Of Purity and Leaven

Posted on November 22, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Most are aware of the Puritans. We know them as an historic bunch of nit-pickers who simply could not get out of their own road to enjoy themselves. We have even developed the label – Puritanical – to describe anyone who is a religiously strict kill-joy or, in Australian parlance, a wowser! If you believe this summary, I am afraid you have been duped. The Puritans were religiously strict, but they also knew how to enjoy life. They drank fermented beverages. Given the size of some of their families, they were no strangers to “horizontal relaxation” or ‘the midnight cuddle’. The purpose and goal of their lives was summed up in their name – they desired covenantal purity in the eyes of God. Their lives were to be offered as fragrant sacrifices to God and, as such, had to be pure in order to be accepted. It is sad that Christians today do not see the need for purity in their lives, especially when their lives should be conceived of as an offering to God.

The Bible is very clear on the need for purity. Matthew 5:8, James 1:27, 1 Peter 2:2, and 1 John 3:1-3, to name but a few texts, all have something particular to say about the Christian’s need for purity. The opposite of the pure life is the leavened life. Let us then look at the Biblical principle of ‘the leaven’.

First, we must avoid the mistake of limiting the Bible’s teaching on leaven to a mere maxim, such as, ‘a little can affect a lot’. Whilst this concept is present, it by no means does justice to the teaching of Scripture. Second, we must see that any elaboration of this principle in Scripture is always negative. Third, the Scripture’s teaching is always aimed at the child of God. Fourth, the application of this teaching means one thing: the Christian is to be pure.

The search for wisdom must begin with God. What does God think of leaven? He despises it! This may need some modification, but it will do for now. Consider the institution of the Passover. At this juncture, Yahweh gives basic, yet explicit, instruction in regard to leaven. None is permitted (Exodus 12:15-19)! The Israelites are to do without leaven for seven days. It is to be absolutely excluded. Understand that this is no trifle. It is not simply the case that God prefers His bread flat. The concept of leaven is intricately tied to the concept of salvation. Note well the penalty for anyone found with leaven. They are to be “cut off from the congregation of Israel”. To be “cut off” means nothing less than to be severed from the covenant people and therefore from salvation itself. The seriousness of the ‘leaven principle’ is underscored when the Israelites are instructed to never burn leavened bread (Leviticus 2:11). The grain offering is most holy and it is to be food for the priest and to be consumed in a holy place (Leviticus 6:17). It must be offered unleavened. Consequently, leaven must never ascend to the nostrils of God as a “soothing aroma”.

Why is this? It seems that we could learn a lesson from the Hebrew word for leaven. The term primarily means ‘to be / make sour’. It shares the same consonantal root as the term for vinegar. Understood in this way, we must see that the addition of leaven is a contamination which sours the bread and lessens its quality. Let us underscore the severity with which God views this contamination by stating quite clearly, again, that no leaven was ever to appear on Yahweh’s altar. The Israelite could only offer leavened bread as a “first fruit” and a “wave offering” (Leviticus 23:17).

This negative concept of leaven is carried through into the New Testament. At every point where the principle of leaven is elaborated upon, it carries with it a negative connotation, either explicitly or implied. In Matthew 16:6-12, Jesus warns His disciples to be alert for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is described as leaven. In Luke 12:1, Jesus describes the Pharisaic leaven as hypocrisy. Mark 8:15 is interesting. There, Jesus warns of the leaven both of the Pharisees and Herod. It is almost as though the Holy Spirit gives warning against imbibing corrupt ideas from authorities, ecclesiastic or secular. Turning from the Gospels to the Apostle Paul, we see that the same negative overtones are affirmed. In 1 Corinthians 5:6 and Galatians 5:9, Paul uses the phrase, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” This would show that the phrase was an idiom; however, this does not detract from its importance. In these passages, Paul equates leaven with arrogance, the corrupted old self, depravity, wickedness, and the necessity of circumcision. One reference, however, stands out above the rest.

In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Paul gives instruction to clean out the old leaven. In other words, it is time to wash the bowl and start again from scratch. It is time to remove all the old impurities. As Paul metaphorically throws the new lump of dough into the bowl, he calls a halt to proceedings. ‘No leaven required, thank you!’ We are unleavened bread. We are the redeemed of the covenant. We are the offering laid upon the altar of God, ascending as a pleasing aroma (1 Peter 2:4-5). We are holy. Not only do we not need leaven, to add leaven would be almost blasphemous. It would mean that we are not fit for the altar of God and as a pleasing aroma. It means that we would be “cut off” from the congregation of Israel for being in possession of leaven. Do we make too much of this. No. Paul himself makes direct reference in this verse to Jesus as “our Passover”. The Passover meal was accompanied by the unleavened bread. Jesus our Passover has been sacrificed. The unleavened bread must accompany the Lamb. We are to be unleavened loaves of “sincerity and truth.” Salvation and worship are inextricably linked in Scripture. The saved must worship and their worship must be acceptable, that is, offered in purity according to God’s standard; just as our Passover Lamb was pure and unblemished. The Apostle John tells us that the Father seeks worshippers who will worship in “spirit and truth” – worship after the essence of God (Spirit) and the nature of God (Truth).

The importance of the Christian being essentially pure is underscored when we develop this principle further by introducing Jesus’ words from Mathew 13:33. There, Jesus tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven ‘is like a woman who places leaven into a quantity of flour and then waits until all is leavened.’ Do we have a contradiction here? Not at all! Strictly speaking, Jesus’ words should not be considered as part of the ‘principle of leaven’ because there is no elaboration. In other words, there is no, “beware of …”, in which the detrimental nature of the leaven is explained or implied (Something most definitely present in the other references). In this section of Scripture, Jesus gives different parables in order to describe the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 13:33 (and the parallel in Luke13:21) Jesus uses the concept of the leaven to illustrate how the Kingdom of God must of necessity impact upon all with which it comes in contact. Note that the Kingdom is not leaven, it is like leaven. It cannot help but modify or impact upon all that it touches for that is its very transformational and redemptive nature. The Kingdom is positive in its impact precisely because it is pure and a purifier. The Kingdom purifies the corrupt. The Kingdom sheds light in the midst of darkness. The Kingdom gives life to the dead. As stated, the Kingdom is pure and transformational. Therefore, nothing needs to be added to the Kingdom. It is God’s perfective work, reclaiming all that is His through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, culminating in Yahweh’s perfect worship. The Kingdom can be compared to the action of the leaven, but it is by no means leaven!

The comparison of Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:33 with those which speak of the ‘principle of the leaven’, cannot but make us realise why leaven is forbidden to the Christian and why the Christian is essentially pure. The people of God, regenerate through the washing of Jesus’ blood, are pure Kingdom participants, whose lives, in totality, must culminate in the pure worship of God. As such, the Christian needs no leaven. The introduction of any leaven is forbidden because it corrupts the purity that is acceptable to God. Hence, the Christian is consistently warned to be on guard and to watch out for any leaven; that which is a corruption, perversion, or travesty of God. We must see that the leaven that the Christian is warned about is any ideology, philosophy, theory, or concept that is in opposition to the purity of God and His Christ. In short, the Christian is warned regarding the ideas of the “world” and the complete and utter unworthiness of their presence in the Christian as a new creature in Christ, a living sacrifice, and a fragrant aroma (2 Corinthians 2:14-17; Philippians 4:18). The Christian, as a Kingdom of God participant, is to be a vivacious force for life and purity, bringing the redemptive purposes of God to the fore in themselves and in every encounter with the world.

God is Pure. The Kingdom is Pure. The Kingdom participant must likewise be Pure. ‘No leaven, please, we’re Christ’s!’ (2 Corinthians 11:1-3.)

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 4): Cultural Catastrophe

Posted on November 22, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In our quest for understanding into the Slippery Slope, we have laid a basic foundation. We have noted that the Slippery Slope began centuries ago with Enlightenment philosophy, particularly the Rejection of the Bible’s God. We have shown that the only two epistemological standpoints are those of Revelation or Relativism. We have explored how the rejection of Revelation must lead to Relativism and to men groping in darkness. We have also looked at the stepping stones, however briefly, that brought us to the current issues of today. Particularly, we looked at the realms of Ecclesiology and Science and saw how the works of two men, Schweitzer and Darwin, moved us further down the Slippery Slope.

In our last article, we mapped out the steps, but we did not have time to fully explore the link between Relativism and Cultural disintegration. In this article, we would like to simply unpack this aspect a little.

Our starting point is a subjective one. It is you! Regardless of whether you are a Believer in Jesus Christ or a rejecter of Him, you need to understand that the world in which you live has been shaped by the abandonment of Revelation and the acceptance of Relativism. You also need to understand that you are living in an epistemological dichotomy. Most today do not understand this position or even realise the paradigm shift. Let’s illustrate this. In a previous life, I drove taxis. On one occasion I had a male passenger who expressed the view that the individual should simply do what makes them feel good. Immediately the thought passed through my mind – ‘Hmmm, let us test this theory. Grab him by the back of the neck and bash his head against the dashboard!’ Yes, a tad unsanctified, but what do you suppose his reaction would have been? Upon explanation that “I just felt like bashing him”, do you think this gentleman would have been calm and at peace with the fact the encounter was nothing more than another rational creature simply expressing himself as he desired? I doubt it. Here we have the dichotomy. This man expressed relativism as his epistemology, but in reality he would have expected applied revelation as an outcome. In other words, his expectation of outcome would have been toward justice and retribution against the assailant – a position supported only by God’s Revelation, not his stated relativism! Therefore, it is important to understand that today’s culture is totally exposed to disintegration. People within our culture, for the most part, are conflicted. Disintegration and conflict occur because, in Biblical language, they have ‘halted between two opinions’ (1 kings 18:21). Our culture wants an epistemology that worships each individual man as if he were a god (relativism); promulgating laws that see each of his desires are fully met. However, on the flip side, he wants all his rights and privileges protected on the basis of law, morals, and ethics that transcend the individual and move into the realm of absolutes. At this point, he wants to move from relativism to revelation!

To drive to the heart of cultural disintegration we must look at this conflict. To begin, we must look at some Biblical basics. 1. God is. 2. God spoke 3. In speaking, God created. 4. To His creation, God spoke Law-Words. 5. These Law-Words are covenant terms promising blessing and curse. 6. These covenant Law-Words are the basis for the happiness, prosperity, and well being of God’s creatures. 7. Therefore, these covenant Law-Words are to be obeyed, if a prosperous culture is to be experienced. Because God is an immutable, absolute being, possessing absolute power, He not only has the right to settle the terms of life for His creatures, but he has the will and the power to bring about all that He stipulates in His Law-Word.

Using marriage as an example, we see that God made man male and female. He called man to unity in the covenant bond of marriage. This bond He blessed with a command to be ‘fruitful and multiply’. Man obeyed because God had designed this life into man. Like the bow in the sky (Genesis 9:13), the child brought forth from the womb was nothing less than a covenant sign. The child proved the essence and reality of God’s design, purpose, and promise – fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it! As man obeyed this command, God upheld and sustained the marriage covenant at every step. Moreover, God hedged the marriage covenant with law to make sure that its sanctity was upheld (Exodus 20:12 & 14; Leviticus 20:10; Matthew 10:2-12); even extending laws to protect the child (Exodus 21:22; Numbers 3:11; Psalm 127:3-5; Matthew 18:10). Thus, from first to last, marriage is a covenant of life (fruitful), culture (subdue), and salvation (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16) – eternal life and culture.

As God purposed for this marriage covenant to be the bedrock of society, God added penalty to law – thus truly indicating that marriage is a God-sanctioned covenant – so that man would respect this bond. When a person betrayed that covenant, the full weight of the law was to come upon them. There was to be guilt and innocence. There was to be bounty for the faithful; depravation for the guilty. Punishment of the guilty served the true end of justice, but it was also to be a deterrent (Deuteronomy 17:12; 19:19; 22:22).

By contrast, the relativism of finite man gives nothing but disintegration. Man has no real power and certainly nothing approaching the absolute. Man’s epistemology of relativism stands in stark contrast to The Immutable. There are no law-words of worth. Those that they possess, they have stolen! The heart of man does not give definitions of love, justice, goodness, holiness, etc. All these are terms borrowed, read stolen, from the Bible’s God. So man makes futile attempts to promulgate laws that are meant to give stability to culture and rights to the individual. They knock down in order to build, but their foundation is nothing but rubble. The edifice must collapse!

Again, let us illustrate this with marriage. Having jettisoned the Bible’s God, man was left to improvise. He could see some things of worth in the design of God, but they were bound too tightly to law and penalty. Man wanted freedom, not a lot, just enough to loosen the strictures – well that is how it began. So God’s Law-Word on marriage had to be replaced by man’s relative tenets on marriage. As man was a sexual creature, what did it matter if your slippers were parked, on occasion, under the wrong bed? So, of necessity, we must decriminalise adultery. This then opened the way for promiscuity. “No penalty, so what does it matter?” is the way man thought. The problem was that as a creature made in the image of God, promiscuity did matter. Innately, one or other of the parties felt aggrieved at the betrayal and wanted ‘out’ of the relationship. Because we had decriminalised adultery, what was the aggrieved party to do? After all, no harm no foul! So, we are given the Family Law Court that has a “no fault” policy. Question! How do you divide up a family, goods, and chattels without establishing guilt or innocence? At this point, man’s relativism has begun to destroy the very nature of law. With divorce increasing, the question then became, “Why get married?” Let’s “try before we buy!” Let us simply pretend to be married. Here, we have arrived at the place wherein “marriage” has become an absolute farce. Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, you and your grandmother – yes, be repulsed – is all on the table.

However, that is but the tip of the ‘iceberg’. Children, the fruit of the womb proving God’s covenant and design, are now openly attacked. Man hates God now. He is not looking for “wiggle room” but to throw off God’s rule (Psalm 2). Therefore, in true evolutionary style, the “live in lover” beats the child senseless because it is not his offspring. The couple want the pleasure of sex, but they have no interest in fruitfulness and dominion, so when the womb is bounteous they slay the contents as though of no more worth than a baked bean! The woman finds a new boyfriend and murders her children because he prefers that they were not around.

What happens to these slayers and child beaters? Nothing! Relativism has destroyed law. The fruit of the womb is no longer a covenant testimony to be honoured and treasured as life, culture, and salvation. No. It is now to be killed as burden and inconvenience; and the moral applied is “choice”. We still, hypocritically, take a dim view of child beaters and of the mother that kills her children, but we are slowly throwing of these shackles too! We now not only discuss abortion openly, but also infanticide.

Relativism is a culture of death and the death of a culture because it removes any and all meaning and therefore destroys purpose. Relativism limits everything to what it is. So, to the relativist, ‘marriage’ is nothing more than an agreement between two parties that gives some vague legal standing. It is for this reason that homosexuals, polygamists, and others push for the right to be married. To them, marriage serves no purpose beyond “recognition” or “equality”. The idea of covenant, blessing, fruitfulness, posterity, prosperity, dominion, covenant affirmation, and image bearing, are alien concepts.

Here, we have only drawn a few faint lines using marriage as an example, to show that the rejection of the Bible’s God must lead to Humanism and Relativism. The consequence of this shift must be Cultural Disintegration. We stepped onto the Slippery Slope centuries ago. We sowed the wind; we are now reaping the whirlwind! All that is upon us, all disintegration, stems from our rejection of God. Let us commit to restoration by once again embracing the One True and Living God that speaks through Jesus Christ His Son!

Of Kiddie Fiddlers, the Church, and the State

Posted on November 17, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

This week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse.

As one can imagine, this announcement has set the cat amongst the pigeons. Long term advocates have been quick to vocalise the words “about time!” Representatives of the Congregation of Rome are trying to put on a brave face, but are Stoic in there denial that such a review is really necessary.

As Christians, “What should our reaction be to this announcement?”

My perfectly honest response is, first, a sense of shame, followed by the caution, “Be afraid! Be very afraid!”

The Kiddie Fiddlers:

Let me begin by absolutely denouncing true child abuse and especially sexual predation. I realise I do not speak for Christendom here, but it is to be said that this issue is directly attributable to the rejection of God’s Law as our only standard within the universal Church in general and certain denominations in particular.

God’s word is abundantly clear:

Orphans = Exodus 22:22-24 – “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. “If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.”

Could this be any clearer? God is here speaking to His own people. Yahweh declares that He Himself will avenge the oppressed and humbled orphan. One could not be more ‘oppressed’ or ‘humbled’ than to be sexually violated by a / the person charged with one’s care. One could not be more oppressed than to be the victim of a cover-up in such heinous circumstances.

Kidnapping = Deuteronomy 24:7 – “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Again, we face some very specific details. The crime is literally that of “stealing the life/soul of a brother”. In using these terms, Moses is showing that “kidnapping”, as we call it, is not limited to children. It is a law governing and protecting all people. God values freedom. God created man to live freely under Him and His rule. Therefore, God proscribes the theft of that freedom. The added guilt is that of ‘pawning’ and ‘dealing roughly’ with or as a ‘tyrant’ would. By definition “kidnapping” or “man stealing” is to steal someone’s freedom and innocence. Those who have been, first, entrusted to an institution, and, second, maltreated by that institution, have most definitely had something very precious stolen from them.

This text tells us that the item stolen is nothing less than the life or the soul. This is not to be equated with murder. It is rather to be understood as stealing from a person a God given quality in and of life. The person is given this as a gift by God and they are entrusted with its care, nurture, and appropriate use. Like life, sexuality is both deeply personal and deeply spiritual (1 Corinthians 6:15-20). God gifts it to the individual with expectation that it be used appropriately. People are to be sexually active, but they are also to be sexually responsible. This gift, like life itself, is to be used for God’s glory and in accordance with God’s specific direction. It belongs to the individual. No one else has right and title to that gift. No one is allowed to steal it. When a person, especially a child, is broken into and robbed of such innate gifts, it is, in essence, soul destroying.

Nothing is probably more soul destroying to a minor than to be raped – to be broken into and pillaged by a brigand and a knave. In and of itself, rape is theft and something the Bible condemns (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). However, we must also see that the predominant deviancy is homosexuality. When it comes to the accusations against the Roman denomination and of institutions in general, it is not heterosexual, but rather homosexual behaviour that comes to the fore. Scripture is again vociferous on this issue. Leviticus 18:22 proscribes homosexuality with death. Paul condemns this behaviour in Romans chapter 1. The Apostle shows homosexuality to be the ultimate act of idolatry. It is a state of being that is not only under God’s judgement but also that which results from God’s judgement. Elsewhere, Paul states that the Kingdom of God is closed to such people (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Thus, when you examine the Biblical messages on these topics, it is to be understood that any truly Christian institution would never cover up or condone such crimes, let alone allow them to continue. The fact that some organisations, claiming to be Christian, have carried on this practice is shameful and abhorrent and is to be rightfully condemned. Jesus Christ would never condone or sanction such activity within His Church. True Christianity has and always will denounce such behaviour.

The Church:

In discussing this issue, it is fundamentally important that we note and understand some very relevant points.

First, I am tired of the Roman denomination always being labelled as “the Church”. Rome has not been “the Church” for six hundred years. Since the time of the Reformation, at the very least, the Roman denomination has been a part of the Church, but she has not been the Church. This misclassification is conveniently misunderstood by governments and popular media alike.

Two, the reason the Reformers packed their bags and left Rome, or in some cases were invited to leave, was precisely because the Roman denomination had become a self-serving rather than a Christ-serving institution.

Three, the reason the Roman denomination declined so radically was attributable in full to their refusal to live under the absolute authority of Scripture. (Yes, there is a massive lesson here for today’s Protestantism!) Whilst it is acknowledged that “the Church” is rightly the interpreter of Scripture, we must also acknowledge the wisdom of the Westminster Divines when they say: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (WCF 1:9).” That is to say, that every interpreter has a hermeneutical proposition. The Church is the interpreter. The hermeneutic is Scripture. This, Rome abandoned.

Four, the culmination of these points created a denomination that a) encouraged wrong, actively and passively, by its failure to comply with the ethical dictates of Scripture; and b) sought, at all costs, to cover up any gross sin; thereby saving face and allowing it to act, in a self-deluding manner, as society’s moral compass.

It is this fourth point that is at the heart of the current predicament. The Roman denomination has made itself into target because it has been seen to cover up very wicked behaviour whilst insisting that it has the right to tell people how they should live. Again, I am not saying that the evil should be covered to allow the pretence to continue. Rather, I am saying that had the Romanists dealt openly and appropriately with sin, more people might respect that denomination – and Jesus Christ – and be more willing to give ear to what they say.

Of equal importance, harking back to point one, it is time that Protestantism shook this concept that the Roman denomination is “the Church”. That there is still some intrinsic belief to that end can be seen by two obvious and shameful facts:

A) It is disturbing that there are elements within Protestantism that are in dialogue with Rome in the hope to bring about some reunion. (I must admit that as a Reformer, one side effect of the Reformation that I dislike is the constant splitting and dividing of the Church. Personally, I would love to see the concept of the “one” Church reappear. The benefits would be great. However, I equally acknowledge that any such reunion must be made a) on Biblical grounds and b) in the true fellowship that is Jesus Christ. Anything else is little more than a mixture of two like minded clubs.) The issue here is, “How do we seek to unite with a denomination that is so hypocritical, unethical, and Christ dishonouring?” Would Protestants, in general, strike up a dialogue with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, or the Branch Davidians? Not likely. So why would we try to enter into a true dialogue with denominations that are humanistic and who ultimately show a great disregard for Jesus and His teaching?

B) That Protestantism has not made a clean break in its thinking is witnessed by its general silence on the matter of institutional abuse. I am generally disappointed in this day with the lack of public voice from the Protestant churches. Divided though that voice it may be, it would still be nice to hear it! The institutional abuse of children should be one topic where the voice is heard, loudly and clearly! Why is it not?

Yes, Protestants broke with the Roman denomination. Yes, there is, in some circles, little love lost because of Rome’s persecutions. The question remains, however, “Why did not Protestantism honour her Christ by publicly joining the campaign for evil to be exposed and dealt with?” The answer is, I believe, twofold. First, we are still psychologically beholding to Rome in some way and have therefore failed to step out from her shadow. Second, and most pointedly, we have failed because modern day Protestantism has generally lost her prophetic voice because she is following in Rome’s footsteps.

The Roman denomination committed one fundamental sin; she betrayed Jesus Christ. She did this by denying the authority of the written Word, which is but a testament of the Living word, Jesus. When this happened, she appointed herself judge of all ethical matters and executioner of all histories that may expose her treachery. My brother had an interaction with a Romanist who was critical of Martin Luther because ‘he left’ Romanism rather than reform it. What a statement. Martin Luther did not want to leave Rome. He wanted to reform her. Martin Luther was persecuted by Rome and forced to leave. How is it then that a modern day Romanist believes such things that are contrary to history? It comes back to face saving! It comes back to exalting the institution above the One who formed the institution. It comes back to a “Bride” who proves unfaithful to her Husband!

The questions for Protestantism are these, “Why are we allowing our denominations to become self-serving rather than Christ-serving institutions?” “Why are we abandoning the authority of God’s word for psychology and sociology?” “Why are we accepting an anthropology based on the perspective of fallen humans rather than on a statements of a Thrice holy God?”

The further question is, “Does Protestantism’s silence on institutional abuse suggest that, as with Rome, she has begun to cover up her own “dirty” laundry?” “Has Protestantism begun to truly dishonour Jesus Christ by once again joining in practices that He would condemn?”

This brings us to the crux of the matter – the Glory and honour of God in Jesus Christ! Does the Church today treasure the honour and glory of God or does She pander to the whims and dictates of the world?

Let us hear from the Westminster Divines again, Chapter 25:

4. This catholic [meaning “universal”] Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

Jesus Christ is about to be dragged through the mud because the Church has allowed herself to decline into a state of near anarchy. Those parts of the Church that have become more akin to “synagogues of Satan” have not been openly rebuked by the more pure. Here, we are not speaking of ‘one upmanship’ or ‘ecclesiastical bragging rights’, but of true righteousness. The Church was given the authority to discipline and this power is rightly wielded against the Church Herself, not just individuals within the Church. The end of discipline has but two purposes; the restoration of the sinner and the purity of Christ’s bride, the Church. These can be distilled to one purpose: The glory and Honour of God Almighty in Jesus Christ.

When denominations stray from God’s Word, they should be rebuked and called to repentance. They should not be allowed to sully Jesus Christ or His bride. Every effort should be made to bring them back to the truth. If they are unwilling, then they should be cut loose and denounced as not, in any way, belonging to Christ.

Some may see this as harsh. Yes, it is. However, it is nothing more than the extension of principles laid down in Scripture. Are their dangers? Yes, there are. Undoubtedly, some, full of pride, will commit themselves to pronouncing anathemas upon the slightest infraction. This notwithstanding, the resultant position would be better than the current circumstances where Christ is dragged through the mud and dishonoured. We have the Roman denomination, claiming to be the “true Church” yet acting like a harlot to Her Groom, Jesus Christ. How does Rome condone the practice of shifting on priests who have violated children? How convenient. You give the paedophile a brand new field from which to glean. What an absolutely abominable practice!! Then we would ask, “Why does Rome disapprove of homosexuality publically, but condone and cover it privately?” (See: Glennon; Hinch) Why is Rome partaking of dialogue with the Uniting Club (apologies, but I refuse to use the word “Church” in reference to this organisation), when said club openly supports homosexuality? (See: What we do) Then there is the really obvious question, “Why have not the Protestant Church at large and the evangelical element of Rome, motivated by a genuine love for Jesus, been vehement and clamorous in their denunciation of the apostate and abominable?”

In the almost forgotten words of Derryn Hinch, Shame! Shame! Shame!

The State:

In the similarly, almost forgotten, words of Pro Hart’s maid, “What a mess! Mr Hart.”

The Church’s failure to govern and discipline has led us now to a dark day in which the government will begin to troll through the Church looking for evil. Thankfully, we can rely on Julia Gillard’s unbiased position to assure us that there are no ulterior motives. We can equally trust to Julia Gillard’s expertise as a lawyer to obey due process and to be sure to exact justice where wrong is found. We can be thankful that this unbiased approach will not lead to the Church being held to ransom or placed under State control. We can be very thankful that the worship of God will go on unhindered and that Jesus Christ will be extolled with the State’s assistance.

I am sure of these things because we live in a “free” country that upholds the “rule of law” and respects to the utmost the democratic process. I am also buoyed by the fact that the government is always open and transparent. Equally, those in power have often affirmed the separation of Church and State, and would therefore, being honourable people, never, under any circumstances, abuse their power and wrongly intrude upon the Church.

Have you stopped laughing yet?

The reality is more like: the government will assume the mantle of ‘the teacher of righteousness’; it will profess to be the all wise and knowing oracle guiding us as though lost children; it will be to us our “superman”, who brings truth, justice, and the “Australian way”; it will deny Jesus, seek to set us free from the myths of religion all the while proclaiming itself as “saviour”; transparency will become universally opaque; State will walk all over Church; and, pathetically, true justice will never be served or realised.

In the Essence of War, we wrote about man having only two heartfelt motives: love for God or hatred of God. Governments are correspondingly ruled by this principle. According to Romans 13, the government is a minister of God. As such, it should be revered and honoured. However, as with every other institution, it can be corrupted. This happens when the government turns from its appointed function and becomes enamoured with its own reflection. By this we mean that the government is corrupt or becomes corrupt when it turns from being a Christ-serving institution to a self-serving institution.

The whole debate over the separation of Church and State is one that is muddied and sullied precisely because it is debated on the terms of the secular humanist. In reality, the Church and the State are two sides to one coin. Both are ministers of God. Both are obligated to obey God. Both fall under God’s judgement when due obedience is withheld or scorned. Both, and this may surprise you, are on the same erroneous page when discussing each other’s relevance. Therefore, both, in disobedience to God, have brought us to a very sad day.

I would like to quote from the original words the Westminster Divines: “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented and reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (23:3).”

I introduce this by saying “original” words because in most denominations that hold to the Westminster Confession as a standard, these words have been changed. They now generally read like this: “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”

The difference here should be patent. The first places the magistrate (government) firmly into a position as an ordained instrument of God. Its purpose is none other than to make sure that the truth of God revealed in His word is upheld. Moreover, it is to make sure that the Church, tasked by Christ as herald, maintains both truth and proclamation. Note well, the government is tasked with both purpose and standard, and they are singular.

By distinction, when you look at the second reference, we are introduced to pluralism, denominationalism, and confusion. The Divines knew that Church and State were governed by one and the same law being derived from one and the same God. Therefore, they could state positively the role of the magistrate without surrounding it in quid pro quos, sine qua nons, and a list of caveats as long as the proverbial “arm”!

When parts of the Church rejected the original wording of the Divines and substituted words like those above, they evidenced the infiltration of both pietism and pluralism. They began to see the world divided into secular and sacred, worldly and spiritual. Truth was not any longer One. It was now divided. The government was forced to realise that God was divided and that He spoke with a forked tongue – a blasphemy! Like all falsehoods, this process brought forth consequences. First, you see the Church adopting and acquiescing to the concept that Church and State are to be divided. (Granted it is not as extreme as the view of today, but it is there in seminal form.) Second, we see that the strong language about heresy, worship, blasphemy, and reform, smelt down to trite words about “protecting the Church”. With these steps taken, it was only a short walk before there was a total disintegration of the concept.

Consequently, we arrive at today. The government is apostate. It is totally committed to the God-hating Humanist agenda. It is so to its own shame. However, the Church must realise the part it has played in this. Instead of working with government as an equal and rightly sharing their spheres of sovereignty as ordained by God, the Church seems to have insisted on an arm wrestle to the death, winner-take-all type policy. The result of which was the active encouragement of government to become apostate and to, in disobedience to its call, accrue total power to itself.

Conclusion:

We are facing a dark day because the Church has been Biblically ignorant for too long! We have allowed too many falsehoods to arise and become entrenched. As we have shown, the Church has shifted ground and has thereby played its part in the secularising of the government. The Church has helped solidify the concept of the separation of Church and State by its unBiblical stance. Moreover, it has helped in the apostatising of governments by further allowing the concept – that God can be divorced from government – to take hold.

The Church has, for far too long, refused to call its own to account on atrocities such as the homosexual predation of children. It has been evident to all that there have been serious and protracted allegations with little evidence of justice for those wronged or a cessation to the practices involved. Again, the root cause is nothing less than failing to love Jesus Christ. Jesus welcomed the little children. We have abandoned them to wolves. “Jesus, please, forgive us – open our eyes and let our hearts burn with love for You that we may act!”

Now, because of this lack of action, the Church is faced with the prospect of a God-hating government forcing itself upon the Church, or parts thereof, with a view to bringing its form of justice. The irony should be obvious to all:

A. The State that tells the Church to “but out” of its affairs for there is no correlation or overlap between the two spheres is now going to “but in” to the Church!

B. The State that affirms homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, in contradistinction to the Church, now wants to purge the Church of homosexuals and homosexual predation!

C. The State that affirms the rights of “sex offenders” to live in public without being declared, now wants to name and shame “sex offenders” within the Church and other institutions!

D. The State that affirms the rights of people to indulge in homosexuality and other perversions in the privacy of their own residences now wants to declare that Church residences are open to scrutiny!

E. The State that writes and polices the law which bind the Church, like “working with children” legislation, now needs to be investigated because its policing has failed.

The sticking point for this author is to be found in the fact that the government is being totally hypocritical at least as far as investigations into the Church are concerned.

The congregation of Rome needs to be held to account and they need to reform, of this there is no doubt. However, the same can be said of our government. Rome betrayed Christ by turning from His service to self-service. Our government has betrayed Christ in exactly the same manner. The government has refused its calling to be a servant of God and has become self-serving. As such, it could well be argued that they have forfeited any and all authority as well as the right to govern.

When Rome turned her back on Christ and turned to humanism, people suffered. Children today are still suffering. Is our government any different? No. People are suffering through unjust taxation; laws that give the criminal rights and privilege; the gagging of free speech; the foolish notion of “multiculturalism”, and many things beside. What of the children? The children surely suffer. It is estimated, conservatively, that as a nation we abort about 80,000 children per year. Rome, with all her perversions, added together with all other institutional abuses, could not come close to the numbers set by our government. This is without raising all the other harms inflicted upon people by poor and unrighteous government.

Then we must consider the track record of governments when it comes to justice. It is appalling. I am always sceptical of the government when it sets out on these tasks because they have a history of failure. Years ago, a little chap by the name of Daniel was killed in Victoria. He was abused. In the light of his death, all the weirdos climbed out of their holes and began demanding that the government ban smacking; that they label smacking as “abuse”, and so on. The simple and sad reality, which later came to light, was that every government agency that could know, did know about the situation in which this little chap lived. What was the outcome? They sat on their hands and let him die. In this, the government has more blood on their hands, in regard to child abuse, than any mentioned in this blog. It has always been their obligation to pursue and prosecute abusers of all shapes, sizes, and religions. Whilst the Church at large may share guilt for not speaking out more loudly, She has never had the power and authority to prosecute paedophiles. That is the right and obligation of the State.

Last, we must wonder what sort of investigation we are going to endure. As noted above, people and governments are motivated by one of two heartfelt motives – love for God or hatred of God. Our government hates God. It has shown this by its apostasy and by its continued anger with Christianity. I for one, therefore, would truly like to know what the “Terms of Reference” will be in the final analysis. I am also concerned that there is talk of this Royal Commission lasting as long as ten years. I would also like to know that the timing of this Commission has nothing to do with an upcoming election in which the Leader of the Opposition belongs to the Congregation of Rome. Is this Commission the “real deal”, a political stunt, or some combination of the two? In our opening, we used the term “true child abuse”. This was used purposely because there are proponents in government who would label many things as “abuse” that in reality are not. Are we going to be subjected to altered and spurious definitions in what turns out to be, not a quest for justice, but one more attempt by a humanist government to rid itself of the last remnants of true Christianity?

In short, kiddie fiddlers must be dealt with; but so must all the relevant sources and issues. One cannot look at abuses in Roman institutions, or any other for that matter, without looking at the issue of sexuality, homosexuality, justice, corruption, and other perversions. Likewise, I have not heard anything yet in regard to penology. The Church needs to repent of its acquiescence to false ideas and its silence on subjects like child abuse. She needs to regain the Biblical perspective on a good many issues, amongst which is calling the government to fulfil its genuine God given task. As to the government, the hypocrisy must cease. Our government is out of control. It has become a juggernaut. It must be reformed or it will implode. Thus, it is not really in any position to be pointing out the failures of others.

Deuteronomy 24:7, quoted above, ends with the words, “so you shall purge evil from among you”. Our nation needs purging. The kiddie fiddlers need to be purged; but what of all the other evils? What is overlooked is that the task of purging our nation belongs to both the Church and the State. They are to approach this subject in unity; they are to act together; and they are to do so according to God’s standards as His instruments.

Bring on true justice! Bring on the purge that will expel evil from our nation! Oh, glorious day! Before that day is reached, however, there must be the realisation that both Church and State are crippled by essentially the same sin; they have together turned or are turning their backs on the God who instituted them, called them, and equipped them!

What is needed in our day is swift punitive justice throughout our whole land against all evils; the voice of God thundered from pulpits pointing out these evils and condemning; not a protracted investigation that is little more than an ecclesiastical ‘witch hunt’.

The War was not Won – The Battle Still Rages!!

Posted on November 9, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Of recent we have been writing in regard to the vote to retain the current definition of the Marriage Act. These writings have been in the form of an email and an addition to a blog. The essence of these communiqués is to ask Christians not to lose sight of true reality of what has transpired in the Providential winning of this vote.

It must be understood, and understood well, that the vote was only in regard to the definition contained in the Marriage Act. It was not a denunciation of homosexuality. It was not a recognition of God’s sovereign rule through and over marriage. It was not a promotion of Christian morality. It was nothing more than a vote concerning the current definition of marriage as made by our parliament!

Why do we labour this point? Very simple. If we do not grasp this fact, we will find ourselves blindsided by a renewed attack on exactly the same topic. Let me go one step further and remove this from the realm of possibility and place it in the realm of probability by saying, ‘When the renewed attack comes!’ Christians have gained nothing through this recent vote but a momentary reprieve. That is all. The war was not won. The battle still rages!

Why is this? It is because parliament voted on only a definition. Let me explain. When this vote was won, did we see more legislation introduced to make sure that this definition could never be changed? No, we did not. Did we see an effort to add a clause recognising that God alone is the Author of marriage and that the definition must be what He has commanded? No, we did not. Was there an effort to introduce legislation that would repeal homosexual rights and send these people back into the closet from whence they came? No, there was not. Rather, what we heard was conciliatory comments. Tony Abbott sacrificed Cory Bernardi on the altar of humanistic political correctness for the heinous crime of “speaking the truth.” Julia Gillard made noises about bringing the “gay games” to Australia. So, we arrive at today.

What is important about today? Well in the current context it is the following news headline “Gay dads eligible for paid parental leave”. Here is the proof of the pudding, so to speak, illustrating that as a nation we are morally conflicted and on a path that will see us implode. In a matter of weeks we have gone from upholding the current definition on marriage to paying homosexuals to raise children. Well, actually, it is worse than that; far worse! We are now putting them on an equal footing with true fathers – the fathers who follow God’s pattern and take to themselves a wife that they may know the blessing of God by being fruitful.

During the recent debate on marriage, a number of emails crossed my screen asking Christians to write to Members of Parliament and oppose the proposed changes. This I could support. However, I was critical of some of the content, specifically the urging to tell these people that children need a “mum and a dad.” I was critical of these inane arguments because, in essence, they mean nothing. Let me illustrate it this way. When the issue of homosexual marriage was first raised, politicians trotted out the current definition as though it were a defence. I argued then that such was no comfort because all that was required was a change to the “definition”. In other words, the politicians did not have a solid moral position from which to argue. All they had was a political definition that was open to change. What did we eventually see? We saw a proposal to change that definition. Similarly, the “mum and dad” argument is flawed in the same way. What is a mum or a dad? The Christians reading this probably think that I have lost the plot. ‘Of course we know how to define a mum and a dad!’, they would exclaim. This is true, but it is only true because they understand these terms, not from tradition, but from God’s revelation. What does the modern humanist make of these terms? To him they are as malleable as those definitions in the marriage act.

Consider these statements from the news article cited. First, even though we have just had “traditional” marriage upheld, we nonetheless find nonsense statements like; “It is the exact scheme which will be used by fathers in conventional households from January 1.” Pray tell, what is a conventional household? If we break the words down to their base meaning, we must understand that we are talking about a household defined by common consent. However, note also that it is a “household” not a family. Thus, we are immediately confronted with a redefinition. The language used belies the fact that there is an open effort to obscure truth in order to parallel the Biblically defined family with the “conventional household” – as defined by finite man in the present.

Second, we note these words: “In a same sex household one of the men will have to nominate as the primary carer if they want the 18 week parental leave, and the other as the “dad”.” So let us cut through the speech of Political Correctness and get to the heart of the matter. In a situation where there are two men, one must identify themselves as the Primary Care Giver – please read MUM – and the other as the DAD. So, there you have it. Within a few weeks of supposedly upholding the current definition of marriage, we see moves from the Government which push vigorously in the opposite direction. We see the terms “mum”, “dad”, and “family” being redefined. As stated earlier, the issue concerning the appropriate definition of marriage is not over. The battle continues.

Please, take up the fight. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that we have won something when we have gained nothing. Be on the lookout for abuses in the media where they yet again introduce obscure language to the masses so that the abominable may become acceptable. It is this type of “watering down process” that must be indentified and rejected. Write to politicians asking them to shore up marriage against attacks. Point out to them the hypocrisy of supporting “gay rights” and true marriage – it is akin to those who try to combine evolution with creation. Point out that every perversion, homosexual or heterosexual, is an attack on marriage and the family. Last, but by no means least, may I ask you to argue Biblically.

I know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called “logical” arguments are of little value. As illustrated above, we are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God’s word, then we will simply be trading “logic” for “logic” or human understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian’s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God’s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God. Our “magical ability” is in fact a Divine ability – the Holy Spirit. The blessed third Person of the Trinity teaching us of Christ and the Father as they have revealed themselves in the Bible. This my friends is the Power of God. We should not so easily abandon the weapons that God has entrusted to His Church nor make light of their effectiveness. The weapons of our warfare are divine and effective for tearing down strongholds. They are not shaped or fashioned after the wisdom of this world. Not at all. They are of the Age to come. Fashioned, shaped, and appointed by God Himself.

Marriage, Men, Women, Mum, Dad, Family are all terms that have become interpretable to the modern mind because that mind is neither governed by God nor instructed of God by outward means such as preaching or law. Thus, we must make every effort once again to inject, as in the days of old, the Word of God into every sphere, including the way we as Christians think and act.

May I urge you to ‘strike while the iron is hot.’ Write to Mr. Abbott and ask why he treated Mr. Bernardi so poorly. Write to your local member and ask them what they are doing to ensure that attacks on marriage cease. Write to Mr. Bernardi and encourage him. We need men to speak such truth in the halls of parliament. Write some letters to your local paper. Point out the incongruity of things like “gay dad”. Most of all, pray the Father in heaven through Jesus Christ to grant wisdom for the fight, opportunity to carry the fight to the enemy; and victory in this battle. As mentioned, we need to grasp that the path to victory here means repealing Acts and Legislation that go back to the early Seventies – and that is for starters. It is for this reason that, we must also be praying for the Revival of Christ’s Church in this nation and beseeching God to send forth His Spirit. Truly, it will only be when the Holy Spirit brings heartfelt conviction of error that we will see change in ourselves and in our nation.

May God be with you in this task and endow you with courage.

“This post was originally circulated as an email on October2, 2012.”

The Slippery Slope (Pt.3): Revelation or Relativism

Posted on November 8, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

We have been looking at the issue of the Slippery Slope. Our starting point was the question, “Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy?” We have argued that polygamy is a possibility regardless of the approval of homosexual marriage. Our argument is based on the very simple premise that when the Bible’s God is rejected as the only objective and absolute standard, ‘Relativism’ must reign. There simply is not any other possibility. When God is removed, finite man exalts himself so as to become the measure of all things. Thus, Man begins to grope in the dark. He has set foot upon the Slippery Slope.

Some will see this as demeaning to man. If that is the case, good! Man needs to be humbled and realise his place. The simple reality is that Man is a finite being. Whether we take into account the Fall or not, Man was never God. Even in the Paradise of God, Man had (will have) limitations. Even if we momentarily go insane and allow for evolution to be accepted as a valid worldview, we are still faced with Man’s finite nature. The evolutionists still ‘guess’ because the evolutionary process has failed to pass on brains that can remember back to the beginning. Evolution has failed to develop sensory perceptions that will allow us to accurately predict the future. Consequently, Man needs instruction. He needs revelation. The only question is, “What will be his source?” Will it be based in Man – looking to the world around him and hoping to find some clues – or will it be based in God – God revealed in Jesus Christ and Scripture?

Our task, in this article, is to look at how the rejection of God demands a change in culture and cultural standards. Specifically, we would like to look at the path that has led us to this point of discussion and thereby reinforce the thesis that what we see today is a consequence of the Slippery Slope and not an initial stepping upon it.

To understand this, we must first grasp the fact that Fallen Man simply will not have anything to do with God, so he will reject the reality of God or the fact that God has spoken (Psalm 14:1; 2 Peter 1:20-21). This is Fallen Man’s a priori position. Thus, Fallen Man demands for himself a closed system; a system without revelation. As stated, this rejection is the Slippery Slope. From this point on, everything is to Man relative, subjective, and transient. The outward effects of this rejection may, at first, seem to be of little consequence, but in time it will have a radical culture altering impact.

Let us begin by examining two people and their contribution to our current cultural decline. These men are chosen at random and represent the sacred and secular – please allow the latitude in terminology. The first of these men is Albert Schweitzer. Known in the West for his book, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer was the son of a Lutheran pastor, an ordained man, and the holder of a PhD in Theology. The book mentioned was a “best seller” and had a huge impact on the Church. People all over the globe were influenced by this book, and why not? Look at the title. Surely any good Christian wants to know the Historical Jesus! The problem was that the “quest” began with a faulty premise, namely, the rejection of authoritative revelation in which man submits to God. What was the conclusion of this Quest? Says Schweitzer, “The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.” ¹

The second person to be considered is Charles Darwin. Well known for his On the Origin of Species, we need to also understand something of his thought process. Darwin was raised a Unitarian. This means, in essence, that he believed in one God. Not in the Biblical sense of one God in Three persons, but essentially one God in One person. Thus, Jesus was not God. Jesus may have been spoken of in exalted terms, but He was not ascribed His rightful place as the Son of God. They only way to arrive at such a position was to clearly and systematically deny the explicit teachings of Scripture and the claims made by Jesus Himself therein – including the fact that Jesus was God’s agent of creation.

What was the impact of these men’s denial of God’s revelation? Essentially, it robbed them of meaning and purpose. The conclusion of Schweitzer’s quest was mere subjectivism. Says Schweitzer, “He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him … He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” In Schweitzer’s mind, Jesus was not the God-man, revealed by God at the appointed time for salvation (Galatians 4:4-5). No, he was just a spiritual symbol, unknown, unnamed, that one may encounter upon life’s journey. In true existential terms, Jesus then became to you what you needed him to be or what you believed him to be.

For Darwin, His crisis of faith was apparent from the start. As a Unitarian, he did not believe that Jesus was the exact representation of God (Contra Hebrews 1:1ff). Thus, revelation was removed from the beginning. Consequently, by the end of his life Darwin described himself as an Agnostic. He was not prepared to totally give up on the idea of God, but he certainly was not prepared to embrace the God revealed in Scripture. BB Warfield makes this point, “The History of the drift by which Mr. Darwin was separated from faith in a divine order in the world, divides itself into two well marked periods. The first of these … ends with the loss of Christianity. During the second, which extended over the remainder of his life, he struggled … to retain his standing as a theist. At the end of the first he no longer believed that God had spoken to men in his Word; at the end of the second he more than doubted whether the faintest whisper of his voice could be distinguished in his works. He was never prepared dogmatically to deny his existence; but search as he might he could not find him, and could only say that if he existed he was, verily, a God that hides himself.” (Selected Shorter Writings vol., 2.)

Please take careful note of Warfield’s summation and note the epistemological circle – applicable to both Darwin and Schweitzer. The first stage ended with the denial of revelation. The second stage concludes with Darwin essentially blaming God as one who ‘hides himself’. Darwin’s problem was simple. He refused to look in the one Book and to the One Person through Whom God had made Himself known. In opposition to Darwin’s ‘god-whisperer’ theory, we should adopt Schaeffer’s “He is there and He is (most definitely) not silent!”

When these men rejected God’s specific revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ as canonised in Scripture, they had nowhere to turn but to the subjective, transient, and ephemeral dream that is fallen finite man. They condemned themselves to grope in the dark and hope that they might stumble upon God or hear that ‘faint whisper of his voice’ in His works.

In terms of our discussion, the question is asked, ‘How have these men influenced our day?’ The answer is, Completely! In society, you cannot go anywhere without bumping into the God-denying theory of evolution. People now believe it to be absolute fact. It is so entrenched that people do not question its validity. The impact for culture can be seen in the realm of science. Men, denying God, look for ‘little green’ men on distant planets; they spend trillions on telescopes and rockets, but cannot feed their hungry neighbour; they spend billions on weapons, but cannot fund life saving medicine. In the Church, the theories popularised by Schweitzer and others, denying Biblical revelation, have spawned denominations that no longer believe the literal truth of the Bible and question the historicity of Jesus. This then opens the door even further to auto-salvific discovery – find your own god and saviour wherever, if you think you need one! These teaching have even infiltrated the majority of main stream denominations, causing people to doubt God’s revelation. These denominations still hold to the core doctrines, but examination shows that they have been savaged in many areas.

Let us fine tune this. Darwin and Schweitzer existed in the mid- to late- 1800’s. For sake of argument, let us say the Enlightenment began around 1700. What we have here is a three stone path. We look at the philosophies of the Enlightenment and the essential questioning of the notion of or need for an Absolute God who Speaks. 150 years later, we encounter Darwin and Schweitzer who have now all but denied God. Some vague concepts may remain, but they have denied the Historical Jesus as revealed in Scripture. 150 years later, we arrive in our day. Who believes in an absolute God who speaks? Who believes that this God gave Law? Who believes that the Law revealed is binding? Who believes that Jesus Christ is the epitome and embodiment of God and His Law?

Stone one: Step onto the Slippery Slope. Stone two: Revelation to Relativism. Stone three: ‘There was no king in that day and everyone did what was right in his own eyes!’ Voilá, the path to cultural disintegration!

The Essence of War: Part 2

Posted on November 8, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In your minds, right now, you may be asking, “Why all this warmongering?” That is an excellent question. The simple answer is, if I might quote Aragorn, “Open war is upon you whether you would have it or not!” The battle lines are drawn and there is no neutrality. Every man, woman, and child, is in an army that wars with Christ or wars against Christ. This is the big picture. This is the cosmic battle shown to us clearly on the pages of Scripture. (Genesis 3:15; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 19:19; Luke 11:23)

This said; let us try to bring this cosmic battle to the reality of our everyday lives. We have noted that men will live out the desires of their heart. We have noted that men are motivated by only one of two absolute, heartfelt passions – love for God or hatred of God. This means that when you encounter a person on the street you are engaging one of these heartfelt motives.

This means, in terms of concrete, life affirming, life altering, or “rubber hits the road” application, that when:

You interact with a politician you are engaging one of these heartfelt motives.
You write to the editor of your local news paper you are engaging one of these heartfelt motives.
You watch a television show you are witnessing the expression of one of these heartfelt motives.
You vote in an election you are choosing one of these heartfelt motives.
You educate your children you will subject them to a curriculum based in one of these heartfelt motives.
You give forth an opinion you will be giving rise to one of these heartfelt motives; or
You give forth an opinion that is a compromise because it is a policy that runs contrary to your heartfelt motive.

The absolute failure of the Church to grasp this most elementary principle and to inculcate it into Christians as a core belief is a, if not the, fundamental reason Christianity is in disarray today. Christians and Christianity are being defeated, befuddled, battered, and bewildered because they operate on a basis that denies this essential truth.

Let me illustrate this with reference to the recent Presidential election in the United States. One Christian social commentator created a stir by saying that, although he was a republican, he would not vote for Mitt Romney. He did this, not on policy, but principle. Mitt Romney was a Mormon and therefore would not receive his vote. This stance brought a degree of criticism. Now that Barack Obama has been re-elected, he has received communications blaming him and others like him for the resultant state. I find this sad. How blind we have become! Mitt Romney is an apostate Mormon. Barack Obama is an apostate Humanist. In essence, what is the difference? They both lie, cheat, and steal “candy from babies”! Neither has a God-loving spirit. Neither are going to produces works of righteousness. Neither are going to lower taxes, increase employment, outlaw abortion, abolish poverty, or cut government spending. In terms of our discussion, both of these men are sided against God and His Christ. Thus, whilst there may be some policy differences, either reign will still ultimately result in a culture of death. Out of the overflow of their dead hearts, policies of death will flow forth to implementation. Reform will never be seen. As for righteousness …?; no statement is needed!

The same can be said of our own country. I remember well, during the time of Paul Keating’s Prime Ministership, Christians being dismayed at certain proposals and outcomes. Why? The man was a self-professed atheist. He was a God-hater to the core. Why would you ever expect a man whose “heartfelt motive” was venomous vitriol against God to bring forth righteous laws that promoted true life?

We, in Australia, will be going to the polls soon. What is our choice? None! We have a fornicating, self-professed atheist currently holding the Prime Ministership. What will Julia Gillard ever do to promote God’s righteousness as the only standard for this nation? On the other side we have Tony Abbott. What can we expect from this man? Well, he belongs to the Congregation of Rome, but that is a very different thing to being a Christian. It means that he may be influenced on some moral decisions in a direction that approximates the Biblical standard. However, we must be aware that an approximation, even a close approximation, is not the “real McCoy”!

Equally, Mr Abbott is on record as denying the essence of religion in public office. Says he: “We are all influenced by a value system that we hold, but in the end, every decision that a politician makes is, or at least should, in our society be based on the normal sorts of considerations. It’s got to be publicly justifiable; not only justifiable in accordance with a private view; a private belief.”

What Mr. Abbott here espouses is sheer nonsense. It runs contrary to the declaration of Scripture. Men will always act in accord with their ultimate motive (religion). Yes, men can be hypocritical. However, ultimately they will act in accord with and be faithful to their one true heartfelt motive. The truth of this is seen in Mr Abbott’s use of the phrase, “normal sorts of considerations”. What, pray tell, is this animal? Let us illustrate. Mr Abbott, as a congregant of Rome, has certain moral perspectives. He stands against euthanasia and abortion. However, as Minister for Health and Ageing, did Tony Abbott outlaw abortion? No, he did not. He was content to see numbers reduced. Herein is the problem. His moral compass may direct him toward certain positions that mimic Scriptures’. However, as a Roman Humanist, he is equally governed by the “normal sorts of consideration”. As a politician, one of these considerations is being elected. Thus, to quote one of my favourite phrases, he will do the “expedient, not the right”! God says, do not murder. This is the absolute position of the heartfelt motive that loves Jesus. Mr Abbott’s version is, murder fewer. This is the position of “normal considerations” and the relative position of the heartfelt motive opposed to Christ.

In the end, we ask, “What is the difference between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott?” The answer is, very little. The best that can be said at the moment is that a Liberal government will do better monetarily. That is it. Labour governments have never been able to balance a cheque book. (This is no criteria for election!) Outside of this there is almost no difference. Why is this? Precisely because both are governed by a “heartfelt principle” that is at war with Jesus Christ.

As with America, so in Australia, there will be Christians who will bicker over candidates based on what flag they serve under, rather than based on the heartfelt motive of the individual candidate. (We do not have room to comment on Party Politics and some other associated points.) There will be Christians who are disappointed with political stands and outcomes. Christians will be confused and bewildered by the contradictions, lies, and deceit of politicians and this will continue to happen until we indoctrinate ourselves with the true Biblical picture.

This brings us back to our definition of war; to the constancy of this war; and to the application of these principles to our day.

Australia, whilst not currently a Christian country, was founded upon Christian principles. Our culture was derived from and based upon the Law-Word of God. It is very hard not to see this fact; indeed one would need to be wilfully ignorant, not to see the similarity between the Decalogue and the foundational values of this country. The application of God’s law restrained evil. It had the benefit of guiding our society in a better way, whether or not the members of our society were overtly Christian. The honour of God in worship, the acknowledgement of God’s right to rule in civil ceremony, and the civil obedience to His covenant stipulations gave Australia a “leg to stand on”. It did so precisely because these elements combined brought a blessing from God that restrained evil.

Thus we rejected the murder of infants, the infirmed, and the aged, no matter what wonderful modern label was used to disguise this evil. We rejected homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, and all other sexual perversion, recognising that God made male and female and these alone he blessed with fertility in covenant relationship (marriage). We honoured the family as the chief building block of society. Thus we protected it from adultery. We supported it with tax breaks and concessions. In these practices, we were like a careful gardener who tended his plants attentively. We weeded. We fertilised. We watered, and all this in the hope and belief that our culture would flourish.

Now we find ourselves as Christians and as a culture battered, bruised, and dying. Sexual perversion is no longer a relevant term. Anything is seemingly legitimate or ‘give it long enough’ and it acceptance is assured. Marriage is threatened by whoremongers and their self-fulfilling prophecies. The family is attacked in a myriad of ways including, but not limited to, the erosion of parental authority, Statist calls for discipline to be labelled ‘abuse’, and by a “User Pays” system for utilities and health care. People are confused. Uncertainty reigns. Evil is not restrained; nor are men. Why is this? It is because the ungodly are epistemologically self-conscious in this war and the Christians, seemingly, are not. By this we mean that the ungodly are very much self-aware of their hostility to Christ and the pursuit of their agenda. They are aware that they are fighting to throw off God’s rule.

In short, the ungodly hate the Godly restraints that our society has historically enshrined in law. Consequently, as our nation has deepened its connection with Secularism, the war has become more obvious. It has become an imperative that additional mores need to be overthrown. These will not rest until, in Nietzsche’s words, “God is dead” and every thought of Him has been eradicated.

Man, under the tutelage of Secular Humanism, has decided that they must express their hatred of God by insisting that man be given ultimate freedom to choose for himself right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. Man in his unregenerate state realises that God’s righteousness, the only appropriate “measuring stick”, limits man’s preponderance for evil and debauchery. Thus, man has gone to war to get what he wants – autonomy to destruction. If you doubt this, please go and read the first chapter of Romans. Then read it again and again. Do not read your words into the text, but let Paul tell you of man’s war against God.

Brethren, let us grasp this point so that your frustration, disappointments, and therapeutic head-banging may cease.

We can illustrate the need to change our perspective by referencing current political happenings. Recently, by the mercies of God, our Parliament voted to retain the current definition of marriage, rather than open marriage to homosexuals and other perversions beside. We have already written about the need for Christians not to look upon this vote as the end of the war, but merely a skirmish in the battle. We have also noted that this decision was nothing more than a vote on the definition of marriage. It was in no way a rejection of homosexuality or heterosexual perversions. It was not an assertive statement concerning the centrality and importance of marriage as God commanded. It was nothing more than a vote on a definition. It was a vote devoid of morality, theology, and essence.

What we would like to highlight is the tenacity with which the homosexual agenda (war) is being pursued and the way this pursuit has shown many politicians to be walking contradictions. Did you note that Julia Gillard crossed the floor in this vote? With this action, she voted to retain the current definition of marriage. Yet, as you know, she is not married, but lives with a man. It was also her alliance with independent candidates that brought our nation to this situation. Now, ask yourself this question. “What would Julia Gillard have done if the definition of marriage was changed? The simple answer is, she would have accepted it. Her heartfelt motive is antagonistic to Jesus Christ. If as a nation we had walked further from God, she would not have been concerned.

This also explains why, so soon after this vote, we saw the government grant homosexual couples assistance to raise families. In this, their so-called ‘family unit’, was given the same status as the God ordained and sanctioned “ridgy-didge” family unit. There is no delineation between reality and travesty. How can this be? Well, it goes back to the statement of Mr. Abbott above. This is the relative position of the “normal consideration” of the heart opposed to God. It is an expression of our nation’s and our culture’s war against God.

Understand this point well, please. The government is happy to allow the definition of marriage to stand because they have effectively nullified God’s order in other ways. Homosexuals have obtained equal rights under law at almost every point. Equally, while the nation was looking at this issue, what other sinister nasties passed by unnoticed. Consequently, the proverbial ‘fly on the wall’ might hear a conversation such as, ‘So, the marriage definition was retained. No big deal. We will just use our power to add in other benefits and thereby establish homosexual rights anyway. We will give them family assistance etc., etc., and so on.’ This is what, in times of war, would be called a ‘covert operation’. Neither should it be forgotten that our country is led by a Prime Minister who has been caught lying on more than one occasion. What do words of bond, oaths of promise, or a simple handshake mean to such a one?

Christians are rejoicing in the fact that the retention of the current definition of marriage was ‘a magnificent win’, yet, because they do not realise that open war is upon them, they do not see that it was but a hollow victory. Nothing substantial was gained. The homosexuals are still being courted by the government and it will only be a matter of time before we see another challenge to the legal definition of marriage. Thus, Christianity in this nation is like an army that repels a feint without realising that a large enemy force nears from another direction. Christians are duped because they do not realise or accept the vehemence, hostility, and tenacity of their enemy.

Just as the man argues for and establishes his reality according to his heartfelt principle, so do governments! Do not expect righteousness from unrighteous governments. Do not expect an unrighteous government to be fair, ethical, open, and above all, Godly. You may as readily expect David Attenborough to enter a pulpit and extol the wonders of Jesus Christ as God’s agent of Creation!

Brethren do not be deceived nor deceive yourselves. One war; Two sides! Individually and politically!

The war continues!

Today, we awaken to news that the unreality show, Big Brother, an abomination if ever there were, has this time around been won by a homosexual who used the opportunity to propose to his partner. The second paragraph of this article reads: “In a gesture that has instantly made him a flagbearer for the cause of gay marriage, Norris said he had always planned to use the show’s publicity to express his love for Williams.” Further into the article we are granted this commentary: “Ex-housemate Michael Beveridge said he hoped that Norris and Williams’ marriage would inspire others. “Hopefully, now he’s in a famous gay couple, he can forge a path for other people to think about starting a family and getting what every other Australian gets.””

In the context of self-awareness, please note the comment, “he had always planned to use the show’s publicity…” The whole occurrence was not an accident. It was planned. More pointedly, the whole happening was essentially and exercise in futility, but it was an exercise in futility to further their war against God. Confused? Let me break the statements up. It was an exercise in futility in that homosexual marriage is illegal. It has no basis in law and is excluded by definition – as the nation has seen of recent. As such, Mr. Norris’s proposal was a proposal to naught and an exercise in futility. Thus, Mr. Norris may have just as easily invited Martians to attend his next birthday party or proposed marriage to a unicorn! This said, we must realise that this nonsense had a point — to reassert his personal hatred of God and His standard. It is also to be doubted that the producers of the show did not know that this stunt was about to be unleashed. Here again, the heartfelt motive of hatred for God comes to the fore. The homosexual wants what he wants regardless of God’s Law. The producers are willing to allow this as they want the ratings and publicity that such a stunt will bring. The homosexuals and television producers gathered together against God and against His Anointed!

The world has gone to war to get what it wants. So desperate is it that it respects nothing and will destroy any obstacle in its way. A bit of an over statement? Not at all. Think this through. It was only a few months ago that Parliament voted to retain the current definition of Marriage. Why is it then that, in this great democracy, none seem to respect the outcome of the vote? Keep in mind also that recent figures show that homosexuals comprise less than two percent of the population. Now, I admit that ethics is not about numbers. However, in this instance, ethically, the current definition of marriage is correct, yet a change is being demanded by an extreme minority. If we follow this logic and this is our version of “democracy” then, get ready for Sharia law and any number of other possibilities!

The point here is that the war against God realises some very strange bedfellows. People who, on another issue, may be at loggerheads readily abandon their differences to war against God. Here, we see the homosexuals not willing to respect the law of the land or the democratic principle on which it is established. Yet, at another point, they will argue their case in terms of ‘democracy’. Worse, we see that the government is not willing to uphold its own process. The government votes to retain the current definition of marriage and then, almost immediately, gives homosexuals access to benefits designed for families. In so doing the government elevates the homosexual travesty to a position of equality with a real family. Seemingly, the government does not believe in ‘democracy’! (I think we all knew this. It is just interesting that the veil of pretence is beginning to crack.) What is the common denominator? They share a heartfelt motive. They together hate God and wish to throw off His rule.

What then is the Christian’s response? In this instance, it is truly a case of fighting fire with fire. The Christians of this nation must go to war in order to protect what they have, but also to take back what has been lost. Moreover, we should see this as an opportunity to extend our warfare so as to obtain what we want or, more precisely, what Jesus has commanded. In short, we must remember that Yahweh instigated this war. This means that we must not only fight for Him, but also that we fight for that which He went to war—summarised in the person and work of Jesus Christ!

So my friends, here is the war. Here is the battle line. The Humanists have waged a war to get what they want. They are tireless and unceasing in pressing this war and pursuing their agenda. We must likewise be as aggressive in our war against their ungodliness.

We must understand that Christ and Christianity won little but a reprieve in the recent vote. We must understand that the Church has lost a lot of ground precisely because She has been, colloquially speaking, “asleep at the wheel”. A major part of this slumber is due to the erosion of sound doctrine which has left Christians without an identity and totally confused. We have been led to believe in a God that accepts everything and rejects nothing. We have been led to believe that Christianity has had a good run and that it would be a simple act of greed or selfishness on the part of Christianity if it desired to retain or regain its position. We are told, again in Aussie parlance, that it is time for a “fair suck of the sav” religiously speaking. We are told that we must be open and affirming; that true community is an amalgam; that Christianity’s demand of exclusiveness is ruining the ideal of a Utopian brotherhood of man. All of this modern rubbish has infiltrated the Church, weakened her stance, and encouraged attacks from the enemy. Like a nation who has let her outer defence collapse, She is ripe for the plucking.

Brethren, the war is upon us. The propaganda machine is at work. It is part of the world’s war. We can expect more stunts like that on Big Brother. The world is going to war to get what it wants.

The question I direct to you, Brethren, is, “Do you love Jesus enough to go to war not only to keep what you have, but to gain more for your King?”

The Essence of War: Part 1

Posted on November 8, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself the question, “What drives a war?”

The answer to this question can be argued from many perspectives. However, when we boil it down to its constituent elements we are left with only two answers. People initiate war to get what they want or people go to war to protect what they have.

As we have noted before, Australia is at war. We are involved in a religious war which, by its very nature, means that we are involved in both an ethical and a cultural war. In short, the essence of what is believed by our society must, by necessary consequence, become the reality of and for our culture. Christians must realise this fundamental point. It is illustrated Biblically by texts such as Matthew 6:21, Proverbs 23:7, and Mark 7:21-23.

These texts, and many beside, point to the fact that what a man believes in heart must be (unless he is overtly hypocritical) and will be lived out in practice. This essentially means that man will live out his one, true, heartfelt principle or motive.

Therefore, when man goes to war “to get what he wants” or “protect what he has” he will be motivated by his one heartfelt principle! Nothing more. Nothing less.

This point is raised for your understanding because it is so absolutely important that you, as a Christian, see the relationship and consequence of this principle when it is engaged by two other foundational principles regarding spiritual warfare. The other two elementary principles in regard to spiritual war are:

1. It is total war! It involves every man, woman, and child on the planet. No exceptions!

2. There are only two sides in this war. In the words of Scripture, “He who is not with Jesus is against Jesus.” (Matthew 12:30)

Christian, do you believe this? We are not talking about simple assent to an idea. We are talking about a visceral belief. Do you believe these two points in your very heart of hearts?

These are pointed questions. However, they are necessary questions. If you do not believe these two points, then you will be delinquent in your duties as a soldier in the army of Jesus Christ. Just as a sloppy soldier who does not pay full attention in “boot camp” compromises both his fellows and the cause on the battlefield; so too the Christian who adopt beliefs that are other than Biblical.

Let’s expand on these two points.

Total War: When we read the Scriptures we are faced with the stark reality that this world is at war and that the war is total – it involves and envelopes everything. God made man and He made him in righteousness (Genesis 1:31). Man was to live upon the earth and rule over it as God’s viceregent. In this manner, God’s righteousness was to be seen in and rule over all of creation. Man, however, had some contrary and egoistical ideas. He thought that a promotion was in order and that it would be good to be “God” and so he rebelled (Genesis 3:1-6). This rebellion brought the negative covenant sanction of death upon man (Genesis 3:14-19). Importantly, it brought death and curse to all of creation.

At that point, creation was plunged into turmoil. It was estranged from its Creator and was therefore cut off from life. This caused great upheaval in that all of creation was confounded by a great conflict. Man wanted to continue in rebellion and so strived at every point to destroy the image of God that he witnessed in himself every day. Man continued in his desire to be “God.” He was even so beguiled by his own abilities that he believed he could build a tower that would reach to the heavens (Genesis 11:1-9). Man’s perpetual rebellion only brought further judgement from God.

We must also grasp that this futility of purpose went beyond man and into the creation itself. The apostle Paul has this to say: “For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Romans 8:19-22).

Into this sea of misery, confusion, and death, God injected Himself in grace and mercy to manifest, institute, and consummate His plan of salvation – a plan to save His creation and a people for Himself. This began with the protoevangelion of Genesis (Genesis 3:15); it continued to the choosing of Abraham and Yahweh’s covenanting with him (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-8); and it ultimately finds its fulfillment in the arrival of the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53; Galatians 4:4-7).

What must be underscored at this point is Yahweh’s declaration of war. That is right; Yahweh’s declaration of war! In Genesis 3:15, noted above as the protevangelion, the first declaration of the Gospel, we also witness God’s declaration of war. Yahweh says, “I will put enmity between” the two seeds. Yahweh, in effect, says, “I am establishing war” between the two seeds. God has initiated a war! God has gone to war to get what He wants!

This necessarily leads to the next point:

Two Sides: For far too long, there has been a popular, if unwritten, teaching in the Church which I label as “The theology of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” It basically posits that there are three types of people in this world. A) There are those who are the redeemed of God; B) There are the rebels who continue to fight against God; C) There are the innocents, the neutral, the unconcerned, and the uninvolved. It is time that category “C” was eradicated from our thinking for it is utterly unBiblical. Establishing this third and fictitious group of people has only led the Church into dangerous waters. It has encouraged Christians to “swim between the flags” in supposed safety, all the while ushering the Christian into shark infested waters. The end result of this self-imposed deception is that Christians are devoured or emerge from these tumultuous waters bloodied and bruised. If they survive their ordeal they are often shocked and bewildered and struggle to get a handle on the moment. They are left wondering why these events have happened and what has transpired for such a catastrophe to beset them or their generation.

We asked a very pointed question above. We did so for a reason. Hopefully, the reason is evident. If not, allow us to explain. The person who truly believes that a) man is motivated by a single heartfelt principle; b) we are in a total war; and c) there are only two sides in this war with no possibility of neutrality, will never be in the position of being caught by surprise. He will never wade into the waters unaware that the sharks are already circling. He will never be left with questions and uncertainties. If he is wounded, he will understand that it is a true battle scar, which is the direct result of his enemy lobbing a grenade or firing a bullet. He will realise that he is not the innocent victim of some misguided prank or of some well-meaning person whose good intentions were exploited in an unforseen way. No! He will realise that he has been the object of a deliberate hostile act.

Equally, because he knows that there is no neutrality, he is awake to the schemes and plans of the enemy. He arms himself (Hebrews 4:12). He puts on armour (Ephesians 6:10-20). He builds defences. He is ready to receive and obey orders. He is willing to surrender all for the cause and his Captain (Hebrews 12:1-3; Revelation 19:11-16). In short, he understands that he has been born in a warzone and that his calling is nothing less than to be a warrior (2 Timothy 2:3-4). Therefore, he prepares for and welcomes the war. He does not run and hide. He does not invent mythical places of peace. He does not allow a self-delusion, in which his enemy becomes a neutral non-combatant, to take hold and diminish his skills in or desire for battle. He will rest only when his King is triumphant and all the King’s enemies have been vanquished. This is his high calling. This is what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Christian, do you believe this? Do you see this as your job description and calling? Are you willing to engage in this war to protect what you have?

“What is the relevance of all this?” I hear you ask. It is quite simple. We have made and highlighted three intertwined points. First, man is motivated by the principle he holds at his very core. Second, this world is at war. Third, there are only two sides involved in this war. Combined, this means that every person on this planet is either fighting for Jesus Christ or is fighting against Jesus Christ! There is no other option. As the apostle James says, ‘friendship with the world is hostility toward God’ (4:4). One cannot sit on the fence, precisely because there is no fence upon which to sit!

Put as simply as possible, a man and all men will be governed by only one overarching principle or heart desire. His actions will be motivated either by love for God or by a total hatred of God. There is no third group. There is no third option. This is the Biblical picture and we ignore this fact to our own detriment.

The simple reality for Christianity today is that we have failed, for too long, to understand these points and conduct ourselves accordingly. We have tried to treat the world as though it is little more than a misguide child who throws the odd tantrum, rather than understanding that it is a hostile force that hates us precisely and only because it hates our Christ, Jesus! Do you doubt this! Then listen to Jesus’ words, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15:18-19).”

My friends, I speak stern words. Yet they are stern words spoken in love and of necessity. In the cultural war that rages all around us, Christians often suffer loss, are bewildered, and puzzled, because they have not been taught and convinced of the truth that has been here outlined. Consequently, they often expect ungodly people to act with integrity, honesty, and a genuine desire to honour and obey God. Via this avenue, they are led to compromise, to hurt, to loss, and, ultimately, to disobedience.

Creation is at war. Yahweh has declared a war and placed enmity between the seeds, Jesus Christ and Satan. The ungodly, instead of surrendering and in retaliation, have gone to war to get what they want! What is that? It is explained best in Psalm two. They have gathered against the King and His Anointed in order to throw of His fetters. In other words, they have gathered together in the vain hope that they can destroy within themselves the knowledge of the One True God. They seek to deface creation and thereby remove every trace of God and His Christ. It is for this and this alone that the world wars. It is what they want and it is this for which they fight.

The Christian calling and obligation is to go to war to protect what we have. In the greatest extent, we fight to keep the knowledge of God, of His Christ, of His salvation, and of His absolute right as Sovereign to rule this creation by His Law-Word. In a lesser extent, these things will take on common cultural forms. We fight for marriage; Christian education; truth in knowledge; absolute as opposed to relative law; for ethics, morals, right and wrong; for a bias to God; for freedom; for the right to life and peace; for the death of tyranny; for justice; the right to worship the One True God; the right for God to be heard and obeyed in the public square; and a myriad of things beside.

The world has gone to war to get what it wants. Brethren, are you prepared to go to war to protect what you have?

(Please note that the term world is predominately used in the sense of “an ethical force that opposes God.” Where it is used in this manner, the term world appears in italics.)

See: The Essence of War: Part 2

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 2): The Door was Ajar

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In our first article, we looked at the specific question of whether or not the legalising of homosexual marriage would lead to the legalising of polygamy. Our answer was both “possibly” and “definitely maybe”! The more erudite answers came as a twofold response. First, we needed to understand that legalising homosexual marriage would not hurt the cause of the polygamists. Second, and of greater importance, is the fact that the polygamists have the same opportunity now, regardless of what happens with homosexual marriage. We saw that the “potentiality” for all types of perversion had been introduced long ago. What we are experiencing now with homosexual or polygamous marriage, is not the beginning of a journey upon the Slippery Slope, but a siding along the way. Exactly how far along that journey we are will only be known with hindsight. The important aspect to grasp is that the journey has well and truly begun.

The aim of this particular blog is to try and build upon the foundation already set. Space simply did not allow for a well rounded treatment of the main principle in the former blog. The main point of the previous blog was “Relativism” and its impact upon culture – poorly defined though it may have been. Here, we intend to pick up this point and attempt to illustrate it more fully.

We must understand and grasp the fundamental principle that Relativism begins with the dumping of the Bible’s God as in any way relevant to salvation, life, and culture. Once God is denied, we simply have no objective reference point. At this instant, we have essentially committed ourselves to grope in the dark. At this point, we have set foot upon the Slippery Slope. Our journey begins at this point and no other. We do not wait for the first hiccup to present itself and then search for the big, mushroom-shaped, red button labelled “panic”! No. We should have panicked at the very thought of jettisoning the knowledge of the One, True and Living God. This is the scariest thing possible for man (Deuteronomy 4:24; Romans 1:21-23; Psalm 10:4). After this, everything is a cakewalk.

This principle can be well illustrated by looking at Israel’s history. In Judges 21:25, we read these disturbing words: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Most would interpret these words as referring to an earthly king. This seems a little redundant as a monarchy had not yet been established in Israel. The more potent interpretation would be to understand these words as stating that Israel had broken covenant with Yahweh by denying Him as their true King and Monarch. When Israel rejected God’s Law–Way, they reaped the negative covenant sanctions and they began to grope in darkness. They had no answers to the cultural torment of the day. Only when Yahweh had mercy and raised up a Judge did light appear to the land. Further proof for this position can be found in 1 Samuel 12:12 – “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said to me (Samuel), ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ although the Lord your God was your king”; and Deuteronomy 17:18-19 – “Now it shall come about when he (a king) sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law … And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes.” In these texts we are clearly instructed, a) that Yahweh was always Israel’s true King; and b) that even when an earthly king reigned, he was to be nothing less than an analogue of Yahweh. He was to learn and know Yahweh’s Law so that he could govern Yahweh’s people appropriately. Scripture shows Messiah as Yahweh’s true King, established in God’s place of rule, Zion, and ruling as Yahweh would and does rule (Psalm 2:6). Thus, abandoning God as the absolute touchstone is nothing less than setting foot on the “Slippery Slope.”

With this established, we need to ask the pertinent question, “Have we rejected the God of the Bible as our objective standard for salvation, life, and culture?” One would hardly think that an answer is required, but just in case you are unsure, we answer, Yes! Absolutely! Most Definitely! Of course, some will not be happy with such a weak and compromising answer, but it would seem that we are faced with incontrovertible evidence that support such statements. As noted previously, we live in a Postmodern world. Although some may debate this term’s legitimacy and definition, it has nonetheless passed into common usage. I prefer ‘Applied Modernism’ as a term. However, at the end of the day the label is redundant. What is important is that we understand that we live in a world that denies, from an epistemological and philosophical perspective particularly, that anyone can know anything, that reality is, and that absolutes exist. In such an environment, language, knowledge, and concepts are relegated to the scrap heap. We cannot even begin a discussion because there is nothing to discuss, no prior learning to inform us, no means of communicating, and no mean of verification. Thus, the question concerning the rejection of God answers itself. In such a milieu, to talk of an absolute God that reveals knowledge and seeks man’s obedience to His Law is to speak “molecules to moo cows”!

One further observation is requisite. At any one time, there is going to be a variety of worldviews in the public square. The parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30) indicates that there will be a mixture. The deviant belief, by extrapolation, is the false belief sown by the enemy. That the false belief exists is not necessarily the problem. The setback is encountered when the false belief dominates. It can only have one detrimental consequence, namely, that God is robbed of His glory. This happens because God is not gloried in by His creation, thus requiring God to impose the negative covenant sanctions, which in turn results in God not being able to glory in His creation. This results in a necessary downward spiral (See Romans 1.). Therefore, when the Enlightenment came and effectively caused, not one nation, but a hemisphere or a globe to reject the knowledge of God as their epistemological standard, the final product had to be relativism – decisions made by the finite, for the finite ,in the finite. The conclusion of the matter? We are well and truly on the “Slippery Slope”.

The consequence of this is that we must understand that any perversion is possible. In rejecting God, we have left the door unlocked and slightly ajar. We can blame the Homosexual Lobby for the current dilemma, but that would be a mistake. Just as it would be foolish to blame them if polygamists were to be encouraged by any gains they make. Again, understand well, the door was ajar! When the Homosexual Lobby came knocking on the door labelled “Equal Marriage”, they did not force it; they did not jimmy the locks. Not at all. The energy of each knock imparted, opened the door wider until there was no impediment. It would not have mattered what perversion arrived at the door or what “barrow” they were pushing. Once that “barrow” impacted the door, it would have swung open. The rejection of God unlocked and set this door ajar a long time ago.

Who is to blame for this mess? The Enlightenment? The homosexuals? The polygamists? Well, essentially the Church is, for she has abandoned Her call to be herald, watchman, teacher, and preserver. We have arrived at this point precisely because the Church failed to proclaim the One Word (Jesus) as the rule of the One God over this earth and that in its (His) fullness. Therefore, it is futile to play the blame game, in terms of worldly agendas, and it is futile to speculate concerning what perversions may walk through this open door. Our only valid response at this point is to ask, ‘How do we stop this cursed slide?’ For the tradesmen among us, the question would be, ‘How do we seal the doorway and reattach the locks?’ It is in answering these questions alone that we can find the right remedy.

As the Church has left the door ajar by Her failure, so it is encumbered upon the Church to remedy the situation. That remedy calls for the Church Herself to abandon relativism and to return to the prophetic utterances given Her. The Church must cease with the uncertain sounds of compromise; with the platitudes that desire peace at any cost; with the voice that whispers because She has no confidence in the content of Her speech; with the anti-covenantal view that says that She can be happy and prosperous while living in open rebellion to Her Lord, Jesus! This She must abandon for the clear, confident, and uncompromised proclamation, “Thus says the Lord God!”

This alone “places the wood in the hole” and locks it tightly. This alone will secure the door against whatever perversions may come a knocking. This alone will lead us back to the place of covenantal blessing in which the gracious mercy of our God will establish for us peace and security from without and within (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). This alone will seal the door and lead our nation from death to life.

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 1): Homosexuality to Polygamy

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Due to the work of Peter Stokes and his merry band at Saltshakers, I became aware of a debate that is beginning regarding the “Slippery Slope!” As most are aware, Australia is in the throes of debating the issue and legitimacy of homosexual marriage. This has led some, in particular the social commentator Andrew Bolt, to question where we may end up if homosexual marriage is passed into law. Once we step upon the Slippery Slope, what will be our terminus? Typically, those who disagree with the rightly concerned come forth with the classic, hackneyed drivel and proceed to label their opponents as “scaremongers”, “panic merchants”, “the ill-informed”, and a number of less flattering terms. As I was well ‘edumacated’ in playground politics, I know that sticks and stones may do a little damage, but names are of no consequence. In point of fact, life has taught me that when your opponent must resort to name-calling, he no longer has anything legitimate to say. Thus, we must not be distracted from the question by name-calling and labelling.

Our priority must be to address the concerns raised. Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy? The very real and simple answer to this specific question is: We must wait and see! The more categorical answer is: Be absolutely convinced that this change of legislation will open the door further, if not remove and discard it altogether, and allow all types of relationships to walk through! That is an absolute given. The only question is, “In what guise shall they be?”

I would like to discuss this topic and prove the point by looking at the whole concept of the Slippery Slope under three headings; Rednecks, Marriage, and Relativism.

1. Rednecks: First, let me note that I do not care for this term. I use it because it has been popularised and invokes an immediate and vivid picture in a person’s mind. Second, I am one. By the world’s standards, I am a misogynist, redneck, homophobic, right-wing, religious fundamentalist. Personally, I prefer the term “Biblical”!

Anyway, we country folk grew up accustomed to having firearms in or around our general vicinity. This was normal. No panic. No big deal. Then as the world progressed, such activities became frowned upon. The governments began to steal legitimate items owned by law abiding citizens. Naturally, some people objected. They made cogent arguments regarding the right to defend themselves and the foolishness of disarming the general populace in case our country found itself at war or being invaded. Naturally, these cogent arguments were met with solid, well–researched replies that went something along the lines of “Na na Na na na; Conspiracy theorist!” When those being robbed pointed out that there was a small Muslim country to our north that was vastly populated and who may, one day, desire to expand their living room, the replies came in the form of scorn and ridicule.

Anyway, the scorn and ridicule continued for quite a while. Today, I do not hear this scorn and ridicule. The vociferous voices have grown strangely quiet. Why is this? What changed? Did people all of a sudden come to understand that firearm ownership was legitimate? Did the government realise that it had overstepped the bounds of its legitimate power? No, nothing so heartening. What happened? Listen closely and I shall tell you a tale. ‘In the year of our Lord, 2001, Osama gave up on using a gun; for a more sinister plan in his head had begun. Fly planes in to Towers, ‘Yes! That is a plan!’ Planes into towers, reducing them to rubble, to dust, and to sand! When the dust and the smoke had settled that day, three thousand souls had been taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2002, the terrorists Paddy’s bar in Bali they blew; Killing bystanders, tourists, and folk, who had gathered for naught but a drink and a joke. In this much smaller and lesser display, still two hundred souls were taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2005, other acts of terror for which they did strive; this time in London and Bali once more, people did see the blood and the gore. Suicide bombers had mounted attacks from which sixty odd souls would never come back! Here in Australia the grief you could see, for all of these events impacted on We.’

What changed? People received what we colloquially call a reality check!” In this instance, the term “reality check” may be a misnomer. For, in essence, nothing concerning reality had changed. People had simply been woken up to the potential that had been present all along. Scorn and ridicule ceased because we were made to see that we were vulnerable. The Enlightenment view of man as the noble savage and the modern view of man as polite and always seeking his neighbour’s welfare were shattered in an instant.

Lesson One: You must look not at what was or is, but at what may be! It is to look not at reality as we know it, but at potentiality.

2. Marriage: The lesson of potentiality is clearly seen when we take marriage as an example. Marriage is given and designed by God and it is to be between a man and a woman. When we look at marriage over the last century, what we see is the Slippery Slope in operation. Slowly, but surely, marriage was redefined. Its absolute nature as God framed it was eroded and this happened in many forms. The first was the removal of God as the definer of man and marriage. I wrote recently to my local Federal Member on the issue of homosexual marriage. Her response was confusing, but enlightening. She started by saying how proud she was of the many homosexual causes that she had supported. Then came the back-flip and the statement that she did not support homosexual marriage, because marriage was traditionally between a man and a woman. What tradition? Where is the cosmic law of “traditions” written down? It is traditional only in so far as it was authored by God, designed into man, and, therefore, innately drives man in that direction. This alone explains why cultures all over the globe honour marriage.

Once the absolute had gone and marriage became a “human” tradition, the brakes were released and the slide began. Past and present did not matter. The key was potential. Having begun the slide, ‘What would be the terminus?’ Thus, divorce was modified. As marriage was no longer based upon God’s word, so the grounds for divorce also shifted from those stated in His Word to those accepted in the traditions of men. We were also introduced to “de facto” relationships. Just as society wanted “fast food” and food without substance – no sugar, fat, or taste, that is, food without consequence – so we were given mass produced marriage without substance or consequence. Last came the rewriting of vows, not based in the Covenant Law of God, strong and binding, but based in the emotions of men; weak, insipid, and transient. We no longer pledge to love for life; we pledge to hang around while we experience an emotion called ‘love’ – whatever that may be? (A change from what “I can give” to what “I can get!)

Lesson Two: We must understand history. When our forefathers changed the definition of marriage, did they believe it would ever lead to homosexual marriage? We would be fools to believe that this issue of homosexual marriage is the first to ever threaten the Biblical definition. It is not. Each of the things mentioned above laid another stepping stone in the path that brought us to this point. Homosexual marriage, if approved, will simply be one more stone leading further from God and broadening the acceptance of things once thought impossible.

3. Relativism: As we know, we live in a Postmodern word. A world without truth. A world where all is relative and there are no absolutes. Did this state of affairs simply materialise from nowhere? Not at all. There were a string of events. The Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Modernity. Stated differently, “Kill God!”, “Think without Revelation!”, and “Oops, is anybody there?” All of these regressions made our society susceptible to disease, just like a weakened immune system in a body. In the context of marriage and the Slippery Slope, let us look at one example: “The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian law. This means that a court does not consider why the marriage ended. The only ground for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is, that there is no reasonable likelihood that you will get back together.” Do you see the shift? God’s word outlines fault. God demands justice even in marriage. However, the Family Law Court has a no-fault policy. A law court without justice!!?? There are no innocent parties, declared so at the bar of justice, free to marry again unmarred and unsullied. No, there are just casualties – people whose social contracts failed. The adulterer is free. There are no consequences for the wandering party. It is like a morning after pill for marriage!

Conclusion: If homosexual marriage is approved, it will certainly make polygamy more likely. However, understand well, that polygamy may well be on the cards even if homosexual marriage is rejected. The point is this: By rejecting God’s standards, we have already put in place the mechanisms to utterly destroy the concept of marriage we have all known Biblically or traditionally. The door is open. Anything is now possible. The “potentiality” for this began with the rejection of God as Supreme Law Giver!

Reformers Reforming: Post Tenebras Lux

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Most are familiar with the Reformation and the cry, post tenebras lux – after darkness, light! This cry, issued by the Reformers, illustrated the very heart of and need for reform within the Church. Darkness had enveloped the world and it was necessary for the Light to shine. What was this darkness? It had to do with the fact that the True Light, coming into the world (John 1:9), had been placed under a basket. Little flashes of light were seen from time to time, sneaking through the weave, but for the most part, the light was contained.

This state arose because the Church, appointed by Jesus Christ to proclaim His Law-Word to the ends of the earth, and therefore to shine the light to its greatest degree, abandoned the idea of service to Christ for an attitude of self-service. In short, the Church began to serve its own purposes, desires, and inclinations. The message of the Gospel was forgotten. The proclamation of Jesus as the only means of reconciliation to God, with all its attendant good for the world, was replaced by a proclamation of Rome and Her own importance.

Instead of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and the fullness of His being as the very revelation of God – a revelation that brought truth, purpose, meaning, freedom, reconciliation, and light to those who dwelt in darkness – Rome brought error, hopelessness, confusion, slavery, discord – especially between man and God – and the light was shut up. So darkness fell! As darkness fell, ignorance grew. Men were as far from God as ever. Sadly, the institution appointed to bear light, chose darkness instead.

Into this situation, by God’s merciful hand of providence, came a long line of Reformers. They had a motto: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God”) The Reformers understood that true light could only be attained by a faithful proclamation of the True Light – Jesus Christ the Righteous Son of God. However, they did not simply stop at proclamation. They went to the source document, the Bible, to see exactly what God had revealed and commanded of men. They were no longer guessing in the dark. They opened God’s eternal word written and therein found God’s eternal Word living. They found the Light of the world and they began to let that Light shine; and this by faithful and obedient proclamation of the whole counsel of God.

Why are these points raised? Why the little history lesson? These questions are best answered by the old saying, “Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.” The argument, here, is that once again the Church is failing in her duty to faithfully proclaim the truth of the Light, Jesus Christ. Once more, we see departures from and a weakening of the Light – the proclamation of the whole counsel of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. We once more see institutions begin to be self-serving, rather than self-sacrificing. We see some sectors of the Church unsure as to where to look for answers. Such a state will only bring in ever increasing amounts of compromise. This compromise will in turn lead to darkness, confusion, and slavery.

When faced with such a situation, we necessarily must ask, ‘What is the best way forward?’ The answer, the sole answer, in this situation is to return to the cry of the Reformation – “The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God!” This creed, if you will, gives us the sure foundation because it encapsulates all the necessary aspects of successful Church life. In contrast to this full creed, the moderns are tempted in one of two ways, both of which bring disaster to the Church and to its function as a faithful proclaimer of the Light.

The first error is seen when the creed is altered to, “the church reformed, reformed according to the Word of God.” The change here is subtle, but it essentially makes the Reformation, a fact of history, the be-all and end-all of Church reform. The problem with this view is that it fails to grasp the idea that the Church is a living organism. In this view, the only reform the Church needed, and which it will receive, has happened and we must cling tenaciously to every word uttered some 500 years ago, as though that is the last word. This view, however, misses the clear fact that, by its very nature, the Church must grow and mature. It must turn from a seed to a giant tree, which, in this case, fills the whole world. None of us would be satisfied if we reached puberty and stopped developing. The horticulturists amongst us would not be satisfied with a yard full of immature plants. Imagine a summer without the ripe fruits because all the trees had budded, but no bud had matured. Similarly, the Church is alive and it is growing. Consequently, it must change. It must pass through different stages of growth.

The second error is seen when the creed is altered to, “The church, always reforming!” Here, we clearly encounter the desire for change, but note that the standard of change has been omitted. God’s word no longer holds the place as the sole director of the Church’s life. Rather, we are influenced by men, vain philosophies, and dare it be said, carnal desires. It seems that this is the particular situation that plagues the Church of today.

In such circumstances, we encounter a flurry of activity. People, left, right, and centre, are running a programme for this and a programme for that. There is always one new, sure–fire, guaranteed way to fill the Church or to have a greater impact upon society—that is, until it is discarded for the next sure-fire, guaranteed way and so on! The problem at this point is singular. We have omitted from our creed the one objective standard that would give sure guidance and which would allow the Light to shine. That objective standard is God’s word, the Bible. It is not a coincidence that, in the post-modern world, the Church’s rejection of Scripture as its sole authority has led to a post-modern infiltration into the Church in which ‘men do what is right in their own eyes’.

Examples of this modern approach abound, here are two, taken from two different mission organisations: “To that end, people are given the freedom to experiment with new ideas and implement creative methods and even if they fail, they can try again. … We encourage men and women to use whatever means will be effective in communicating the gospel. Creative ideas, innovative strategies and unique concepts are being employed….” “We do not encourage the espousing of doctrinal emphases that could and would divide us and distract us away from our objectives.”

Please note the absolute lack of reliance upon God’s word. Rather, we see that men are to “experiment” and realise “creative methods.” Why? Is it the case that if they happen upon the exact method of success they will patent it, bottle it, and ship it to every Church? It would seem not. Sadly, all this creativity is couched in words that expect failure! Interesting. Does God in His word expect failure? Is God at present sitting in the heavens bewildered and distraught that He cannot make things work according to His purposes and plans? Methinks not (Isaiah 46:8-11)! The modern Church is filled with those whose activities are not governed “according to the word of God.” Consequently, they are trying to reinvent the “theological wheel”. They experiment and become creative in a vain hope, rather than taking instruction from the only wise God (Romans 16:27).

Then we view the second quotation. Heaven forbid that doctrine should get in the way of men’s ideas. Well, no! May God forbid that men’s ideas should get in the way of true doctrine! The believers in the early Church had “all things in common. (Acts 2:43)” This included doctrine. They all believed the same thing in regard to Jesus Christ, His person, work, and purpose. Why is it today that we want to avoid doctrine and that we are certain that Biblical doctrine will divide rather than unite? Could it be that we prefer the subjective autonomy provided to us by a post-modern world where truth is unknowable and where we can rule our lives according to our own standards, rather than by God’s standard?

Here is a plea for a vibrant, healthy, maturing, Church, in which the redeemed constantly and consistently “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light!” (1 Peter 2:9) It is a plea to be consistent with the Reformational creed. Let us realise and glory in the fact that the Church is a living entity and that it is encumbered upon Her to meet each new challenge in every subsequent age. It must be said – lightening rods on standby – that Luther, Calvin, and co, did not have everything nailed down. However, let us also understand that the Church’s obligation in these challenges is not to rely on man’s inventiveness or creativity. It is, rather, to declare, “Thus says the Lord God!”

The path to a living, maturing, vibrant church, that truly impacts the world and glorifies God, is to be found in humble, covenantal obedience to the Biblical standards revealed in Jesus Christ and attested by the Holy Spirit. It is found in believing and applying God’s revealed objective standard, the Bible, and not in man’s subjective invention.

PostTenebrasLux

The Dominion of Jesus Christ is Light: The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn! Proverbs 4:18

Monthly Archives: November 2012

Of Purity and Leaven

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 4): Cultural Catastrophe

Of Kiddie Fiddlers, the Church, and the State

The War was not Won – The Battle Still Rages!!

The Slippery Slope (Pt.3): Revelation or Relativism

The Essence of War: Part 2

The Essence of War: Part 1

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 2): The Door was Ajar

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 1): Homosexuality to Polygamy

Reformers Reforming: Post Tenebras Lux