Major Objections/Questions You May Not Have Adequately Addressed:

Creationism

• Ecclesiastes 12:1
  Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth,
• Isaiah 40:28
  Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.
• Romans 1:25
  who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
• 1 Peter 4:14-19
  ¹⁴ If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. ¹⁵ But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. ¹⁶ Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. ¹⁹ Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.

That last verse hints at another theme on this website: Pacifism.

• Any objective observer of the teachings of Christ admits that Christ commanded His followers to be "pacifists." This proposition is proven here, here, and here.
• The pacifist says "I will not intentionally kill another human being, even to defend my own life."
• Christians who take Jesus seriously would believe that we are to
1. Love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) with an "agape" love that puts the redemption of the attacker ahead of one's own life.
2. Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39)
3. Pay your taxes; don't take up arms against the Red Coats (Matthew 22:21). [details]
4. Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)
5. Forgive those who seek to kill you (Luke 23:34; 1 Peter 2:21-24)
6. Go the second mile (Matthew 5:41). If you take this verse seriously, it means "national defense" is a sin.
7. Christians would believe that it is always sinful to kill a human being ("Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). Better to be killed than to kill.
8. If someone does bad things to us, we are not to do bad things to him, but leave vengeance to God (Romans 12-13).
9. In short, even if we get called "pacifists," we will take Jesus seriously and follow Him. [details] 
• The Westminster Larger Catechism (1647) gives detail on the meaning of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill." It is a pacifist manifesto.
  It also explicates the implications of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal." It is an anarchist manifesto, since "the State" is based on theft ("taxation," "eminent domain," "asset forfeiture," currency debasement, etc.).

People who hurt people and take their stuff for a living (e.g., Mafia, Marines, IRS, etc.) should repent and get an honest, peaceful job serving consumers by providing goods and services which consumers voluntarily buy from you, and you need not threaten to lock them in a cage or torture them if they don't give you their money.

One of the bigger problems in Christian communication is the tendency to throw out arguments like bumper-stickers. The purpose of bringing up these arguments is not to initiate careful study of the Bible, but simply to turn off the discussion. The purpose of slogan is to say, "You're not allowed to ask these questions or talk about this subject." I disagree with that approach. We are told to emulate the Bereans (Acts 17:11), who searched the Scriptures every day trying to obtain careful Biblical answers to questions. I often post links to other webpages which try to give a thoughtful, Biblical answer to important and controversial questions.

1. The Romans 13 Elephant in the Room

You mention it briefly (sentence 32: "But what about Romans 13?"), and say "this website has answers," but for most Christians, Romans 13:1-7 is THE definitive refutation of anarchism:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Problem: You acknowledge this objection exists but don't give readers confidence you can actually answer it. Most Christians have heard dozens of sermons on Romans 13 and ZERO sermons on Mark 10:42-45. They'll need more than "I have an answer somewhere on this website."

Suggestion: Either give a 2-3 sentence preview of your answer in the overview, or make it crystal clear where to find your full treatment (a prominent link right when you mention it).

1. Romans 13: The Christian's relation to demonic "powers"

Here's the link to Romans 13.

1. Worship the Creator, not the creature
2. Don't hurt people or take their stuff
3. Don't return evil for evil. Leave vengeance to God.
4. Romans 12 and 13 are about how Christians relate to evil people.

Instead of "governing authorities," the KJV has a more literal "higher powers." Every time Paul uses the word "powers" it refers to demonic forces

• Exousiai -- Demonic "Powers"

That page has links to all the other issues surrounding Romans 13. The passage has historically been shrouded with slogans.

2. "Render Unto Caesar" (Matthew 22:21)

Same issue as Romans 13. You mention it (sentence 32) but don't preview your answer. This is the OTHER verse every Christian will throw at you.

2. Here's the link to "Render unto Caesar"

• Render Unto Caesar

This verse is not a rebuttal of our program. This verse is part of our program, listed above under "pacifism."

The government of Italy ("Caesar") had no Biblical right to invade the nation of Israel, set up a military dictatorship, and steal from Israelis.

It is a sad commentary on Christians that many of them level this verse as an "objection" to our program, when it is in fact a part of our program. Christians need to do a little more thinking before they launch "objections."

3. The Practical "But What About..." Questions

Your overview is strong on the BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL case, but weak on practical objections:

• "Without government, who would build the roads?"
• "Without police, wouldn't criminals run wild?"
• "Hasn't anarchy been tried and failed (Somalia, etc.)?"
• "Don't we need military to defend against foreign invasion?"

You may have answers to these elsewhere on your site, but the overview doesn't acknowledge these questions exist. Readers will think: "Okay, maybe the Bible says this, but it's obviously impractical in the real world."

Suggestion: Add a paragraph acknowledging these practical questions and pointing to where you address them. Something like:

"You're probably thinking: 'But what about roads? What about criminals? What about foreign invasion?' These are valid questions, and I address them in detail [here]. The short answer: voluntary cooperation and free markets have always solved these problems better than violent monopolies. But let me first establish the Biblical and historical case..."

3. Practical Anarchism

In a "free market," free from government monopolies or subsidies, capitalists fall all over themselves to give consumers what consumers want.

• Roads: if consumers want roads to get to Walmart, Walmart will build roads. But maybe Walmart wants the government to steal someone's property ("eminent domain") so Walmart doesn't have to pay for it. "Government" is always an instrument of theft. "Governments" are created to allow certain people to rule over or profit from other people in a way that would be sinful if they did it without the cover of "government." Great Americans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") believed government should not be in the business of building roads, because politicians would build roads that benefited private campaign contributors. Businesses are in the business of serving customers. Let businesses serve customers by building roads. The same economic theory that works to bring smartphones and air conditioners to consumers will bring roads to consumers.
• Free Market Dispute Resolution Organizations: Capitalists will provide protection from crime better than the government.
• What I advocate is not a country with 99% Sunni Islam (Somalia). I advocate a Christian Anarcho-Theocracy, the principle that made America great (though America never pursued that principle consistently).
• "National Defense" is a Sin. Who is going to cross the ocean and invade America? China? Why? Americans are China's best customers? If China is our enemy, how do you know that China has not already blackmailed the "Deep State" ("Do our bidding or we will nuke you, and you can't stop us"), and China now runs our country? But if there were no Washington D.C. do you think China could "take over" 111 million armed households that weren't controlled by a centralized government? "We need protection" is a lousy justification for a Mafia and for politicians.
  Consider this question: If I moved to China, would my quality of life improve? - Google Search Now consider this question:
  If China took over the United States government, would my quality of life improve? Is the difference between the Chinese government and the Biden-Trump regime worth spending a trillion dollars a year? If we abolish the Defense Department that would mean $12,000 per year per member of your family (family of four = $48,000 a year income boost). Would you accept that income boost and let Chinese politicians govern you instead of our current gaggle of politicians?

Americans today are increasingly favoring socialism over capitalism. This means they flunk basic economics.

Crime: the government prohibits public school teachers from telling students, "God says don't commit crimes." And we wonder why crime goes up.

Somalia lacks the kind of Christian morality that makes the U.S. Constitution possible. Religion & Morality vs. Big Government/Socialism

4. The "Israelite Theocracy Had a King" Problem

God gave Israel kings (Saul, David, Solomon). Doesn't this contradict your claim that God opposes human rulers?

You cite 1 Samuel 8:7 ("they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them"), which shows God was displeased. But then He gave them kings anyway.

Readers will ask: "If God was so opposed to human kings, why did He establish the Davidic monarchy? Why did He make promises to David's line? Why is the Messiah called 'King of Kings'?"

Do you address the distinction between:

• God's ideal (theocracy with no human king)
• God's concession to Israel's rebellion (giving them kings "in His anger," Hosea 13:11)
• How the Davidic covenant fits into this

This is a sophisticated objection and needs a sophisticated answer.

4. From Theocracy to Monarchy

It wasn't just that God was "displeased." The desire for a creature for a king is a rejection of the Creator as King. Do you want to stand at the pearly gates and have St. Peter say to you, "You rejected God. Why should we let you in here?"

God gave Israel kings as a punishment for Israel's sin of rejecting God, and it was a disaster.

Nobody in the United States wants a king anyway.

Theocracy is God's Ideal.

The Davidic monarchy and succession of kings was God's Providential plan to use Israel's sin to bring about Jesus the Messiah,

Luke 1:32
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

The Messiah (King) has come. We do not need kings any more. (We never needed them.)

5. The "Jesus Wasn't a Political Revolutionary" Objection

When Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), most Christians interpret this to mean:

• Jesus wasn't concerned with earthly political structures
• Christians shouldn't try to overthrow governments
• The gospel is spiritual, not political

Your argument makes Christianity deeply political (anti-archist). You need to address this apparent tension.

How do you reconcile:

• "My kingdom is not of this world"
• "Render unto Caesar"
• "Be subject to governing authorities" (Romans 13)
• with "Jesus commands us to be anarchists"?

Most readers will see these as contradictory unless you explain the framework.

5. Politics and Revolution

Anarcho-Creationism is not for "political revolutionaries." It's for people who follow Jesus and get called "pacifists."

I do not advocate "overthrowing" governments. I advocate governments repenting of hurting people and taking their stuff.

Jesus says don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. The mafia should repent. The government should repent. That's not advocating "political revolution," but personal revolution and repentance.

• Would Jesus Celebrate Independence Day.com

Jesus prohibits His followers from being archists, that is, dropping bombs, invading other nations, locking people in cages, stealing their property, prohibiting local school teachers from teaching children that God says not to steal and not to aggress against others.

Is this "revolutionary?" It is not violent, but it would be a big change, and "big change" is sometimes called "revolutionary."

Is this "political?" The word "political" comes from the Greek word for "city." Augustine wrote a book called "The City of God." Our goal is to get Christians to become citizens of the City of God, and renounce their citizenship in the City of Man.

6. The "Creationism Isn't Essential to the Gospel" Objection

Many Christians will say:

• "Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, not by believing in six-day creation"
• "This is a 'secondary issue' that shouldn't divide Christians"
• "Plenty of godly Christians throughout history have held different views on Genesis"

Your response seems to be: If you don't believe Genesis, you're undermining biblical authority and opening the door to evolutionism and archism.

But you need to address: Can someone be a genuine Christian, saved by grace, and still believe in old-earth or theistic evolution? Or are you saying they're not truly Christian?

This is a pastoral/theological question with huge implications.

6. Creation and the Gospel

Chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is about "Saving Faith."

II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come.

The Bible describes life as a torrid race and agonizing struggle. To be saved, we must " persevere." There will be challenges. The Government, the Media, Academia, Corporations, even our neighbors, may tempt us to renounce our allegiance to our Creator and King, and transfer our allegiance to a false king. We must examine ourselves periodically.

2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you?—unless, of course, you fail the test.

Suppose you were never taught that the Bible forbids adultery. Then as you're reading the Bible, you run across the verse that says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But you enjoy committing adultery. Your government gives you a tax deduction for committing adultery, the Media glorifies adultery, you earned a Ph.D. in adultery, your employer gives you a bonus for committing adultery, and all your neighbors join you in committing adultery. But then you read that verse that says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." You always prided yourself on being a "Bible-believing Christian." But then you find out the Bible condemns adultery. What are you going to do?

You were taught X in 17 years of school. You taught your children X. You mention X in conversation with friends. Now you find out the Bible denies X. Maybe everyone thought of you as a "Bible-believing Christian," but now that phrase takes on new meaning. The Bible clearly denies X. Will you continue believing the Bible, or will you fail the test to gain the approval of "the world?" (James 4:4; 1:27)

So, Can an evolutionist be "saved?" I'm glad I don't have to make predictions about who is going to heaven and who is not. What I'm saying (and also in objection #12 below) is that we are always coming to a crossroads. We have to decide whether we are going to obey God or obey man. I might think Dr. So-and-So is a Christian until he is confronted with new evidence which forces him to decide if he's going to follow the new evidence or re-trench and reject what God is saying. Choices reveal our true identity and destiny.

7. The "Constantine/Christendom Was Good, Actually" Debate

You cite Salvian favorably (rejoicing at Rome's fall) over Augustine (saddened by it). But many Christians—especially Reformed and Catholic traditions—see Christendom (Christian political order) as a good thing.

They'll ask:

• "Wasn't it better when Christian kings enforced biblical law than when pagan emperors persecuted Christians?"
• "Didn't Christendom preserve civilization, build universities, hospitals, etc.?"
• "Are you saying Constantine was wrong to make Christianity legal?"

You have pages on Constantine, Augustine, Doug Wilson, etc., but does your overview acknowledge this major debate within Christianity?

Many Christians see "Christian nation" as the goal—you need to explain why that's actually unbiblical.

7. Constantine and Christendom

This objection is "You don't praise political stuff enough."
This contradicts objection #5 above: "Jesus is not political."

Human beings are created in the Image of God. They show the work of God's Law written on their hearts (Romans 2:15). are hard-wired to increase civilization. But we can harden our hearts, and destroy civilization. Archists tend to destroy rather than build civilization. Whatever they build is based on theft and tends to be dysfunctional. Rome and Nazi Germany were both powerful and externally "civilized," but they were toxic. Christians build universities and hospitals, but archists tend to shut them down, or bureaucratize their Christian direction. The human race would be more civilized without archists.

Yes, it is better to have a dictator who doesn't tax everything away from you than to have a dictator who takes everything you own and puts you in a concentration camp.

But "Christendom" does not require any dictator but Christ. "Anarcho-Christendom" is our goal.

Constantine did a good thing by ending government persecution of Christians. He would have done better to abdicate completely and shut down the Roman Empire, letting everyone dwell peacefully under their own Vine & Fig Tree.

Constantine was better than Nero, but a free market is better than a Constantinian market.

8. The "Original Intent of Founding Fathers" Question

You cite the Declaration of Independence and imply America's Founders would agree with you. But:

• The Founders created a government (the Constitution)
• They believed in "ordered liberty" with rulers
• Washington, Jefferson, Madison all held political office

How do you reconcile:

• Praising the Declaration's "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
• With the Founders creating the very thing you oppose (a State)?

You have a "What About the Constitution?" page, but readers need to know up front that you're not claiming the Founders were anarchists—or if you are, you need to explain the seeming contradiction.

8. America's Founding Fathers

America's Founding Fathers wanted to create a "Christian nation." That's commendable,  even if it's not possible.

They were not anarchists. They were not pacifists. They were not perfect. They were better than the atheistic regime we have had for decades.

GeorgeWashington's Three Biggest Mistakes

Thing #3: Three Huge Mistakes America's Founders Made

Constitution page: What About the Constitution?

9. The "Pacifism and Just War" Question

You say:

• Beat swords into plowshares (Micah 4)
• Love your enemies (Jesus)
• This "completely refutes the legitimacy of 'national defense'" (sentence 40)

But most Christians throughout history have believed in "just war theory":

• Augustine developed it
• Aquinas refined it
• Most Protestant traditions accept it
• Even pacifist traditions (Mennonites, Quakers) are minority views

You need to address:

• Was God wrong to command Israel to fight in the Old Testament?
• What about Psalm 144:1 ("Blessed be the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war")?
• What about the warrior imagery in Revelation (Christ on a white horse with a sword)?

You can't just assert pacifism without dealing with these texts.

9. Pacifism and Just War

Re-consider the concept of "pacifism" above.

What is (or was) the actual purpose of "Just War Theory?"

• Was it to get away from all that "pacifist nonsense?"
• Was it to get away from all that "unjust war" destruction and suffering?

What was the actual result of "Just War Theory?"

• Did kings radically reduce their war-making?
• Or did the king's lawyers find a way around the theory, forcing no net reduction in war?

God is never wrong to command anyone to kill. But without a direct revelation from God, the command "Thou shalt not kill" is absolute and universal.

God commanded Israel to exterminate the nations in the land promised by God to Israel, because those people would have led Israel away from God. Israel did not obey God, Israel became like the pagans, and more lives were lost in continual warfare over the centuries than would have been lost had Israel obeyed God's initial commands. It was proper for David to thank God for success in obeying God's commands. Nobody -- not Biden or Trump, not Putin or Xi Jinping, or any other dictator on planet earth -- nobody has a divine mandate to kill anyone else in 2026.

In AD 70, Christ brought a sword against the religious establishment of Israel for asking Rome to murder Israel's Messiah. But vengeance belongs to God, not to Biden or Trump.

10. The "You're Proof-Texting" Objection

You build your entire anarchist case on Mark 10:42-45. That's one passage.

Critics will say:

• "You're taking one verse out of context"
• "The whole counsel of Scripture supports government" (citing Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Titus 3:1, etc.)
• "You're reading modern political anarchism back into Jesus' words"

Do you show that your interpretation of Mark 10 fits with:

• The rest of Jesus' teaching
• The rest of the New Testament
• The Old Testament pattern
• Historic Christian interpretation

Or are you claiming everyone got Mark 10 wrong for 2,000 years?

10. Mark 10:42-45 Alone?

Yes, "everyone" has gotten Mark 10 wrong for 2000 years. and also all the other verses listed above. That's not a big deal. In my view, we are still in the infancy of church history.

By "everyone" I mean the majority, and the powerful institutions. There have been Christian pacifists throughout history, but they have often been suppressed by Church-State regime, because pacifism leads logically to "anarchism."

The Anabaptists were pacifists and suspicious of state power. Likewise the Waldensians, Leo Tolstoy and the Russian Christian anarchists, and the earliest church fathers (pre-Constantine) who refused military service. History books are written by the institutional "winners."

Just because we are to be pacifists, and not respond to government violence with more violence, does not mean scripture "supports" government. Caesar is commanded to repent of hurting people and taking their stuff.

11. The "Death and Taxes" Practical Problem

Even if someone accepts your biblical argument, they live in a world with actual governments that will imprison or kill them for non-compliance.

How should a Christian anarchist live in practice?

• Pay taxes? (Isn't that funding archism/murder?)
• Obey laws? (Isn't that submitting to illegitimate authority?)
• Vote? (Isn't that participating in the archist system?)
• Get a driver's license? Passport? Social Security number?

You mention you're a "repentant murderer" who used to work for government—do you explain how to repent in practice?

11. Practical Problems

Jesus commands His followers to be pacifists and pay tribute to invaders, even if the invaders use the money to persecute believers and kill people.

We are commanded to be pacifists and submit to illegitimate authority. Illegitimate (and so-called legitimate) "authority" is commanded to repent and stop forcing people to submit to them. "Authorities" are not called to force people to submit, but to serve others (Mark 10:42-45).

If you have a chance to vote against war or taxation, use that opportunity. Voting for an archist, however, is theft and murder. Even if the archist pretends to be less of a murderer or thief than his opponent.
In most jurisdictions where voting is mandatory, no penalty attaches to filing a blank ballot. This is like the conscientious objector who fires his weapon into the air to avoid killing the enemy. A blank ballot does not hurt your neighbor. 

All government laws are unjust. Jesus says Obey all unjust laws. We can have a great society without unjust laws and illegitimate authorities.

Passports: The Freedom to Travel

We are to obey laws which are (always) unjust laws (because nobody has a right to threaten violence against other people, which all laws do), unless that unjust law requires us to disobey one of God's laws. It's not a violation of God's Law to be stolen from (when you cannot avoid being a victim), but if the government requires you to kill the "enemy du jour," that's a violation of God's Law, so you must not obey the government. But we all have a duty to rebuke humanistic lawmakers and law enforcers.

12. The "Scientific Consensus" Isn't Just Conspiracy

You frame evolution as purely a conspiracy/scam. But many Christians who accept old-earth or evolutionary creation do so because they genuinely believe the scientific evidence points that way—not because they hate God.

Examples:

• Francis Collins (directed Human Genome Project, devout Christian, accepts evolution)
• BioLogos (organization of Christian scientists who accept evolution)
• Many seminary professors who love Scripture but accept old-earth

Your argument needs to show why these aren't just deceived, but why their methodology is wrong—not just assert they're part of a conspiracy.

12. The "Scientific Consensus" Is a Conspiracy

Most Christians who accept old-earth evolution have never examined the scientific evidence. They just parrot what "influencers" say. "Influencers" can also be parroting what they were taught. Some are liars, however intelligent they may be.

I'm glad I don't have to make predictions about who is going to heaven and who is not. But there are certainly people I would give grave warnings to. Francis Collins is one of those people. I would ask him if he doesn't need to be "born again" if he still shows the DNA of "the father of all lies."

• Francis Collins is Not Sorry Enough - by Bethel McGrew

Collins is an archist. He has probably made a name for himself as a bureaucrat and manipulator of taxpayer money than as a pure scientist. He tried to use government power to stifle scientific inquiry into covid, its government origins, and alternative treatments which might save lives but inconvenience bureaucrats and corporate elites. He did not want uncomfortable questions to be asked by three of the leading epidemiologists in the world, representing Oxford, Harvard and Stanford, and wanted government bureaucrats to quash embarrassing questions with a "devastating takedown." That's evil. There's no other word: evil.

I don't know all the individuals at BioLogos or any seminary. Their "methodology" appears to be putting human institutions ahead of the Bible.

14. The "You're Making Christianity Too Hard" Objection

Many Christians will think:

• "I can barely get my kids to read their Bibles, and you want me to become an anarchist and fight the scientific establishment?"
• "This sounds exhausting and isolating"
• "Why add these extra requirements to faith in Christ?"

Pastoral question: How do you pastorally shepherd someone toward these conclusions without crushing them or making Christianity feel like an impossible burden?

14. Christianity is not easy.

• Evolutionists have trained kids to believe the Bible is an ancient irrelevant myth. The Bible would interest kids more if they saw it as an Anarchist Manifesto. It's exciting and counter-cultural.
• James adds "extra requirements" to faith. Faith without "requirements" is dead. Justification by Allegiance
• The Bible describes life as a torrid race and agonizing struggle
• Jesus said we are to risk execution by archists ("Take up your cross" [instrument of government murder by torture]).

15. The "What About Other Christians Who Disagree?" Question

Throughout history, godly, Bible-believing Christians have:

• Served in government (Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah in OT; believers in Caesar's household in NT)
• Been soldiers (Cornelius the centurion, Ethiopian eunuch was government official)
• Affirmed government's role (Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Spurgeon, basically every major theologian)

Are you saying:

• They were all wrong?
• They weren't really Bible-believing?
• They compromised?

This needs a gracious but clear answer.

15. Can a Christian voluntarily become an archist?

• Joseph and Daniel were both kidnapped and enslaved. Nehemiah was a builder of a temple, not an empire. Believers in Caesar's household might also have been slaves.
• Roman soldiers who went AWOL would suffer capital punishment. That's a tricky situation. This is why Godly Christian teachers in the early church counseled Christians not to join the pagan military. Many conscientious soldiers in history have shot their guns into the air because they didn't want to obey government orders to kill, but also didn't want to get in trouble with their commanding officer.
• As I said, we're in the infancy of church history. It was 1500 years before the doctrine of "Justification by Faith" was formulated, and many of Luther's critics advanced the same kind of arguments that are advanced against non-archism. Robert L. Dabney got Justification by Fath right, but wasn't so good on slavery. Many good teachers have been wrong on some issues, and those issues need to be discussed. The duty to be a Berean never ends. We have to keep studying the Bible, and not be content with tradition if it seems to miss what the Bible is saying.

Summary of Gaps:

Biblical/Theological:

• Romans 13 (needs more than "I have an answer somewhere")
• Render unto Caesar
• Israelite monarchy under God's sanction
• "My kingdom is not of this world"
• OT warfare and "holy war"
• Historic Christian interpretation (are you alone?)

Practical:

• Roads, defense, criminals (the "but who would..." questions)
• How to live as anarchist in practice
• What about Christians in government throughout history

Scientific:

• Sincere Christian scientists who accept evolution
• Newton's authority (when he was wrong about other things)
• Not just conspiracy—address actual evidence

Pastoral:

• Is old-earth belief compatible with genuine faith?
• How do we not crush people with this message?
• How do you build community when you're in the minority?