somewhat odd to me in that, in the US then it appears the church (via the revised Westminster Confession of Faith) is making demand upon our magistrates, to command them to do what the church tells him each of them what he or she should do? This seems a bit backwards to me, in that (for the US), the civil magistrate has no obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the Confession of Faith, let alone abide by it. What if that civil magistrate was a Muslim? Do the people of the Church actually think that a Muslim would care about what the creed of the Christian says? This is a perfect example of why it was that Paul was not speaking of civil authorities, but rather church authorities. Indeed, the reality of the actions of so many recent American magistrates is that all too often they follow first their boss’ instructions, and do not necessarily hold to their duty to the people within their charge or estate. In fact, many civil leaders here have actively worked to hinder the free exercise of Christian faith. Are we then to simply and blindly be in subjection to their authority and follow their decrees and instructions (as the Westminster Confession of Faith would have us do) or are we to actively protect ourselves and our church against them, ignoring any laws (put forth by such magistrates) which go against the teachings of the Bible?

    To go back to the first century then, when Paul was writing his letters, the Roman government “magistrates” had no position, or authority, over that of the church leaders in so far as church activities and doctrinal belief s may have been concerned. Certainly they had potential physical power over them, but that is different. So, as I stated yesterday, the Jews (early Christians) had a completely different situation going on than that of the Christians of 17th century Great Britain. Great Britain’s leaders at the time ruled both civil and church society, and indeed the two were one animal with two heads (a King and a Bishop). In first century Rome though, these rulers were two separate animals – a big bad dog and a righteous, but smaller dog. In the latter mid-first century, it was the Roman civil authorities (the big dog) who then acted out in attempts to utterly destroy the church and the Lord’s followers. Their actions were clearly not that of “church leaders,” acting to discipline members of the church who have stepped out of line, or for the “punishment of evil doers” (as Chapter XXIII, section I might suggest), but rather were actions, by evil agents of the devil, seeking to destroy the church itself. Now I can only imagine that most people would think that if a civil magistrate (as was in the time of the Romans) were to be of the dark side and act out with evil towards the church, the people in turn, should at least act to remove that unGodly person from office. But if I were to espouse such action, then I would be acting against the creed of the Westminster Confession (and by that supposedly, the command of God) which demands I be in subject to the civil magistrate no matter what his actions.

    In section IV of the 23rd Chapter, it states that; “Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted…” If this were indeed the correct interpretation of Paul, then it would also be true that the Christians who fought on the side of Hitler, Stalin, Emperor Hirohito, etc., were indeed justified in their actions to attack and murder us, for they were simply following (being in subjection to) the authority of their “Godly ordained ” civil magistrates.

    The inconsistencies are simply too great to ignore here when trying to justify a belief that Paul was meaning the civil authorities as apposed to the church authorities. Yes, under the old British system where the King was earthly supreme commander of both the church and state, the argument can be made that one should be in subject to the civil magistrates, because civil and church were one in the same. But this still does not mean that Paul meant civil authorities, rather it only means that Paul meant the church authorities, and in England (in the late 1600’s) the church authorities are also the civil authorities. To believe otherwise creates a situation wherein the Bible teaches opposing lessons – never follow the path of evil, unless the evil is coming from a government official – because in that case it is OK. Clearly I do not see how Paul could have meant the civil government officials. Perhaps you can explain this to me such that it makes sense that the followers of evil magistrates are doing the will of God? Indeed, I believe this is exactly why God admonished the Israelites time and again to get their heads away from the idea that they can live serving two masters – a civil (non-church) authority and God’s (church) authority. For the two are set against each other.

    BY the way, it is public debate such as this that our present leaders are trying to quash, while only Ron Paul stands out seeking to free us all from the tyranny of the evil magistrates, and return our liberties to us, while also demanding that we take responsibility for guarding our liberties. Go Dr. Paul!!!!



  13. November 9, 2007 3:36 am

    You’re a gentleman, Orm, and I appreciate that.

    The Confessions reflect my own hermenutic; they digest Scripture in accord with my own doctrine, the result of the excellent teaching I have been privileged to receive and the light I have been blessed to receive. So I see Romans 13 as the Confessions’ authors did. Everything in Scripture is consistent with God’s disposition of human government and His requirement of men to obey it. God is a God of order.

    I agree with you on this: Go Ron Paul!!!! He alone has the integrity to lead our country. But he will still be a head of state, Orm, and the State is not our Savior. I trust we concur on that as well.

  14. Ormely permalink
    November 13, 2007 4:50 am

    Yes we do.


  15. November 16, 2007 2:32 pm


    …and it seems that Ron Paul realizes this.

  16. November 16, 2007 2:38 pm

    Well Adam, you’re welcome here, but not because we agree. “God doesn’t care” is simply not a rational statement, regardless of what comes after.

  17. Ormely permalink
    November 17, 2007 8:48 am


    God cares about even the birds of the air (Luke 12:24) “Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!” He cares a lot about who wins every election from here to the ends of the earth in every village and city. For such are the choices and desicions of man to elect thier leaders and to do so shows God what our hearts desire – worldly things, or Godly. Dueteronomy 30:19 provides for you an insight as to what God wishes for each and every person. “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants.”

    So in this election, you have a choice, you could vote for a Godly man who would seek to lead a nation’s people such that they may make that choice in liberty and feewill, or you could vote for a person who will continue to do as most of our leaders of late have, and beat a path towards Vanity Fair. But your choice is still a chioce of your heart, and a desicion towards your will to seek true life, or not.


  18. November 27, 2007 10:46 pm

    After reading so many articles today that call Dr. Paul anti-semitic, racist, inconsistent, “in bed with pimps”, crazy, unsafe, and more, I am so glad to see clear-thinking people seeing through to him.

    I have my disagreements with Paul, but I have disagreements with my wife. Similarly, I support Paul because he develops his beliefs based strictly on his humblest interpretation of the constitution. My wife develops her beliefs based strictly on her humblest interpretation of the Bible. When two people are pointed the same direction, they MUST become closer to eachother as they proceed further in their paths.

    (The next step is this. The constitution was founded as the Christian belief of how the People should restrict the Government. Therein, the constitution is developed from an understanding of Torah. If logic continues, Dr. Paul’s understanding of the constitution can only be complete with an understanding of Torah.)

    I’m a Christian Jew (Messianic), and I fully believe in the Bible, and I accept Jesus as my savior. Ron Paul is the only person I know of who believes the constitution more literally than I do. He spent time with my family a couple decades ago, and I can tell you that he is a -very- consistent patriot. I’ve never seen an election so important as this one, because now we have a candidate.

  19. Ormely permalink
    November 29, 2007 8:03 pm

    right on! Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who sticks to the Constitution, and has OUR (the people’s) liberties as the goal of his political voting. He is the only cadidate who would be willing to live under the laws he passes – the rest always have loopholes which are set for the governing over the governed.


  20. Kris permalink
    December 16, 2007 2:47 pm

    Hell (no pun intended),

    I’m atheist and I’m seriously considering voting for Ron Paul.

  21. December 16, 2007 6:56 pm

    Kris, my point exactly. Thank you. We’re trying to engage a statesman, not a national pastor.

  22. Kris permalink
    December 16, 2007 8:15 pm

    No problem.

    I find it funny that people put so much importance on a candidate’s religion. It is not the end all to issues here, and there are obviously much more important things to worry about.

    I find Ron Paul very refreshing compared to pretty much all of the other candidates out there.

    For the record, I am a registered Democrat but I identify with Libertarian at the moment.

  23. Eric permalink
    December 16, 2007 8:26 pm

    Actually, Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution. See 2:40 of this video:

  24. December 16, 2007 8:41 pm

    Kris, I think you’re refreshing for an atheist Democrat, too!

    Eric, acknowledged: Ron Paul here calls evolution a theory with which he does not agree. But at the SC debate, he did not raise his hand to be counted among those who did not believe in evolution. Since then, I heard that one of the candidates called for “no more hand games.” Good idea. Let the men speak. As my first grade teacher said, “Let’s not always see the same hands….”

  25. Kris permalink
    December 16, 2007 10:09 pm


    Though I find it somewhat disappointing that he does not believe in evolution (another debate in itself), that is not really what I will be voting on, and again is a somewhat minute detail., for the time being anyways.

    However, if this started to affect policies he would be making, or if he started pushing for Creationism to be taught in public science classes as opposed to a theology or philosophy class, it might make me think twice…

  26. December 17, 2007 7:01 am

    Whoa, Kris. Ron Paul isn’t pushing for the Fed to do anything about local education policy! He’d be the first to say it isn’t any of the President’s business what local school boards include in their curricula.

  27. Kris permalink
    December 17, 2007 4:27 pm

    Yup, exactly. I was just giving a “for instance” scenario. =D

  28. Susan permalink
    January 2, 2008 7:57 pm

    By body language, he looked very uncomfortable answering this question about evolution. That told me that he did believe in evolution… just like the debate in CA. Listen to his words: “I don’t accept it as a theory.” That means he does not accept it as a theory, he accepts it as a fact! Me personally, I accept it as an unscientific unprovable theory; therefore, I was not impressed with his answer. The belief about evolution as fact does color my view of Ron Paul. Now for you agnostics and athiests, that won’t set well. But it is something, when settled in one’s heart, gives passion to all the other convictions that a person believes. I don’t think of us as equal with the animals, etc. and on it would go; thereby protecting or unprotecting certain species by law, etc. That is all.

  29. January 2, 2008 8:07 pm

    Susan, what I recall him saying is, “Evolution is a theory and I don’t believe in that theory.” I’m operating from memory and I don’t have a transcript, though the Utube is still up–but I think I recall accurately because I know I was relieved to hear him say that after not raising his hand in South Carolina when three others did, to signify that they did not believe in evolution. Since then, Ron Paul has said he hates “hand games,” so that could account for him not raising his hand.

    But in no case is not accepting something as a theory tantamount to accepting it as a fact. I would not infer that at all. The evolution model itself is a very good example of “assuming facts not in evidence,” a ground for objection in court. The common doltish example is, “Are you still beating your wife?”

  30. January 15, 2008 5:43 pm

    I truly do NOT understand why evolution, or creationist or any B.S. should have anything to do with the Pres he lives a life that is honest pure and clean. We are electing a president for US, not a preacher or atheist or he loves life and want the US to be honest & fair , what is wrong with that. Thank GOD, he is not an evangelical.

  31. Steve permalink
    March 17, 2008 3:06 pm

    Ron Paul walks the talk. Why the Christian right turned it’s back on this man should make people wonder about the church in America

  32. Shungli permalink
    May 25, 2008 9:58 pm

    Evolution is merely a theory, that’s all it could ever amount to, so why then do you believe that someone choosing not to believe in such a theory has poor reasoning. I believe the world isn’t a millions of years old and we didn’t evolve from monkeys(these are merely long since discredit ideals that today’s textbooks still love to push), what’s so radical about that. For such things cannot be (and Have not been) “Scientifically proven”. I think I will however vote for Ron Paul.

  33. Anonymous permalink
    August 26, 2008 3:40 pm

    Certainly, the Constitution is one of the most moral structures God has given to our nation.(Deu 17,Ezra 8) It is today’s modern “authority” to limit the restraint of government.

    By the way, about Ron Paul not saying he doesn’t believe in evolution….First of all, the debate did NOT specify WHAT TYPE OF EVOLUTION. Secondly, when asked about whether he believes in macro biological(Darwin type) evolution he said no he does not.

  34. April 6, 2009 11:10 am

    Ron Paul’s Christian faith is important to me.
    He is not running for pastor but by the same token
    I don’t want some nut ball that shaves corn circles
    on their head and practices ritual abuse serving as
    President of the United States of America.

  35. September 18, 2009 9:12 am

    The problem with the question as a Christian “do you believe in Evolution” is it is somewhat of a loaded question. I believe in the Bible’s description of creation yet, I believe wholeheartedly animals have adapted over time and have changed. That all dogs came from a dog kind, that polar bears came from an original bear kind. These are things that people say prove Evolution, but when those who ask do you believe in Evolution, they are asking do you not think God created specific animals, and if humans and all animals started as a molecules, that evolved into cells, that evolved into people. This I don’t believe.

    I have trouble thinking Ron Paul would believe in Evolution as put forth by many of the very close minded atheists. He isn’t someone who just believes everything he hears, and I once believed everything I was taught, that all animals had one single common ancestor, until I started thinking for myself, when I learned, that much of what they were telling me about Evolution was full of half truths (very reminicisent of the serpent to Eve). They say Evolution says this and this things about common descent, but then to give observational evidence of it, they simply show species adapting over time, which although would be necessary for their belief to be true, in no way excludes Creation as put forth by the Bible.

  36. September 18, 2009 10:31 am

    Subscription to a particular line of thought as to the train of events leading to the various stages of manifest creation is not a litmus test for a Christian that is articulated in Scripture. Ron Paul’s particular views on evolution would therefore have no bearing on the validity of this faith as far as I’m concerned.

    My point is, whether or not a politically competent leader is a Christian has no bearing on whether or not I would support him if he were running for president. Thanks to common grace, many people who are not Christians nonetheless operate from a Christian worldview.

  37. Anonymous permalink
    February 28, 2010 5:17 pm

    This is a mature conclusion to come across, and I agree with it. God can certainly bless leaders, even ones who are non-Christian, especially for the sake of the peace of His own people. A responsible leader who truly understands the blessing of God that has been upon this country, what liberty truly is, and how utterly important it is to defend the constitution is exactly what this country needs. But something tells me that Ron Paul, or anyone like him will never end up being president. The folks in the political arena today play DIRTY, they grab the media by the horns and slander their opponents to death. And we just sit there and roll with it, accepting everything they tell us. An honest politician won’t stand a chance, it disgusts me. Dare I say this, but America deserves to lose its God given liberties if they continue as they are right now, ignorantly “rocking the vote” without researching or understanding the insidious schemes of these politicians we keep putting in power. I continue to hold a respect for America looking to its history, but I believe that if the fathers of this country saw the way it was today, they would condemn its practices. If we fail to protect the constitution, we will no longer have our constitution. Those who are so progressive in their thinking as to say that we should start thinking globally are traitors, and I do not even consider them true Americans in my eyes. The ones who would consider putting YOUR children through a new curriculum that would cut out history before 1877 and teach them how to interact with an increasingly global thinking world. The ones who would bring about constitutional amendments, as Washington said, that would weaken the constitution so that we might become like the rest of the world which we broke off from for the sake of liberty! But who is here to sound the horn? They have all fallen asleep, and their foolishness has brought about the tyranny that is to come in this country. When oppression comes from afar, they will cry, but there will be none to hear because they traded liberty for temporary prosperity.

  38. John Mazzola permalink
    March 10, 2010 10:06 am

    One angel will more than amply suffice!

  39. February 2, 2011 9:04 pm

    How does the Bible define a Christian?

  40. Grizzly permalink
    August 15, 2011 3:50 am

    Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

    I would suggest that believe must be strong enough to produce individual change and neighborly actions.

  41. August 23, 2011 6:54 am


    Great blog….nice to see a very literate Christian supporting Dr. Paul…..I get the idea many folks are searching for ‘Christianity & Ron Paul’ as I see older posts like this one (from last campaign go-round) ‘coming up for air’ – Google & other engines re-indexing them for resurfacing.

    What is funny is I read half way thru the lengthy comments – very informative ones, esp the one on Romans 13, before seeing the older 2007-8 dates.

    Not to worry, Dr. Paul’s positions or the Truth hasn’t changed in that interval – au contraire, tyranny has grown, Obama has been shown to be the emperor with no clothes, and praise God, America & Christians are now waking up to the fact that God has raised up a Reformer from within the political sphere, who is both a genuine Christian (not a phony Neo-con) and a Statesman.

    Just in time…..this 7 person Christian home-schooling family is going all out for Ron Paul 2012 !

    Here is a fabulous statement of faith that is now posted on the 2012 website. Please pass it on or post on Facebook, etc.

    This past week, Dr. Paul nearly won the Iowa Straw poll, tying within 1% of placing 1st, and the cowardly state-run media blacked him out – therefore it is up to us Christians & Patriots to bypass these ‘chicken littles’ of the media by spreading the Truth by other means.

    Think Wittenburg Church door….Oct 31, 1517….Martin Luther & 10,000 laymen armed with copies of the 95 theses, hammers & nails spreading outwards from there…….

    God bless Lauren, everyone reading & Dr. Ron Paul….His truth (Christ’s) is marching ON !

  42. August 23, 2011 7:04 am

    David, thanks so much for updating the historical context of my post!

    I am in complete accord with you as to Ron Paul’s distinction from all other candidates. I think he alone believes that our hope is in Christ, and our confidence does not belong in princes.


  1. Ron Paul and The Media at Elliot Lee

Comments are closed.