The Puritan's Sword: A Biblical Examination of Philosophical, Theological, and Political Trends

Believer, Your Children are the Lord's, Raise Them as Such

2011-09-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

"And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?" (Ezekiel 16:21-22)

One of the most beautiful truths in scripture is the reality that the children of God's covenant people are in fact God's children. This is the basis of the multiple promises in scripture which the Lord makes about faithfulness to generations not yet in existence, even a thousand generations. Peter the apostle at Pentecost declared that the new covenant like all of God's covenants was for you and your children and all who are far off. In short, the children of believing parents are not is some sort of limbo, or in an ambiguous covenant position which can be likened to the Saturday Night Live's character "Pat" where no one was ever sure what to make of him/her. Rather than having an androgynous covenant status, the children of believer's are declared to be God's.

This Divine ownership of our children obviously has sacramental implications, but leaving that aside the passage I referenced above has to do with an unfaithful Israel failing to bring their children up in the Lord. At the time of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry judgement was falling on Judah for their unfaithfulness to God. Particularly, in chapter 16 God highlights their pagan parenting as one of the charges against the people meriting judgement. Judah and Israel were taking children who belonged to God by virtue of the covenant and raising them to be idolators, even to the point possibly of sacrificing them to pagan gods.

We can learn from this that raising our children up in the context of faithfulness is one of the greatest blessings we can bestow upon them as well as the form of obedience all Christian parents are called, this is because the children we have are essentially talents God has given us on loan to be good stewards of. This means their education must be distinctively Christian as well as their speech, manners, dress, play and entertainment, Christianity is for the whole man and all of life.

How different parents apply attempting to faithfully raise their children in these areas will differ, but the point should be clear that we all should be seeking to apply the gospel every area of our children's lives. That is after all what is means to say "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord". That is not just a verse worthy of an aesthetically pleasing doormat or wall hanging, rather it is a call to multi-generational covenant faithfulness, brothers and sisters may we labor for such a legacy lest Ezekiel's outcryings against unfaithful Judah equally fall upon us.

Mysteries Revealed by The Spirit and Concealed by Men With a Side Note on Table Manners

2011-07-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

"When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (Eph 3:4-6)

The Apostle Paul in his epistles strives to make clear what the new covenant means for the people of God, he particularly deals with the new covenant relationship of the Jews with the Gentiles. In his epistle to the Ephesians he speaks of a mystery that has only after the coming of Christ been clearly revealed, and he informs us that this mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow-citizens of Israel (Eph 2:19) and are no longer aliens and strangers to the covenants and promises belonging to the people of God (Eph 2:12).

When we come to chapter 3 in Ephesians the Spirit continues to highlight this theme saying that this recently revealed mystery, that the Gentiles and Jews are "members of the same body", is based upon the fact that the promises of God to Jew and Gentile alike all share one Mediator, Jesus Christ. Or, stated bluntly, God in Christ did not choose to redeem Jews only, but men from every tribe tongue and nation. Also, God in Christ is not satisfied with ruling over a strip of land abutting the Mediteranean sea and the Jordan river, He came to rule the whole world (Eph 1:22).

There are no two distinct and separate covenant peoples, because there is One Savior, one body, one baptism, and one Spirit. In fact the first 5 verses in Eph chapter 4 seem to really be rebuking the desire on the part of some to divide the people of God, given the previous content in Ephesians regarding the inclusion of Gentiles the threat to unity probably came from those desiring to emphasize a Jewish particularism and push the Gentiles into the outer courts of the church. You see, Dispensationalist Zionism and the two people of God doctrinal error are nothing new, Paul had to rebuke it many a time. The pernicious nature of this error came to the point of the Spirit through Paul confronting another Apostle sinning by adopting the two people of God view and practicing its implications at the dinner table (Gal 2).

The marriage supper of the lamb will not have a two tiered banquet table, there will not be some kiddie table off to the side with Mac N Cheese and a cheap Wal-Mart box of wine for the Gentiles to enjoy while the Jews get the best seats, choice cuts of Kobe beef and chalices of new wine filled to the brim being constantly replenished by little cherubs fluttering about (yes, I mean the little baby ones). As silly as that description may appear it really seems to be the vision of unity between Jew and Gentiles many Dispensationalists gravitate toward. Is this biblical? Not in the least bit, rather, all are one in Christ, Pentecost should teach us this, as well as Paul's Spirit filled lesson in table manners.

Lord's Day Reading: From J.C. Ryle's "Knots Untied"

2011-04-03T13:43:00.000-07:00

I found the following passage from Mr. Ryle's tremendously edifying book "Knots Untied" to be most helpful in grasping the ways in which true evangelical religion may be perverted subltely, unwitingly or outright craftily:

It only remains for me to say a few words on the last question I propose to consider:—“What is it that makes much religion appear to us not Evangelical?”

This is no doubt a delicate point, but a very serious and important one. I repeat here what I have remarked before. We do not say that men who are not professedly Evangelical ignore and disbelieve the leading doctrines of the Evangelical creed. We say nothing of the kind. But we do say confidently, that there are many ways in which the faith of Christ may be marred and spoiled, without being positively denied. And here we venture to think is the very reason that so much religion called Christian, is not truly Evangelical. The Gospel in fact is a most curiously and delicately compounded medicine, and a medicine that is very easily spoiled.

You may spoil the Gospel by substitution. You have only to withdraw from the eyes of the sinner the grand object which the Bible proposes to faith,—Jesus Christ; and to substitute another object in His place,—the Church, the Ministry, the Confessional, Baptism, or the Lord's Supper,—and the mischief is done. Substitute anything for Christ, and the Gospel is totally spoiled! Do this, either directly or indirectly, and your religion ceases to be Evangelical.

You may spoil the Gospel by addition. You have only to add to Christ, the grand object of faith, some other objects as equally worthy of honour, and the mischief is done. Add anything to Christ, and the Gospel ceases to be a pure Gospel! Do this, either directly or indirsctly, and your religion ceases to be Evangelical.

You may spoil the Gospel by interposition. You have only to push something between Christ and the eye of the soul, to draw away the sinner's attention from the Saviour, and the mischief is done. Interpose anything between man and Christ, and man will neglect Christ for the thins interposed! Do this, either directly or indirectly, and your religion ceases to be Evangelical.

You may spoil the Gospel by disproportion. You have only to attach an exaggerated importance to the secondary things of Christianity, and a diminished importance to the first things, and the mischief is done. Once alter the proportion of the parts of truth, and truth soon becomes downright error! Do this, either directly or indirectly, and your religion ceases to be Evangelical.

Lastly, but not least, you may completely spoil the Gospel by confused and contradictory directions. Complicated and obscure statements about faith, baptism, Church privileges, and the benefits of the Lord's Supper, all jumbled together, and thrown down without order before hearers, make the Gospel no Gospel at all! Confused and disorderly statements of Christianity are almost as bad as no statement at all! Religion of this sort is not Evangelical.

I know not whether I succeed in making my meaning clear. I am very anxious to do so. Myriads of our fellowcountrymen are utterly unable to see any difference between one thing and another in religion, and are hence continually led astray. Thousands can see no distinct difference between sermons and sermons, and preacheis and preachers, and have only a vague idea that “sometimes all is not right.”

I will endeavour, therefore, to illustrate my subject by two familiar illustrations. A doctor's prescription of a medicine often contains five or six different ingredients. There is so much of one drug and so much of another; a little of this, and a good deal of that . Now what man of common sense can fail to see that the whole value of the prescription depends on a faithful and honest use of it? Take away one ingredient, and substitute another; leave out one ingredient altogether; add a little to the quantity of one drug; take away a little from the quantity of another. Do this, I say, to the prescription, my good friend, and it is a thousand chances to one that you spoil it altogether. The thing that was meant for your health, you have converted into downright poison.

Apply this little simple parable to the Gospel. Regard it as a medicine sent down from heaven, for the curing of man's spiritual disease, by a Physician of infinite skill and power; a medicine of singular efficacy, which man with all his wisdom could never have devised. Tell me now, as one of common sense, does it not stand to reason that this medicine should be used without the slightest alteration, and precisely in the manner and proportion that the great Physician intended? Tell me whether you have the least right to expect good from it, if you have tampered with it in the smallest degree?

You know what the answer to these questions must be: your conscience will give the reply. Spoil the proportions of your doctor's prescription, and you will spoil its usefulness, even though you may call it medicine. Spoil the proportions of Christ's Gospel, and you spoil its efficacy. You may call it religion if you like; but you must not call it Evangelical. The several doctrines may be there, but they are useless if you have not observed the proportions.

Constitution Schmonstitution, We Want a Fuhrer

2011-03-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

Essentially the office of the president has become that of Die Fuhrer ("The leader") and this is most vividly seen when the president decides to launch a new war. According the Constitution, you know that dusty document the president swears on a Bible before God and man to abide by at his inauguration, well, according to the constitution only Congress can declare war. In fact this was the single most debated part of the Constitution that its framers discussed, that being the case one would think that it would be seen as rather important, and one would be wrong.

Today, the presidency has metastasized from being a presiding one/steward into an unmitigated Fuhrer and as such he needn't be bothered with such peccadilloes as laws and oaths, his is a high and lonely calling kind of like C.S. Lewis' Uncle Andrew. This is seen yet again in our latest imperialistic intervention in Libya, where without even consulting Congress let alone getting a formal declaration of war, the American Fuhrer has again acted as "the decider", a title which Bush the Lesser ascribed to himself, and approved a new ambiguous open ended war.

In response to the question that has come from people who bothered to read the Constitution asking, "Hey, only Congress can declare war right?!" to which the regime has said, "Not so, with the 'Presidential war powers act' the president can do this." and it has actually become a debate whether or not the president launching a war without congressional approval is a violation of the Constitution. I just wonder what that says about the "War powers act" if it is being cited in order to trump the Constitution?

It is really no small wonder how the very things that should be fixed and unquestioned have become up for debate in our age.

But, on the "war powers" schtick, it is simply laughable that this is even being postulated as a legitimate argument. But, then again I suppose there is a long train of this sort of insane Constitution mutilation from groups like the SPLC, who argue with a straight face that in reality the 2nd amendment actually means that the government has the right to keep and bear arms, not private citizens. I know, you wouldn't think that at first, but well, these guys went to Ivy League schools so we need to just bow down to their seemingly wild revisions of history. Surely, groups like the SPLC are simply slimy commies, I refuse to believe they are so dense as to believe what they are saying, but, then again the strongest delusions often take 2-5 years of post-graduate study to be accepted.

One wonders how the public can accept such sophomoric arguments, but, then again this is the same public that no longer can tell the difference between men and women, right and wrong, and what constitutes a family versus what is an aberration thereof.

As John Calvin put it, God will give people will get the government they deserve, and boy are we in for a wild mess in the next few years.

Addendum:

Here's an excellent article by Tom Woods on the constitution "debate" over presidential war powers.

Privatize It: The First Step Toward Reforming American Education

2011-02-28T18:23:00.002-08:00

In regards to the Wisconsin Teachers Union fight, as is the case in all media controlled debates, the true marrow of the issue is never actually discussed. And, if some bright spark is bold enough to bring up the marrow of an issue they are quickly rebuked for not being practical. Regarding public education the real issue needing to be addressed is why we have government education to begin with.

Essentially, education in America is run like the post office, the USPS has a monopoly over your mail box, no one else can put things in it but them. To be sure, there are private delivery companies, but, regardless of your disposition toward the post office you still have to use them to get letters and bills sent and received. Likewise, no matter how much you detest government education you still are required to fund it in the form of taxes, regardless of whether your children attend or not. Again, there is the private schooling option, and like UPS and Fed Ex they provide superior service to the government. One only needs to look at the educational background of the students who are in the top 10 for spelling bees and geography bees for the most empirical testimony of this fact.

With that said, I would assert that the best route to take is to fully open education up to the free market and privatize all of the government schools. This would save tax victims, er, tax payers, literally hundreds of billions of dollars. It also would allow for a far greater degree of accountability among teachers to do a good job, and the overall quality of education would be tremendously improved by this.

Taxed Dollars Versus Voting With Your Dollars

As it has been noted before, under the government cartelized educational model tax victims are forced to pay for schools regardless of their quality, their use by the tax victims family, or their financial soundness. This is in stark contrast to how things work in the private sector.

In the private sector individuals are allowed to vote with their dollars, we see this everyday as people choose Craft Beers over Budweiser, Bach over Eminem, or Tailored boots over Wal-Mart boots, or vice-versa. Individuals acting in a free market are able to choose what is most important to them at any given time. Do they want something of higher quality or do would they prefer something that is cheap? Do they want to drink like 10 Budweiser beers or would they rather have 1 really good beer? It is all preference, and individuals are able to decide what is the best fit for them at a given time.

Applying this market mechanism to education, it becomes clear that the same mechanisms can and should apply. Does the family want a school that has a strong math department or the other one that really emphasizes the arts? Does the family highly value athletics and is willing to pay extra for a school with a competitive team? Or, would they rather save money and go with a school that doesn't have a sports team? Do they want a school that goes off of a classical model (grammar, logic and rhetoric) or the Horace Mann and John Dewey formula?

Who is the best decision maker in regard to where your money is most wisely spent? You? Or, your congressman, whose name you don't even know?

Some of the Current Objectionable Things taking Place In Public Schools Solved By Free Markets:

As a Christian, it is my unwavering conviction that the education of my children should be thoroughly Christian. The truths of Scripture have something to say on every area of study, and the education of my children should reflect this. It is obvious to even the most passive observer that such an outlook is entirely unwelcome in the modern "religion free" government schools. Just think of the idiocy that goes on, if a kid wears a T shirt that states, "Jesus is Lord" he is liable to get suspended if he does not remove it.

Likewise, we have undoubtedly heard of numerous stories of kids getting suspended for other benign displays, such as the boy with the toy soldier hat, or other kids drawing pictures of guns. The message that is being sent is that the only violence that is acceptable is government approved violence, like the war in Iraq. Again, this moronic timorous display can be solved by a multiplicity of schools for parents to choose from, rather than this one size fits all government model.

On a similar thought, our atheist friends who get their panties in a bundle every time some teacher mentions the word "God", and it is not intended to slight His existence, can send their kids to the materialist school and learn all about how we came from slime. With such a vote with their dollars they can finally sleep easy knowing that their money is not going towards any religious stuff (well, apart from their "scientific" story about man's origin).

On that note, I would be willing to bet that a lot more people, given the choice, that would vote with their dollars that they really don’t care for the slime ball theory of man’s origin and would vote for Intelligent Design in the classroom, or a classroom that teaches both. Right now, this issue has been decided for everyone by the ACLU and black robed aspiring deities occupying courtrooms, rather than parents of students or even the teachers themselves.

The same can be said with the indoctrination of homosexuality in the public school, I'd again be willing to bet that most parents are uncomfortable with their 6 year olds learning about the "Two Kings". Yet, this stuff is forced on people unless they get so outraged that they pull their kids out and homeschool or private school them. I guarantee there are people who really don't like their children being taught about the virtues of "Gay love" but they just go along with it because pulling their kids out and homeschooling or private schooling them seems too drastic. Again, a free market in schooling would solve this.

Markets Flush Out the Inept:

In the Private Sector Reputation and Product Quality Matters:

Given the opening of the markets, schools would be in far more competition with one another, and thus will strive to provide the best services possible. As it is right now the only competition the government schools have with each other is which district is going to get the next ice cream scoop of plunder from Washington. In privatized schools on the other hand, since in the market system can not simply steal the dollars of tax victims like the government, they have to provide a product that is desirable to parents and work at convincing them that theirs is the best school for their child.

Again, just think about it, what school do you think will be better? One that you have to pay for whether you like it or not? Or, one that doesn't get your money if you think it stinks?

This dynamic would have a cleansing effect upon the faculties, schools with a lousy teaching staff would get a reputation of the same. With a bad reputation, the school would consequently lose students and if it fails to remedy this problem it will simply go out of business. Again, contrasting this to what we enjoy right now under the government cartelized system of education, school districts actually hate it when it is suggested that there be a school choice ability on the part of parents. They want you, and your child, to have to endure the crummy teachers they can’t fire because of their union contracts. Thus, when the school choice idea is suggested within the existing government school system they generally reject the idea as being “unworkable”.

In the Private Sector Balanced Budgets Isn't Optional:

In light of the Wisconsin budget debacle, privatized schools wouldn’t be able to spend beyond their means like government run schools. If a private school doesn’t have the funds to pay for a new Olympic swimming pool then they don’t purchase it. However, in the government sector, no expense can be hindered by such peccadilloes as balanced budgets. After all, if there is a budget problem they can just get bailed out by tax victims.

On that note, It was rather humorous to me when I read a statement from one of the striking union teachers in Wisconsin where she said, “We need to show the kids that we are serious about their education, I mean what message does it send to the kids back home that they are cutting teachers pay?” To which upon reading I retorted, it teaches the message that mathematics is still a relevant subject.

The Major Objection To Privatizing Schooling Answered

I anticipate a one primary objection to what has been presented and will answer it prior to its being uttered.

Q: What about families who can not afford these private schools? Do their kids just not go to school since there are no government/public schools?

A1: Historically it has been the church that has provided charitably for those what are unable to pay for services whether it was education, or medical care. There is no reason to not expect this to again be the case if the Leviathan state ceases from cartelizing education.

A2: Furthermore, if the market was truly opened up and there were no longer pounds of government paperwork and bribes to go through in order to run a school, the cost of schooling would be dramatically lowered. As it is right now private school teachers earn significantly less than the government unionized teachers. If the market were allowed to function more freely in this area we could see private schools that would run at perhaps $50 a week per student. A school with 200 students would be grossing $40,000 a month on that. I would think that would provide for ample staffing (administrators, teachers, cooks, janitors) and the price seems very reasonable to me. We pay $20 a week for my daughter’s violin lessons and that is just one day for a half an hour.

A3: Schools can offer a sliding scale or even a work exchange. Perhaps mom could help out by washing the lunch dishes a couple days a week, or dad could come mow the school’s lawn on Saturday in exchange for their child’s enrollment. These would save the school money in labor and would be the same as paying for the child’s tuition.

A4: Since the government cares about our children’s education so much, surely if the free market model of education were to prevail all schools will be tax exempt, making them all the more affordable for the poor.

Conclusion

Education can only stand to gain from free markets. The only thing that government run schooling added to education was regime supportive propaganda, revisionist history, and a dumbing down of the public. What better method can the state employ in going to get the citizens it desires than running education? For a revival of a robust education we need to look to different models, and ultimately to the scriptures. The first step towards dethroning the monstrosity that now exists is to privatize all the schools, as "impractical" as people may call it.

Ruffians Intoxicated With Power, Or Debunking the Myth That Unions "Used" To be Good

2011-02-19T17:37:00.000-08:00

The goal of this essay is to directly rebut the often repeated myth that "There was a time when we needed unions." or "Unions used to be good but now they are out of control." I have heard these phrases tossed about by countless people in light of the recent turmoil in Wisconsin, and it is my goal to debunk that myth.

Preuppositions

I am a Bible believing Christian, as if there is another kind of Christian, my first and foremost philosophic loyalty is to the principles presented to us in the Word of God. When approaching any subject we approach it with these lenses on, and analyze it as faithfully as we can in light of this worldview. Some simple Biblical principals for us to apply would be moral commands like "You shall not steal." or "You shall not bear false witness" or "You shall not murder." (Deut 5) If we really meditate upon these we see that their application is broader than we may think at first glance.

For instance the application of the command to not steal, is expanded by the apostle Paul to a positive of working with ones hands (Eph 4). Seeing the positive as being included in the negative "You shall not..." allows us to see further what is commanded of us. The opposite of not stealing then is to work hard and acquire your own property honestly that you may be charitable to others and respect the property rights of others. Likewise, the negative prohibition of murder would also include the positive command to respect and value life.

When we take this lens and look at politics or in the essay to come, labor unions, the main thing it seems to me to bear in mind is to call evil evil, and good good. Forget who or what we have been told are the "good" guys, we rather need to let the Bible inform us as to who are the good guys and the bad guys. Government and the state aligned media strike me as very adept at alchemizing rottenness and calling it a virtue. This is abundantly true when we look at the history and effect of labor unions. Ever since the kettle began to boil over in Madison WI, I have heard time and time again from people who actually support the Governor in his fight with the unions, that unions used to be good, we needed them at one time.

In the past labor unions truly were freedom fighters, but now they just are out of control. That is the common view of unions, and I find it very interesting how many times I have heard that same line, it tells me there is a state indoctrinated myth needing to be smashed.

But Before We Start:

So, what is a labor union? In short it is a collective, somewhat like a Borg ship on Star Trek though less attractive, as the Borg never pretended to be saving humanity from some great evil. In the words they would use today workers are united in "solidarity" making themselves able to stand as one man. The "solidarity" language sounds less commie than "collective" and thus is preferred, but a skunk called by any other name...

The Labor Union Myth

The simple narrative surrounding labor unions goes something like this, there are these greedy capitalist bosses who through sheer luck of the draw have acquired enough wealth to run a business making widgets that requires laborers. Being the greedy scumbag that he is, the bottom line for the capitalist is profit, and this is of course anathema to our more "socially" minded friends. Thus, the owner will treat workers like garbage, pay them as little as possible, make them work 23 hour shifts and fire them when they pass our from exhaustion. Humanity will be forced to endure this torment unless someone can save us.

Enter our valiant hero the labor union to save humanity from this misery, workers band together and essentially are 1 giant worker, big enough to stand up to the capitalist pig and make him treat the workers right (see illustration to the left). The workers being one solid unit walk out of the widget factory and go on strike holding signs declaring what a bad man the capitalist is.

The capitalist may send out thugs to beat up the peaceful strikers for refusing to work in his factory. The union strikers take the beatings like Gandhi, and refuse to go back to work until they get a raise. The capitalist stunned and befuddled feels ashamed and repents giving the workers a hefty raise, a 40 hour 5 day work week, 10 weeks vacation a year, a 401k plan, healthcare, and paternity leave.

It is also because of unions and their effulgent love for humanity that children no longer are forced to work in the widget mines, workers have air conditioning, and a general spirit of love and unity abounds everywhere the benevolent hand of the labor union has been fortunate enough to touch. This overflow of bliss can be most richly observed in the model cities of Detroit and Gary Indiana, where unionism has had some of its most profound impacts. Stand in awe you scoffers, you who doubt the greatness of the labor union have Detroit to rebuke you!

Labor Union Reality

Alright lets get real here, so how does this labor union thing really work? Specifically, lets start with the "weapon" of unions, the strike, how does a strike really work?

How a Strike Really Works

The only way a strike will succeed is if the union strikers get violent, they prevent "scabs" (People willing to work) from going to work in the capitalists factory, they destroy property, and violate property rights (through blocking entry to the property). Or, Biblically, they need to break the 6th and 8th commandments for a strike to have any hope of working. But, not only do the union strikers need to do all of those things to succeed, they also need one more vital ingredient for success: they need to have the government support them in these dastardly acts.

I mean just think about it for a minute, if you were a factory owner and a bunch of your workers all of a sudden decided they were not going to go back to work until you gave them a raise and dental coverage, meanwhile there are plenty of people who would love to work at the rate the unionized guys are now refusing, what would you do? Well, you'd just fire the ingrates and hire people who are happy to work on the terms the previous employees refused to work at.

Thus, if the strike is going to succeed the union strikers need to prevent you from getting new workers in the factory, which is why the strikers surround the factory. Anyone trying to get in to work in the factory is beaten up by the union strikers and given derogatory names like "scab".

In sensible response to this thuggery, factory owners in the 1800's hired private security firms like the Pinkertons or "strike busters" so they could get workers into their factory and product in and out of the factory, thus keeping the factory running. Also, before the government sided with the unions, police and militia were used to stop union violence and protect private property.

A classical historical example of the supposed good early unions is the "Homestead Strike". In this instance hired Pinkertons were trying to sneak into the private property of Andrew Carnegie which had essentially been seiged by maniacal strikers. The Pinkertons crossed an abutting river at 4 AM, and, upon being noticed by the drooling thug strikers, were greeted with a flurry of gunshots from the same. After the ensuing firefight a number of people were wounded and killed in the union induced violence.

The Pinkertons, not having the element of surprise on their side and being outgunned and outnumbered, were forced to surrender. After being granted "safe passage" out of the strike zone the Pinkertons were forced to walk through a tunnel of strikers receiving peltings of rotten fruit, urine, and club blows upon their exit, many were beaten unconscious.

Eventually, martial law was declared the state militia was called up (now the federalized national guard) and the union degenerates were thankfully thwarted.

It is difficult to imagine what sort of twisted worldview would view the strikers in the Homestead strike as the persecuted party fighting for liberty. Yet, as I said before, I don't know how many times I have heard the refrain that although unions seem pretty crummy now they used to be good. That's the big lie that nearly everyone believes, in reality unions always were thugs, Unionism after all is based off of commie philosophy which has as it's backbone Lenin's maxim:

"The scientific concept, dictatorship, means neither more nor less than unlimited power resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restrained by any laws or any absolute rules. Nothing else but that." (Vladamir Lenin)

Another charming example of these early union strikers is the "Pullman strikes", in this case the boobery was whipped up into a union striking frenzy by Communist agitator Eugene Debs. The strike began in response to a recession induced wage cut for Pullman Palace Car Company railway workers. Unions then, like unions today, simply could not understand an economic situation where it would be justified to see their wages lowered in exchange for remaining employed.

The union strikers immediately became wild and violent, attacking numerous railroad owned properties and persons not associated with the union. In the wake of their marauding savagery 7 buildings were burned down, numerous people ("scabs") were violently assaulted, 13 killed, and in today's dollars roughly $9 million worth of damage was done by these rascals. In the end the rampaging brutes were only quelled by a force 12,000 strong US troops.

The Only Way Unions Can Succeed

Given the above examples, how in the world can a union succeed in getting what it wants? The answer is simple: government intervention.

As has been shown in two famous strikes above that unions tend to have a propensity towards violent outbursts, it would seem to me that any rational person would recoil in horror at these episodes cited above. Well, rationality seems to be short in supply.

I know it might be difficult to believe, but in the mind of the public the strikers with all of their violence, and encroachments on private property, came to be viewed as heroes and martyrs. I ask myself how in the world these ruffians could be viewed in this light, but, then I remember this is the same public that built a Greek temple in devout honour to Abraham Lincoln, housing his marbled likeness on a great white throne of judgment. The same Lincoln who waged a war causing over a million deaths in order to, "free the slaves" as the accepted myth goes.
In short, people tend to like who they are told to by the media.

The Event That Shifted Government Actions Toward Union Violence

So, suffice it to say that the public, already viewing the rogues in unions as heroes, became all the more sympathetic and outraged when renegade strikers in Ludlow CO got a teaspoon of what the Native Americans received in 50 gallon buckets at the hands of the US government. In this instance dubbed by the media the "Ludlow Massacre" a number of striker's wives and children died in a shoot out with US troops. As a result, there was no end to the rage of the public. It was that event that caused the government to cease protecting persons and property of employers and rather jump in and begin its regulation of labor, using the unions as their excuse to expand the size of government.

In light of the Ludlow strike I have to ask why strikers who are in a southern standoff with State Troops would have women and children present on what for all intensive purposes is a battlefield? That seems pretty idiotic, I know if I was in a gunfight my first thought would be how to make sure my wife and kids are safe, so why would they have their weaker vessels in harms way? Nonetheless, it is a tragedy that women and children died, but that in no way justifies the striking union's thuggish manner in which they attempted to advance their cause.

(Left and above, strikers scream at "scabs" going to work on terms the strikers refuse)

From then on the government generally would turn a blind eye to union violence and cease to perform its primary function of protecting persons and property. This can be seen in strikes after this event where union thugs were allowed to beat up scabs, take over private property, and have reigns of terror with immunity while police turned a blind eye, perhaps more so recently because police are all unionized as well.

How Government Acts as a Club on Behalf of Unions

Labor unions generally have a thoroughly unearned reputation of fighting for the little guy, making sure workers are treated fairly. Nothing can be further from the truth. Unions through teaming up with government actually restrict entry into fields of labor, thus giving union members a pay raise through keeping other workers out of said field of work.

Restriction of entry is done through requiring licenses to do certain work, like plumbing, electrical, and carpentry. These trades are all able to be learned on the job in an apprenticeship type of setting. But, rather than allowing that to occur, the unions restrict entry through the use of government requiring an obscene amount of schooling in order to obtain a license to do legally work in these trades. This is why plumbers and electricians can make $30-$100 an hour. The wages for these trades are kept artificially high by restricting entry into the fields.

For instance, if you want to be an electrician you don't buddy up with an electrician and learn the trade until you feel you can do the work on your own, that would make sense wouldn't it? Rather, you go to the government/union approved trade schools and put in the 4-6 years and get a government issued license allowing you to work. This is all justified sanctimoniously by the tired, "It's for the public's safety" line incessantly used by government to reassure the boobus that what looks like a scam and smells like a scam really is blessing.

This same union fascist use of government gimmick applies to innumerable other trades such as Barbary and Hairstyling, Machine Operating, Real Estate, Law, and Taxi cabbing to name a few. If we think about it honestly we will sensibly ask, do you really need to go to school and get a license to cut hair? Or to sell houses? Or to drive a taxi cab?

In all of these examples the unions are not teamed up to fight some wicked capitalist, but rather to club their fellow man and keep out entry into these fields through government regulation, thus artificially driving up their wages. Grasping this one point entirely shifted my perspective on unions: labor unions are not in competition with the boss, they are in all actuality in competition with other workers, particularly the non-union workers. That being the case, wouldn't it be easier to have the government beat up the "scabs" for you?

You can actually read of instances of police stings being done on plumbers, electricians, and cab drivers for operating without a license. Or, to put it more accurately, these were union beat downs of "scabs", that is after all the exact equivalent of what it is to be an unlicensed plumber.

In the disgusting article (linked to above) written by a flaming authoritarian neo-con on the plumbers he actually refers to the customers who choose to hire the unlicensed contractors as "victims". Furthermore, in the same article, you can see the licensed union contractors in full support of the crackdown, gee I wonder why? Could it have anything to do with knocking out their competition? The same is the case with the news article on the cab business operating without the government issued licenses.

Conclusion

I began this post with a reference to the law of God, in the end that is to be our guide, not whether we personally benefit from a union arrangement or have family that does. We have seen that unions and their weapon of striking can only succeed to the use of violence and violating of property rights. Biblically, we know without a doubt that this is directly in opposition to the 6th and 8th commandments, and thus is thoroughly reprehensible. Unionism, Biblically speaking, is immoral if these are the means it uses to achieve it's end.

Forming a union itself is not sinful, nor is striking to try to get a raise, the problem is that these means would never succeed without violence. And, even then violence is not enough, we need greater violence (The government) to support the unions through law for them to succeed. On that note we need to remember that having the government act as one's thug is no more moral than acting as a thug one's self.

I plan to address the needed political reforming of education as well as the impact of public employee unions and the Wisconsin mess in particular in upcoming posts. In this post I wanted mainly to smash the "There was a time when we needed unions" myth.

On a closing note the next time we hear the rubbish about how unions gave us the weekend please join me in a hearty belly laugh, as last I checked the weekend was God's idea (see the 4th commandment) and let us not ascribe to Commie thugs what was really the gift of God.

Do Christians Have an Obligation to Support Benjamin Netanyahu? Or, How Bad Eschatology Leads to Bad Practice.

2011-01-27T10:17:00.000-08:00

One doesn't generally appreciate being called a "Nazi", or an "anti-Christ", or an "apostate", or "deceived", yet I had the pleasure of having all of these labels hurled at me like rotten fruit and dead cats through the computer screen by a Dispensationalist yesterday. The Internet is a wonder, it is a world where men do not meet with a handshake and a "What do you do for a living?" but rather, with scabbards drawn and a "Who the hell do you think you are?!"

I had such an encounter yesterday with a gentlemen, ah but that's too courteous for the web, an individual? Still too drowsy? A crooked fanged pimpled faced know nothing? That's the ticket! That's how we talk on the Internet! As I was saying I had an encounter yesterday, entirely uninitiated by myself, to which the center of our row fixed upon the status of present day Israel. I maintain that the Biblical position is that there is one people of God, the Church, or those united to Christ by faith, and this body consists of both Jew and Gentile.

For holding to such a position I was out of the gates labeled an "anti-Christ" because, I denied that the present day nation of Israel is the people of God. I suppose in the Zionist dispensational scheme my position is blasphemous, as they assert quite forcefully, that there are two peoples of God: the Church and Israel and they are separate, according to their hermeneutic. Their entire eschatological system centers upon a strip of land abutting the Mediterranean Sea.

I was reminded by our friend that the battle between Gog and Magog was soon to take place, the 7 year tribulation period is coming, the secret rapture of the Church, and Christ's ultimate return on the mount of Olives. Most of which I simply can not find in the Bible. Where does the Bible talk about a 7 year tribulation period? Seriously? Shouldn't that be clear if it is so dogmatically held to by these guys? Shouldn't there be a passage that says something akin to, "before the Christ returns there will be 7 years of tribulation..." yet I find that there is nothing even close to that.

But, what I find to be most pernicious about this system is the insistence that the Church and Israel are separate peoples of God, two bodies as it were. My position is that the Church is Israel, that is what the Bible teaches as we shall see shortly. Upon my saying this the wails come reigning down, "B,b,but, that's replacement theology! Are you saying the Church replaced Israel?" No, I am not. If you actually think about the dispensational scheme it is actually they who hold to a "replacement", right now we are in the "Church age" but it will end and God's attention will return to Israel, according to them.

For a typical exposition of the "Two people of God" doctrine from one of it's adhearants you can read here.

What I assert is that the Israel of God always was and always will be the elect of God, and that is made up of Jew and Gentile alike. This reaches it's fullest realization in the Church, as people are drawn out from every tribe tongue and nation to Christ. Christ is the very embodiment of the covenantal promise to Abraham, that in Him all nations shall be blessed. Let's look at that:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16)

See what Paul does here? He makes it clear that the promise given to Abraham doesn't refer to physical descendants in general, but to One descendant in particular, Christ. Thus, consequently the promises belong to those united to Christ, which is the Church. But, let's continue in Galatians:

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." (Gal 4:22-31)

Here, we again see Paul explicitly stating that it is not physical descendancy from Abraham that makes one a member of the Israel of God, nor is it physical proximity to Jerusalem itself that makes one an Israelite. Rather, one needs to be a citizen of the "Jerusalem that is above", a son of "the free woman". Or, as one sees in the greater context, one needs to be in Christ. To be in Christ is to be in the Israel of God.

Interestingly, if we ponder Paul's language here about the bondwoman being cast out it seems rather prophetic for the coming judgement in 70 AD, where there was a doing away with the temple sacrifices and national Israel.

But more directly to the point that there is but one people of God we turn to Paul's letter to the Ephesians:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:13-22)

This passage speaks directly to the matter on which we are seeking clarity. Paul, writing to Gentiles, makes clear to them that they are no second class citizens, the wall of separation is "broken down" (this is temple imagery) and all have equal access into the blessing of God. There is "one body" that is "reconciled to God", and "one household", because all enjoy the same foundation and Cornerstone. The Church further is described as a temple, I would argue that this harkens back to the Ezekiel temple the Dispensationalists are always bantering about, it's already happened. That's why the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the real temple is now here, Christ and His Church.

Hey dispies, put that hermeneutic in your shofar and smoke it.

I am uncertain as to what could be more clear and decisive in settling this matter, there is one people of God, those in Christ, the Church. But, to continue to throw trusty spears into the Jabba the Hut-like hermeneutic the Dispensationalists have erected, I turn to Paul's letter to the Romans:

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom 9:4-8)

I think that spear landed into the brutes' heart. How much more vivid can the picture be before the "two people of God" position is dropped and left for dead, having been slain by the sword of the Spirit? It explicitly says the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of promise. One can couple this with Christ's own rebuke of the would be "Children of Abraham" in John 8 and it should be apparent that having Abraham's blood in your veins does not make one a son of Abraham.

How many times does the New Testament need to say this before we get this one? Obviously, this is not new error or else it wouldn't have been stabbed, shot, hung and burned so many times in the New Testament. The passages I cited are but a narrow selection from what else could have been chosen to address this matter. Simply put, this is a dead horse Hoss.

In fact, if someone has read this and still holds to the "two people of God" doctrine I would simply ask them to show me where that is taught in the Bible. Where does the Bible teach that God has two separate peoples? You might want to highlight and underline that question because you're not going to get an answer from John Haggee (pictured on left) on that one, you are just supposed to assume it, kind of like the guys Paul was rebuking in Galatians ch. 2. Furthermore, if you still hold to the two people doctrine, I ask, how in the world do you exegete the passages I cited above without doing violence to the text?

So What are the Implications of This?
The implications of getting this right should be clear, right now dispensationalists have a sort of boyish crush on the nation of Israel. This can be seen with many evangelical churches adorning their sanctuaries with Israeli flags, stars of David, menorahs, and gigantic maps of Israel. Worshippers may strut around bugling away on shofars, while donning an authentic prayers shawl (made in Israel of course). Although they speak English they may even adopt calling Jesus "Yeshua" because everything is better in Hebrew, as well as calling Him "Mashiach" instead of Christ. This is the whole gimmick of the "Discovering the Jewish Jesus" tv show.

But the implications of the two people of God doctrine doesn't just stop with eccentric shticks and borderline idolatrous practices in the Church, it also extends into the realm of politics as well.

Dispies generally have an Israel can do no wrong foreign policy. Every time Israel rolls tanks into Gaza it is obviously warranted. Every time Benjamin Netanyahu calls for attacking Iran the Christian Zionists are right there with him joinging the chorus calling for mass death. Apparently, because Mahmoud Ahmdinaunpronouncable made a comment about wanting to wipe Israel off the map, that is now quoted incessantly, that now justifies Israel and its lackeys here in the US constantly threatening to wipe Iran off the map.

Dispies of course turn a blind eye to all of the human rights violations on behalf of Israel, or even the US against Muslims that continue to go on, I think just because they hate Muslims. Yet, every time a Palestinian acts with reprehensible aggression the Christian Zionists begin screaming for justice, and playing the Israel is the misunderstood victim game. Although, to them it's not a game, they really perceive reality in that light. Our presuppositions will always color how we see things.

In short, this needs to stop. Our theology and the sub-branch of eschatology will effect how we live. Dispensationalism and its wild last days charts as a whole would make for a pretty neat comic book series for young teens if only grown men wouldn't take it seriously. But, particularly annoying is the Israel is the center of the world idea, and it's backbone: the two people of God doctrine.

So, coming back to our friend who would call what I just espoused "anti-Christ". What pray tell can be more anti-Christ than to say that there is a people of God outside of Christ?

And, not only that, but then the Dispensationalists demand that all those in Christ (The Church) must see to it that America gives unwavering support to that Christ rejecting people, militarily, and monetarily or America will be cursed. How absurd. Christian Zionism will eventually occupy the theological dustbin of history along with the Shakers, the Quakers, and the radical Anabaptist community of "love and equality" in Munster. Dispensationalism, and its bastard child of Christian Zionism, will be an oddity that future generations shall read about only to be rewarded with a hearty belly laugh for their labors.

Relativistic Sentimentalism on Overdrive: Or Popular Thoughts on Gay Marriage

2011-01-20T08:36:00.000-08:00

"Who are you to say?" Seems to be the highest expression of Orthodoxy in our day, yet in that one simple challenge to moral authority the destruction of our entire society is contained. No, I don't see homosexuality itself as the thing that will destroy our society, it is just another symptom of the lemming like march of the West off the cliff of relativism.

Recently, in the town I reside in Rhode Island the debate over same sex marriage has been sparked as the new Governor Lincoln Chaffee (the first name should tell the reader all we need to know) has vowed to legalize same sex marriage. This was answered in our town by a gentleman speaking against this matter in a public forum at a Catholic church. Given the reaction by individuals writing to the editor one might have thought that a young George Wallace descended upon the town crying, "Segregation now! And, segregation forever!"

The statements made by local common folk is what I believe spells the death march of our society, apart from God's Spirit being poured out in a massive revival. The editorial letters were entirely devoid of any moral pronouncement that could be considered objective. In essence the entire problem the people had with the forum against same sex marriage was, "I don't like it, I have a gay friend/brother/or I myself am gay." Vapid slogans continue to dominate our intellectual landscape, one of which that is invoked ad nauseum is as follows:

"Why can't two people who love each other get married?"

To which, if we act like adults and pause to think, we will find that there may in fact be any number of reasons why it may not be possible for "two people who 'love' each other" to get married, such as: They may be brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, they are cousins, one of them may already be married, both of them may already be married, one of the parties may be under age, both of the parties may be under age, and lastly, they may be of the same gender. Our autonomous society wants to place an asterisk next to that last one, but if it does that, why not place an asterisk next to them all?

We hear people scoff when the sensible question is brought up that if homosexual marriage is permitted then why not polygamy, bestial marriage, or man boy marriage? People get angry and roll their eyes at these suggestions, I think because they were never taught logic. If sexual ethics are up in the air to be determined, not by God in His word, but rather the lobby groups in Washington or Providence in the case of RI, then why stop at same sex marriage?

After all, what do you mean you don't think a man can have 7 wives? What are you some sort of polygaphobe? What do you mean a man can't marry his Pit Bull? That is a bigoted narrow minded thing to say, after all, who are you to say? Honestly, why not? Stay out of a man's bedroom! The supporters of same sex marriage can never really answer why these latter perversions would remain impermissible once their perversion becomes acceptable. What are the boundaries, what is the standard that forbids such arrangements as man beast, or man and boy?

In fact, the lobby groups for these perversions already exist.

The issue isn't a what goes where mechanics confusion in sexual practice, rather it strikes at the very root of what ethics are based upon. Is God our lawgiver? If so we have objective truth in the area of ethics. Or, is man autonomous? If so all moral statements are subjective and are really on the same level as which of the 31 Baskin Robbins flavors is your favorite.

Such is the muddled state of thinking in our day, as Dostoevsky famously stated, "Without God all things are permitted."

That really needs to sink in to people. If we are just making up the boundaries of morality and decency as we go, and there is no fixed standard or word from God, then we have no basis to really object to anything. The implications of that are obviously much larger than off color bedroom practices. In short, the supporters of same sex marriage are getting more than they bargain for.

Were The American Colonies Sinning When They Seceeded From Britain in 1776?

2011-01-19T10:17:00.000-08:00

I have said it before and I will say it again, the Church is in desperate need of a robust political philosophy today. We are in turbulent times, I don't think it will sink in to most individuals just how precarious these times are until we see an unveiling of a full blown police state. Those who have eyes to see have observed it under construction in gems like the Patriot Act and the acceptance of the practice of torture. But more dangerous than these portends is the reflexive docility toward the downward march into tyranny on the part of Christians. Basically many Christians are acting as the towl boy for the intoxicated monstrosity that is the Federal Government, this canine like lacky behaviour is allegedly extracted and justified from Romans chapter 13.

I recently on Facebook had an individual, with whom I am not acquainted, send me a private message in order to give me the old Romans 13 finger wagging. This was done because apparently voicing ones having a problem with the regime that rules us killing Pakistani civilians is actually wrong for Christians in light of Romans 13. I suppose the next time I happen to read about 54 Pakastani "insurgents" being killed in a predator drone strike, it is my duty in the words of Bill O'reilly to, "Sit Down and Shut Up!" To add to this, the individual further declared the American war for Independence to be sinful in light of Romans 13, and it is that assertion which I shall focus on in this post.

So what should be our response to this? Was it in fact sinful to withdraw from union with King George? Not at all, in fact the colonial leaders actually would actually be disobeying Romans 13 by not doing so, but more on that in a bit. We first need to get the concept of the principle of the lesser magistrate in our minds before that last sentence will make sense.

The Principle of the Lesser Magistrate

The Lesser Magistrate doctrine simply stated holds that it is not only the right but the duty of lower governing authorities (think mayor) to disobey and even oppose higher authorities (think governor or president) when those higher authorities give commands or decrees that are themselves unlawful. Theologically speaking, this all rests upon the principle that all authority is delegated authority from God, which is what we actually find in Romans 13:1. Therefore, given that the authority possessed by governments is a delegated authority or stewardship it has boundaries, it is not autonomous.

If we get this we will understand that the American secession from King George was not in the least sinful, as it was in actuality the principle of the lesser magistrate in action. Since governments are not autonomous they are bound by God's laws that all men are called to obey regardless of their status. These can be simple things like, stop stealing (Eph 4:28), and stop lying (Eph 4:25). The colonial congress and government interposed on behalf of their people to protect them from the lawlessness of King George. For a recounting of what King George did that warranted a severing of their union to him the Declaration of Independence lists the grievances of the Colonies against King George. The founding fathers were intimately acquainted with the lesser magistrate principle and based their entire secession upon it.

The logic of their separation from England went something like this:

P1. Government exists to protect persons and property.

P2. There are numerous governing authorities, (in 1776, local colonial representatives and the overseas Parliament and King.)

P3. Governing authorities can become injurious to persons and property (See King George quartering troops in homes).

/:.C. Therefore, governing authorities not only can but ought to interpose on behalf of the people to protect from other governing authorities acting tyrannically.

This doctrine of the lesser Magistrate was taught by John Calvin and received direct application from John Knox in his letter "Appelation" to the lesser magistrates of Scotland as he sought protection from bloodthirsty papists. The principle, being the backbone of the American Colonial secession from King George, led to the war being nicknamed the "Presbyterian War" by King George himself. Presbyterians should be proud that the American war for Independence was so called.

So with all of that said, were these men all wrong in light of the modern applications of Rom 13? Not at all, lesser magistrates would actually be violating the commands for government in Romans 13 if they didn't stand up to tyrants and disobey sinful orders. "For he is the minister of God to thee for good." (Rom 13:4)

Perhaps seeing the principle on a smaller scale will allow the reader to grasp its application upon a larger. A soldier is bound by oath to obey his superior officers, however if the superior officer has ordered something that is unlawful (ex. firing upon civilians) the soldier not only can disobey but he must disobey, as he answers not to the superior officer ultimately but the superior's Superior, God. To continue this thought, if a superior officer in the battle field loses his mind and begins dishing out all sorts of wild orders, many of them dangerous to the soldiers below him, it is no mutiny to relieve him of his charge and for a lesser officer to assume command in his place against his will. It is rather most proper and judicious for the lesser officer to do so.

With that said, here's a real life situation, it is 1776, you are a Virginian and the Virginia congress has signed the Declaration of Independence and chosen to secede from union with England. Who do you obey, congress or the king? Who does Romans 13 tell you to obey? It doesn't.

This is where we need to put on the big boy pants and think like adults, look over those grievances in the Declaration and decide who has our loyalty. The same can be said of the war for Southern Independence and the Lincoln's forced assimilation of the South back into a Borg like Union with Washington. It is this seed bed of thought that men like Thomas Jefferson could say, "Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God."

Yet, today average Christian, as well as bureaucrat recoils in horror at such sentiment as the above expressed by our 3rd president.

Simply put, we need to recapture this teaching in the church, this isn't enlightenment based rubbish. By and large I just hear the bootlicking rendition of Rom 13 ad nauseum from my brothers in Christ. The only place that is going to lead to is the Church being complicit as the state encroaches more and more upon the people of this country. A robust political philosophy needs to be recovered, one that allows Christians to call evil evil and to be John the Baptists towards the Herods of our day, and there are a lot of them. Understanding the doctrine of the lesser magistrate is a great step in that direction, and the government that rules us would rather that it was forgotten.

Are We Waiting For Christ To Occupy His Throne?

2011-01-10T09:28:00.000-08:00

I am presently reading through Keith Mathison's "Postmillenialism: An Eschatology of Hope" and have been impressed thus far with both the thoroughness and depth of his scriptural argument as well as the fairness to the other eschatological camps. I of course come to the book already accepting a postmillenial position and just want to go further up and further in as C.S. Lewis put it. On the issue of whether Christ is reigning now or later, Postmillenialism shows itself to be the most Biblical here in regard to the throne matter.

"The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." (Psalm 110:1)

This is actually the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. So, obviously the Spirit thought it to be important to our understanding of the New Covenant. In one of the New Testament references, Peter's sermon in Acts, we see the application of this passage:

"This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:32-36)

We see here clearly the answer to the question in this post's title, when Christ ascended into heaven, He sat down at the right hand of God and there shall remain, until His enemies are put under His feet. Understanding this in a Postmillenial context has helped me to understand other scriptures. For example:

"Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

I never understood this passage when I had a Premillenial view of Christ's return, it seemed to me that it would be better if they rolled out the throne in Jerusalem and Christ began to reign in an earthly kingdom. If that indeed is the endgame as the Premils would say how in the world can it be better that Christ not set up an earthly throne now?

Ah, but that's the rub, He is on the throne, right now. At least that's what the Spirit said, and from there He rules the nations (Psalm 2) and shall see all things put under His feet.

The Teaching of Bill Johnson and Bethel Church Examined Part II: Bodily Healing In the Atonement Error

2011-01-06T08:21:00.000-08:00

In the first post in this series we looked at the Christological errors being espoused by Bill Johnson. The reader also saw what I believe to be the driving presuppositions behind the denial of Christ's Divine attributes during His earthly ministry, namely an idolatrous esteem for miracles. That same presupposition is explicitly the guiding principle in this next area of "Healing in the atonement" for certain.

Let me again preface my article with where I sympathize with Mr. Johnson. I whole heartily agree with Mr. Johnson that sickness and death are NOT normal. We were not originally made to die and leave our bodies and be unclothed spirits (2 Cor 5:1-4). So, let me be very clear sickness and death are tragic, and I long for the day when that last enemy is put under king Jesus' feet (1 Cor 15:26 cf Psalm 110:1). With that said, I appreciate the passion Bill Johnson has to see these things taken away, he is sincere in wanting to see sickness and death eliminated and health restored, and with that I am in cheerful agreement.

It's the theology that Bill Johnson has built around healing that is the problem, not the aim. He has a good goal but has drifted off the path into bypass meadow, much in the same mindset of Bunyan's Christian.

Defining The Healing in the Atonement Doctrine

Let us firstly define what this healing in the atonement doctrine actually is teaching. In brief the marrow of the healing in the atonement teaching is that just as Christ died for our sins He also died for our bodily healing. Thus, healing is guaranteed to people just as surely as salvation from our sins (and the wrath they deserve) is guaranteed by Christ's death. So, bodily healing is readily available on demand, Christ bought it. The doctrine is said to have its Biblical base in Isaiah 53:4-5 which reads:

"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 53:4-5)

Now a possible translation of "griefs" in Hebrew "khol-ee'" From H2470; malady, anxiety, calamity: - disease, grief, (is) sick (-ness) is sicknesses. Also, a possible translation for "sorrows" in Hebrew "mak-o-baw'" From H3510; anguish or (figuratively) affliction: - grief, pain, sorrow. So in the text there is a possible meaning of the words that indeed is closely related to sickness, and to this the healing in the atonement teachers have latched on. (Strong's Concordance)

Further Scriptural citation for this doctrine often include the close relationship between individuals being forgiven their sins and being bodily healed. I have heard the doctrine being extracted from the healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9 where Christ says:

"For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he then said to the paralytic--"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Matt 9:6)

The logic goes something like this, Jesus in the above account was saying that the evidence that the paralytic was forgiven of his sins was shown in his consequent healing. Or, to put it another way, he was healed because he was forgiven. Therefore, it stands to reason that all those whom Christ has forgiven have full access to this bodily healing, just as he died for their sins that they may be forgiven He equally died that their bodies might no longer taste sickness. This coupled with the sickness oriented rendering of Isaiah 53 and it seems a pretty airtight argument, especially if you are not thoroughly familiar with all of scripture.

By way of my making a response to this teaching it must be pressed upon the understanding of those who hold to it and even teach this doctrine that it has large implications and threatens other Biblical doctrines and our own practice. These Biblical teachings under assault include the sovereignty of God and His goodness in His sovereignty, the Biblical teaching on sickness and in a more empirical vein the ubiquity of sickness in our world and lives.

Before I go into a rebuttal of the position, I will let these things be stated by Bill Johnson himself. In Video #1 here, Mr. Johnson asserts that sickness is never the will of God and in fact to think that God is sovereign over sickness is actually to make Him out to be a child abuser. I find that almost every time some teacher says things like, "If God is like X then He's a rapist" that God in fact is like X. There are also many other statements made in the video I would consider outlandish, particularly the Smith Wigglesworth quote that seems to make God into a force we tap into.

Video #2 here is Mr. Johnson replying to 3 questions, 1.) Does God ever cause sickness? 2.) Does God ever choose not to heal? 3.) What was Paul's thorn in the flesh? Johnson of course answers no to the first two questions, but in doing so really has to make the devil bigger than he really is and make God smaller than He is, and again God seems more like a force that we tap into the more I listen to Mr. Johnson. In response to the third question Mr. Johnson says he just doesn't know what Paul's thorn in the flesh was, but he knows it wasn't sickness.

In this #3 and last video Mr. Johnson makes a statement that I think is very revealing and really supports my thought as to why there are all of these odd doctrines in Mr. Johnson's theology. Mr. Johnson states at the 1:00 mark, "I refuse to create a theology that allows for sickness." Furthermore, Johnson actually says that if you don't believe in all of this healing on demand business or think Paul's thorn is some sort of bodily ailment you are preaching a different gospel. Please note, this video has written comments by someone obviously not sympathetic to Johnson's position, I rather don't like that, as Johnson's own words are enough.

Having let Mr. Johnson speak for himself I begin my rebuttal with the doctrine of God's sovereignty followed by a Biblical exegesis of the popular healing in the atonement passages, the Biblical accounts of sickness as well as our common experience with sickness.

I. The God Who is Good and Sovereign Over All Things Including Sickness

One of the "stupid doctrines" to quote Bill Johnson, that he seems nauseated by in the first video, as it implies God is in control of sickness, is the doctrine of God's sovereignty. This teaching is directly under assault by the "sickness is never of God" slogans. Is God in control of all things or is He being controlled by something(s)? It is impossible to hold to the healing on demand position and affirm God's sovereignty, because it would mean that every sickness is from the devil, and God would rather that there were no sickness but for some reason He can't stop that pesky devil from running a muck and spreading the Flu virus. Christians often mouth quaint phrases like, "God is in control" but if we really flush that out we find He is in control of things we'd rather Him not be...but He after all isn't a tame Lion...He isn't safe...but He is good.

A. God's Sovereignty Over Evil

The most moving narrative in Scripture in regards to the sovereignty of God is found in the story of Joseph. In the life of Joseph we see a man who has received a promise from God and yet his entire life is one tragedy and suffering on top of another. From his brothers intending to murder him but instead doing the next best thing and selling him as a slave to Ishmaelites, to his slavery and false accusation of rape from the loose wife of his master. From there, as a prisoner in a dungeon, to thinking he might get a release by helping the cup bearer of Pharaoh only to be forgotten by the cup bearer for years.

Finally, Joseph is exalted to the place of 2nd over all of the land of Egypt through his interpreting of Pharoah's dreams. In this position he is able to save the lives of many including his own treacherous brothers through his wise preparations for the famine he knew was coming. It is after going through the valley of shadow full of tragedy and suffering that on the other end Joseph can look back recognizing that God did was its author. This reaches a climax as he is able to gaze upon his wicked brothers and see the hand of God guiding even them as he says:

"So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt." (Gen 45:8)

And again,

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Gen 50:20)

Here we see Joseph clearly confessing God's sovereignty over all the events of his life, particularly the evil ones, with a good end intended by God in it all. So, in regard to God's goodness I agree with Mr. Johnson, God is good all the time, we just need to understand God's goodness in the same manner as Joseph, and the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:28. The "all things" includes a lot of trials are struggles.

B. God's Sovereignty Over Sickness in Particular

Contrary to Bill Johnson's Q & A answers to the question "Does God ever cause or allow sickness?" the God of the Bible declares that yes indeed He does, and the reality of this is something He confesses boldly as it distinguishes His sovereignty and power. We often overlook passages that deal with the LORD specifically striking someone with illness, one instance is the judgement of God upon David's child born out of his adultery with Bathsheba:

"And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick." (2 Sam 12:15)

Why did the child get sick? The LORD struck him. The average sentimentalist may not like this but there it is. Let God be God. Other examples worth noting are as follows:

"And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Take handfuls of soot from the kiln, and let Moses throw them in the air in the sight of Pharaoh. It shall become fine dust over all the land of Egypt, and become boils breaking out in sores on man and beast throughout all the land of Egypt." (Ex 9:8-9)

"They sent therefore and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines and said, "Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it return to its own place, that it may not kill us and our people." For there was a deathly panic throughout the whole city. The hand of God was very heavy there. The men who did not die were struck with tumors, and the cry of the city went up to heaven." (1 Samuel 5:11-12)

In a more clear cut pronouncement on His sovereignty over sickness we turn to the book of Exodus. We find this proclamation in the context of Moses stating that he is slow of speech and doesn't think he is the best candidate to go before Pharaoh and give him the "Let my people go" speech, to which God replies:

"Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" (Exodus 4:11)

Here we see God confessing that it is He who decides whose eyes will work, whose mouths shall speak, and whose ears shall hear. He decides that, not some fallen angel, running around doing whatever he wants while God bites His nails trembling at the devil's works and fretting that the church hasn't activated the power of healing like Smith Wigglesworth. No, God rules over disabilities and therefore over abilities. When someone is good at sports or music or is very intelligent people will say that person, "Has a gift", whether or not they realize they are recognizing a Gift Giver by saying so.

Yet, on the flip side when people are seen with physical problems, we want to protect God and say He didn't do that. People often become indignant and begin to demand "Why?!" from God to which scripture anticipating such a reaction to God's sovereignty replies:

"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21)
Now I understand that people at first don't like this, they want a God that is manageable rather than One who the Supreme Manager of all things, and that is why Arminianism reigns in regard to soteriology. But, that issue aside, once we submit to this teaching of scripture, we find that the doctrine that seemed so dark and void of comfort is actually teeming with sweetness, comfort and light. After all, when you hear from the doctor, "It's terminal." what is more comforting, the notion that this is just an accident that God wishes wouldn't be but for some reason He can't stop it? Or are we comforted to know with scripture that not a hair can fall from our heads without it being the will of our Father in heaven (Matt 10:29-30)?

I'll take the latter over the Johnsonite position.

II. The Bible on Healing in the Atonement. Or an Attempt to Exegete the Texts Most Used by Advocates of the Doctrine.

A. Isaiah 53

There is no controversy as to the actual language in Isaiah 53:3-4, it certainly can mean sickness and pains, hence the footnotes in your Bible's margin telling you this. So, if we let scripture interpret scripture we must ask, how is the Isaiah passage viewed in the New Testament? Lets see:

"And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." (Matt 8:14-17)

In Matthew's gospel we indeed do see the Isaiah 53:4 text used directly in regard to healing. The healings Christ performed are said to be the fulfillment of the Isaiah text. Yet, I hasten to add that that is it. Bodily healing isn't in the atonement or death of Christ, but rather was in His earthly ministry. It was during His earthly ministry that this part of the Isaiah text was said to be fulfilled in relation to sickness, not on the cross, or so says the Spirit in Matthew's gospel.

Next, in the context of suffering and persecution the Spirit in Peter's first epistle says:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." (1 Peter 2:21-25)

Now here Peter, unlike in Matthew's citation of Isaiah 53, is clearly talking about the atonement/death of Christ on the cross. It is also apparent that he understands the "healing" of Christ's atonement to be akin to a lost sheep returning to its shepherd. The healing Peter sees here is relational between man and God centering upon forgiveness. He points to it in an exemplary manner in order to call believers to imitate Christ in His suffering wrongfully at the hands of persecutors. Having been forgiven much they themselves too can forgive.

The healing in the atonement that the Spirit tells us about is that of men who were once at enmity with God (Rom 8:7) being restored to God, what greater form of healing can there be?

With all of that said, we see why the language of "sickness" and "pain" is seen more figuratively in regard to the atonement itself. Sin is described in Isaiah itself as a disgusting sickness (Isaiah 1:1-7). The Spirit uses the word "sins" (1 Pet 2:24) and there do we see the true healing in the atonement. The bodily healing aspect of the prophecy was fulfilled in the healing ministry of Jesus, and the greater reality of the sin bearing savior and sinful man's restoration to God is fulfilled in the substitutionary death of Christ. After all what is sicker than a guilty sinner? Who is in more pain than one who suffers under the wrath and curse of God?

B. Is This Taught in the New Testament?

If this healing in the atonement doctrine is such an important part of what Christ did that Bill Johnson actually has the temerity to accuse the deniers of it of "Preaching another gospel" where is it taught in the New Testament? Where does the new testament teach that believers are never to be sick, and that in fact getting a cold is evidence of a demonic assault needing to be resisted? Well, the answer to both of these questions should be obvious, it's nowhere in the New Testament.

But, I return now to the assertion made at the begining in defining this teaching that Christ in healing individuals made a direct connection with their having been forgiven. They were healed as evidence of forgiveness. Lets look at that passage again:

"For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he then said to the paralytic--"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Matt 9:6)

Let me be somewhat silly and say that the tex means what it says. Anyone can come up to someone and say "Your sins are forgiven." and that be a non-reality, we after all can't see sins leaving someone nor their standing before God. So, to show that Jesus declaration is not in the same catagory of a "Your sins are forgiven" declaration from some charlatan Jesus provides a visual display that He and His proclamation are different from that of some irreverent blasphemer.

Som is there a 1 to 1 correlation here between bodily healing and being forgiven? Absolutely not. The reason for the healing in this instance is given and it wasn't that everyone who has been forgiven has access to bodily healing, but rather "But that you may know". Know what? Know who Jesus is. There were skeptics at this display questioning Christ's absolving a man of his sins and Jesus gave the skeptics a visual aid that they might know a bit about the Son of Man and His power.

Another aspect worthy of note is the repeated Johnsonite assertion that Jesus always healed the sick, as sickness was intolerable to Him. Again, as dealt with in the first post, Christ is allegedly our entirely imitatable example in this regard according to Mr. Johnson. This "Christ always healed" assertion simply isn't true, Jesus we know would have passed by a certain beggar who was lame and daily was brought to the gate outside the temple. We know this as this lame man was later healed in Acts 3:2 by Peter.

III. Accounts of Sickness in the New Testament

If the healing in the atonement doctrine is indeed the case there certainly are a number of scriptures attesting to ill believers that would contradict this teaching.

Tabitha:

"Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber."(Acts 9:36-37)

Epaphraditus:

"Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick.

For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. I sent him therefore the more carefully, that, when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful." (Phil 2:25-28)

Trophimus:

"Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick." (2 Tim 4:20)

Paul:

"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Cor 12:7-10)

The following passage in Galatians is why most Bible scholars assume Paul's thorn in the flesh had to do with sight:

"You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me." (Gal 4:13-15)

Conclusion:

Didn't all of these believers know that healing was theirs on demand? Didn't they know that sickness was not part of the kingdom reality that was now their possession? What is Paul doing leaving Trophimus sick?

Obviously, the New Testament account contradicts the healing in the atonement/healing on demand doctrine. We have believers like Tabitha falling sick and dying, faithful disciples like Epaphroditus nearly dying , and we see co-laborers with Paul like Trophimus having to be left behind because of sickness rendering them unable to travel. Also, we have the apostle Paul Himself speaking of a "thorn in the flesh". Where is the thorn again? In his flesh. So, whatever that may be (blindness, or nagging injury from a persecution) it is clearly physical, and it's not going away, God Himself has said so.

Unlike Bill Johnson's assertion that he, "Refuses to form a theology that allows for sickness" the honest student of the Bible isn't allowed the luxury of deciding what the Bible says about sickness a-priori. If we just let the Bible say what it says we see that Paul's suffering was not only physical but that he actually saw a God given purpose in his sufferings. This fits with the suffering theme throughout all of scripture.

IV. Sickness and Our General Human Experience

Since Adam, sickness and death has been a part of the human experience. It is not normal, that is why we weep over departed saints. Those who die tend to die of something, and water is wet. With that said, men like Oral Roberts who claimed to have never been sick in decades still die of something regardless of their delusions. As I said in the first post, I have many dear friends who have been heavily influenced by Bill Johnson and the Bethel Redding Church. A number of them I know have gone to doctors for surgeries and medical treatments. Again, if all of this healing in the atonement/on demand business is true, that simply shouldn't be the case.

In fact, Bill Johnson himself was recently hospitalized for anemia. Of course it was called a demonic attack, but that must mean the devil can thwart God and does so...well...A LOT...because I see sick believers all the time. But lets stay on Mr. Johnson himself since he is the one making these extravagant claims and then not living the reality. Leaving aside acute illness, we can casually observe that, Mr. Johnson's hair is gray, he is getting rather wrinkled in the skin, and he has to wear glasses in order to see properly...healing is in the atonement?

Why all of this unreality? I would humbly say the unreality exists because the healing the atonement doctrine simply isn't Biblical.

V. Conclusion

Let's just keep it simple, if healing is in the atonement why does Mr. Johnson wear glasses? Seriously, that really should settle the whole debate, no fancy exegesis required. Rather than paying the $200 every few years for a new pair of spectacles why not pay $25 and purchase his own teaching series, "Healing: Our Birthright" at the Bethel store and grab his healing? If God never causes sickness, then what are we to make of David's child, the tumors in Egypt and on the Ark harboring Philistines all being struck with sickness clearly by God? Not to mention the covenantal threats of disease upon the Israelites in Deuteronomy if they break the covenant?

None of that makes sense if we are to live by theology based upon quaint slogans. All slogan theology leaves us with is a God somewhat like a doting mother with a head full of curlers who showers us with kisses and cookies everytime we skin our knees playing kick the can in the alley when she told us to clean our room.

Fortunately, man does not live by quaint sayings but the word of God.

Lastly, the Johnsonite view of God's sovereignty is surely muddled, I haven't heard Mr. Johnson explain this doctrine but he is certain to have a good deal of problems in doing so. But, the doctrine of God's sovereignty is just another bloody victim that has been slain alongside Christ's Divine attributes at the idolatrous altar dedicated to miracles that Mr. Johnson has erected. If we approach theology like Mr. Johnson, and from the outset have predetermined that certain conclusions are off limits, as he said, "I refuse to create a theology where God allows sickness", then we shouldn't at all be surprised to find that we have to engage in all sorts of scriptural acrobatics, and outright cut and pasting.

But as I said previously, I have no personal axe to grind here, and I trust I have been charitable in my critique without comprimising the truth. I just haven't really seen a rebuttal of this theology done in a responsible way and am responding to the need.

The Teaching of Bill Johnson and Bethel Church Examined: Part I, Christological Errors

2011-01-04T10:07:00.000-08:00

Recently, in light of a recent comment in the "complaints" section of an old blog post reviewing charismatic big dog Bill Johnson's book, "When Heaven Invades Earth", I found that in regards to this issue, the horse indeed was not dead and clearly not sufficiently beaten for the retort, "Aw Gee, Don't beat a dead horse!" to apply. This is certainly so as I received this following reply in regard to my having a problem with Bill Johnson denying Christ's Divinity during His earthly ministry:

"I love the book! If Jesus didn't operate fully as a man(Eph 2:7,8)under the power of the Holy Spirit, then there is no atonement. That is the whole point. He lived a perfect life for us, in our place. Then died on the cross for us, in our place. How would it be a "substitutionary" atonement if Jesus didn't do it strictly as a man? (Heb 4:15)" - Anonymous

Preliminary Remarks

I firstly must begin by stating that I have nothing against Bill Johnson personally, I have never met the man, and I assume he is a nice guy to have a beer with. I want to make that clear upfront I have no axe to grind personally here, I am not criticising the man, I am however going to criticise his teaching. Also, anything that I may state strongly please know that I do so not out of an "I'm gonna zing em good!" kind of gamesmanship, I hate that stuff. This isn't a game, doctrinal error is serious and that warrants strong language (Matt 5:30, Gal 5:12), but let us also not add to the sins of heretics our uncharitable behaviour.

We know certain foods may harm a man's body even to the point of death, but doctrinal error harms the soul and in some cases to the point of death. In the case of a conspiracy to poison the meal of a King the culprits are sought out and put to public trial that others who might consider such a conspiracy may fear. Likewise, in the area of teaching in Christ's Church the disseminators of error need to be arrested through Biblical rebuke equally public and fear creating (1 Tim 5:20). With that said I proceed.

The Book "When Heaven Invades Earth" and Its Christology Described

Let me start by saying what I liked about Johnson's book, yeah that's right I can be a nice guy sometimes. I appreciated particularly Johnsons' watered down postmillenial optimism, yeah it wasn't full blown postmil but I'll take it given the American church is by and large just waiting to get raptured out of here like refugees waiting for a helicoptor airlift out of a war torn country. So, I liked that. Johnson also has a heart to see the kingdom of God advanced on earth, and on that at least we agree...when it comes to describing what the Kingdom looks like and how it is to be advanced is where we would undoubtedly go our separate ways.

So what's my beef? To be blunt, I find the book to be very dangerous, because the book is filled to the brim, nay, to overflowing with dangerous error, twisting of scriptures, and most dangerous of all the book is very winsome. Also, on a more personal note, this book, and Johnson's teaching, has influenced many brothers and sisters who are dear to me I fear for the worse. Now, with that said, what exactly is Johnson getting at in his book? Well essentially it is this, that the life of signs and wonders is to be normal. The book is supposed to serve as a sort of field guide for "living in the supernatural". In short, the supernatural isn't supposed to be so super any more.

Part of getting this across is Johnson's teaching on the nature of Christ during His earthly ministry. Essentially, according to the Johnsonite Christology, Christ although He was God, during His earthly ministry was limited to acting exclusively as a human and just like all of us he (lower case h I suppose) was fully dependent upon God the Holy Spirit for everything. This reaches the height to which Johnson essentially denies that Christ had any Divine attributes during His earthly ministry, when He put on flesh He took off the Divine. To quote Johnson on this:

"Jesus could not heal the sick. Neither could He deliver the tormented from demons or raise the dead. To believe otherwise is to ignore what Jesus said about Himself, and more importantly, to miss the purpose of His self-imposed restriction to live as a man. [sic]

Jesus Christ said of Himself, 'The Son can do nothing.' In the Greek language the word nothing has a unique meaning--it means NOTHING, just like it does in English! He had no supernatural capabilities whatsoever! While He is 100 percent God, He chose to live with the same limitations that man would face once he was redeemed. [sic]" (WHE p.29)

I of course have a problem with the Johnsonite teaching here, and "Anonymous" I suppose has a problem with me having a problem, fair enough. I have 3 areas that I see needing to be addressed in regard to the assertion that without a Johnsonite Christological rehashing of old heresies, the substitutionary atonement doesn't make any sense. But more on that in a bit, firstly lets deal with the whole root of these questions, namely Johnson's Christological error.

I. The Johnsonite Christological Error

Let's interact a bit with Johnson's citation of John 5:19 in the above quotation. Firstly, I note how little of the text is actually cited by Johnson. It is in truth akin to an Atheist quoting part of Psalm 53:1 to show that the Bible, surprise, surprise, actually teaches Atheism. What Johnson does above is a text book example of what it means to take scripture out of context. In fact it is so bad I don't think it would be a believable textbook example. Lets look at John 5:19 as it should be, as that will best shed light onto what Christ meant when He said, "The Son can do nothing":

"But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.

For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." (John 5:17-21)

So here we see 1.) The Jews wanting to kill Jesus for claiming to be always working (A claim to Divine attributes), 2.) Jesus saying that He does whatever He sees the Father doing (Another claim to Divine attributes) and 3.) Christ claiming that He can raise the dead and give life (Yet another claim to have divine ability). The "do nothing" in the context refers to Christ doing the specific works God the Father has given Him to do and no other types of works. So, rather than referencing Christ's ability, it is refering to the type of works being done by Jesus, namely those given to Christ by the Father to do, which we also see earlier in John 4:34.

After all, when Christ says He does everything He sees the Father doing, can a mere man make such a claim? If Christ is trying to declare that His ability is limited, as Johnson would have us think, He sure does a poor job here as the exact opposite is clearly the case, hence the desire to stone Him. This also seems like the practical outworking or feet to Christ's later claim to Phillip, that in seeing Him Phillip has seen the Father. (John 14:8-9)

Call me naive, but when we look at John 5 in context I just don't see where Johnson gets the idea of a "self-imposed limitation", nor do I see that anywhere else in scripture. Johnson does not provide the reader with any other texts to support this doctrine, just the part of verse 19 in John 5 which I hope is clear to the reader has been violently handled by Mr. Johnson.

In short, what we have in the Johnsonite Christology is an idolatrous view of miracles on the part of Johnson, that has reached such a height that it now is eating away like an acid at the Divine nature of Christ during His earthly ministry. Johnson is so desirous that Christ's miraculous ministry be our fully imitatable example that he is willing to scrap His Divine attributes during His earthly ministry to do so.

This is idolatry plain and simple, no less so than what the open theists do to the knowledge of God in order to preserve their doctrine of free will.

Moving now from the root to the fruit of the Johnsonite Christology, I will now address the issues raised by "Anonymous" in respect to the atonement and Christ's Divine nature.

II. Substitutionary Atonement Only Works if Christ is Both Fully Man and God

Logical

If Christ had cast off His Divine nature and was functioning merely as a man how could He have atoned for all of my sins? Granted we might think of a case where lets say a thief is sentenced to death and the thief's' best friend dies in the thief's' place out of love thus redeeming the thief from the executioner. But lets say that thief then goes and steals more, will the judge then look back on the dead friend of the thief and say, "Your thievery is atoned for."? Of course not. This is exactly our case.

We need an infinite atonement because our sins are infinitely offensive to God, and they are innumerable. We don't just sin 2-3 times a day, sin isn't just a bad habit, or something we do once in a while, it is so ingrained in our very nature that we need to be regenerated. Also, we must not forget that in the case of the substitutionary death of a mere man he can only be the substitute for one man for one capital crime, Christ is said to have died for many (Heb 9:28). This is problematic if all we have is a human, Christ needs to be Divine.

Biblical

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor 5:21)

The 2 Corinthian text is probably the most clear passage we have in regards to the double imputation aspect of Christ's atonement, our sin upon Christ, His righteousness is given to us. It is quite true as Anonymous stated that Christ lived the perfect life in our stead. But what is the nature of that righteous life? The text tells us it is the "righteousness of God", those who are in Christ have His Divine righteousness which alone is acceptable to our thrice holy God.

So, quite the contrary, the efficacious nature of Christ's atonement is not threatened by Christ's divinity, it is established by it. God poured out His immeasurable wrath against the sins of His elect on the Person of Jesus, a Divine wrath can only be assuaged by a Divine sacrifice. The efficacious nature of the atonement of Christ is rather threatened if we take the Johnsonite position that Christ emptied Himself of His divine attributes in the incarnation.

III. The Need for a Human Nature in Our Saviour, Both And, Not Either Or.

Jesus is the God man, He was made altogether like us in human flesh, He felt pain, He got tired, He grew up from infancy etc this is all true. However, to leave it there as the Johnsonite position seems to is not the WHOLE truth. And, as my dad taught me as a young lad through a few trips to the proverbial woodshed, a half truth is really a lie. Orthodox Christianity through all ages has affirmed that while the above is true in regard to Christ's human nature (Christ is fully man), it is equally true that Christ is also fully Divine in nature. All of the creeds have affirmed this doctrine and it is summed up in the phrase, Christ is both fully man and fully God, one person with two separate and distinct natures.

With that said, what Anonymous said about the atonement is indeed true, it just isn't the whole truth. Jesus needed to take on human flesh so He could die (God can't die remember). Yet, and this is the error, Bill Johnson wants to assert that in taking on flesh Jesus also took off Divinity. Johnson does this because he wants us to see Jesus as our model for supernatural life rather than the most exceptional Person ever. So, while it is true that Christ is our example, we must bear in mind that is not the whole truth. This is because He also had Divine attributes and a calling (Messiah) that none of us share in.

Thus, in Johnson's zeal for making supernatural signs and wonders an everyday Christian thing he tosses the Divine nature of Christ making Him our entirely imitatable example. As previously stated, this actually reveals the idolatrous centrality of signs and wonders in much of the Charismatic movement. My personal observation of this reality was what caused me to break with the movement years ago. My own parting with the movement came as I realized that the Charismatic church I attended literally never preached the simple gospel, the gospel was always a peripheral thing, I recall it even being described as a stepping stone to greater things. Again, don't take my word for it, Johnson himself says in his book:

"Salvation was not the ultimate goal of Christ’s coming… [The ultimate goal] was to fill each born again person with the Holy Spirit.” (WHE p.71)

“The present day understanding of preaching the gospel of the Kingdom means to preach a message that will bring as many people to conversion as possible. But what did preaching the kingdom mean to Jesus? Every instance in which He either did it or commanded it, miracles followed.” (WHE p.185)

You see, for these guys wild raucous meetings where people are wigging out, getting BAM BAM BAM new hips, claiming visions of prophetic elephants, all of these oddities are central and thus it has become an idol. And, like all idolatry it is freakish and disturbing to those who are onlookers, kind of like the guy with the Frisbee sized lip disc. That's what Jessa Bentley's behaviour with the exorcist style head shaking accompanied by gibber about a pink elephant vision is like, it really is a "what is wrong with you?" kind of display.

Yet, to those who are at home in the Charismatic movement that sort of display is quite normal, as I am sure the lip mutilation is normal to those engaged in whatever idol is being worshiped there.

IV. The Nature of the Miracles of Christ and The Apostles

I must add a bit on the nature of the miracles Christ performed during His earthly ministry. The signs Christ which performed in His earthly ministry were confirmatory in nature in regard to His messiah-ship and message (gospel). That is why He could tell John the Baptist when asked by John "are you the one?" Jesus replied:

"Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached." (Luke 7:22)

In short Jesus said "You see the signs don't you?" This again mitigates our ability to imitate Christ as the signs performed by the Messiah and His apostles were intended to be unique tangible confirmations of their ministry, the new covenant gospel message, and most importantly who Jesus in fact was, namely the Son of God (Romans 1:4). Thus, signs and wonders would hardly be unique and confirmatory if the Johnsonite philosophy is correct and these things are to be going on all the time.

I am not saying that these things can not and do not happen today, but I am saying that the particular manifestation of signs and wonders under the ministry of Christ and the apostles was unique, and that was precisely the point, they accompanied the New Covenant Gospel in its infancy confirming it to be of God.

V. Conclusion

Much more needs to be said on these matters and will, the difficult thing is that there is a great deal of difference between Charismatics and guys like myself. We don't use the same language, we don't read the same books, our worship obviously is very different, and our theologies are very different. Charismatics, historically speaking, are in the stream of mystics which has always been a part of the Church for better and worse and doctrinal clarity was never a strength of the mystics.

In coming posts I will interact more directly with other doctrinal errors of Bill Johnson, they all again stem from an idolatrous esteem for miracles over and above all other aspects of Scripture. Some of these uniquely Johnsonite doctrines that will be addressed include: 1.) Healing in the atonement, 2.) prophetic words on demand, 3.) Rehashed pop self esteem, and 4.) The outright rejection of Biblical Church discipline. In all of these examples we see what should be the clear teaching of scripture being forced to bow before this idol of Charismatic miracles.

A Reflection on the Mortality of Man and the Future Glory

2010-12-08T11:07:00.000-08:00

One of the most doleful passages in the Bible comes in the latter part of the life of David in 2 Samuel 21. David as he was accustomed to do from his youth went down to battle, again in opposition to the Philistines. In the ensuing fight David is overcome in battle by one of the Philistine champions and his life is saved by his mighty men from certain death. It is at this point that his men take an oath saying:
"Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle..." (2Sam 21:17)

This to me is simply one of the most sombre texts in all of scripture. Here is David, whose entire life has been lived as a warrior. David who faithfully guarded his father's flock from predators. David, who famously slays the Philistine champion Goliath. David, whose mighty men lived fleeing from Saul, and led armies against Israel's enemies. David's life is one of a warrior. Yet, we hear in this passage that David must now put away his sword, he is too old.
Time is the never ceasing and inevitable thief of youth and all this side of the second coming of our Lord shall taste the same bitter fruit that David does in this passage.

"Time the subtle thief of youth" - John Milton

This is a melancholy reflection, yet we all are faced with it, either through recognizing our own passing away or by being stung into this line of thought through someone near to us absorbing such pangs. I have thought about this text a bit this year in the context of sports, as I have since I was young, being a native Wisconsinite, enjoyed watching Brett Favre throw rocket passes for touchdowns. I loved how Favre's play constantly impressed John Madden with his toughness and passion for playing the game as well as how hard he threw the ball. Favre was a brilliant player, I would say the best to ever play quarterback.

This year will certainly be his last, and he knows it. Every other year ended with question marks as to whether or not Favre would play one more year. This year there are no question marks surrounding the year to come, Favre is too old to play.
Like David's warrior lifestyle, playing football is all Favre has known from his youth, and he simply can not play like he used to.

In sports we see a microcosm of our own mortality, and our coming death. The peak ability of athletes is short lived, for someone to have a 20 year career is very rare. So, we see players come and go, they shine for a time and after that their light starts to dim. One of the most frequently used images Biblically for man's mortality and this fading away we all must endure is that of a flower or grass in springtime.

"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away." (1 Peter 1:24)

This is a tragic picture. For the materialist this is all there is, you live you die, get used to it. Yet, for the Christian this arrangement of death is not how things are supposed to be, all men know this being made in God's image and that is why we mourn death and try to ignore it's impending march as best we can. The Christian is not without hope, all of creation indeed is subject to this futility yet He who subjected it did so in hope. That hope is the regeneration of all things. All things will be made new.

That is why the melancholy verse from 1 Peter I quoted earlier has a glorious promise all around it, let's see that again with the promise all around it:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter 1:23-25)

Mortality and futility are swallowed up by promise and immortality here. Our earthly bodies will fail but those who are born of God have been born not of that corruptible seed that we see withering, but, an incorruptible that will live forever.

Christian, though your flesh fails, you shall yet live.

All of Creation is Sacramental

2010-11-19T17:42:00.000-08:00

I found this to be an interesting thought and a practical way to bring home the idea of Piper's Christian Hedonism. All of creation has a sacramental aspect to it and has strengthening grace in it to those who approach in faith and awe. The grace of God can be found all around us in creation. Or as Doug Wilson puts it:

"If understood, this results in mediated grace for everyone who is responding to God in true faith. God does grants immediate grace in various ways, true. When He converts a soul, when He visits someone with direct blessing, when He receives our worship, the grace can be immediate. But this immediate grace is supposed to be a radiant grace, spreading out through everything else, affecting everything else, causing everything else to become a mirror that reflects the glory of God.

If we don't get this, we will start to think of ourselves as deep sea divers, who have a grace hose running from our helmet up to Heaven, and the only way we can get grace is through that hose. But God is the one in whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). We are living in the presence of God where it is actually possible to offer thanks for all things (Eph. 5:20)."

Lord's Day Meditation on Meditation By C.H. Spurgeon

2010-08-15T05:44:00.000-07:00

"Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide."—Genesis 24:63.

VERY admirable was his occupation. If those who spend so many hours in idle company, light reading, and useless pastimes, could learn wisdom, they would find more profitable society and more interesting engagements in meditation than in the vanities which now have such charms for them. We should all know more, live nearer to God, and grow in grace, if we were more alone. Meditation chews the cud and extracts the real nutriment from the mental food gathered elsewhere. When Jesus is the theme, meditation is sweet indeed. Isaac found Rebecca while engaged in private musings; many others have found their best beloved there.

Very admirable was the choice of place. In the field we have a study hung round with texts for thought. From the cedar to the hyssop, from the soaring eagle down to the chirping grasshopper, from the blue expanse of heaven to a drop of dew, all things are full of teaching, and when the eye is divinely opened, that teaching flashes upon the mind far more vividly than from written books. Our little rooms are neither so healthy, so suggestive, so agreeable, or so inspiring as the fields. Let us count nothing common or unclean, but feel that all created things point to their Maker, and the field will at once be hallowed.

Very admirable was the season. The season of sunset as it draws a veil over the day, befits that repose of the soul when earthborn cares yield to the joys of heavenly communion. The glory of the setting sun excites our wonder, and the solemnity of approaching night awakens our awe. If the business of this day will permit it, it will be well, dear reader, if you can spare an hour to walk in the field at eventide, but if not, the Lord is in the town too, and will meet with thee in thy chamber or in the crowded street. Let thy heart go forth to meet Him.

(From Spurgeon's Morning and Evening)

Raw Milk Raids and Freedom

2010-07-24T18:49:00.000-07:00

This is my latest podcast dealing with the issue of the harrassment of the raw milk farmers, and the harrassment of everyone for their own good.

HERE'S THE LINK

Best Romans 13 Series I Have Heard

2010-05-01T15:39:00.000-07:00

Douglas Wilson has been going through the book of Romans and has reached the often troubled waters of Romans 13. Generally Romans 13 is invoked by Christians in our political context as a sort of all encompassing command to submit to the State regardless of their behaviour (Unless they pull a Nebuchadnezzar or something like that). Which of course is true, the State must be disobeyed in those circumstances, but is it just in the worship of God that the State has not right to dictate to us?

Wilson does an excellent job of teaching this often misunderstood and abused passage of scripture and applies it to our present context. This is a must listen to as it is late in the game and the Church has been dropping the ball for a good while and there are many areas in thought needing correction to get this right.

The link is here. The sermons are on the left hand side.

Have a Blessed Lord's Day, Here's Morsel From a Puritanical Preacher

2010-04-24T22:26:00.000-07:00

A little wine and bread for your travels. The following is an excerpt from David Dickson a 17th century preacher used by the Lord in great seasons of grace in Scotland, here he speaks of the practical nature of the doctrine of election:

"The doctrine of election and reprobation is a doctrine which may be safely taught and propounded unto people, albeit men say it should not be meddled with, because (say they) it makes some men despair, and others become careless what they do. I answer, let God make an answer for his own doctrine, who has commanded us to teach it...The apostle says boldly, the election obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Would Christ have propounded this doctrine if it had been dangerous? Therefore we oppose to such carnal men, secure sleepers in sin, this doctrine of Christ and his apostles, clearly set down in scripture. Let none take offence at this doctrine, for Christ's sheep will hear his voice, and if any will startle away, let them go...This doctrine is a strong attractive to draw back those who are fallen in error or vice, that they lie not in it, for this doctrine forces such men to turn to God, or else, to take on the name of reprobates...

It is a doctrine meet for this age, wherein God is mocked and blasphemed by the lewd lives of those who are called Christians, to tell them, that they must either turn to God, or take home with them these black tidings, that they are vessels of dishonour, fitted for destruction. This doctrine is very needful to put men to their decisions; and yet it condemns not a man to hell presently, who is lying in sin; but it tells him, that there are some elect, who will come home, and some reprobate, who will not come home.

Therefore, if a man be elect, albeit for the time he be a deboshed villain, this doctrine will serve him for the third and last summons: for when he hears that he must either quit his sinful courses, or have no portion with God, presently he must resolve, I will renounce my old lovers, my uncleanness, worldliness, and turn in to God, and seek a covering to hide my vileness. This effect will this doctrine work in the elect." (Select works of David Dickson quoted by Iain Murray in Puritan Papers Vol 1)

Covenant Baptism and The Regulative Principle: A Response to Dr. Fred Malone

2010-04-21T11:13:00.000-07:00

I recently came across an article by Dr. Fred Malone who is one of the contributors to the Founders Ministries Baptist site while perusing the Monergism page. In this article Dr. Malone argues that covenantal baptism is out of step with the regulative principle of worship. the article in its entirety can be found here.

I will give a brief response to the arguments put forward by Dr. Malone in the following blog post. I begin by quoting Dr. Malone's opening statement of his article:

"Baptists often reject Presbyterian infant baptism by showing that the Paedobaptist ("infant Baptist") brand of covenant theology erroneously allows "good and necessary inference" from Old Testament circumcision to overrule the only positive institution of baptism in the New Testament, namely, that of disciples alone."

I can heartily agree with Malone's designation that baptism is a sacrament for disciples. Malone however, in making this statement massages an assumption upon the reader that children are some how excluded from being disciples. Scripture teaches fathers to, "not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4)

It is the task of fathers to discipline their children in the Lord, children of believers are to be brought up in the context of Christian discipline. This of course means that children of believers are Christian disciples (one under Christian discipline) and as our good friend Mr. Malone has asserted baptism belongs to such as these.

Dr. Malone continues on and argues that covenantal infant baptism fails to fall under the parameters of the regulative principle of worship. Thus, every time an infant is baptized the regulative principle is being violated. He further assert:

"Baptists have held historically to the very same regulative principle of worship, though many have forgotten that today. In fact, we ultimately practice "the baptism of disciples alone" because of it. I am convinced that one reason that some Baptists are becoming Presbyterians is because Baptists do not understand the regulative principle any more."

I am not certain that it is the regulative principle that pushes individuals to a credo-baptism alone position, so much as a misreading of the regulative principle (If said Baptist even cares about the RP) that takes it as some sort of Biblicistic maxim requiring every doctrine and practice to be spelled out in black letters and 18 point font. I also would argue Credo-Baptists are moving to Covenantal or Paedobaptism because covenant theology fits with the inclusion of children of believers as members of the visible church because as Dr. Malone just said, disciples should be baptized.

The regulative principle is summed up in the confession and cited by Malone as follows:

"the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (WCF 21:1; )." [emphasis his]

Dr. Malone then makes the connection to infant baptism saying,

"It should be noted that the only sacraments which are approved as elements of worship are those which have been "instituted by Christ" himself, not by "good and necessary inference."

Who is inventing new sacraments? Dr. Malone is moving from P1 of his argument to P10 without doing the math in between. Dr. Malone continues to refer to 'good and necessary inference' as though that statement is meant by covenantal baptists to stand on its own. This strikes me as either lazy research on Dr. Malone's part or a deliberate attempt to give a less than full representation of the views of paedobaptists giving his argument an edge.

The statement in question is shorthand for the reality of the covenant that the children of believers are included in the covenant of grace (Acts 2:39). Furthermore, given the inclusion of children throughout the old covenant in its signs both in circumcision and passover, and the subsequent correlation by Paul of circumcision and baptism as signs belonging to covenant members (Col 2:11-12), and the talk of "household" baptisms in (Acts 16:15), the designation of the children of believers as "holy" by virtue of being raised in a godly home (1 Cor 7:14), but that's not all, Christ Himself clearly rebuked the baptist inclination to excommunicate children (Mark 10:14), given all of the above one can see children of believers are part of the covenant.

I would argue that the household baptisms in Acts indeed are consistant with a covenantal baptist approach. The Credo-Baptist assumes that everyone baptized under the umbrella of "household" have raised their hands, walked aisles, given secret handshakes, and signed pledge cards to Jesus prior to their baptism. I however believe many of these individuals were probably children who were going to be discipled by a believing parent(s) and thus should have the mark of a disciple/covenant member.

(Timeless advice from Charles G. Finney)

So, while there are no scriptural passages stating, "Go and baptize babies you silly Arminian!" one inductively or through inference based upon the ubiquitous inclusion of children in the covenants concludes that they should as covenant members have the sign and seal belonging to covenant members, namely, baptism. If Malone wishes to reject infant baptism because it is based upon an inductive argument, and thereby does not conform to an uber strict rendering of the regulative principle he will by the same standard and logic, if he were to be consistent, close off much more than infant baptism to the life of the Church, but more on that in a bit.

Dr. Malone does note that the confession provides for more flexible reading than I would say he is giving the RP in church life under the RP:

"The regulative principle has always included "that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1:6). However, these circumstances of worship are always limited to time, place, order of worship, length of worship, language, pews, air conditioning, etc., issues which are common to any human society (see The Westminster Confession of Faith, by G. I. Williamson, 161). They have never included new uncommanded activities such as those mentioned above."

I do wonder about the time of worship though, should we not worship the resurrected Lord on Sunday, or the Lord's day? At anyrate the following sentence we come to Dr. Malone's entusiastic declaration of "Checkmate!" to the paedobaptist:

"Christ's institution of baptism, in its mode, meaning, and subjects is to be regulated by the Word of God. Yet, as Baptists and Paedobaptists agree, the only subjects of baptism which can be conclusively determined by Scripture are professing disciples. Infants are included only by "good and necessary consequence," a normative addition which is never commanded in the Bible. The practice of baptizing babies violates the regulative principle."

Well, as Malone is rising from the table after his exuberant declaration of "Checkmate!" he notices out of the corner of his eye his queen being taken by virtue of an oversight on his part. That oversight in this discussion is simply that if we apply the regulative principle in such a way as Dr. Malone is arguing, i.e. barring arguments from biblical inference/induction, we lose the inclusion of women in partaking of the Lord's Supper, instruments should not be used in church worship, women should wear head coverings, the pet notion that baptism must be by immersion, the baptismal waters must be no warmer than 40 degrees, and lastly the grape juice communion advocates are seen for the pietistic charlatans they are (which I don't really mind).

All of the above doctrines, and ecclesiastical practices are reached through inference or inductive reasoning from the scriptures with the exception of our icy water baptistic friends and the grape juice transubstantiationists. So, if Malone wishes to do away with covenantal paedobaptism because the reasoning used to reach it is inductive and somehow inductive reasoning is not in conformity with the regulative principle, Dr. Malone likewise needs to bar women from partaking of the Lord's supper, return to wine in communion (which I would heartily encourage), and remove all instruments from corporate worship.

Something tells me that Malone would hesitate to do these things. Could it be that he has an inductive exegesis/hermeneutic that arrives at the inclusion of women at the table and the use of instruments in worship?

Dr. Malone concludes with the following warning about using inductive reasoning:

"I am convinced that the "good and necessary inference" which establishes infant baptism, has opened the door to other difficulties within the Reformed and evangelical Christian world. Theonomy, paedocommunion, and more recently, stated applications of the regulative principle of worship which in fact have transformed it into the old normative principle, are three such examples.

Or could it be that infant baptism was always based upon the normative principle instead of the regulative? That is my conclusion. Perhaps we all, Presbyterians and Baptists alike, need to recommit ourselves to the biblically based regulative principle of worship and follow it where it leads us."

(To the left is yours truly with our 3rd covenant child Magdalena Grace, after her baptism)

I am uncertain as to how Theonomy has anything to do with the regulative principle, but as far as paedocommunion goes I say yes and amen, let it be so. Lets stop excommunicating covenant children, but rather let us echo our Lord who was "indignant" with those trying to bar children from being brought to Him and charged His disciples saying, "Let the children come to Me and do not hinder them for of such belong the Kingdom of God" (Mark 10:14)

My final point comes to this, the regulative principle of worship and scriptural inductive reasoning are not in conflict, that is simply Malone's unqualified assertion, and if he took it seriously he on the same principle needs to fence women off from the Lord's table. That said, let him who is without inductive scriptural arguments cast the first stone.

April 19th, 1775 and True Patriotism

2010-04-19T16:45:00.000-07:00

April 19, 1775, marks the beginning of the American War for Independence. Valiant men and women stood together in the face of tyrants seeking to confiscate their firearms. Many of the stories of the individuals joining the fray are truly endearing.

"British Marine Maj. Pitcairn ordered them,” Lay down your arms, ye rebels, and disperse!”

The militiamen began to disperse (but not disarm), when a shot was fired. Without orders fro their officers, the British troops fired into the militiamen. A few militiamen returned fire. Afterwards, 8 Americans were dead and 10 more wounded. One British soldier and one horse had been wounded. The British officers regained control of their troops and reformed ranks. They fired a victory volley and resumed their march to Concord.

At Concord, hundreds of militiamen were gathering in response to the alarm raised by Revere and the other post riders, assembled on Punkatasset Hill overlooking the town. The Rev. Wm. Emerson instructed the militia “Let us stand our ground. If we die, let us die here.”" (From the RWVA page)

In that time dwellers in Massachusetts refused to be disarmed, today it is illegal for you to carry or have a firearm in Massachusetts without a lock on your gun. Today, most preachers would not join with Rev. Emerson but would rather start yelling something along these lines, "Romans 13! Submit! Romans 13! Turn in your guns! Romans 13!"

To give a taste of much of the intellectual mood of the times I quote from Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty!" speech, as most of the speech is unfortunately unknown apart from the last line.

"If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -Thomas Paine

Well would we do to heed the maxims of Henry and Paine, these were men who swam upstream and that is why they are still read. These men are examples of what real patriots look like, real patriots are not flag wavers and sycophants for the current regime. In our modern context a real patriot opposes the "Patriot Act" a real lover of freedom rejects "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or any other Orwellian contortion the state invents to put a nice frosting on their cake of lies.

Today, modern "Tea Party" goers support the centralized state, the problem for them by and large is that Barak Obama doesn't have an (R) next to his name. The problem isn't statism in general but Democratic statism. Just like how those on the left suddenly are fine with torture and wars of aggression as the problem wasn't the principle of just war but that the commander in chief heading the wars of aggression and torture camps didn't have a (D) next to his name. How few true patriots there are today, God raise up more men and women of Henry's caliber.

Lord's Day Helping From the Puritans

2010-04-17T17:20:00.000-07:00

The following is from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the creation of Eve:

Yet man being made last of the creatures, as the best and most excellent of all, Eve's being made after Adam, and out of him, puts an honour upon that sex, as the glory of the man, 1 Cor. xi. 7. If man is the head, she is the crown, a crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double-refined, one remove further from the earth.

2. That Adam slept while his wife was in making, that no room might be left to imagine that he had herein directed the Spirit of the Lord, or been his counsellor, Isa. xl. 13. He had been made sensible of his want of a meet help; but, God having undertaken to provide him one, he does not afflict himself with any care about it, but lies down and sleeps sweetly, as one that had cast all his care on God, with a cheerful resignation of himself and all his affairs to his Maker's will and wisdom.
Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide when and whom he pleases. If we graciously rest in God, God will graciously work for us and work all for good.

3. That God caused a sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him; while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain. When God, by his providence, does that to his people which is grievous to flesh and blood, he not only consults their happiness in the issue, but by his grace he can so quiet and compose their spirits as to make them easy under the sharpest operations.

4. That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. Adam lost a rib, and without any diminution to his strength or comeliness (for, doubtless, the flesh was closed without a scar); but in lieu thereof he had a help meet for him, which abundantly made up his loss: what God takes away from his people he will, one way or other, restore with advantage.

In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself. See Eph. v. 25, 26.

"Let the Children Come to Me and do not Hinder Them..." A Colloquel on Covenantal Communion

2010-04-16T12:01:00.000-07:00

Our oldest daughter Geneva who is approaching the age of 5 recently posed the question to me, "Dada next Lord's Day after church maybe we can have children's Lord's Supper with orange juice and crackers, that would be a good idea right?" This statement of my daughters has come after years of me staying her hand as she reaches for the body and blood of Christ.

My daughter seems more astute than most claiming to be covenantal in their thinking, she knows that she is being excluded from an aspect of being a Christian.

She is being raised in as best we can a Christian home, she sings hymns glorifying Jesus Christ unprompted by us, she is being chatechized and is halfway through the catechism book we are using (Based off the WCF shorter catechism), she sits through the Lord's Day service and participates, she has been baptized and this supposedly brought her at least objectively into the Church, all of that said, why do we deny children like my daughter from receiving Christ?

Why do we treat them like unbelievers?

Now some reading this will say "Ah but that's an emotional argument." Very true, we are emotional beings, it's part of the imago dei. We are not just brains trapped in bodies, and the body is only good for shuttling our brains to the next stop to be filled with information. That is a form of Manichean philosophy. We come to hear the word preached affectionaly, bodily, and intellectually.

So yes, what is said above is an argument from the affections, our argument must be more than that but not less. These affections are to be rooted in my faith in the covenant keeping God who told us that His promise is for my daughter Geneva (Acts 2:39) and my grand children to come. Do we believe this? If we do then why do we treat our children as though the promise is NOT for them by denying them the sign(s) Christ gave us of His promise?

I will lay out a biblical rational for covenant communion as in the end that is what will matter. Firstly, I will discuss the nature of the covenants, secondly the nature of the covenant signs, and lastly the primary argument for restricting children from the table.

I. The nature of the covenant.

1. Covenantal Signs Point to Objective Inclusion In the Covenant People.

We see throughout the Bible that God is a covenant making and keeping God. God set up the covenant with Abraham (Gen 17) and this covenant was for both Abraham and his children. He further gave a sign of the covenant that all members of the covenant were to receive.

Were all who received the sign possessing mature understanding and faith? No, it was to be administered to them at 8 days old. Were all who received the sign faithful? Again, no, Esau is a prime example of someone who had grown up under the blessings of the covenant, yet he cast off all the riches that were set before him. The fact remains that he was part of the people of God objectively.

Later, we see the renewal of the covenant under Moses and the introduction of the covenant sign of passover pointing tangibly to the deliverance God had wrought for his people (Ex 12). This was done in the familial context. Each household would partake of the covenant sign annually. This no doubt included the children of believers (Ex 12:4,). Furthermore, one had to have first been circumcised to partake of the supper (Ex 12:48).

Again were all who partook of this meal faithful? At least outwardly they were, yet we know that many fell in the wilderness having the signs of the covenant and even partaking in Christ Himself (1 Cor 10:1-6). They were objectively part of the covenant but not subjectively.

This is all well and good and at this point most would give a hearty Amen, as this is really the distinction between the visible and invisible church. However, the issue comes when we don't stop here, and we begin to play baptism cops and Lord's table police erecting yellow "Do not cross" police tape around children isolating them from the rest of the body. But more on that in a little bit.

My point thus far is that there are signs God has given that grant objective inclusion in the covenant people of God, we call these sacraments. They in themselves do not save us or make us the people of God, rather they link us to the body of the saved.

2. Children Part of the Covenant.

The inclusion of children in the covenant is explicit throughout the old testament. The promises were for the faithful and their children. We see this replete throughout Biblical history.

"Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children's children--
how on the day that you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so." (Deut 4:9-10)

"Therefore you shall keep his statutes and his commandments, which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land that the LORD your God is giving you for all time." (Deut 4:40)

"and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul," (Deut 30:2)

This is but a sampling of the fact that children in the old covenant were to be raised in the faith, this was not an exercise for grownups only. They had the sign of being part of the covenant people, circumcision, they partook of the covenant meal, passover, and their continued faithfulness was expected.

By way of summation the old covenant God instituted was multi generational, all family members were participants in the major sacraments and believing parents were to raise their children in the teachings of God with the expectation that their children would also own this faith passing it on to their children.

3. The New Covenant Also for Children.

"They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.
I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore." (Ezek 37:25-26)

This passage clearly references the new covenant and the reign of Christ (the forever David), and this covenant is again for believer's children's children.

To point to new testament references although much more can be said of the old testament references I have already cited Acts 2:39 where Peter in preaching declares that the promise God has established through the work of Jesus Christ is for the children of believers.

"For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."(Acts 2:39)

The children of believers or one believing parent are called "holy" by Paul.

"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor 7:14)

Fathers in the new covenant like fathers in the old are to bring their children up in the faith, or disciple them:

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Eph 6:4)

And John rejoices over the children of believers being raised in the faith:

"I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father." (2 John 4)

Now, with all of that said, the children of believers have the promise, they are holy, they are being discipled and faith is the expectation of all of these labors. This is what we mean by covenant children, they have blessings being showered upon them that the drunken atheist's children up the street do not have. They are children growing up in the covenant, and I would argue we should treat them as such.

II. The Covenant Signs

1. Baptism

I started with the nature of the covenant and its inclusion of children (even infants) because that is how the logic to covenantal baptism and communion progresses. I don't want to appear to be smuggling infants into the "household" baptisms in Acts, although I see them as consistent with paedobaptism because of my covenant theology presuppositions. The Baptist has his own set of presuppositions that stands in front of passages about household baptisms instructing the reader to, "Move along people, nothing to see here, move along folks."

So what then is the nature of the new covenant signs of baptism and the Lord's table? Well with baptism we see it is commanded in the great commission.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (Matt 28:19)

Who are the subjects of the baptism which Christ commands? Those being discipled.

I have already cited the fact that a believing Father is disciple his children (Eph 6:4), my question than is shouldn't a disciple be baptised? Furthermore, the promise is clearly said to be for them and the sign of objectively being a member of the covenant people of God is baptism.

Here I return to the baptism cop analogy, the Baptist seeks to bar unregenerate individuals from receiving the sign of Baptism. In the case of adults with rather dubious professions I can cheerfully agree with this approach. Yet, when it comes to children of believers effectively they are seeking to separate the wheat and the chaff and attempting to make the visible and invisible church synonymous. In order to do this they have for all intensive purposes excommunicated the children whom Peter said the promise was for (Acts 2:39).

My hangup with all of this is that such a prohibition on the inclusion of children is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Given the emphasis time and again that children are part of the covenant the onus is on the credo-ist to show where children are barred. Obviously, we are not going to baptize an individual who is a professed unbeliever. He is unclean by profession. However, the children of believers are called clean and holy by virtue of being raised in the faith (1 Cor 7).

Furthermore, Christ Himself rebuked those Baptist disciples of His who would bar parents from bringing their children to Christ:

"And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them." (Mark 10:13-16)

In short, the Bible tells me not to treat my children like infidels, so I don't, and they are baptized.
For those demanding where is infant baptism EXPLICIT in the Bible you will not find it. The Reformed have argued on the principle of covenant theology and the inclusion of children within the covenants and that included the signs. Why would the new covenant treat children less welcomingly than the covenant children who walked under types and shadows in the old covenant?

For those for whom this still is not enough and yet require explicit infant baptisms in the Bible before letting the little Children come, I would ask you to be consistent and also bar women from the Lord's table as there is no explicit partaking of the Lord's table by women in the Bible.

2. Covenantal Communion

Covenant children should be treated as such. We Presbyterians would assent to this at least on paper but wind up in the same place as the Baptist in regard to our children This is where I think we have failed in the Presbyterian church sacramentology. Essentially we are baptists with wet dedications of our children. If the Baptist will not baptize their children because they haven't made a "credible profession" we likewise don't treat our children as covenant members and excommunicate them for the same reasons as the Baptist.

Douglas Wilson has this to say on the matter:

"I found myself in a Reformed world that was (but for that bit of water) baptistic. Baptistic in worship, baptistic in ecclesiology, baptistic in its revivalism, and baptistic in its approach to the Table. In some ways, I would even argue that the Reformed churches could be even more baptistic than the baptists. Once I was baptized in my Southern Baptist church, I was admitted to the Table right away. In many cases, kids in baptist churches are admitted to the Table years before their counterparts are admitted to the Table in Reformed churches.

In light of the conversionist requirements that are often placed on covenantal kids, it sometimes appears that they might as well be unbaptized. But please note I wrote “conversionist,” which is not the same thing as disparaging the need for true conversion. True conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of his ecclesiastical handlers." (Credenda Agenda vol 18)

For myself I have seen children 10 years old and well into their teens not taking the table, many of these I know would make a profession of faith. Yet, for whatever reason either the eldership or parental neglect to bring them to the table they are not participants. I find this to be simply scandalous.

As for making a profession before the elders prior to partaking of the table, sure that makes sense in the case of a recent adult convert as does profession prior to baptism, it however does not with a covenant child. The Papists have 1st communion for children at age 6 after they have answered some questions. Not only are we imitating them in this but we are doing a poor job as I have seen teenagers I know were believers let the elements pass.

Again, lets stop treating our children like unbelievers. Let us honor their baptism and treat them like covenant members, let us bring them to Christ.

III. Some Objections I Have Heard Addressed

So children are part of the covenant, again this is all well and good in the Reformed circles, the issue arises than over the Lord's table. It has been insisted upon that the Lord's Table is different than baptism. One needs to understand what is going on in order to partake, after all 1 Corinthians 11. I have found this sort of response to covenant communion to be similar to how people will just start saying "Romans 13...Romans 13" when I start talking about the state as if the mere referring to Romans 13 tells us to sit down shut up and take it...hard.

Well to understand how to apply a text the context is vital so lets review the context in 1 Cor 11 on the table of the Lord:

"But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not." (1 Cor 11:17-22)

What are the problems we see here? Well 1. Divisive behaviour 2. Selfish gluttony at the expense of others. 3. Drunkenness.

This is the context and it is this that Paul is rebuking. Are they remembering the Lord's death when some are gorging themselves and getting drunk while others go without any food? Absolutely not. This context must be remembered in light of Paul's further exhortations to reverence in the partaking of the table. It is difficult to imagine this scenario arising today given the advent of the little thimbles of grape juice most churches have.

(For the record I think this is a leftover from the Methodist holiness movement needing to be rejected, we need to return to wine. Read Keith Mathison's "Protestant Transubstantiation" for more on this.)

Furthermore, were children at these love feasts? I would think so, it is hard to imagine believing parents going to the meeting hall for dinner and shuttling the kids to Joyce the pagan's house for babysitting/dinner because they "Weren't ready to be brought to Jesus". Furthermore, in all that Paul lays out about the table in the following verses he nowhere prohibits children partaking.

This talk of feasting brings up the connection of the Lord's table with passover. In the passover feast the whole family participated, it indeed was "Safe for the whole family". It was during the passover feast that Christ instituted the Lord's table.

I have received a few responses to this, 1. The children didn't participate in the passover feast by eating it, they were just allowed to ask questions. Again, this is as difficult to believe as the barring of children from the love feast. So the kids are in the corner eating Spaghetti O's asking what mom and dad are doing with the lamb the herbs and the cups. Something tells me this is an ad hoc rescue.

2. Jesus instituted the supper AFTER the passover was completed, the table was different from the Passover. This is based on the "and when they had finished eating" aspect of the table. Again, this fails to understand the nature of the passover Seder. The Seder did not stop at the consumption of the food, there were cups to be passed still. Regardless, the Lord's supper was instituted the night of passover and the continuity of the 2 covenants was made clear.

But some will insist that children do not understand what is going on and therefore should not participate. My question to the one saying this is, "Do YOU understand what is going on?" Furthermore, how much did the disciples understand that night Christ instituted the table? Hours later ALL forsook Him.

Christ knew how tottering their faith was, yet He said, "Take and eat."

IV. Conclusion

I have not reached these conclusion about paedocommunion without some time of reflection. I was first introduced to these ideas about 4 years ago and I eventually settled for some rather Baptistic thinking about 1 Cor 11 barring Children. In studying covenant theology paedocommunion has continued to rear its head blowing raspberries at me.

Lastly, in a recent discussion over Baptism with a Baptist friend he pushed me in my covenant theology asking, "So why don't you give your children the Lord's Table?" My only response was well, that's a good question.

Given the covenantal nature of Reformed Baptism it doesn't make sense to bar covenant members from participating in one the signs of the New Covenant, namely, union and trusting in Christ's substitutionary death.

So by way of closing, I want to come full circle and say to Geneva, Caleb, Magdalena and any other covenant child we shall one day raise I say to you that the promise is for you, Christ calls you to, "Take and eat this is my body given for you."

Comment Filtering...Why The Hammer Has Fallen

2010-04-12T22:13:00.000-07:00

For the last several months I keep receiving comments that are not only irrelevant material but unsavory. These undesired comments are probably from one blighter who can not take a hint from all the previous deletions. Simply put, I do not wish this stuff on my blog and I therefore from here on out will check the comments prior to their appearance on my blog.

I can assure those who disagree with anything I write that their comments will NOT be censored. I welcome disagreement, even sharp disagreement, I frankly don't even censor for foul language as long as it is somewhat on the issue in the post. I want to make clear this new policy is not for you who disagree, but rather for the obnoxious spammer.

Hope all understand,

Bob

Good Friday in Art

2010-04-02T22:43:00.000-07:00

What is "good" about the most unjust act in the history of the world? The only Man who was entirely guiltless was put to death as a malefactor, in what sense can we say that this is "good"? It becomes good when we see Him in our stead, forsaken that we might never be left, and dying that we might live. The heart is that this is substitutionary, Christ died in our place. This substitutionary nature of the death of Christ seen in the following pieces of art by Michelangelo and Rembrandt.

(To the right is Michelangelo's "Pieta" this piece Michelangelo intended to go on his tomb)

Here we see a sculpture of Michelangelo's with Nicodemus and Mary holding the deceased body of Christ. What is unique about this? Notice that Nicodemus' face is more detailed than any other portion of the sculpture, it is believed that Michelangelo placed his likeness on Nicodemus. This illustrates the truth that it was out sins, in this case Michelangelo's that Christ died for. We personally are connected with the death of Christ.

(To the left is a close up of Michelangelo's "Pieta" sculpture so you are able to observe the detail Michelangelo put into the face of Nicodemus.)

Next, we see the famous Crucifixion painting by Rembrandt. Here again we see there is an oddity in the work of art centering on the death of Christ. Firstly, notice the individual raising the cross with a painter's Beret on. This of course is none other than Rembrandt, again announcing that it was for my sins that Christ was crucified.

Note secondly, that the lighting is solely on Christ and Rembrandt who is crucifying Christ. Rembrandt clearly wants to make the connection that the man in the painter's cap (himself) put Christ to death.

The message was clear in Rembrandt's mind (who was a reformation based artist), I put Christ to death with my sin, just as truly as the Roman soldier in time and space.

It is this simple truth in all of it's fullness that should break in upon us afresh each time we read the accounts of the death of Christ in scripture, namely, that he died in my place. It was my sin that held Him there.

I am the Judas consciously betraying Him when I sin, I am the Pilate who is more concerned with myself than my God, I am the crowd shouting for His death when I am swept up with the spirit of the age, and I am the Peter every time I am ashamed of the gospel. We must see ourselves this way, we must let him wash our feet or we have no part in Him.

"The whole life of a Christian should be nothing but praises and thanks to God; we should neither eat nor sleep, but eat to God and sleep to God and work to God and talk to God, do all to His glory and praise."

—Richard Sibbes

Die Weiss Rose and Public Opposition to Evil

2010-02-22T11:03:00.000-08:00

"How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause. Such a fine, sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?"
-Last words of Sophie Magdalena Scholl before her execution by guillotine at the hands of the Nazi regime, she was 22 years old when killed.

The White Rose Society was a group of Germans who stood up against the Nazi regime in the form of leaflets denouncing the on going atrocities. These individuals represented true patriots as they saw the shame that the regime was bringing upon Germany. More importantly than being patriots the participants in the White Rose Society were Christians.

It was because the participants in the White Rose society held that man had dignity being made in the image of God that the society opposed the wars of aggression the regime engaged in as well as the slaughter of the Jewish people in Reich controlled territory.

The White Rose distributed a total of six leaflets denouncing the regime and attempting to rouse the German people out of their apathy. It was their opinion that there were many who agreed with them that what the Nazi regime was doing was atrocious, yet they simply would not publicly voice such an opinion. Sophie Scholl stated this notion precisely during her "trial" for treason as she declared:

"Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just do not dare express themselves as we did."

I believe this is often the case when it comes to national evils, I think of the abortion issue here in America particularly and how the majority of evangelical Christians would say that they oppose the slaughter of unborn children. However, where is the public outcry demanding that the practice be stopped?

I reflected in my latest podcast how when a group of us organized an abortion protest and told the local evangelical Churches in the town the time and place of the protest, how nobody came. I will never forget that feeling, that the Church by and large really doesn't care about this. I am certain that if I asked those Church going people who didn't come that the majority would say they are pro-life. Yet, when it comes to taking that message to the public square and calling for change, nobody came.

That's why abortions continue in America, the Church has failed to speak out sufficiently.

Upon distributing their sixth and final leaflet at a University, the White Rose group was found out as a custodian at the University saw them distributing the leaflets and dutifully notified the authorities.

"Jakob Schmidt, University handyman and Nazi party member, saw Hans and Sophie with the leaflets and reported them. They were taken into Gestapo custody. Sophie's 'interrogation' was so cruel, she appeared in court with a broken leg."
(from this blog)

Two things should be noted in the above quote, firstly, the punitive state thrives upon individuals labelled in the common vernacular "Narcs", or "Snitches". This population is expanded through economic incentives from the State in the form of rewards for tips on "crime". Such "crimes" often involve activities on ones property such as leaf burning, or being a plumber without government issued permits. In the case of the White Rose the "crime" needing to be reported by the dutiful lackey to the State was distributing a contrarian political opinion, or unlicensed speech.

(The righteous are honored after they depart, to the left is a German stamp with an image of Sophie Sholl)

The second thing to note in the above quote is the fact that the members of the White Rose received enhanced interrogation. Sophie's leg was broken during this process. This is no longer a practice that Americans can look at with moral reproachfulness as the regime that rules us now employs the same practices. One example of this comes from a man named Omar Deghayes, who was guilty of no terrorism or association with terrorist organizations, and has since been exonerated. Yet, Mr.Deghayes is now blind in one of his eyes as American interrogators in Guantanamo Bay dug their thumbs into Mr.Deghayes eye sockets to "make him scream". A Guardian article describing Deghayes' story can be read here.

Again, it MUST be noted Mr.Deghays was guilty of no crime, and thankfully although he suffered spending 5 years in American gulags he has been released. (Mr.Deghayes discusses his treatment in this video)

Shifting back to the White Rose, to give a flavor to the reader as to what was contained in the six leaflets, and what these young people were made of philosophically, I quote from the first leaflet distributed:

"Therefore every individual, conscious of his responsibility as a member of Christian and Western civilization, must defend himself against the scourges of mankind, against fascism and any similar system of totalitarianism.

Offer passive resistance - resistance - wherever you may be, forestall the spread of this atheistic war machine before it is too late, before the last cities, like Cologne, have been reduced to rubble, and before the nation's last young man has given his blood on some battlefield for the hubris of a sub-human. Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure."

That last line is tremendously powerful. It reflects the White Rose's attempt to rouse people from their apathy and oppose the evils currently occurring in Germany. Most individuals throughout history seem to go along to get along. Sadly, this is more often than not the case with the Church. It was the minority of Christians (like Wilberforce) that opposed slavery and fought to end it, it was the minority that stood up against the Roman Catholic Church and it's heresies and control of society during the Reformation, and today it is the minority in America that are opposing America's wars of aggression and the institution of torture.

It is frustrating to me to see the Church in America fail to stand for what is right and even endorse the evils of the Regime that rules us. Yet, I find it encouraging as I look over Church history to take note that it always was a faithful minority that stood for justice, we see this in the Old Testament clearly with Jeremiah, and Elijah who seemed to be the only ones standing on the truth.

For those failing to speak out against the evils the second White Rose leaflet has this to say:

"It seems to be so, and will certainly be so, if the German does not at least start up out of his stupor, if he does not protest wherever and whenever he can against this clique of criminals, if he shows no sympathy for these hundreds of thousands of victims [referencing the Jews]. He must evidence not only sympathy; no, much more: a sense of complicity in guilt.

For through his apathetic behavior he gives these evil men the opportunity to act as they do; he tolerates this "government" which has taken upon itself such an infinitely great burden of guilt; indeed, he himself is to blame for the fact that it came about at all! Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!"

Put into one sentence what the White Rose stated is that men and women become accomplices to the very evils they fail to oppose.

All of the member of the White Rose group were executed for treason. As of right now in America there is still a window where the Church can effect change, yet, we should admit it is closing. Right now I can publish blog posts like this calling what the government that rules us is doing what it is, evil. Individuals are not arrested for their opinions and opposition...right now.

It must also be noted that such arrests HAVE happened in our nations history, so this isn't some wild idea I am describing, the most popular instance was Eugene Debs' imprisonment for speaking in opposition to the US involvement in WWI. Granted, I don't have any sympathy for Debs' political philosophy, however his opposition to the war was commendable and he suffered for it. You can read the Wikipedia write up here.

With the growing police state in the United State(s) I believe such a scenario is on the horizon IF we do not speak out sufficiently and demand real change. As, the State will always exercise the the authoritarian power the people let it exercise. It is up to the Church, which alone has an objective moral standard to call evil what it is, if the Church fails to do this such a prospect is not only possible but certain.

The Growing Authoritarianism

2010-02-18T09:53:00.000-08:00

"We live in an age of Hegelian synthesis and relativism; men don't believe truth exists. How do we expect a world to take us seriously when we say we believe truth exists and then live in a relativistic way?" (Dr. Francis Schaeffer, Death in The City)

Consistency, I am day by day more convinced, is a rarity in our relativistic culture. This inability to integrate ideas into a consistent worldview is no doubt the product of our postmodern age. The most bothersome leaps into relativism to myself are those made by people who should know better, namely Christians.

Not a few times in discussing matters with Christians have I seen this leap into relativism, with a waterfall of "Well I feel..." and "Who are you to say..." or "You have no right to judge (X)..." or "The Bible says judge not..." These phrases are products of the relativistic culture, not a Christian worldview.

One thing a good Christian worldview will be is consistent. If something is immoral, it remains immoral regardless of the actor. I have been commenting a good deal lately about the Christian and the State, as I think this is one of the most compromised areas the Church in America has in its thinking.

That being the case, I firmly believe that the issue of torture is the moral issue of our day, and sadly the church is not being the church.

Christ has called us to "Love our enemies", applying this command to the issue of torture no doubt causes many Christians to roll their eyes and snort in disgust. My question then is simply this, when DO we apply Christ's command? I honestly don't think many in the church take these things seriously, and tend to view "enemies" as people like homosexuals (who have been the brunt of some of the most obnoxious behaviour from Christians).

To show that I am not arguing against phantoms, but that in reality Christians have not only failed to speak out against torture but actually endorse it, I refer the reader to an email I received today from the Christian Law group the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). The ACLJ is a christian lawyer group established to be a counter to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and stand up for the 1st amendment of Christians. This is a laudable occupation.

However, most of the emails I receive from the ACLJ are of the neo-conservative Zionist variety, I received one a little while back giving an apologetic for attacking Iran. The email I received today was titled, "No Special Rights For Terrorists!"

Immediately, just from the title I knew it was an apologetic for torture and indefinate trial-less detention. What are "special rights" anyway? What they really mean is, NO RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS. The reason they didn't just say that is that such a statement is so obviously immoral. So, they have to play with the terms a bit, now giving a man a trial is something special, unusual, innovative, foreign, pick your synonym.

The body of the email clears up any ambiguity, it begins:

"Dear Robert,

Imagine you caught Osama bin Laden in Pakistan or Afghanistan - what would you do?

Handle him with kid gloves?
Give him the right to remain silent?
Make sure he has a lawyer ... or buy one for him?"

These guys are supposed to be Christian lawyers, and they use a phrase like "Give him the right..." rights are not given, they are recognized. This notion that our rights come from the state is historically the most deadly philosophy on human rights. That is the position that EVERY authoritarian government had on human rights, rights are given to the individual by the generosity and beneficence of the state. It is this position that leads directly to the Gulag and Concentration camp, because if the government "gives" rights to individuals, then it can take them away.

The Christian perspective is that our rights come from God, every man has rights because every man is made in the image of God. The 10 commandments (Exodus 20, Deut 5) are a good picture of some of these rights, a right to life (6th commandment), a right to property (8th and 10th), and a right to an honest trial (9th commandment). Our rights are inherent, we have God given rights, the government's job is to recognize these rights, they don't "give" them.

Christians should be the first to say this, and that is what makes this email from the ACLJ so despicable.

So to answer the questions in the email, yes, he should get a lawyer and yes he does have a right to be silent. Furthermore, I don't find it at all humorous to throw jokes into this matter as they did. The email continues:

"This is how civilian courts handle common criminals all the time. But it's not how we handle enemy combatants taking up arms against America in wartime!

It's incredible - but President Obama has ordered his Attorney General to release the mastermind of the 9/11 massacre, the Christmas bomber, and other terrorists from military tribunals ..."

Given the Bush Cheney "Military Commissions Act" individuals that the State arbitrarily labels "enemy combatants" have no rights, they are un-persons. Therefore, they can be held indefinitely without trial and tortured. The ACLJ now acts like this is normal. Furthermore, UNTIL Khalid Sheik Muhammad has a trial he is the ACCUSED mastermind of 9/11, again this is another perversion of justiceon the ACLJ's part. I, as a side note, also highly doubt KSM was the mastermind of 9/11.

Again, it is supposed to be seen as abnormal to try "terrorists" in a court rather than a tribunal. Well, that's what we did with the 1993 WTC bombers, that's what we did with Tim McVeigh in the OKC bomb, why can't we do the same thing here? Again, they want us to think this is something strange and out of step with the norm.

On another side note, I wonder how many "massacres" the ACLJ would say occurred by the hands of the US government? It's only a massacre when its against our team...just like fans of the home sports team always boo when a penalty is called on their team no matter how warranted. Just look at the titles given to the conflicts between the US government and the plains Indians. Every time the US was defeated by the Indians it was a massacre, when unarmed Indians were butchered it was a battle. The same mentality continues on today.

The bellicose screed continues:

"... bring them to U.S. soil - and give these terrorists the most effective platform they've ever had to spew their venom, recruit new jihadists, and try to humiliate America."

So here they throw a little fear in to scare you, somehow by giving them a trial will lead to more jihadists. I am failing to connect the dots in this logic...seems a little specious. We're supposed to assume these guys are like the Greek sirens drawing men to themselves hypnotically by their presence and radicalizing them.

I assure I have left nothing out of this email, this next part is somehow connected with the rest:

"And that's not the only troubling security threat facing America today - there are serious reports that Iran has begun enriching uranium to levels capable of making an atomic bomb.

It's time for President Obama and the United Nations to respond accordingly: Impose crippling sanctions - and then ensure that those sanctions are clearly enforced."

There are so many things wrong here it is staggering. Firstly, there already are sanctions on Iran. Secondly, sanctions only hurt the people and unite them against the outside aggressors. Thirdly, sanctions are an act of war, just think how we would react if a bunch of countries got together and enforced a naval blockade keeping us from importing and exporting goods.

Also, I thought these guys were "right" wing? Now they want the UN to act aggressively against the main country the Zionists hate. Whatever happened to the get out of the UN talk?

The email concludes:

"Please give an immediate, generous online donation today. Empower our legal research and legislative efforts as we continue to apply pressure in Congress and the White House and at the United Nations on these crucial national security issues.

For the sake of our nation, I thank you in advance."

So all of this authoritarian jingoism is supposed to get my heart thumping with desire to give to the ACLJ, "For the sake of the nation." how disgusting. I read this email and I realized afresh that many of the Christians in the United States would behave no different from the Christians in 1930's Germany. I honestly believe that. I believe that because we are seeing a similar thing take place here in the US rife with human rights violations.

In my latest podcast I cover Glenn Beck's call to "Shoot him in the head!" in reference to the #2 in the Taliban being caught. He unambiguously argues that we need to shoot him in the head right now because if we don't he might get a trial. Obviously that would be disastrous in Beck's mind. Again, if righteousness is on our side why do we fear the courts?

All of this is despicable, and the worst part of all is the question that nags me, "WHERE IS THE CHURCH?" The church has failed to speak out sufficiently against these atrocities, and just like the Church in Germany in the 1930's the American church also has become a lackey to the authoritarian regime. That last sentence should be obvious with emails like I get from the ACLJ.

Rather than standing on the truth, standing for justice, and standing up for man's God given rights, the Church by and large has made a relativistic leap and agreed with the regime saying "Some people have rights, others don't."

Thus, the church has become an accomplice to the very evils it has failed to oppose.

Newest Podcast: On Sarah Palin's Tea Party Speech and the TP Movement in General

2010-02-10T00:44:00.000-08:00

This is my latest podcast on Sarah Palin's Speech and the Tea Party movement in general, or why I think the TP movement is dead (CLICK HERE).

A Visual Counter Argument to the "The only People Who Should Have Guns are Police" Argument

2010-02-06T20:23:00.000-08:00

The Ballad of Kent Hovind

2010-02-04T11:48:00.000-08:00

Ol' Smokey's got them ears on and he's hot on your trail.
He aint gonna rest 'til you're in jail.
So you got to dodge 'im and you got to duck 'im,
you got to keep that diesel truckin'.
Just put that hammer down and give it hell.

West bound and down, eighteen wheels are rollin' ,
we're gonna do what they say can't be done.
We've got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
I'm west bound, just watch ol' "Hovind" run.
(From the theme song of Smokey and the Bandit)

Kent Hovind was at one time a prominent figure in the creation science movement, and dubbed himself "Dr. Dino". He always struck me as a interesting guy and a lot of the information he put out in his lectures is worth some thought. Hovind was a hardcore 6 day creationist with a strong stance on a 6000 year old earth, I personally am rather agnostic on all of this I just know God did it, I don't claim to know the mechanics. I do however agree with the Hovind inspired slogan that "Evolution is Stupid!" it is true on a number of levels.

Hovind has engaged in numerous debates with Darwinists and Atheists, one that I saw a while back was between Hovind and Micheal Shermer one of the big dogs for Atheism. Hovind really took Shermer to the cleaners, Shermer ended up looking like a buffoon muttering incoherent sentences in favor of evolution theory. You can watch the debate HERE.

There of course was Hovind's Smokey and the Bandit side of his life, Hovind held to what most people would call "conspiracy theories" which I would define as "Holding to viewpoint on a certain topic/event that goes against the 'official' version of events", and thus I suppose I myself hold to "conspiracy theories" as government by its very nature is fraught with intrigue corruption and attempts at power grabs.

People who reject conspiracy theories out of hand seem to forget that historical fact, and have a rather naive view of government corruption, and probably think the only conspiracies are those by guys like Pete Rose betting against his own baseball team. Because people in government would never do something like Pete Rose did, like say shorting stocks and using their power to drive the stock down...that sort of thing never happens in government, Martha Stewart yes, government no.

One such theory Kent held to had to do with taxes, on this he staked his defense.

Well, Kent Hovind didn't get too far with his defense and now sits in the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution. His crime? The government deemed that he owed over $400,000 in income taxes from his "Dinosaur Adventure Land", a creationist theme park Hovind built in his backyard.

I must add as an aside that Hovind also refused to pay a $50 permit to build his theme park, this shows that it wasn't really about the money in Hovind's mind but the principle. The principle in the case of the $50 permit is that if you have to pay the state $50 to do something on your own property in what sense is it your property? The permit adds nothing to benefit the property and the construction process, it is simply a Marxist invasion of property rights.

This is the same sort of principle in play in a recent story about a man whose castle has been ordered destroyed because the government deemed his property not zoned for such a construction. Again, if you have to get permission from the state to do what you want on your property, and they further can tell you to destroy buildings you built on your property because they didn't give you permission to build them, given all of that in what way can it be said to be YOUR property?

Back to the income tax issue, Hovind refused to pay this tax claiming that as a citizen of heaven all he has belongs to God, he is not a united states citizen and thus is exempt from being taxed.

Well, I must admit this logic is a rather wild stretch and my initial reaction to hearing of Hovind's arrest and incarceration was, "Kent, give to Ceasar man!"

However, disregarding the goofy I'm citizen of heaven and thereby exempt from earthly taxes argument, I think Hovind is right in principle. What right does the government have to take what is your honestly earned income? Understandably there can be taxes on goods, tariffs, etc, these are all constitutional (Article 1 section 9), as they are indirect and apportioned taxes. Indirect simply means you can avoid them by not purchasing said goods, and apportionment means it literally goes toward infrastructure.

Yet, the income tax is neither of these, that's why they had to cobble together the 16th amendment to get the income tax in the U.S. this effectively destroys the 4th and 5th amendments the founders crafted.

My point is the government doesn't even follow it's own crummy constitution.

The primary problem in my mind is the sort of herd mentality that guys like Kent Hovind or Wesley Snipes have done something wrong. What wrong have they done? There is no moral violation occurring here, no persons or property were damaged so what did Hovind do wrong?

Reading articles on this matter I found myself discouraged as usual with the popular views of the State and tax paying. Comments like the following should illustrate why I am not too optimistic about America's future:

PZ Meyers writes:
"And finally, Hovind and his wife made a whole series of bank withdrawals that were just slightly under the $10,000 limit that would trigger reporting of the activity. They knew. They knew very well what they were doing.

[...] That con artist has received the punishment he deserves;"

They "knew what they were doing"? Trying to withdraw their money without the state getting involved implies guilt of some sort of crime? I missed the place where it is a crime to do what you want with what is yours, and to attempt to avoid the snooping eyes of unwelcome bureaucrats trying to steal from you.

Also, to call someone a "con artist" necessitates a victim of the con, which in reference to the tax issue there are none, unless you invoke some wild socialist delusion making society the victim. Furthermore, how is Hovind's sitting in prison for 10 years just deserts for not allowing the state to rape him?

These kind of statements betray a rampant statist ideology.

Another blog in attempting to make Hovind appear as crazy as possible in an essay entitled "Render unto Caesar Reverend Crazy Pants!" has a few choice puerile quotes:

"He says, “I love my country, but fear my government. And you should too.”

The man now sits in prison after doing no harm to any person or property and this statement is supposed to show that he's crazy? All it shows me is that most people fail to give the state the due skepticism they give to common citizens like Hovind.

"And of course, he’s a gun nut. Whom would Jesus shoot?"

Ah yes, Hovind owned firearms, that right there again shows he is crazy. I wonder if the author of this article would call the swat team that raided the Hovind "compound" a bunch of "gun nuts"? Oh that's right they work for the government so we don't have a problem when it's the State that's armed, just when a gun is in the unhallowed hands of a mere citizen.

Lastly a blogger that sympathizes with Hovind also can't escape the false maxim that Hovind did something wrong:

"This, of course, was wrong on his part, and I think he is paying the price for it (and probably with lots of penalties and interest)."

Again, to use moral words like "wrong" in regards to failing to send your earned income to the state do not apply. I think the problem is people have this mindset that illegal=immoral. A few moments of reflection on the part of the reader should clear up this false association. I will help, seat belt enforcement, permits to build a shed on "your" property...has anything immoral occurred if one does not abide by these laws?

If Hovind did something wrong then so did they guy who built the castle on "his" property. Or less extravagant the guy who builds a shed without state permission. I suppose we must remember, that those in the state simply know better than us. We need to be told what we can and can not do with "our" property because the zoning bureaucrats are endowed with the foresight the rest of us lack.

I recall when I lived in community in Northern CA one of the things that hindered us from renovating the property was the fact that due to a massive flood about 50 years ago the area was deemed by some bureacrat to be a "flood plane" and thus the only houses legally allowed to be put on the property were either pre-existing or ones that could be moved. This law left a town called Meyer's Flat with a giant trailer park as it's only recourse for it's inhabitants, thus attracting numerous tourists to gape at the prime river front property.

(pictured to the left is the local zoning regulator)

Given the above quotes and views that Hovind did something wrong as I said I don't have much hope for the future of America. Unlike the wildcat forefathers most modern Americans have been house broken like a dog and just roll over and take it from the State to the point of even wagging their fingers scoldingly at those with more principle and backbone.

We need to get to the point where we understand that if the state signs something into law or does something that would be immoral for any individual to do, then it is equally immoral when the collective individual of government does that thing. People just aren't there philosophically and this is most unfortunate as it allows the state to run roughshod over all that is decent. That said, I would state that most taxation is simply legal plunder. Augustine gives a wonderful example of this in his work "The City of God" as he states:

“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a vast scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?

A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of `kingdom,’ which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity.

For it was a witty and a truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great. The king asked the fellow, `What is your idea, in infesting the sea?’ And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, `The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.” (City of God book 4 ch 4)

Now, I must make this clear, I do not advise anybody to not pay your taxes. Pay your taxes! I say this not because I see any moral imperative that we must do so, but because the Government can hurt you. Like the cop that comes into your restaurant and says, "Nice place you have here, sure would be a shame if it burned down...I can make sure that doesn't happen for $1000 a month."

I would advise you pay such a man, not because of some moral imperative requiring you to do so but because he can hurt you worse than loosing $1000 bucks.

I honestly think that is Jesus reply to the tax matter. Firstly, lets look at the Pharisees' tax dilemma posed to Christ

"Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his talk.
And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.

Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?
Show me the coin for the tax." And they brought him a denarius.

And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"

They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matt 22:15-21)

The Pharisees tried to trap Jesus here, if He answered "Yes" He acknowledged the illegitimate Roman rule over the people of God, if He answered "No" He was preaching insurrection, either way He would have somebody at His throat.

But Jesus splits the horns of their dilemma with His response. Notice He doesn't give a lecture on submitting to the state, nor does He give a insurrectionist lecture, He essentially says "What is money? Something created by the state, therefore who cares about money? Have your mind and heart fixed upon eternity and God."

It is worth noting that He doesn't give the modern socialist lecture about the moral virtues of taxes.

Another and unfortunately overlooked teaching of Christ on taxes is His exchange with Peter:

"When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the tax?"
He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?"

And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.
However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself." (Matt 17:24-27)

"Not to give offense" is the biblical rationale for paying your taxes.

That said, men like Hovind haven't done anything morally wrong, they have simply offended the powers that be. Should Hovind have payed his taxes? I think so, I don't think that's the best hill to go down on although in principle he is right.

However, should Hovind sit in prison as though he were some threat to society and thereby needing to be removed from society allegedly for rehabilitation? Absolutely not. That's a waste of tax dollars :) In reality Hovind is simply a political prisoner incarerated for failing to show jelly fish like docility in response to the states infringement on his property.

My first Podcast

2010-01-29T11:21:00.000-08:00

Podcast: CS Lewis and Two Tiered Morality.

This is my first go at this, so don't expect much, one must crawl before he can walk and eventually run.

C.S. Lewis On Two Tiered Morality (Or: What's Wrong for You is Not For Me)

2010-01-28T20:34:00.000-08:00

"Well, then, it was jolly rotten of you," said Digory.

"Rotten?" said Uncle Andrew with a puzzled look. "Oh, I see. You mean that little boys ought to keep their promises. Very true: most right and proper, I'm sure, and I'm very glad you have been taught to do it. But of course you must understand that rules of that sort, however excellent they may be for little boys - and servants - and women - and even people in general can't possibly be expected to apply to profound students and great thinkers and sages.

No, Digory. Men like me, who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy is a high and lonely destiny." (The Magician's Nephew -C.S. Lewis)

C.S. Lewis had a way of putting great truths in beautiful simplicity, thus making their profundity accessible. This can most readily be enjoyed in Lewis' Narnia series. These stories geared toward children have more depth and Christian argumentation than many apologetics books.

In the words of the character of Uncle Andrew we see a dichotomous ethic, there are moral laws that apply to men, but, there are some men who due to their greatness are exempt from adhearing these laws. Uncle Andrew of course considered himself such a man. Thus, Uncle Andrew rationalized his theft, lying, cowardice, and endangerment of the lives of others as he belonged to a higher class of men that were exempt from the laws of morality they themselves expected others to follow.

This is a profound example of much thinking today, we can see it clearly in much of the area of scientific ethics, or lack thereof. The question is NOT whether doing experiments on human embryos is ethical, the question is "Can we do this?" (do we have the ability?) Likewise, the same can be said in the areas of human cloning and the chimerical animal hybrids scientists are experimenting with. Glowing pigs are an example of this (Pigs mixed with jellyfish genes HERE).

If scientists are doing that sort of thing to pigs and and telling us about it, imagine what they are doing they feel we are not yet ready to accept so they keep a lid on it.

Likewise, in the area of statecraft, politicians and bureaucrats, with one auspicious exception, see themselves as part of a cast that is exempt from following the laws they themselves write for everyone else to follow. This can be seen in the fact that most of the individuals in government do not pay their income tax. Timothy Geithner is a most offensive example as he himself is one of the current architects of American monetary policy.

Yet, in an even more astouding feat of alacrity in real time applying this notion of 2 sets of laws, one for us another for them, is a recent story of a Senator R.C. Soles from North Carolina shooting an intruder that broke into his home.

To this I have no objections, the man shot was a violent intruder threatening Soles' person and property.

The problem comes when we realize that Soles is one of the most anti-gun Senators in Washington. (An excellent article can be read HERE on this)

This is the Uncle Andrew principle in action. Apparently, Soles thinks it is proper to defend himself with a firearm yet he shudders at the idea of a mere unwashed commoner acting in like manner. This is one of the most sobering realities of all of this gun control talk...namely, that those who are passing such laws don't expect to have them applied to themselves. Government will always be armed, they just don't want the unhallowed hands of common folk to be able to access a firearm.

(Pictured to the left is the scene in the Magician's Nephew where Uncle Andrew tricks Polly into going into another world by putting on a magic ring. Uncle Andrew sets Polly up for the reason that going into an unexplored world is too dangerous for a man like Uncle Andrew)

Of course the principle is much bigger than gun laws and taxes as it really extends to most of what government does. Think about the phrases "Top Secret" and "National Security" how they are used to keep things from the public. Somehow these profound truths can be trusted in the hands of the state, yet not in our unwashed hands. Then they people wonder where conspiracy theories come from...

Also, think about the Obama healthcare plan, it won't apply to those in government they have their own package, nor does the military draft apply to those who make it into law. Furthermore, Those who vote to attack a country that has committed no aggression toward the United States would never dream of themselves going to fight in the cause they see as noble enough to spill other men's blood.

They are the Nietzschian "Ubermenschen", who are to boldly go forward letting no obstacles such as morality, decency or split infinitives hinder their march. They are the indispensable ones, we like Uncle Andrew's Hamsters and Digory and Polly, are expected to be the docile subjects of their wild Utopian experiments.

The troublesome fact is that those in the "commoner" class often acquiesce to this paradigm, and see such individuals as properly unbound by law.

Where ultimately does such an ethic lead? Lewis in the same book gives us a picture of the results of this 2 class ethic in the character of Jadis, queen of a dying planet named Charn. The interaction between her and the children is intentionally similar to the discussion cited earlier with Uncle Andrew. In the case of Jadis she had gone to the point of destroying everything living on the planet rather than relinquish her own power. Upon the children learning of this mass murder the account reads:

"But the people?" gasped Digory.

"What people, boy?" asked the Queen.

"All the ordinary people," said Polly, "who'd never done you any harm. And the women, and the children, and the animals."

"Don't you understand?" said the Queen (still speaking to Digory) "I was the Queen. The were all my people. What else were they there for but to do my will?"

"It was rather hard luck on them, all the same," said he.

"I had forgotten that you are only a common boy. How should you understand reasons of the State? You must learn, child, that what would be wrong for you or for any of the common people is not wrong in a great Queen such as I. The weight of the world is on our shoulders. We must be freed from all rules. Ours is a high and lonely destiny." (The Magician's Nephew)

When this sort of ethic is applied it creates a class that is above the law, and thus see those in the other category as dispensable. I have no doubt that an ethic of this sort pervades much of the attitudes toward and within government at all levels and even science. On the firearm issue here in America, just think of how nobody flinches when a police officer walks down the street with a loaded gun on his belt. Yet, if a common man did so people of the more timorous bent would quake, and most likely the man would be tackled by a cop and have his gun taken from him (regardless of the fact that his behaviour fell within the bounds of legality).

A flurry of further examples could be provided, let it suffice to say that there are no two classes of men, one above the law and the other bound to it. That sort of thinking is quite literally deadly. That is the folly Lewis seeks to spell out roughly 75 years ago, as failure to reject and oppose this two class ethic has disastrous results.

A Christian Philosophy of Civil Disobedience

2010-01-26T08:41:00.000-08:00

Just burn some incense and say "Caesar is lord" and all will be well, after all no one is saying you can't worship your God the way you want, we just want you to go through this formal act of showing allegiance. Does not the Bible say, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1)? Furthermore, what's the big deal about using the word "lord" (GK kurios) in reference to Caesar, that word was always used in reference to rulers.

The early Christians refused to do this act of submission to the state, I don't think because they quibbled over the word "lord" being applied to Caesar, although that may be enough. The issue I believe was more a question of allegiance (as I pointed out in my previous post), the Christians saw their allegiance being to God alone, and the state through its absurd deification of the emperor was usurping where our true allegiance is to be.

Thus, the early church engaged in civil disobedience, and refused to partake in the government mandated ceremony. they counted the cost and paid with their lives. Countless martyrdoms occurred during this time period, the most renown of course was the execution in the form of throwing the Christians to the lions.

Simply put, the early Christians were not willing to give to Caesar what belonged to God alone.

The more I converse with modern Christians on political philosophy, in person and online, the more convinced I am that the Church is sorely in need of a robust view of the relationship between Church and state. I am more and more of the opinion that if American Christians were faced with a situation as was in 1930's Germany (obviously without the advantage of looking back at what occurred) they would act no differently. There would be a minority who would be the heroes we adore and elevate as examples, like Hans and Sophie Scholl, Corrie Ten Boom, or even Deitrich Bonhoeffer, but they would be the minority.

(pictured to the right is a depiction of the martyrdom of a Christian in the ceramic tile art form)

This should be readily apparent due to the prevailing jingoism and support of "enhanced interrogation" in the American church today. Even the "round em all up" talk in reference to Arabs or Mexicans an unsavory kinship to the acts that took place in Germany. I recall during the reign of Bush the lesser, there was all sorts of talk about arresting anti-war people.

In large part I think it is because the church has gotten its political philosophy from either the national socialists on Fox News or the international socialists at CNN and NPR. I do not use those labels as a pejorative for effect, those labels really represent the political philosophies on the right and left.

The question I seek to address here is this, When is it proper for Christians to engage in civil disobedience?

Every Bible believing Christian will say we should engage in civil disobedience when the state attempts to restrict the worship of God and the preaching of the gospel. The problem is that they leave it there, and restrict proper disobedience to when the state interferes with "religious things" like praying, catechizing our children, gospel preaching, and assembly. This is all well and good, but the problem is that such a position isn't a Christian worldview.

The worship of God is to apply to all of life, and as such has something to say about every area of life, from the kind of care we drive, to the venders we purchase goods from, from the type of person we marry, to how we raise our children. The Christian message has something to say about all of this, and so should we. This is because Christianity is the truth.

Now in relation to the state scripture is clear we are called to obey the laws, that is unambiguous. However, we must quickly follow such a command with the questions of to what extant and in what circumstances?

Here is where most modern Christians drop the ball restricting civil disobedience to the state messing around with "religious things" as alluded to earlier. Let us look at the 2 passages that are most invoked to support this position of docility on the Church's behalf:

"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.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience." (Rom 13:1-5)

The other passage that is cited in reference to obedience is in 1 Peter:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,
or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. (1 Pet 2:13-16)

Now in both passages I have highlighted what I see as a key to understanding why we should even have government and the proper role of government. Government exists to execute justice, that is the only reason it should exist. The question then arises that if God has ordained government to be His servant for good, what then when government itself is the chief instigator of roguery and injustice? Is such a government still the servant of God?

Well yes in a sovereign sense, but no in a moral sense. When government begins to pass laws that are contrary to the law of God, that government has usurped its authority and not only can be disobeyed but should be.

Francis Schaeffer in his indispensable work "A Christian Manifesto" represents one of the best modern Christian theories of Church and state (probably because it is one of the few). Schaeffer argues the very point I have made above as he writes:

"The Christian, the God-fearing person, is not like that. The Bible tells us that God has commanded us to obey the stat. But now a second question follows very quickly. Has God set up an authority in the state that is autonomous from Himself? Are we to obey the state no matter what? Are we? In this one area is man the measure of all things? And I would answer not at all, not at all."

In commenting directly on Romans 13 Schaeffer states,

"God has ordained the state as a delegated authority; it is not autonomous. The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has no proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny." (emphasis Schaeffer's)

Schaeffer goes on to give the countless examples throughout church history where there were courageous men and women who stood up to an autonomous state men like William Tyndale, John Knox, John Bunyan, Samuel Rutheford etc. The point should be apparent, God has appointed the state for the purpose of upholding justice, and it is such a state we are called to submit to. When the state has become autonomous and has usurped God we are not at all called to obey such a state.

Schaeffer makes this clear as he describes the point where force is warranted in opposition to a tyrant:

"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution...

A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state and hidden his Jewish neighbors from the German SS Troops. The government had abrogated its authority, and it had no right to make any demands."

Bear in mind, that the Nazi government was not forbidding the worship of Christ in "religious things" they actually told the preachers to preach Romans 13 to their congregations. So the disobedience of the Christian to the state is not confined to not being allowed to preach or assemble. Rather, when the state has become a vehicle of injustice as defined by the word of God, disobedience is a must.

The Christian with a robust worldview will understand that the worship of God and obedience to God trumps the state not only in "religious things" but in all of life. The state as a delegated authority can not demand from us what God has not delegated to the state. Namely, to uphold justice.

I want to emphasize the point Schaeffer made that particularly in the use of force our posture is to be defensive and it is as a last resort after the avenues of redress of grievances and flight have been closed. Basically, we are cornered rattlesnakes with our rattle shaking.

One of my "bottom lines" is when the state tries to lay hands on my children. My children will receive a rich classical christian education and will not go into the crummy government schools full of drug deals, promiscuity, and just all around inadequate education as long as I draw breath.

This stance is Biblical, "Fathers bring up your children in the training and admonition of the Lord." (Eph 6)

When the state attempts to strip us of that right it has become illegitimate, and should be disobeyed. If some Christians feel that sending their children to the government school is fine that is up to them, the issue is when the state makes it mandatory which it has no right to do. When the state does this it has become autonomous.

I would like to close by applying this to America today, the country is teeming with talk of revolution, people are really just look for another Tom Paine. So my question has the time come for that?

I don't think so, yet.

Right now there is still a window open for us to effect change in government. Granted, there is a long train of abuses, the constitution is a joke to most politicians, and the main thing Washington seems to ponder is new schemes of legal plunder.

This we can put up with, and I think we are called to do so. However, we are not called to not call it what it is and try to change things, yet in our objections we are called to be submissive in these things.

Another area is the long train of human rights violations that continues to grow in size. America is now a country that tortures, sanctions abortions, invades non-aggressive countries, and imprisons people indefinitely without a trial. This is wrong, and the church has been sorely compromised in not speaking out sufficiently against these atrocities.

That is why I fear the time is rapidly coming where fighting may be inevitable, if the church condones the torture of Arabs who are deemed non-persons by the state, then on what basis can it object to the torture of Americans deemed non-persons by the state? When that time comes, it will be in large part because the church has lost it's prophetic voice in the political arena.

But as I say there is still a window, we can still assemble and protest as well as petition for changes. We have not yet reached the point where the tyranny is on our door step, although I think we are headed in that direction. The problem the church must address is "What is the bottom line when it comes to obedience to the state?"

As it stands right now the answers I hear from most of my brothers is not very encouraging.

Why I Will Not Say "The Pledge of Alliegance"

2010-01-13T09:24:00.000-08:00

I attended a Tea Party last weekend entitled "Throw the Bums Out!" a sentiment to which I am in hearty agreement if by "Bums" we mean all statists not just Democrats. However, the tone of sedition was less than ferocious and I was sorely disappointed with the meeting. I knew things were going to be rather anemic when they started the meeting with the pledge of allegiance.

I thought to myself "You have got to be kidding me, THIS is a Tea Party?!" I have a hard time picturing Jefferson and the boys pledging allegiance to the flag of Britain while penning writings like the "Declaration of Independance" and Paine's "Common Sense"...oh that's right, that's because that would be absurd. I simply stood there while the rest of the hall regurgitated the mantra we have had drilled into memories from a tender age. You may as why didn't you just say the thing?

The pledge issue has been in my mind lately. A recently sought introduction of the pledge of allegiance into my children's Sunday school class has caused me to reevaluate my position toward the pledge of allegiance. After further studying the history of the pledge, its origin and author, the wording, and the effects of the practice itself, I find the entire practice within the church and without to be simply antithetical to liberty and true patriotism.

I will confine myself to the practice in general in my evaluation. I will start by asserting that I don't know how a person who holds to a conservative political philosophy can defend this exercise in devotion to the state. When I think of "conservative" I think of a philosophy of small limited government, a philosophy that is skeptical toward government promises and averse to government expansion.

I. The Pledge's Marxist Origins

The original pledge was authored by Francis Bellamy, who was an unabashed socialist "Christian" minister. I put Christian in quotes as Bellamy was eventually defrocked and removed from the pulpit because he was preaching socialism rather than the gospel of Christ dying in the place of sinners. With sermons with titles like "Jesus the socialist" it is no wonder he would be accused of not preaching the gospel.

Francis Bellamy had a cousin with whom he shared the socialist dream for America, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a book entitled "Looking Back" in which the main character falls asleep and wakes up in the year 2000 where he finds a new America, one that is a socialist utopia. Francis saw the pledge of allegiance as a way to get socialist ideas into the minds of the people.

"Francis Bellamy said that one purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance was to help accomplish his lifelong goal of making his cousin’s socialist fantasy a reality in America. He further stated that the "true reason for allegiance to the Flag" was to indoctrinate American school children in the false history of the American founding that was espoused first by Daniel Webster and, later, by Abraham Lincoln." (Tom Dilorezo "Pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State" )

The fertile soil of the mind of a Marxist agitator is constantly hatching new statist ideas and Bellamy's was the Marxist seedbed in which the pledge of allegiance sprouted. This is by no means inconsequential and we can see in the wording of the pledge itself the ideas of collectivism.
Pictured to the right is what was known as the "Bellamy salute", this is how the pledge was done prior to WWII, they changed it after WWII to the hand on the bosom for a rather obvious reason. The Nazi (National Socialist) salute and devotion to the state and the pledge looked alike because they are in the same ideological family. The Hitler Jugend engaged in nearly identical practices as the American children pictured.

The original version of the pledge written by Bellamy read as follows:

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

The smuggling in of collectivist ideology is in the phrase "one nation, indivisible". To someone who holds to the Jeffersonian understanding of states rights, or the 10th amendment, or the right of individual states to nullify federal laws and even to leave the union, the pledge should be seen as problematic. The pledge really represents the Lincoln idea of the Union, one in which states (people) are under the rule of the central government. The states are merely a convenient was of dividing and governing the collective nation.

II. The Pledge's Un-American Content

The interesting thing is that this notion of an "indivisible" nation wasn't the view of the founders, the states of Virginia, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts all upon ratifying the constitution added the disclaimer that they could withdraw from the union if they saw fit at anytime. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the "Virginia and Kentucky resolves" in 1798 in response to the John Adam's alien sedition act, which criminalized criticism directed to the government. These resolves spurred on state nullification of the sedition act and also argued that secession may need to occur.

That is where the south got the notion of secession from, it wasn't something they just made up out of nowhere, it was part of the nations founding, both at the ratification of the constitution and at the original secession of the 13 states from Britain.

As I have alluded, this myth of the perpetual indivisible union was most forcefully propagated by Abe Lincoln. That really is what the war for Southern independence was about, states rights or self government. At least that's what the southerners thought. Slavery wasn't part of the equation until halfway through the war when Lincoln suddenly started talking like an abolitionist. Take Lincoln's Gettysburg address, which one of the speakers at the Tea Party quoted proudly in its entirety by memory as if this is what America is all about:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

[...] It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I quote this in context of a discussion over the pledge as this displays the idea of the collective Union. This is also where the phrase "One Nation Under God" comes from, which was amended to the pledge in the 1950's. H.L. Mencken in commenting on the Gettysburg address states:

"But let us not forget that it [the Gettysburg address] is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth.

It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States?

The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary."

Mencken's assessment is spot on. The "Civil War" was the triumph of the central government in Washington over self government of the people. It is this that is reflected in the pledge's talk of an "indivisible" one nation. It also should be noted that the defeated southerners lived in a police state and had to take an oath of allegiance to the Union in order to vote again. Bellamy stated that this oath the defeated southerners had to take also inspired the pledge.

It is interesting as a side note, that the presidents and policies that both establishment parties usually praise and revere have historically been the most abusive with power and now have the most patriotic myths built around them, not to mention Greek temples to house their marbled likeness. Roosevelt and the New Deal is another example.

It is rather pathetic to me given what was just stated to hear these silly debates about what should be in the pledge, when in reality the whole thing should be tossed out as a Marxist tool of indoctrination.

III. Christians and the State

Furthermore, how can we as Christians swear allegiance to a state that is engaged in countless immoral actions? How can I as a Christian give allegiance to a government that sanctions and funds the abortions of babies, engages in wars of aggression around the world killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq alone, a government that tortures people made in the image of God, threatens to conscript my children and send them to kill in a far away land, and that steals from us through inflating the currency, to name a few things. How can a moral God fearing Christian countenance these things, nonetheless give "allegiance" to a government engaged in them?

(pictured to the left is a Hitler youth propaganda poster, it reads "Youth Serving the Leader" and "All 10 year olds in the Hitler youth"...this is a form of conscription. Also note the same look of devotion in the girl's eyes as those raising the American flag in the first picture at the top of the page.)

The early Christians in the Roman empire were called "Atheists" because they believed in allegiance to the one true God at the exclusion of all other allegiances. This was seen in the Christian's protest to the cult of the emperor, all Christians had to do was to make a vow of loyalty to the Roman state, and wave incense before an image of the emperor. They wouldn't do it.

After all what's the big deal? Just say "Caesar is lord" and burn some incense and be on your way. The early Christians had integrity that is sorely lacking in much of the church today. Having become lackeys to the Republican party, modern Christians have degenerated into vocal supporters of aggressive wars and torture.

It has been a source of no little grief for me to hear my brothers support patently immoral actions like torture, because Dick Cheney says we need to do it to keep us safe and he has an (R) next to his name. If we are willing to stoop to endorsing the base means of torture, preemptive war, and political assassinations by predator drones in Pakistan (a nation we are "not at war with"), what in reality separates us from the supposed terrorists?

We have lost the moral high ground.

Also, does not our Lord call us to "Love our enemies"? If you say things like that you can expect most evangelicals to snort and scoff at applying the words of Jesus to a real life situation like torture. It's just a nice platitude, maybe loving my enemies applies to a jerk mail man or the guy at work I don't care for, but to apply it to those guys with towels on their heads is just crazy talk.

IV. Conclusion

Given the above reasons I simply can not say the pledge of allegiance. Its author was a Marxist who saw the pledge's implementation in the schools as a step towards he and his cousin's socialist utopia in America. The pledge is NOT an exercise in patriotism, which is love of one's country, it's an exercise in love and devotion to the state.

Next is the view of the United States contained within the pledge, an indivisible nation. An indivisible United State (the singular "State" is intentional) is indeed what we have today, and any mention of states rights, nullification of federal laws, and even secession are seen as extremist crazy talk. Thanks, Mr. Bellamy job well done.

Finally, how can we give allegiance to a state that engages in immoral acts at home and abroad? Granted, Christians are called to be obedient to laws of the state but we certainly are not called to support every single thing the state does, and thus the state is not to receive our unwavering allegiance, so why give it?

I honestly ask that of someone reading this supports the pledge...Why? Why is the pledge a good thing in a supposedly free society?

Sacred Harp Singing

2010-01-11T09:28:00.000-08:00

I have simply fallen in love with the sacred harp style of singing, it is simply glorious. The way it works is the song beings by singing the notes (each has a different shape) so you will hear the people singing "So, Fa, La, La, La, Mi, Fa..." then once we have gone through the song singing it we sing the words in place of the notes.

This song is called "I'm Going Home" #282 in the Sacred Harp book. We sang it yesterday:

The words are:

1.Farewell, vain world! I'm going home! My Savior smiles and bids me come, And I don't care to stay here long!

Sweet angels beckon me away, To sing God's praise in endless day, And I don't care to stay here long!

Right up yonder, Christians, away up yonder, O, yes, my Lord, for I don't care to stay here long.

2. I'm glad that I am born to die, from grief and woe my soul shall fly, and I don't care to stay here long!

Bright angels shall convey me home, Away to New Jerusalem, And I don't care to stay here long!

Right up yonder, Christians, away up yonder, O, yes, my Lord, for I don't care to stay here long.

Bridgewater #276

Words:

From all that dwell below the skies, Let the Redeemer's praise arise
Let the redeemer's name be sung Through every land by every tongue.

I love this music and really want to sing it more

Why I Don't Roll Charismatic (The Third Installment)

2010-01-04T16:00:00.000-08:00

This post can be added to a series on the Charismatic or Renewal movement that has been upon my mind somewhat more in recent months than in the past. This time I have in my mind prophetic utterances themselves from individuals within this movement. Specifically, the specific utterances that have been palpably wrong in what they specifically have predicted. According to Deuteronomy, such false utterances in the name of God warrant capital punishment (Deut 18:20).

This insuperably high view of the integrity of prophecy does not dissuade most within the ranks of the Charismatic movement from making painfully cavalier utterances in the name of God. This is because those within the movement make the distinction between being a "prophet" and "operating in the prophetic". This distinction really acts as a shield when the utterer of an erroneous prophecy can simply say "Well, I was speaking prophetically, we are right most of the time but sometimes we miss hear God."

This distinction is right up there with the Romanists distinction between "idol-latria" and "idol-dulia" the latter is what praying to statues and Mary fall under and thus are not in violation of the 2nd commandment's prohibitions. Once you have dissected one error it becomes easier to spot imitations of its kind.

The distinction between the office of "prophet" and "moving in the prophetic", the latter being what everyone today claims to be doing, as it grants immunity when they are wrong, is often said to have come about under the New Covenant. In the Old Testament the prophet was expected to be right all the time, but in the New...well not so much.

Logically, I have a hard time stomaching this, as those who labored under types and shadows would be held to a higher standard than those who have the Substance, namely Christ. Furthermore, scripturally, I see no scriptural reference to this downgrade in veracity of prophetic utterances. Somehow we are to accept that after Christ to whom all of the OT pointed, whose coming was the apex of history and the noon day shining, after His advent prophecy now became more fuzzy and amorphous.

This pseudo distinction between one being a "prophet" and one "operating in the prophetic" has caused much damage and served to grant immunity to all the bogus utterances made by the big dogs in the Charismatic movement. This is the ad hoc rescue invoked every time some one made an utterance a tad specific and the prediction has failed to become reality.

This is why it is safer to give the vague prophecies that have the skeletal structure of a pile of jello as well as being of like nourishment.

To give an example and to show that I do not cherry pick, as vague utterances is the rule rather than the exception, I pull the following excerpt from today's edition of "The Elijah List" (one of the most popular prophetic sites on the web) The is supposed to be a prophecy about what is in store in 2010 (emphasis his):

"During this earthly journey toward our eternal abode, we have more "spiritual set-backs" from Believers forfeiting inherent rights to the enemy than from the devil's cunning devices. However, there are three main components the Lord told me we will overcome in the year 2010:

• We must possess and abide in a land we have conquered.
• We must occupy our land by "title deed" ownership rights.
• We must realize our identity in God to rout our enemy.

Remember, God resides and inhabits eternity, not earthly existence. God IS SPIRIT! We are becoming His promised Word, and must grow more even daily as God reorders our vision of being eternally minded. "

2010 Will Be a Year of "Extreme Breakout"

... So, let us make a 2010 New Year's Resolution that: 2010 is the year to breakout of the 'naturally minded' wilderness.

We furthermore make a new resolution that: We are being repositioned into the vision of perpetuating our eternal purpose spiritually. -(John Mark Pool)

Prophecy that was neither vague nor failed to come to pass were what distinguished the prophets of the LORD from the pagans. Or in modern terms, what is the difference between an utterance like that above and what you would get from calling Wanda at a 1-900 number? Sloppy biblical allusions, are the only difference I can pinpoint. The above was the most specific I saw in this particular prediction, that is why I quoted it, as well as the fact that the author himself had these sections in bold. This is the 2010 prediction from John Mark Pool.

All that this prediction amounts to in less spiritualized words is, "Things are gonna be good in 2010 for the church." What a gutsy prediction!

As I said, this is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to prophetic utterances in the Charismatic movement, a pretty bland and forgettable prediction slathered in spiritual sounding frosting.

Furthermore, the theology behind these kinds of utterances are radically man centered, Luther would categorize them as "Theology of glory" meaning it is elevating man and man centered conquests, but that is a post in itself.

Moving to the more specific prophecies that fellows in the charismatic movement have uttered, as this is where the real blood in the water is. One of the most dastardly incidents that comes to my mind is when Bob Jones in 1997 predicted a massive earthquake in CA for the coming year, even going so far as to advise people to move away. Sadly, some listened to his ravings seriously.

This was all recorded in the 1997 predictions for 1998 at Morning Star Ministries. I have the damning tape. Since this obviously failed to come to pass, Morning Star in the newer releases of the tape have edited Jones' prediction to make it more bland. This tells you the pathology of these individuals, they will go around editing tapes to cover their tracks. (Bob Jones picture to the right)

Bob Jones it also must be mentioned admitted to having women undress in front of him in his van under the pretense of giving them "prophetic words" (article), he is a sex offender. Now, I would be the first to say that such people can be forgiven, and upon clear repentance should be admitted back into fellowship, BUT such a person should not occupy a pulpit again as he now fails to meet the requirements of leadership (see 1 Timothy ch.3 or Titus ch.1).

Yet, Mr. Jones continues on the Charismatic circuits like an aging rockstar who is constantly on "Fairwell Tour" thus worthy of double honor. It is entirely reprehensible on the part of the churches that allow Mr. Jones a platform to speak, as his conduct has thoroughly disqualified him from any place of leadership (not to mention his wild doctrine). This shows that the alleged "gift" these individuals possess is deemed as more valuable than the purity of the church and an upright life. This brings us to Todd Bentley.

Now, not to throw punches at a dead horse as I have written on Bentley's escapades here, I bring up the fact that he claimed that God gave him a vision and thus prompted him to marry his former wife whom he has recently divorced and committed adultery against. Here is the recounting of Todd's vision from God, which led to his marriage which he threw away for fleeting pleasures:

"“…the Lord had actually shown me an open vision of Shonnah [Todd's former wife]. It was my first open-eyed vision. I was in my living room and my fireplace opened up, kind of like a TV screen, and I saw us embracing in a wheat field that was ready for harvest. We were both weeping and I was wearing a tux and she was wearing a wedding dress. As the vision unfolded, her friend Roswetta (who was now my friend) was talking with me in the living room about Shonnah. I described the open vision to her as it happened.

The presence of the Lord fell and we both wept. Roswetta said, ‘I can’t see it but I can feel goose bumps.’ During this vision, I also received an anointing of creativity, poetry and writing. In fact, I even received a three-page prophetic poem that I read at our wedding. I still write prophetic poems for my wife to this day.” (From Bentley's autobiography)

Now, I don't want to make much of this as it speaks for itself, I honestly doubt Bentley had any vision, he strikes me as your run of the mill charlatan. If you question that maybe this video where he talks about a tumor exploding during a healing will help you. My point is that I don't know how seriously people making these utterances actually take them themselves.

The Bentley story is simply tragic, as he really threw away his family for a young trophy wife.

Yet, like Bob Jones, Todd Bentley is on his way back into the Charismatic conference circuit and is being "restored" to ministry by Rick Joyner and others. See my post "Swallowing the Spirit Feathers and All" for more on this.

Just like politicians, nobody ever resigns, and the apologies are palpably lacking sincerity.

The flippancy in all of this prophetic business I see as a major part of the problem. Let me assert that I do not doubt that God can speak to individuals directly, I am not a full blown cessationist (although I am closer to their end of the spectrum with unbridled mysticism being on the opposite end). However, what troubles me is the cavalier manner in which individuals within the Charismatic movement talk about hearing from God.

It is just an every day thing to hear from God to many of these individuals, He speaks to me when I am sleeping, when I am brushing my teeth, driving my car, etc. I often have heard the phrases "I feel like God is saying..." or even more odious "I just got a download from heaven..." both of these display that casual attitude people have to hearing from God.

In scripture when individuals hear from God it is quite another matter, they are simply "undone" and stricken by an overwhelming sense of unworthiness (Isaiah 6 for example).

Not so with the modern charismatics, they blithely talk about trips to the third heaven as though they had taken a train to Deleware, no big deal. Whereas, Paul wouldn't even say it was himself who had had a vision of heaven (2 Cor 12:1) as he felt so unworthy to utter what he had seen.

Again, not so with the modern subscribers to the renewal movement, I had a wild eyed fellow come up to me, whom I didn't know at all really, and just state to me rather matter of factly out of the blue "Yeah, I've been to the third heaven..." I looked at this man and it dawned on me that either he was mad or it was I who was mad, I concluded that the former was the case as he brought this up to me, a total stranger, completely out of nowhere. Again, I don't think this fellow has been to the third heaven, he was either delusional or a liar, because had he been there he wouldn't be so flippant about it. I think he thought this would impress me, like a general showing off his medals of valour he earned for his "bravery" against the Iraqi rebels.

Any time we claim to be speaking on God's behalf it should be with fear and trembling, as we hold a message that is greater than ourselves. This is true when we step up to exposit scripture, we are to preach as dying men to a dying world. It should certainly be true if we have indeed been given a prophetic word from God.

I personally don't go about seeking words from God apart from studying His revealed word in the Scriptures. I figure if God wants to give me some sort of direct word He is more than capable of doing so, as He is not impotent but sovereign and ruling and reigning. One doesn't go to a Charismatic school and learn how to hear God's voice, as many do. Frankly, the idea on its face is blasphemous as it presents to us a rather impotent god who really needs our help, he would like to speak to us if only we will listen. If God has something to say directly to us He will not have any difficulty arresting our attention.

That's my view of direct words from God.

This is the third installment in the growing series of "Why I don't Roll Charismatic", it is in part a response to some of the claims made by a friend of friends on his blogs about getting a prophecy from God that CA will be destroyed in Sept of 2010 by a massive earthquake. You can read of this HERE. I will not address him personally, as he is not a public figure, nor do I want him to feel shamed. Although, he believes in his message enough to put it on paper and put them under people's windshield wipers. Do I think there will be an earthquake in Sept 2010? I don't know, could happen.

What I am concerned about is what if it doesn't happen? Was not Christ's name taken in vain by being attached to a false prophecy? Does this not give unbelievers who got these pamphlets grounds to mock? I think the answer is yes to both of these questions.

To conclude, I simply do not know why the Bible isn't good enough for people. It claims to have all we need (2 Tim 3:16-17). C.H. Spurgeon once said if we had a thousand lifetimes and they were dedicated to the study of God's word, we still would not have mined all of the gems that are contained in God's word. Why then do so many go about chasing fresh words when there is already a sure word?

"Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food." (Isaiah 55:2)

The Lap Dog Media and "Climategate"

2009-12-26T12:33:00.000-08:00

I have been holding off in giving comment to the recent "Climategate" emails for the simple fact that the emails themselves were received by people like myself with a "Well of course." reaction. I was more interested in how the shills in the media would spin this and shift the scrutinizing eyes from the supposed "consensus of scientists" who were obviously guilty of fraud, to the people or person who broke the story.

This is precisely the sort of treatment to be expected when these sort of revelations come to the light of day, and climategate is no exception. In an AP article entitled "E-Mails don't undercut science" I believe we have a shining example of what lap dog media looks like.

I shall give a blow by blow evaluation of this piece (quotes from the article will appear in Blue), my reasoning primarily is to put on display how propaganda works. Also, I use the George Orwell phrase "doublethink" a few times if you do not know what the term means the wikipedia definition including Orwell's own definition from 1984 can be found here. The entirety of the AP article can be read here. That said I will begin my assessment, the article begins as follows:

"LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."

The first thing that stands out is the word "stolen", from the outset you are to get an opinion of who the real criminals are, namely the individual(s) that brought these emails to the light of day. Furthermore note the doublespeak, the sentence cites the fact that within the emails the scientists discussed "hiding data" (that made their claims less than convincing) but this fact doesn't indicate any fakery. Sure they may have talked about cooking the books and molding the data a bit but that doesn't discredit their claims. This is truly Orwellian double think.

"The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Yet again, we have to engage in double think to swallow this rather distasteful elixir. It is announced that the scientists admit to having doubts, these are described as slight and fleeting by the AP. I wonder how the AP was able to determine the intensity of the internal doubts these scientists harbored simply through reading their emails. Furthermore, there is as always a reference to a "vast body of evidence" that warming is man made, this of course begs the question in light of the fact that this body of evidence comes from guys who talked about intentionally fudging data, and even doubt their own claims.

"The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets."

I found this passage to be absolutely hilarious. I think it is supposed to comfort us that scientists in presenting their "findings" are just behaving like politicians. We are all used to politicians crafting a pack of lies, so well, the modern scientist should be viewed like Bush, Clinton, or Obama, you know they're lying but we are all expected to engage in the fiction that they mean what they say. Well, science is now kind of like politics, by its definition full of falsehoods and empty platitudes, this again is an attempt to reassure us that what these emails contain is no big deal, we see these sort of games all the time in the world of politics, therefore we should just accept them.

We are then introduced to an expert (Frankel), who again attempts to placate us stating:

"Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

So again we are back to double think, 1.There is NO EVIDENCE of falsehoods yet, 2.We can be concerned over "Very Generous interpretations"....Hmm, one would think that if someone knowingly gave a "very generous interpretation" that would be synonymous with fabricating data. I read stuff like this and what amazes me most is that this sort of propaganda actually works. One has to suspend reason for the above statement to seem coherent and consistent.

The article continues:

"One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it."

Ok, this statement is an honest assessment of the material found within the emails, the scientists in the good ol boys club who roll with the UN and the likes of Al Gore had some data they thought it worth their while to keep from those who reject the man made global warming theory. Furthermore, given the already cited dishonesty of these fellows why should we trust their claim that they never destroyed like data they didn't want public?

"The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists [sic] repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests."

This again can stand on its own, the scientists (in a looser sense of the word) state that they had data they didn't want scientists holding to rival theories to get a hold of. This again is dishonesty, yet we are supposed to view the findings of scientists like a papal decree...the majority has spoken, sit down and shut up. This shows how shaky this sort of science is, it is based upon mob rule rather than hard empiricism. That being the case the mob in favor with the powers that be and part of the inner circle or round table must keep a tight lid over undesired information, lest the unwashed masses of independent scientists get a hold of it.

The article then unfortunately goes on and tries to justify hiding data. It then gives an attempt to justify the clear vitriol for the scientists who are skeptical of the anointed theory. Ultimately when attempting to justify dubious behavior it is always best to invoke "experts":

"As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

The experts on "research ethics" have spoken, let us humbly submit to their proclamations. Given the fact that these fellows no doubt have no objective reference point to guide their ethical judgements their proclamations are rather weightless. All we can conclude is that some "experts in ethics" have put their crayons to paper and determined that no ethical wrongdoing has taken place.

I suppose this would mean that lying, hiding findings, and hating people who disagree with your position are all within the boundaries of upright behaviour when it comes to research. We should however accept their statements about the political nature of science, and this indeed murkies the waters. Anytime something becomes political the incentive to lie and spin comes to life.

We must also accept the proclamation that science is far less objective then we often think, a lesson my Atheist friends would do well to heed. It is chalked full of subjective agents, with their own wants and needs necessarily coming to bear on their findings. This is particularly true in the soft sciences (Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Archeology, and Climate science) harder sciences are less prone to this sort of fudging as they really can fully apply the scientific method these would include (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry etc). It is sciences of the softer variety that we seem to receive an embarrassing amount of crack pot theories that are held due to the necessary mob rule that reigns in these sciences.

This following excerpt is another great example of how propaganda works given the Left vs Right false paradigm we are all supposed to accept:

"In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science [sic] have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible."

This is the ace of spades the establishment can always throw out no matter what the issue. Why was it necessary to tell the reader that the congressmen who have cited these damning emails were "Republicans"? Why do the writers of this article have to bring up Sarah Palin and her doubts of the IPCC's findings?

The answer is simple, to make it a partisan issue. Almost everybody sees Sarah Palin as an uneducated rube, so in order to discredit the sensible reaction that these emails indicate fraud in the research the climate change posse has been putting forth, you bring up Sarah Palin and her opinion. This makes it a left vs. right issue, thus inherently pitting people on one side or other given which brand of soda they like to purchase. Link a position to Sarah Palin and every sensible person will out of respect for his own intellectual dignity want to react and say, "Well if she holds to X then I DO NOT."

Its a simple game, and again it is rather amazing that it continues to work.

Furthermore note in the above quote that it says that the emails only "appear" to show fraud. We just went through a number of citations where I don't know how one can read them as anything but fraud, yet we are to conclude that they merely appear to be engaged in fraud...after all we have to look at all of this in context.

The AP has not found fraud, just trying to present the "data as convincingly as possible". Well this of course begs the question as the reliability of the data is the very thing being questioned, and the very thing that the scientist's comments within the emails show that we should indeed question. All in all this is a very delicate way of saying the AP found that, "The scientists were cooking the books and trying to convince people of something of which the evidence is questionable."

That is what it should say were we not dealing with a lap dog media shilling for the establishment.

"None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates [sic] in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write."

Funny that these guys after reading their buddies emails didn't change their minds, this again is supposed to show us that there is nothing in the emails that should cause us to question the integrity of the findings given by these scientists after all "moderates" didn't change their minds and if anybody would it would be them.

""In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said."

I am wondering what context statements like "hide the decline" (referencing temperature) can be seen as innocent in solid scientific research. I love it when appeals to context are made in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

To conclude, I see articles like this as great examples of propaganda. The media comes to the aid of a rightfully tottering establishment policy, giving simply absurd reasonings for why we should give the establishment our unwavering support. The issue of man made global warming is rather moot to me, it is ridiculous on its face. The fact that calling Co2 a pollutant, and the remedy is to tax its output, smells like a con-game and a power play is probably because it is.

Christians should be on the front lines of real environmentalism as we know who made the earth and we know to whom the beauty of nature testifies. We are called to be good stewards of the planet and to take care of it. Yet this kind of alarmism and fear mongering based upon dubious science with the solution being global governance should be rightly rejected.

Faithfulness Without Comprimise (Or Speaking the Truth in Love)

2009-12-21T22:39:00.000-08:00

"And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 9:3)

The above verse immediately upon my reading of it became precious to me. The land of Israel had become polluted with lies and the reasoning given was that the people were not "valiant for the truth". This verse in our age is like a rabid rhinoceros in a fine china shop, upon which tranquilizers have become useless. I say this because the spirit of our age is one that has given up on objective truth.

When I say objective truth I mean truth that is true for everyone, whether they fancy it or not, whether they know of it or not, and whether they accept it or not. Modern man has given this up as he has either accepted that there is no God, or if there is how should I know what He's all about? Thus, everyone has their own "truth", and it is the height of insolence to come along and correct another saying, "Sir, you are wrong."

This is very much the spirit of our age.

Now in this post I am not aiming to address the unbeliever, but rather how this spirit of the age or zeitgeist has affected the Christian mind. Ever since my coming to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ I have heard incessant calls for unity, and observed furrowed brows in discussion of church division. That seemed all well and good until as I grew in my knowledge both of the scriptures and what was going on in churches, that I realized that some people claiming to be Christians believed some pretty off the wall stuff.

Some were saying, "Come to Jesus he'll give you that raise. And send me a check as a seed of faith showing that you believe your raise is coming."

Others were saying, "Remember, O most loving Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help, or sought your intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, we turn to you, O Virgins of virgins, our Mother. To you we come, before you we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, do not despise our petitions, but in your mercy hear us and answer us. Amen." (link here)

Still others said, "You need to be baptized in order to be saved."

Many females of the more "progressive" type have said, "When it says 'I don't permit a woman to teach' it just applied to that specific church for a few years because the women there were especially rowdy, so women should be in leadership, remember Deborah."

Some other chap would come along and say, "If you just believe, you will be healed from your sickness, because healing is in the atonement."

Yet another fella would say, "When the Bible says 'predestined' it just means God saw what you would choose ahead of time."

Lastly, and this one takes the cake for me, as I heard a wild eyed lewd fellow of the baser sort say in all seriousness, "In heaven all the women will become men, if it wasn't so we'd all be a fighting over who would get the girl and that just wouldn't be heaven, now would it? People fighting all the time like that, no sir, not in heaven, so all women become men."

Well, lets get out the marshmallows and hot dogs for a hearty round of Kumbaya arms locked as we celebrate our unity around the campfire. Surely this is the appropriate action as division and splitting would simply be out of line right?

The answer I hope is obvious, the main problem comes when in our dividing we behave less than Christian. Ugliness is detectable to all men, and when Christians behave in an ugly manner towards one another the watching world has grounds to say, "See! See! Where is the manifestation of what you talk about!"

Christ Himself said this as he stated that "the world will know you are Christians by your love". Note that He didn't say by your seamless agreement and unity in all things, but by our love. Schaeffer stressed this point greatly in his wonderful book "The Mark of the Christian". It is a small book and it is less academic than Schaeffer's other works, so if you have the means it is simply a must read.

One of my favorite Schaeffer quotes comes from this book and reads as follows:

"Before a watching world, an observable love in the midst of difference will show a difference between Christian's differences and other men's differences. The world may not understand what the Christians are disagreeing about, but they will very quickly understand the difference of our differences in an open and observable love on a practical level.

That is different. Can you see why Jesus said this was the thing that would arrest the attention of the world? You cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, especially in our day when the existence of truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts." (Francis Schaeffer)

The point stressed is that the world knows of disagreements and divisions, we see them all the time, in marriages, friendships, and of course in our points of view. It is in these areas that the grace of God can shine, as it is not in the areas that we agree upon that will demonstrate love but where we disagree. It is here, when most we are tempted to ugliness that the church can stand before the watching world, not shirking the disagreement or sweeping it under the rug, but boldly having the matter out...all the while not ceasing to love one another.

In part this is why rug sweeping is so detestable, not only is the matter not resolved, but further, an opportunity to be the church before the watching world is missed.

We are called to love all men as ourselves, because all men bear the image of God and thus have value and dignity commanding our respect and love. Thus, in our evangelistic witness as well as in our relationships with Christians with whom we disagree sharply, we are called to "Speak the truth in love." (Eph 4)

Ours is an age skittishly averse to saying, "They are wrong." It smacks of arrogance, because nobody can know the truth, and thus nobody can utter such as pronouncement with authority. This again is the spirit of the age, and more often than not Christians react in like manner to such utterances.

Rather than throwing truth under the bus and leaping into relativism we need a robust display of speaking the truth with love. There will come points where the person with whom we disagree is so far out that they probably are not really a Christian, nonetheless, we are called in our being valiant for truth to love that person and hope for their repentance even though they may be excommunicated from the church.

This is the attitude of Paul in his epistle to Titus as he states that we are to be, "showing all meekness unto all men for ourselves were onetime foolish" (Titus 3). There is no justification for displacing compassion, even for people espousing foolish things, as we ourselves were once foolish. Equally, there is no room for acting as though it were not foolishness, a spade must be called a spade.

I must confess as I wrap up here that I have failed terribly at this, my disposition is to be like a wild ogre clubbing people in the name of the truth yearning for more blood. At other times I have been silent when I know I should say something. I have failed at this in both ways, being zealous for the truth at the expense of the person, and being zealous for relationships at the expense of the truth.

However, the times by the grace of God I have seen the balance struck it has been glorious, in evangelism as well as doctrinal disagreements. The paraphrased quotes I gave vary in their degree of gravity, however, one thing they have in common is that they are issues we absolutely have to divide over. Yet, in our division we are called to love one another, as this is the mark of the Christian, love.

Bill O'reilly: "I don't care about the constitution"

2009-11-23T21:40:00.000-08:00

Here the stallwart voice of the neo-conservative movement Bill O'reilly states the sentiment of many who call themselves "conservatives" as he announces that "I don't care about the constitution" to former judge Andrew Napolitano who defends the actual trial of Khalid Sheik Muhammad the supposed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks...yeah right. The constitution is what is to keep us from mob rule and the rule of a tyrant, its amazing that a "conservative" would say this but it shows yet again there is little to no difference between the "liberals" and "conservatives" neither care about the constitution when their party is in power. Here's the video:

the thing that disappoints me most is that people get their political opinions from hacks like Orielly and Oberman, and just bulimically regurgitate what they say even though it is a tangled mess of contradictions and inane platitudes. I have talked to people on the left and right who really have no principles but spout the one liners of political hacks in the place of reasoned discourse.

Knowing Better Than God (Or, Why I Don't Roll Charismatic Redux)

2009-11-15T23:53:00.000-08:00

My family, again due to weather, visited a local church rather than going to our usual home church for the Lord's day. This church was fairly charismatic, but to my relief the pastor stuck to the Bible in his preaching and although the gospel wasn't preached he did a fair job of expounding the text. This is leaps and bounds beyond what I have experienced in churches that are into charismatic expression where often the service disintegrates into utter chaos and subjective expressions because "the spirit is moving".

What I found in the book sale area was a book by Bill Johnson, a pastor whom many of my charismatic friends admire and see as a sort of mentor. It is by no means my goal to slander men, I let them slander themselves with their own words. The book title is "Face to Face with God" and this book seems like your standard technique type book seeking to arm the reader with tools to manipulate God into doing things we want, to put it crassly. I merely had to read the back of the book and the urge welled up within me to throw it across the room (as I did with another tawdry installment by Mr. Johnson), the only thing that restrained me from taking such appropriate action is that it was marked at $10, and I certainly did not desire to pay for this book as a result of the damage that surely would have been incurred.

These technique books are a dime a dozen and it really is a marvel to me that people continue to lap them up like chicken soup on a cold day. The back cover is what betrays the genre as it always has a list of what the book promises to deliver to the reader in the form of new and cutting edge insights. This book by Johnson fits the mold to the T, and one of the techniques contained in the book highlighted on the back cover that enraged me read:

"How to "set up an ambush" to apprehend God rather than just waiting on God"

I simply don't know how anyone who fears God can read that as anything but blasphemous. If you need help seeing the problem let me point it out.

1.) God's word commands us to wait on Him, Johnson says we shouldn't, he seems to think he has a better technique than God. This is a prevalent theme in charismatic fanaticism, our experiences and feelings and impressions are right up there in authority with scripture. (See my previous post on Bentley for another example of Johnson knowing better than God)

2.) God is omniscient, He's not going to be taken off guard by our efforts to "trap or ambush" Him, it is He who has decreed all of history. We come to Him as beggars with outstretched hands.

3.) God is a person, He is not some force that we tap into, the treatment of God like some sort of cosmic force comes up over and over with these types of writings, and no doubt that is in the work on techniques to manipulate God by Mr. Johnson.

I really don't know how bible believing Christians can make these sorts of statements, it shows gross misunderstanding of God's character and nature, and therefore it betrays ignorance of scripture itself or in this case just outright disobedience to or slighting of what scripture says. In short, this sort of stuff just makes me tired.

Andrew Napolitano on the Health Care Boondoggle

2009-11-07T18:24:00.000-08:00

Judge Andrew Napolitano (probably the only commentator working with Fox News worthy of a hearing) in commenting on the health care bill, soon to be yet another unconstitutional "law", in a recent article as follows:

"We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties.

Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat."

I thought the line in bold to be an excellent description of the relationship between government and individual liberty. It could be likened to light and darkness, darkness (government) being by its nature the absence of light (freedom). Government is an exercise in pure consumption and legalized plunder, government does not make things what it has it has by theft from those who are producers.

The only reason why this parasitic relationship continues as an accepted relationship is that we have been trained to believe that government is a sort of god. This idol makes the sun to shine, the grass grow, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, prospers us all, keeps us save from the hordes of infidels by mercilessly bombing third world countries, and in general keeps us safe from ourselves. Like all idols government demands sacrifice, through your giving what is yours through honest labor or even your firstborn through conscription.

It bothered me under the reign of Bush the lesser to hear people constantly defend the indefensible even to this day believing there really were WMD's in Iraq, and the liberal media covered this up. The "Terrorists are gonna get us if we don't do X!" line was tirelessly invoked to assuage the inklings of concern over the freedom destroying policies like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrantless wiretapping, and torture. You know what, it worked, Americans on the right accepted these policies and continue to by and large although they now have reservations as a man with a (D) next to his name now has these insidious tools at his disposal.

It is no less troubling to see Barack H Obama (peace be upon him) picking up the ball right where Bush left off and running with it. This time the card incessantly invoked is one of tolerance and compassion for the disenfranchised. This is how the hate crimes law was passed (attached to a military funding bill gaining bipartisan coverage at the cost of lives in the countries the government ruling us chooses to bomb) as well as the now Health Care "reform" bill. If you have a problem with these government power grabs at the expense of individual liberty you must be insensitive or in the worst case an outright racist/bigot.

It is a shame that people can not see through these sorts of games, it is rather simple, you divide people into artificial groups of race, gender, socio-economic class, and party affiliation, get them all fighting with each other, meanwhile, the plunderers sit up top continuing their pillage and metastasizing into a grotesque size.

With this formula, people will insist that their group is constantly being cheated, create lobby groups to strip their enemy group of money or freedom (often under the guise of "rights" for their group) to right the wrongs done to said group, this is a wish the government is more than happy to acquiesce to as they are in the business of sanctioning theft, and managing the lives of individuals.

What I just said may go right over people's heads caught up in these artificial fights which are created for us to supply us with our outlet of political action. However, the formula Napolitano lays out is simple and clear cut, government by its very nature is the negation of freedom.

Swallowing the Spirit Feathers and All

2009-11-02T12:52:00.000-08:00

"He swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all!"

That is what Martin Luther said of the fanatics in his day who claimed they had Divine inward revelations that were on par with the revealed word of God in scripture.

The same sentiment can be said of much of what passes for the "revival movement" in America, it is high on excitement and low on faithfulness to biblical doctrine, even spurning it as a byword. I have avoided these sorts of issues as no fruit seems to come from stating the obvious, however the rise and fall and seeming rise yet again of Todd Bentley is a case in point example of the fiber of this movement.

I take no joy in the fact that Mr. Bentley fell into gross sin as some critics of revivalism seem to have. Bentley is a man made in the image of God and has inestimable worth and dignity based upon this reality. My beef however, is that the folk who occupy this movement seem to think they know better than God, at least as He has revealed Himself in His word.

Todd Bentley had an adulterous affair with a woman, then divorced his wife, and subsequently married said woman. Obviously, this was frowned upon. Scripturally, Bentley is not only disqualified from ministry as Paul states the requirements a church leader is to possess but due to his continuance in sin should really be excommunicated:

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (1 Tim 3:2)

Bentley lacks most of these traits, I can not judge his hospitableness. The most flagrant compromise is that Bentley continues living in adultery by virtue of his new marriage to the woman with whom he committed adultery. Christ could not be more clear in His view of adultry and remarriage as He states:

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5:31-32)

The latter clause is why I say with Christ that Bentley is still living in adultery.

A fairly recent article in Charisma displays the attitude in much of the charismatic circles toward leaders found in gross sin. The article basically describes Bentley as a victim, and there is not the slightest hint that the continued relationship with the woman and continued ministry of Bentley is in any way improper. The only victims I see in all of this are Bentley's children and former wife, which get barely a mentioning.

In fact it is suggested that there is something wrong with you if you have a problem with this by Rick Joyner. Yes, we should forgive a repentant person, but Bentley is disqualified Biblically from ministry, AND biblically he hasn't repented as he continues his adultery.

Right now Todd Bentley is being "restored", allegedly based on Gal 6:1, to ministry, yet another move in defiance of scripture (as one who has fallen into sin can be restored to fellowship but NOT to leadership as he now fails to meet the requirements of leadership).

These biblical requirements for leadership unfortunately do not daunt the individuals over seeing the "restoration process", Rick Joyner of Morningstar Ministries, and Bill Johnson of the Bethel church in Redding CA. Todd Bentley still "ministers" the article states and I would assume in the eyes of most within the revivalism movement I am the bad guy for having a problem with any of this.

The reason why one who has run headlong into iniquity while in leadership simply is disqualified from ministry is because it gives the enemies of the gospel grounds to mock. We are called to refute the gainsayers, not only with our sound doctrine but our godly lives (Titus 1:9-13).

It is the loose lifestyles of all of these big named speakers/revivalists, the gross avarice and love of worldly riches on display in these lavish churches, and the wretched theology incessantly spewed out of the meetings that have caused me to long since avoid this movement like the swine flu shot.

I am not a full blown cessationist, but, the constant compromise of biblical teaching and biblical morality within these charismatic circles is the strongest case for cessationism in my mind. Articles like the one in Charisma to which I linked cause me to yet again review why I even believe that the gifts are for today.

Happy Reformationstag!

2009-10-31T16:52:00.000-07:00

Hey at least they still care in Deutschland. Unfortunately, I am willing to bet that most American protestants either don't even know or care that October 31st is the day marking the nailing of the 95 theses to the Castle Kirche in Wittenberg in the year of our Lord 1517 by a Augustinian monk named Martin Luther, thus unwittingly sparking the protestant reformation. Rather than giving the usual finger wagging screed as to the pagan nature of Halloween and why Christians should be non-participants in the worldly "holliday", (If you don't already have this conviction no writing of mine will help no doubt) I shall go into a description of a day worthy of commemoration by believers.

In 1517 Martin Luther took particular umbrige with the sale of indulgences by the Roman Church, seeing the sale of indulgences as giving false assurance to the purchasers while satisfying the avarice of the gluttons in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Indulgences were basically get out of purgatory for a price certificates. Disgusted with such a patently repugnant appeal to the most superstitious vices in man, Luther penned the 95 theses, which in modern parlance could be seen as 95 sentences/reasons why the sale of indulgences is wrong.

Some of the most stinging theses' read as follow:

"32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon."

"36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon."

"52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it."

"62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first."

"75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness."

(Note on 75, it was reported that Tetzel the indulgence seller went this far in attempting to display the efficacious nature of indulgences, also note Luther is still rather Catholic in his view of Mary)

"76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope."

"79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy."

"82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

"86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

"88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

We can see from these statements the seed of protestantism. Modern protestant readers may be surprised at how Catholic this document still is considering it is the spark that flamed into the protestant reformation. However, Luther is not far from stabbing right into the heart of that beast of Romanism. Forgiveness of sin lay not in some sort of incantation from the bowels of Rome in the form of an indulgence certificate, rather, it lay in the posture of the individual before Christ, namely faith laden repentance.

This is indeed the heart of the Roman antichrist system, the Church, priests, and Pope have replaced Christ. Rome has claimed powers to herself that reside in Christ and His gospel alone, and the benefits of these blessing are delivered to the individual by faith alone in Christ alone. That last sentence is the deathblow to Romanism, there is no need of priest or Pope as these offices usurp Christ.

It must also be noted that Luther was not the first to take issue with the blasphemous Roman hegemony on salvation, others like John Wycliffe, and Jon Huss also in studying the scripture saw the unbiblical nature of the Roman system. The latter, Jon Huss, went to the stake for this truth, that man only needs Jesus Christ. Luther simply was by providence the right man at the right time of history, the advent of the printing press spread Luther's writings throughout Germany, winning him and the christian gospel many a friend as well as enemies.

Luther spent much of his life under the threat of execution from Rome. The famous climax that has been often been similarly repeated by saints throughout history was Luther's stance before the Diet of Worms. Many a man of God has faced a similar ultimatum, and like Luther many have stood unwavering before devils. This Diet Luther faced was intended to be a kangaroo trial in which a conviction would be found and Luther executed. Luther wrote of his going to Worms:

"The papists do not desire my coming to Worms, but my condemnation and my death. It matters not. Pray not for me, but for the word of God. . . . Christ will give me His Spirit to overcome these ministers of error. I despise them during my life; I shall triumph over them by my death. They are busy at Worms about compelling me to retract; and this shall be my retraction: I said formerly that the pope was Christ's vicar; now I assert that he is our Lord's adversary, and the devil's apostle."

Luther was ready to die for what he knew to be the truth and fully expected such to be his end at Worms. Well might modern Christians follow such examples, rather than conceding to the cries of "Intolerance!" or "Narrow Minded", as narrow is the way that leads to life and oh how few are there that find it and oh how many trod the well worn way toward destruction bidding us join them. Luther at Worms put his life into the hands of the enemies of the gospel as he refused to recant and rather stated in contra mundum fashion:

""Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows[140]: Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture (Jh. 8:9) or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred (Num.15:22; Ps. 119:110; Isa.28:7; 1Tim.6: 20,21) and contradicted themselves -

I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God (2.Cor. 4:2). Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience, (Mt. 25:30). God help me. Amen." (Isa. 50:9)"

It is by no means my intention to elevate a man named Martin Luther to a level of undue respect as Luther was a man, he had his faults, many of them great. What I wish to highlight is a man of conviction, Luther was no Mr. Looks Both Ways as Bunyan described, he was a man captivated by the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, it was the blessings conveyed upon him from this Galilean that made him so rich as to look upon the pope as a poor man indeed.

Oh that we would do as the writer of Hebrews exhorts us "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith." (Heb 13:7) What is it worth imitating in Luther? I would say a being so overjoyed with the blessings of Christ and the age to come that we count this age as vanity in comparison. I believe that to be the essence of one whose life is no longer his own.

What then are we today to make of the reformation, is it just some trinket of antiquity from 500 years ago that we dust off and say "Boy that was a neat time, that Luther sure was something! Oh to live in such times!"? No, that in reality is to be captivated by our own age and fail to see the continuity between the reformation and today.

(Pictured is Lucas Cranach's "Saxon Princess" many believe this to be a portrait of Luther's daughter Magdalena, after whom we named our 2nd daughter)

What then is the inheritance which we have reaped from the reformation? Here are but a few:

I. Freedom of Worship

The reformation paved the way for the freedom of the individual to worship as dictates his conscience. This in most cases came at the cost of the blood of many men of whom the world was not worthy, whether it was the French Calvinists butchered in France, the Anabaptists, the Scottish Covenanters, or the Puritan non-conformists, this gave rise to the search for a land where individuals could worship freely without a state church. Thus, America became the bastion of religious freedom, imperfect as it was.

Prior to this time the Roman Church had the imperial hegemony on worship, their inquisitors would, like the East German Stasi, seek out violators to persecute mercilessly. The Pope had kings march to Rome barefoot in the snow to plead for their kingdoms back after the Pope had imposed the interdict on said kings. All were required to bow before Rome.

II. Individual Freedom

From the reformation the individual regained importance, as Christ died for individuals, and individuals came to Christ by faith. This developed into the social contract theories of government as no individual had any more inherent value than another, which resulted in the Lex Rex concept or law as king.

America's declaration of independence traces its foundation directly back to these principals, and the checks and balances system we once enjoyed was based upon the Calvinistic principal of total depravity, as no man or men should be trusted with unbridled power as all men are corrupt. See America's bill of rights as an example of how government is to be restrained.

III. Truths To Treasure

Lastly, I want to highlight that the protestant reformation has blessed the church of Christ with an inheritance of truth. Paul urged Timothy to "guard the deposit" not once but twice in separate epistles (1 Tim 6:20, 2 Tim 1:14). Well might we take heed to the importance of doctrine in an age where the mere word "doctrine" provokes sneers and disapproval not only in the world but much of the visible church.

By in large evangelicalism has fallen prey to a sort of anti-intellectualism, as though our inward feelings, intuitions, and impulses were to be given credence. We have fallen prey to the worldly messages of "Have your best life now" or a crass Jesus in a bottle theology where Jesus just wants to give us all our hearts desire. We have lost sight of what Paul saw as important, namely right doctrine.

By bathing ourselves in the lives and writings of those who have gone before us we surround ourselves with a "great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 12:1) and afford ourselves with they eyes of foreigners to our age allowing us to see a bit clearer. We need to gaze upon the redwood trees of Luther, Calvin, Bunyan, and Edwards, as frankly, in comparison we live in an age surrounded by cattails and superficiality.

The deposit the reformation has left us with can by summed up in the 5 Solas which are as follows:

Sola Gratia-

By grace alone are we saved, man can do nothing to make himself right with God, God must first act to awaken those at enmity with God (Rom 8:7) who are dead in sin (Eph 2:1-8).

Sola Fide-

By faith alone in Christ, which is the result of grace working in the heart of the sinner, is a sinner saved. No works to commend the sinner to God. (Rom 3:28)

Sola Christus-

By Christ alone, the work and person of Christ alone is what can save the sinner. (John 3:36)

Sola Scriptura-

Scripture alone, the inspired word of God in the scripture is the sole and final authority in all matters of doctrine and life. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Sola Deo Gloria-

To the glory of God alone, the goal of all of history and creation is to glorify God. (Isa 24:15) Therefore we also so ought to conduct our lives with this singular aim in mind(1 Cor 10:31).

Rome has no problem with these 5 principals, it is the sola aspect that destroys Rome's superstitious hegemony, as it strips her of the stolen attributes she has self attributed and puts them back where they belong.

May we guard and treasure these truths as we treasure the Truth Giver (we are commanded to do so), and may we apply them to our lives, with the end of the glory of God as our chief aim.

Happy reformation day!

What are Christians to Make of Israel?

2009-10-28T15:16:00.000-07:00

"I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen 12:3)

As a young Christian I was brought up under the well nigh standard rubric of dispensational theology. Part of this includes the view that the end times are upon us and the nation of Israel needs the support of Christians as part of their duty to be obedient to Gen 12:3. This is coupled with the principal that the Israeli people by virtue of their Jewish ancestry are the special chosen people of God.

I heartily imbibed this sort of thinking, saw nothing amiss about churches having Israeli flags alongside American flags within their sanctuaries, I thought it to be quite fine for gentilic believers waving around shofars, stars of David and prayer shawls in an attempt to be "messianic believers". I further found it appropriate to be in constant prayer and supplication for the current nation of Israel. I also saw believers of Semitic ancestry to be a sort of believer worth of "double honor" by virtue of the blood in their veins.

I had the sort of notion that for me as a gentile my relationship to the covenant keeping God of the Bible to be on a sort of long distance phone plan, whereas, for individuals of Semitic extraction it was akin to a sort of a local calling plan.

Note that I use the past tense for the above verbs, I cannot and do not think like this anymore.

The main reasons I have had a change of mind are: 1.) An understanding of the covenants of scripture, as well as 2.) The doctrine of election, and lastly in reference to the nation of Israel itself 3.) I find a non-interventionist foreign policy for America to be most conducive to liberty at home and abroad.

I. The Nature of the Covenants

What are we to make of the promises of Gen 12:3, or the exhortation to "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! May they be secure who love you!" (Psalm 122:6)? I think the answer to this is found in the Person of Christ.

Christ is the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham in Gen 12, through Him all nations are blessed, and truly through Him Abraham's descendants are as the stars in the sky. Galatians chapter 3 is rather unambiguous on this very issue as it states:

"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." (Gal 3:7-9)

Furthermore, Paul explicitly makes clear that the culmination of the Abrahamic covenant is in Christ as he states:

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ." (Gal 3:16)

Paul flushes this concept out and its implications at the end of chapter 3 as he writes:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Gal 3:27-29)

The context of Galatians is further illuminating as its original recipients were Gentile believers being taken in by Judiazers. We further see Peter rebuked in chapter 2 for treating the Gentiles as inferiors and refusing to share fellowship with them. So what we see here is Paul's God inspired explanation of the nature of the new covenant in relationship to the old, as he tries to disentangle these believers from the legalistic pitfalls that others were seeking to impose upon them.

Paul is saying to these Gentiles, you are the true children of Abraham if you have the same faith as Abraham. Ethnicity is not the issue, nor was it ever, the issue always was trust in the promises, and in the New Covenant trust in the Promised One. Paul is ripping down the Jew Gentile distinction, whereas many modern Christians find it appropriate to erect yet again this distinction.

This strongly parallels Paul's exposition in Romans 9 which reads:

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." (Rom 9:6-8)

Paul could not be more clear, the promises to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ, and the descendants of Abraham are those with the faith of Abraham in the Christ. Again ethnicity does not matter, the Israel of God are those who are in Christ by faith. It is here we see the continuity between the old and new covenants, it was always based upon faith not ethnicity. This is why even in the Old Covenant we see believers like the mixed multitude coming out of Egypt, Rahab, Ruth, and others. It never was an ethnic based promise but one of faith, the ethnic aspect, as already quoted, had primarily to do with Christ, Abraham's seed/offspring (singular).

This is not replacement theology as the Gentiles never have replaced the Jewish people, rather, this is a continuity between the covenants which inclusion within has always been based upon faith. The problem is that dispensationalism has coarsely divided the covenants with the precision of a rusty and dull hacksaw, and for whatever reason this rather new thinking has gained ascendancy within evangelicalism.

There are indeed differences in the covenants but at the center the essence has always been faith in the Promise of God, and this was and is open to Jew and Gentile alike (Take all the rules in dealing with "strangers" or "foreigners" in the law of Moses for instance).

This is how Paul can both say that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (as in regards to justification by faith there never was), and remind the Jewish people that the promise remains for them in Romans 11, God has not replaced the Jews with the Gentiles. But rather, all are one in Christ through faith.

In short, the only special people of God are those who have been brought out of the miry clay of unbelief and been set upon the Rock by faith. (Psalm 40:2, Eph 2)

II. Election

Romans 9 has already been cited, however it needs to be highlighted that individuals are chosen by God not ethnic groups or nations. This is abundantly clear for those willing (no pun intended) to see:
"And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"
(Romans 9:10-24)

One of the things that has always amazed me about this passage is the fact that Paul anticipates and rebuts the standard objection to the doctrine of election. He would not anticipate these objections had he not indeed been talking about what he is obviously talking about, namely that God elects individuals for salvation without regard to any inherent virtue in the individual (as there is none).

Christians who have problems with these implications have done all sorts of acrobatic tricks to avoid the clear implications here so much so that PT Barnum would be not a little impressed. The trickery of men knows no bounds (Eph 4:14), the most often invoked explanation I have heard to diffuse this bomb of a sovereign God is that the passage is really talking about nations not individuals.

Even if we accept such a sottish interpretation are not nations made of individuals? Furthermore it is clear that nations are not implicated as Paul had stated "they are not all Israel who are of Israel". Also, last I checked Esau, Jacob, and Pharaoh were all individuals who existed in time and space, no to mention pronouns like "us" and "whom" to say this is all allegorical and references nations is to do violence to the text.

My point in all of this is simple, as God has chosen individuals by election, these individuals come to Christ by grace through faith, faith is something only individuals can do not nations which is just a human category or grouping. God elects individuals not groups, which is why Paul can say "They are not all Israel who are Israel" which can be rendered, "They are not all the chosen people of God who are ethnic Israelites."

III. Application- A Christian Foreign Policy

If the promise given to Abraham in Gen 12:3 extended beyond Abraham's earthly lifespan does it apply to the modern Israeli state? I answer with scripture emphatically "NO".

The promise applies to Abraham's seed, which is Christ. There is one body, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Eph 4), it is here that the promise resides, with those of the faith of Abraham, Abraham's offspring. Abraham's offspring is not a nation or ethnic group but those who have faith in the Seed of Abraham, this is the Church of Jesus Christ. There are not two peoples of God but one, and it is not a nation or an ethnic group, but extends to all nations and all ethnic groups (Rev 5:9).

The application of this above truth of God's work of redemption for foreign policy is tremendous, we ought to treat all nations equally and, as our founders argued, we ought not to have entangling alliances. Unfortunately, evangelicals if they even agree with the founders (most have embraced an imperialistic foreign policy in the name of "spreading freedom") will make an exception for the nation of Israel.

This can be seen as Ron Paul was frowned upon at the Christian values voter debate during the 2008 presidential selection. Ron Paul declined to give an affirmative answer to continue to fund Israel with American tax payer's money. Paul, who is a Christian, was not only in line with the founders but a Biblical worldview that sees the people of God as neither a nation nor an ethnic group.

I am sure these same Christians would heartily support the removal of US foreign aid to the Islamic nations that "threaten" Israel. Ron Paul is simply consistent, a rare anomaly these days, and calls for us to treat all nations equally and stop robbing from the American people to prop up dictators across the globe.

I have had trouble seeing how Christians can continue to support the jingoistic foreign policy of a nation that by and large rejects Christianity, and subdues large portions of people groups in a garrison like police state. The only rationale given for such a see no evil hear no evil attitude on behalf of American evangelicalism toward Israel is based upon Gen 12:3, which as I have argued has nothing to do with ethnic extraction.

I simply do not know how you can be "God's people" and reject Him as Lord. Yet, this does not stop evangelicals from seeing Israel as some sort of special nation fulfilling prophecies as she subdues with an iron fist those who have been displaced by Israeli expansion. I suppose this has more to do with slapdash eschatology, and books in the family of "Left Behind" (an apocalyptic version of "The Hardy Boys" series).

This is why at one time I would have thought it great for American and Israeli flags to drape the backdrop of a church and now I find myself repulsed by any flag as the backdrop of a Church, Christians are not to be nationalistic, as the Church of Christ knows no borders nor national allegiances.

For instance, the other week I visited a local church with my daughter, as my wife was sick so we didn't take our usual 40 minute trek to our home church, right in the foyer was a 2' x 5' map of Israel. this was not Israel in the time of Christ, the time of David, or the 12 tribes, this was modern Israel in satellite form. The message was clear, Christians have some sort of link or duty to fulfill to that nation.

I would say as Christians we do not owe that nation any more deference than we owe to any other nation composed of individuals made in the image of God. Sure it would be neat to walk and see the sights where Christ and the apostles also walked, but there are no pilgrimages in biblical Christianity as Biblical Christianity has no holy shrines or sites. There are no virtuous effects of bathing in the Jordan that eclipse the virtues of bathing in the Mississippi, nor does the mount of Olives grant the pilgrim with any special grace which Pikes Peak lacks.

The virtue of the land itself lay in giving a picture to the student of scripture to go with the history of redemption rendered to us in God's word. This indeed is a wonderful blessing. To go beyond this is to flirt with Romanism and the reasoning that blessed the world with the crusades.

IV. Conclusion

How do I draw this to a close?

Firstly, that the promises made to Abraham were not nationalistic nor ethnic, the promise transcends these categories as Christ's work of redemption transcends these categories.

Secondly, the election of God Biblically is the election of individuals, not nations nor ethnic groups.

Lastly, given the above reasons, Christians should pursue a humble foreign policy in dealing with nations. Imperialism is simply out of step with Biblical Christianity.

To conclude by answering the question entitling this write up, "What are Christians to Make of Israel?"

I would answer that we should be appreciative and conversant in the biblical history and biblical culture of the Jewish people as their history is our history, they were the saints of old (Eph 2:19). I would add the caveat that we should not make an idol of Jewishness as the Galatians were tempted, and as much of evangelicalism today is tempted if not outright guilty of. We need to recall that as Paul declared there is no special ethnic people of God, there is one people of God, those in Christ by faith.

If we apply these truths we should treat the current nation of Israel as any other nation, one with whom we seek to trade and pursue peace with. We should treat her as any other nation created by the United Nations rather than one fulfilling the unbridled fantasies of the latest prophecy buff.

(Most of the pictures in the blog are from Christian ministry web pages)

Indeed...

2009-10-23T10:26:00.000-07:00

Debate: Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson at Westminster

2009-07-02T22:26:00.000-07:00

This is an excellent debate, very cordial, I was particularly impressed with Christopher Hitchens, though I completely disagree with him and his arguements. I expected Hitchens to be more like Sam Harris, just an angry blow-hard, however Hitchens is clearly a very smart man. Yet again testifying to the words of the apostle: "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth." (1 Cor 1:26)

The debate starts here, part 1 is just intro, the rest can be found on youtube:

On The Weight of The Incarnation

2008-12-25T17:08:00.000-08:00

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Heb 2:17)

Another Christmas is here and gone, presents strewn about the house, cookie crumbs decorate the mouth corners of all, and the seasonal afternoon nap develops into a way of life. It truly is easy to lose sight of the heart of what it is we are celebrating amidst all the commotion of family visits, dinners, children playing, purchases and exchanges etc.

We can think quaintly of the baby in the manger, with the sheep and animals gently nuzzeling about Him. But it is there in Bethlehem we see humility and exaltation joined in One, glory and shame, the servant and King of all, this in one Person, Jesus Christ.

He was made like us in every way, subjected Himself to the same futility, cried like any other infant, played with other children, skinned His knees, as He grew He learned a trade and earned a living. In two ways He was not like us, He is indeed God and He lived a life without sin. All of this to save a people to Himself.

He didn't have to do it. Justice does not demand this humility and mercy on His part. The wonderous mystery of His choice to come as a Man and lovingly redeem a people lies in the unloveliness of those He came to redeem. He did not look upon us and see something that called for mercy (else it would no longer be mercy). Rather, in all of our ugliness toward one another and rejecting of God's Lordship He came to save.

We all to easily confess to our sinfulness without meditating on the hideousness of it, perhaps because it is too heavy to bear. "Christ died for the ungodly" (5:6) What does it mean to be "ungodly" other than to be opposed to God and all He calls good?

Such were all of us, yet He came nonetheless. He did not do this primarily to show us the life to live, for we could never live it. However, we see in Christ the invisible God. God is not some aloof invisible man distant from His creation as some would say. Our sin has seperated us from Him yet in His mercy He revealed Himself by becoming one of us. In Christ that seperation beween man and God no longer exists and those who are in Him may boldy approach the throne of grace.

These are sweet truths, worthy of meditation more than once a year.

Merry Christmas.

Revisiting Schaeffer's "Final Apologetic"

2008-12-13T19:58:00.000-08:00

In Francis Scaheffer's work "The Mark of the Christian" the timeless balance of truth and love, doctrinal integrity and interpersonal authenticity is struck. All too often we fall prey to one extreme or another in our evangelism, apologetics, preaching and relationships with one another. We tend to emphasize one of Scripture's mandates at the expense of another.

Followers of Christ who highly esteem the Word and the propositional truths contained in the Bible often can be guilty of bludgeoning others with those truths. Any disagreement is met with harsh outbursts where the person of the objector is attacked and villified. When it is between believers and non-believers, as far as I can tell this is no more evident than within the supposed "Culture War".

Believer to Unbeliever Lack of Love

In the made up "Culture War" moral miscreants and unbelievers are "the enemy" who must be destroyed. This is evidenced by a recent "outrage" of a homosexual nativity scene with 2 Marys and 2 Josephs played by live people (they must be working in shifts). At any rate the group has claimed it is not their intention to offend Christian but they just want an alternative because they "feel left out" of Christmas.

Is this blasphemous?
Yes.

Indecent?
Yes.

Tasteless?
Indeed.

Meant to offend Christians?
Probably.

But how do we react as Christians? Do we go on the radio and rant about these people and their degeneracy? Go stand across the street from their Nativity scene with signs reminding them that indeed homosexuality is immoral and hell is real? Well that's what is expected, and frankly that's probably what these people want; a bunch of angry offended Christians foaming at the mouth. This is ugliness and is often all the world sees of Christians.

So how should we react? By practically loving them. It can be as simple as bringing them hot coffee and warm cookies and gently saying "I completely disagree with what you are doing but I want you to know I love you." If they have any sense and they see you aren't there to pick a fight (which is probably what they want) they just might feel a little thing we call guilt in response to your returning good for evil.

I believe we are called to do just that, we are not called to protest, lobby, yell and scream we are called to love our neighbor and seek to save the lost. Schaeffer wrote of this stating:

"All men are our neighbors, and we are to love them as ourselves. We are to do this on the basis of creation, even if they are not redeemed, for all men have value because they are made in the image of God. Therefore, they are to be loved even at great cost."

Believer to Believer Compromise of Love

In the believer to believer conflicts and disagreements much ugliness and lack of love can also be displayed. Church splits often reflect this ugliness where the actual matter of the division gets lost in personal malicious attacks.

I know for myself the above is my own tendency, I love the truths of God inestimably and I hate to see them trampled down as a common thing. Bunyan's depition of "Mr. Valiant for truth" is one of my own heart. So, when I see or hear the center attacked I get angry at the person. My first thoughts in doctinal controversies generally are not how can I in trying to win this person intellectually to a "more perfect" (Acts 18:26) understanding of God show them that I love them unconditionally? My thoughts are generally thoughts of how to zing the moron. This is sin, and a theology of glory.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have the tendency to compromise truth and doctrine for relationships. This is poignently seen in the incessant cries for "Unity!" in the church. These cries are valid Biblically (Eph 4:1-10) and are not to be dismissed out of hand. However, often the cry for "Unity!" is synonymous with a cry of "Compromise!". This has been the bane of liberal theologians exhortations for Church unity, it is a unity that is simply skin deep.

Again, as I have said my personal tendency is toward truth at the expense of brotherly kindness, so my sense of the the unity=compromise is rather acute. More than acute my theological spidey sense more often than not manifests in outright synicism at any cry for "Unity!" Because, like the dwarves in the C.S. Lewis' "Last Battle" I simply do not want to be taken in.

Living Christ's Commands

This is why I have found Francis Schaeffer's life and contribution to be of immense value. Schaeffer not only talked about the balance between truth and interpersonal relationships he lived it. His exhortation though simple enough is so easy to neglect. We are not to destroy the image of God in the person in our proclamation and defense of the truth, nor are we on the other hand to compromise the truth in order to have relationship with persons.

This is a simple message. However, in order to really live this balance I believe we absolutely must be intentional in seeking this balance. Schaeffer's own life manifested this balance as he opened his home at L'Abri to travelers and seekers, loved them in very practical manner all the while speaking the truth of Christ to them. This is "Speaking the truth in love" (Eph 4).

I honestly think that this is the most important aspect of "Schaeffer's apologetic" as without the diligent practice of loving the whole person our apologetic efforts are being undercut by our lack of love for the individual. This is in part why I have backed off a bit from the internet debate culture, so much of debate on blogs is simply bickering in an extremely insulting manner. Individuals are far more rude over the medium of the internet than in person, myself included.

It really goes back to the call to love our neighbor as ourselves which Schaeffer has emphasized.
While it is true that people may believe and say things that are ridiculous as well as blasphemous, yet for the sake of the image of God in the person they are to be reprooved and corrected while we do not seek to destroy them as persons through insult and a desire for ill will. We must honestly be checking our own hearts as often we will find ourselves desiring people to fail because of some disagreement we may have with them.

Don't be quick to think "I don't do that!" if we search our hearts we will undoubtedly see this dark smudge. All the more lamentable is that we more often than not harbor such ill will toward our fellow Christian with whom we may disagree doctrinally. We may actually feel a degree of glad smugness upon hearing of their failure. This is ugly, for in holding this attitude we have destroyed our brother in our hearts under the banner of "Truth".

In his book "The Mark of the Christian" Schaeffer argues strongly based upon John 13:33-35 that world will know that Christ is risen and is Lord by the changed lives of Christians manifesting itself in love. Schaeffer shows that unless we are truly loving each other WITHIN our differences the world has no reason to believe the Christian message is any different than all the other messages. It is this Mark of the Christian that distinguishes Christianity as authentic truth, for we can disagree even strongly yet love and fellowship with equal strength within our disagreements. Schaeffer writes:

"Before a watching world, an observable love in the midst of difference will show a difference between Christian's differences and other men's differences. The world may not understand what the Christians are disagreeing about, but they will very quickly understand the difference of our differences in an open and observable love on a practical level.

That is different. Can you see why Jesus said this was the thing that would arrest the attention of the world? You cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, espescially in our day when the existence of truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts."

Everyone will disagree and argue, the difference is that Christians are called to love within their disagreements and this is what will authenticate the message to the watching world. That is what our Lord Jesus Christ said. This love toward one another as fellow Christians is what will give a distinction to our message, and what Christ said validates that we ourselves are Christians.

I close on that note by quoting Schaeffer on the final apologetic:

"Yet, unless true Christians show observable love to each other, Christ says the world can not be expected to listen, even when we give proper answers. Let us be careful, indeed, to spend a lifetime studying to give honest answers. So it is well to spend time learning to answer the questions of those who are about us. But we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives is the observable love of true Christians for true Christians."

Happy Reformation Day

2008-10-31T21:32:00.000-07:00

With each passing year I seem to appreciate the Reformation, and the men who fought for it, all the more. In this year in particular I in studying church history have come to see just how wicked the Roman church really was and even is (not the people in it per se). Also, the freedoms we have, and our form of government have their roots planted directly in the fertile soil of the Reformation based streams of thought.

We owe an inestimable debt to our Reformers who fought, and in many cases died, that we may worship Christ, as our conscience (hopefully guided by Scripture) dictates.

I will expand this further in coming posts.

Ford vs. Chevy, Coke vs. Pepsi, Left vs. Right...What side are YOU on?

2008-10-10T21:13:00.000-07:00

Upon coming to a more Libertarian/Constitutional view of government I believe I have been afforded a bit of objectivity I previously did not have in looking at the current political camps. Being a Constitutionalist I am an outsider to the rhetoric of the two parties, so I am beginning to see the spin a bit more clearly whereas in times past I wouldn't have viewed it as spin at all.

It astounds me to no end each time I tune in to talk radio on my commutes how, no matter what the issue, no matter what the facts are, it is somehow the Democrats who are at fault. It always comes back to the fight between the two parties, that explains the bail out, the mortgage crises, and the failures in Iraq.

If Sarah Palin in an interview when asked what news papers she reads and consequently can't name a single one, it is because the liberals are being biased. It always comes back to this paradigm, no matter what the issue. It is the wild joker.

In talking about election fraud the radio hosts go on and on about how the Democrats love to rig elections and if a Republican ever attempted such a dastardly stunt he would fry. I find such talk laughable considering the question marks over the integrity of out two previous presidential elections both going to Bush. One University of Florida student learned at the end of a taser the price for publicly raising this issue to John Kerry.

Try to see the left vs. right split as on par with the fights which I saw the "hicks" at my high school would get into over whether Ford trucks were better than Chevy. They actually formed two packs of rival gangs sporting opposing T-shirts shouting insults at each others vehicles. This all seemed rather ridiculous to me as an outside observer because they were the same trucks, one just had a "Ford" logo the other "Chevy".

Another comparable analogy would be the difference between Coke and Pepsi. There is indeed a difference, one is in a blue can the other red. The tastes are slightly different as well, but when you get down to it they are both cola.

Now think about this, you are at a summer party and there is an ice chest equally full of Coke cans, Pepsi cans and Walgreen's "Cola" cans, which do you think is most likely to run out first? Why?

Transitioning from cars and soda, the point I want to get at is that what the whole left right paradigm is intended to do is to cancel or nullify any grassroots movement and absorb people into the fake fight. The two party mentality is clearly ingrained in our political speak...we speak of alternative parties as "third party" or we toss out shallow cliches such as "Ya gatta vote fer the leser of two evils."

All such phrases presuppose Democrat and Republican hegemonic dominance.

So, if people don't like the way things are going, like the war for example, well then we will vote Democrat because a Republican started it. Yet, the Democrats vote to continue to war. Or, say we want abortions to stop, so we vote Republican, yet the Republicans choose to not vote on legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade through Congress.

It's a false choice.

This becomes more clear with the banker bail out scam. The bailout scam is the greatest step toward socialism in the history of the United States since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax in 1913. This bill however had the current President and both of the establishment party presidential candidates as supporters. In the meantime the overwhelming majority of the public did not want this bill passed.

Every now and then we see the two establishment banker and corporate parties collude and pass the most fascist pieces of legislation. These are the moments the mask comes off and the two parties are exposed for what they are, henchmen or hench-women for an elite.

There are a few exceptions like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to name a couple.

Upon his inauguration Bill Clinton named one individual as being instrumental in shaping him and setting him on course to be president, his name was professor Carrol Quigley. Carrol Quigley claimed to have had a degree of inside knowledge as to who this elite were and felt that they should be public (Quigly had no objection to their ruling).

In his book "Tragedy and Hope" Quigley spoke of the two party system as a cleverly crafted paradigm of this elite, Quigley writes:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." (T & H p.1247-1248)

Simply put the left v. right paradigm is a false dichotomy, as there is no real choice, either way the elite get their man in.

So, with that said, it is the job of the talk radio jocks, the Bill Orielly's, the Sean Hannity's, the Bill Maher's and Chris Matthews' of the world to fight and yell and scream and get the public to believe there is a difference and by so doing prop up the illusion of choice. That is their job.

Here's a video with visual graphics that explains how the false left v. right paradigm works:

Root of the Financial Crises

2008-10-08T09:54:00.000-07:00

! Updated at End!
The new film "Zeitgeist Addendum" gives an excellent explanation of how the fiat money system and our currency (Federal Reserve Notes) are by their very nature the heart of the economic problems we are facing. I certainly do not agree with all that the Zeitgeist film puts forward, I particularly disagree with their solution (a techno-Marxist Utopia) and their view of Christianity, however, the film is spot on with it's information on the monetary system/banker scam. It is simply brilliant in it's information:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

There is more to the film, I have posted what I thought to contain the best information.

Update:
To be more clear with what it is and why I disagree with some of the film I will briefly write. I strongly disagree with the solution (hence I did not post it) that the film maker offers. I disagree with this politically as it is a form of what I would call a techno-Marxism, which of course on the surface seems appealing yet in it's naivete overlooks the sinfulness of man and the opportunity for corruption.

Also, as a Christian I reject the solution as only Christ is the solution to the fallen condition we are in, not some Utopian ideal. We need to be changed from the inside out and made into new creatures not from the outside in with a slick lazy society of comfort. Christ and His regenerating work and ultimate glorification of His own is our hope, not a system of government.

We should however not expect anything other than this from the world, as they without God are cursed to be worldly minded and seek solutions in that same fashion.