The Fallacy of Absolute Free Speech

Posted on June 4, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

You would have to be living under a log in the forest or in some remote backwater of the world to not know anything about the current conversations concerning free speech. This issue has gained momentum with the Tech Giants releasing their hounds of “fact checking” upon people’s posts. This fact checking is seen as censorship; censorship is viewed as wrong; the antidote promulgated is free speech – the inalienable right of every human to express their opinion without repercussion.

What do we make of such conversations, particularly from a Christian perspective?

This question is relevant. I have had debates on Social Media over this topic. Other Christians I have listened to hint at the fact that the absolutist position on free speech is necessary for the Church to be able to evangelise. Along with this, the question of censorship is raised and it is always viewed negatively.

So, what should be the Christian’s view on this free speech phenomenon?

Well, it is my contention that we should have no part of it. It is an evil to be shunned. It is anti-God. It is unBiblical. It destroys, it does not build. It is one more of those wolves in sheep’s clothing that will lead to the gates of Hell and not to the arms of God.

To say such things, I will immediately be labelled as the right-wing, fascist, red-neck. After all, such a position runs counter to the impetus of the modern-day culture and to those providing the catalyst for that movement. Herein, though, should be our first hint that something is wrong. Labelling language is universally condemned, is it not? One cannot pigeon-hole another. That is a supposed absolute of modern debates. Well, yes, maybe – unless, of course, you dare expose the erroneous aspects of the philosophy and actions of those pushing the current bandwagons-of-change. At that point, there is no amnesty, rather pigeon-holing, defamation, and a no-holds-barred approach are demanded. As stated, this should be our first hint that something is wrong. When those doing the demanding cannot and will not live by their own mantras, alarm bells should ring.

The real challenge is where to begin in critiquing this error. It has become so pervasive that no one questions the legitimacy of the statements anymore. Thus, as a Christian, I find once more that the only place to start is with God and the attributes of His being.

In the beginning, God spoke. In speaking, God created the world. In creating the world, God imposed His order upon that world. For the good order of its inhabitants, God revealed His Law and his standards so that Man could and would live in fellowship with God and each other. Man rebelled against God, which brought about a state of war. On one side, God and is people. On the other side, Satan and his people.

At this point, two divergent views come to the fore. Those standing with God, proclaim what God has revealed. These proclamations touch every area of life, but they always begin with God’s absolute sovereignty and His inalienable right as Creator to be Lord of His creation. The others, following Satan, have two primary lines of thought. The first, is a subtle suggestion, as Satan did in the Garden, “Did God really say?” and thereby questions not only God’s right to speak and reveal, but the very veracity of these actions. The second line amounts to much the same thing, but this is the ramped-up-on-steroids version. Here, the reality of God is vehemently denied and, therefore, those who speak on God’s behalf are ostracised as “loons”, “myth hunters”, “remnants of a bygone era” or, as we see at present, ‘those who are so dangerous that they must be silenced’—yes, all in a climate of “free speech” and “tolerance”!

With this said, let us look at the current debate and draws some lines from what we have said above to the things being pronounced in the free speech debate today.

Firstly, and this will seem bizarre to some, we need to look at the conjoined topics of definitions and the authority by which those definitions are made and on which they stand. I have started with some definitions and a basic summary of my worldview. This is the worldview, the interpretive paradigm for looking at and making sense of reality, that God has revealed in Scripture. This is where I stand, and I can do no other. Yet, as my summary shows, there are those who oppose. There are those who question not only God’s right to speak, but His right to exist.

Thus, and this is very important, the Bible states that God alone, as King and Creator, has the right and authority to define, to name, to delineate, to demarcate, to delimit, and to determine, and so forth, as He sees fit. As an example, God determined to make Man in His image. This Man, He did make in his Image. God named him Adam. God defined Man as head of creation and different from the animals. God also made another Man, thus God delineated between male Man and female Man. On brining female Man to male Man, Adam was given the privilege of naming his wife and he named her Eve. He had the right as head to use a derived authority to do so. However, God placed a demarcation on Adam. Adam never was God. He had a derived authority that was rightly his to use, but it was never an absolute authority by which he could challenge God or determine his own norms for living.

No doubt this may seem a bit heavy to some, but the salient points are these: A. Words have meanings and definitions – despite the airy-fairy world of the nondescript being forced upon us – and that for any conversation, act of speech, to happen, clear definitions must be present; B. Acts of speech require a degree or an element of authority for them to be credible. This authority can be innate or derived, but it must be present.

If we look at the current statements regarding free speech, we will see that, for the most part, there is a lack of specific definition and there is a lack of genuine authority. For example, when someone flies the free speech flag today, are they arguing for a person’s right to speak or to say or both? This is a vital question. To speak, looks at a person’s right to engage their mouth. To say, focuses upon the content flowing from the mouth.

Let us look at a real-life example of the conundrums. To do this, I would like to look at a small portion of a video posted on Facebook by Marcus Somerville 05/03/21. Marcus is the moderator of the Paul Murray Supporters Group, which, I will clarify as Marcus does, has nothing to do with Paul Murray the television presenter.

On the above date, Marcus posted a video in response to some clamour on the site. In that video, he gave a brief outline as to the purpose of the group.[1] He noted that PMSG concerned itself as a “Conservative Movement” with “Conservative Concepts”. It was a platform for Conservatives / Libertarians / Patriots who want to get together and have free speech.” He went on to outline his concerns that some were “being attacked for sharing their views.” He then stated that, “I am a free speech absolutist. I believe in everyone’s right to speak their minds without fear or favour.” He added, “You might think they’re and idiot. You may think they’re a moron—maybe they are!—but that does not give you the right to silence them.” At this point, the discussion turned to laud the internet as the ‘best idea for destroying bad ideas’ because all the relevant information for decision making was out there on the Net.

The first thing to note is the declaration. On what basis is one a ‘free speech absolutist’. The above text gives a definition, but the aspect of authority is never addressed, it is merely assumed. It is at this point that we encounter the first deviation from the Christian worldview outlined above. God is no longer the one true source of authority, no, this now belongs to fallen, autonomous Man for he has stolen the King’s crown or so he thinks. Autonomous man, as an individual, now has the self-appointed right to make any proclamations he so wishes, on any topic he wishes, for whatever purpose he so wishes, and any such proclamations are non-contradictable.

Second, ‘everyone has the right to speak their minds – now addressing content – without fear or favour.’ This content, too, is above contradiction and judgement, even above mere assessment! Again, this attacks the Christian worldview. God defines. That is His right and His alone. God defines truth, for God is Truth. God defines ethics and seeks from Man a moral life; one judged to be so by God’s Law. Is it then acceptable that a person can speak falsely without being held to account? If this speaking without consequence is indeed correct, how then do we have defamation cases, as just one example?

Thirdly, one of my favourites – which has been raised several times – “You might think they’re an idiot / moron; maybe they are!” Please grasp this point. Here, one posits, straight faced and without a single guffaw, that not only perceived idiots and morons, but actual, bona fide idiots and morons, have the right to hold the public’s ear without any consequence. Seriously? Unless I have utterly lost the plot, the terms idiot and moron are pejoratives, speaking of those whose ideas may not necessarily be in the public’s interest, yet we will let them speak!

It is at this point that we must see the utter nonsense of this unfettered free speech bandwagon. We have, here, a relatively smart man espousing the fact that idiots have the right to be heard in the public square. However, he is not alone. Arguments of a similar vein have come forth from other social commentators and it beggars belief!

The irony here is that we have people in the public square complaining about the happenings in society and how certain forces seem to be at work for the deconstruction of our society and our way of life; yet these same people are defending the rights of idiots and morons to be heard, read ‘sow their destructive ideologies.’ If this were all, it would be beyond the pale, but … these people then engage on social media sites with the idiots and take part, not in edifying conversation, but slanging matches. You see, in this scheme there is no truth, there is not an arbiter of truth, the whole argument is about Humanism – the right of one man to espouse whatsoever he will. In this system, words, speech, conversation, edification, enlightenment, truth, justice, education and more, give way to an argument that is really about nothing more than someone’s right to exercise their pterygoid and digastric muscles. Content and definition are gone. Authority means nothing. It is, therefore, when all is said and done, the simple right of the individual to flap his or her gums for which we are arguing.

This point must be understood. When this current argument is couched in these terms, it is nothing less than a pernicious evil that will lead to destruction. How so? Well, the best answer that can be given comes in the form of a question: Is all speech truth, edifying, wise, and correct? In other words, looking at our world and all the hurt, mayhem, and disfunction that is present, we must ask, ‘What role has evil speech played in bringing about these current circumstances?”

At this point, we are back to worldviews. Having denied absolute truth in our culture we have begun spreading poison under the guise of free speech. This poison seems liberating to many because it ostensibly empowers them to raise their voice and be heard in the big, wide world. Yet, this often leads to more poison being spread, and before too long, that big, wide world outside begins to wither and die.

Think here, for analogous purposes only, of how Hitler made the nation feel important by putting people into a uniform. As a more relevant example, we may think of the French Revolution and how the term “Citizen” was used to bring about a similar feeling of importance.[2] In the same way, Social Media has made people feel important. People feel that their voice can be heard and is heard and from that fact alone they derive some sense of worth; but it is all smoke and mirrors. To exercise one’s pterygoid and digastric muscles does not give a person worth; it does not legitimise their position; it does not give them a true standing of importance; it does not give them respect; and it most certainly does not give them meaning.

As stated, the oxymoronic status that is evidenced in this free speech debate is bewildering. People are arguing for everyone’s right to say what they want, then scrambling about in a vain attempt to undo the mess caused by those very words. The absurdity can be seen in this illustration: Society allows a certain proportion of the populace to light fires on hot, wind days, precisely so that the rest of society can run around attempting to put out the spot fires before they become uncontrollable and burn down everything that those people hold dear.

This is the sad reality that must eventuate when absolutes are denied and rejected. Instead of unity, we have disunity. Instead of building, we tear down. Instead of safety, we expose to danger. Instead of understanding, we have confusion. Instead of peace, we have chaos. Instead of life, we become lovers of death. Instead of prosperity, we have want. Instead of friendship, we have hatred—and a house divided can never stand.

If you are confused by my point, ask yourself these questions: What does it mean to tell a lie? What does it mean to deceive? What does it mean to defame someone? What does it mean if something or someone is false? How does one commit perjury? What does it mean to prevaricate? What is mendacity? Maybe, we need to make the language more colloquial. What is a Porky, a Whooper, a Fib? What is implied when one ‘fudges the facts’, gives someone a ‘bum steer’ or ‘yanks someone’s chain’?

All these terms, well most, are used by our society on a regular basis and they have to do with a blatant untruth or the manipulating of truth. Let me now ask, “How many of you take joy from being deceived or being on the receiving end of a lie?” Scene. Mother ringing father while dad is at work. “Oh darling, please pick up a new toy for Johnny on your way home. I caught him telling his first lie today. Isn’t it wonderful! I know, I should have waited till you got home, but I just could not contain my excitement.” Yeah, right! So not happening. Yet, in this fool’s paradise of Modernism, we deny truth so that people can lie to us and deceive us.

Back to worldviews. This country was never truly a Christian country, but there is no doubt that this country was founded upon certain Christian principles. Those principle gave us meaning, purpose, and cohesion. Prime among those beliefs were the existence of the God of the Bible, truth, justice, and punishment. If you do not like these terms, substitute right and wrong. We knew that there was truth. We knew that there were errors, lies, and falsehoods. We knew that avoiding lies and deceit were good things. We knew that telling the truth, despite some consequences, was always the right and noble thing to do.

Fast forward. We have now jettisoned God. Absolutes do not exist. There is no definition of right or wrong, good or evil, apart from what the State tells you—but that is another article! In fact, you cannot even use the terms “good” and “evil” anymore, because that might impinge upon someone’s individual choices, robbing them of personal peace, and making that one feel poorly about their choice. In this environment, we are back to ‘gum flapping’ for gum flapping’s sake. Words and content do not matter. The consequence of those words is downplayed. All that matters now is that we, too, get our ten seconds of fame by being able to respond on Social Media with derogatory terms, diatribe, and vitriol. There are no cogent arguments, precisely because truth and knowledge have been murdered.

In contrast to this “Land of Confusion”, as Phil Collins put it, we have the Biblical statements. It may surprise some Christians, and non-Christians alike, to realise just how much the Bible has to say about speech and especially the tongue.

Let us start with the Ten Commandments. Most Christians will hold to the fact that these Commandments are still binding upon men. Others, who have only a tacit allegiance to Christianity, will also recognise some authority here. Would it surprise you then to realise that two of these Commandments deal with speech?

Commandment 3: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.^[3]

Commandment 9: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.^[4]

Both these Commandments are in fact saying much the same thing. The main difference is in the object of the command – Commandment three focuses on God; Commandment nine on man. Both are saying that empty and vain speech, derogatory speech, defamatory speech, and outright lies are evils that are condemned. Now, please understand this point. Many think that to take God’s name in vain is simply to use His name when one, say, hits their thumb with a hammer or when Jesus is invoked in a moment of rage. However, this is an overly simplistic approach to the matter at hand. Vain speech and blasphemy may include those aspects, but they reach farther and deeper. These terms really mean to speak lies about or concerning the being that is the object of your speech. Thus, to misrepresent God or man on any matter means that you have breached these laws. The bearing of “false witness” also carries with it the connotation of deliberately trying to sabotage a person’s life or property by deceit.

If you are reading this as a Christian who believes the Ten Commandments, can you really subscribe to an absolutist position on free speech? If God has said that you do not speak lies regarding His nature and being or that of your fellow man, how then would you justify a position on free speech that not only allows false witness, but encourages it?

Let us now consider some wisdom from the Book of Proverbs:

A worthless person, a wicked man, is the one who walks with a false mouth.^[5]

Put away from you a deceitful mouth and put devious lips far from you.^[6]

For the lips of an adulteress drip honey and smoother than oil is her speech.^[7]

The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.^[8]

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal faithfully are His delight.^[9]

There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.^[10]

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the mouth of fools spouts folly.^[11]

One from Ecclesiastes:

Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly, and the end of it is wicked madness. Yet the fool multiplies words. No man knows what will happen, and who can tell him what will come after him?^[12]

One from the Prophet Isaiah:

For a fool speaks nonsense, and his heart inclines toward wickedness, to practice ungodliness and to speak error against the Lord, to keep the hungry person unsatisfied and to withhold drink from the thirsty. As for a rogue, his weapons are evil; he devises wicked schemes to destroy the afflicted with slander, even though the needy one speaks what is right.^[13]

When these texts are analysed, it can be clearly seen that Scripture draws a clear line of demarcation, one which touches not only the speech, but the speaker. There are the wicked, the fool, the rogue, and the adulteress. Together they speak smooth words that are folly, madness, wickedness, deceitful, and devious.

Again, the challenge is put forth. If you believe yourself to be a Christian who reverences the Bible as truth, how do you reconcile these truths with the idea that anyone can grab a microphone and enter the public square? Even if you are not a Christian, there must be a tacit acknowledgement of the Scripture’s truth on these points, namely that there are those who speak both foolishly and foolishness. In which case, the question still stands: “Do you want foolish people filling the airwaves?” Even in the quote from PMSG there is reference to morons and idiots. Do we want such ones giving counsel to the naïve in the public square or anywhere for that matter?

Recognising that there are some within the sphere of Christianity who think more highly of the New Testament, let us look there, too, for guidance:

And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.^[14]

But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.^[15]

Let no unwholesome (rotten, worthless) word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear.^[16]

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment. … So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. Behold, how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.^[17]

With this survey complete, we are able to see that the Bible speaks with one accord – there is such a thing as evil, worthless, and destructive speech and we are warned, nay, commanded to have nothing to do with it.

Of interest is James’ warning that not many should become teachers. Granted, this is, in the first instance, spoken to the Church, but it has wider application. The teacher as the speaker is warned not to be one who spreads untruths. To inculcate a generation with errant words and ideas is extremely dangerous – it is the spark that starts a bushfire. Combine this with Jesus’ words and we have two warnings about being held to account for careless words and for teaching with worthless words. I will leave you to make application to the idea of free speech as it is peddled today.

Before concluding, something needs to be said concerning the topic of Censorship.

With the absolutist free speech position being pushed in our society, it has become equally important to slam the idea of censorship. Censorship is an evil. Censorship is the immediate enemy of free speech. No society can be truly free, if censorship is in play; and to make the point, countries like China are highlighted.

So, let us navigate our way gently through this sensitive topic. These combined topics must be one of the biggest loads of bull fibs ever dumped on our society. They are nothing less than an extravagant lie, dressed in fancy garb, so as to fool the onlooker. As with most of these issues, the populace is caught in the emotion of the moment and never takes pause to ask questions or to break the idea down to it base concepts.

Let me ask you this: Is it an absolute evil to guard something that is precious? Should, say, a Dutch Master be hung on a lamp post in the rain so that the clamouring hordes of one age might catch a glimpse before it is irreparably damaged or should it be hung in a guarded space so that generations might gaze upon and appreciate the vista?

The more relevant question, “Have you ever drawn a line of demarcation, physically or verbally, in order to protect the vulnerable?”

The point here is very, very simple. Censorship, in its etymology, really denotes the quality of assessing the worth of something and making a decision as to whether it promotes good or not. It does not mean, as so many take it to mean, oppression. As a parent, did you allow your children to drink roundup, down a bottle of aspirin, or attempt to cure their constipation with a good-sized helping of draino? Methinks not. In such situations, you used your knowledge to make the wise choice and, in essence, became a censor to you child. Did you let your child play with fire, hot stoves, or poisonous reptiles? Same answer. Every time you interjected your will and knowledge into such situations, you were acting as a censor. You were guilty of the high crime of censorship or so the moderns would have you believe. What you actually did was protect and enrich both your life and the life of your child. You turned the young and naïve away from harm, pain, suffering, and, yes, even death. Not such a bad thing, methinks!

At this point, we are back to that clash of worldviews. Since the Sixties, Humanism has been on the rise. This is the idea that God is dead or, if He is not dead, He created a closed system and has no personal interaction with His creation. On this basis, Man and his reason become god; these standards become the measure of all things. In this view, Man is unaffected in any way by sin or any concept approximating sin. Man is mature. Therefore, he is able to make correct choices in the moral realm. He can function in an unbiased way. He does not require, in anyway, an external source to guide or guard.[18]

The end of this philosophy is the rampant and indulgent individualism that we see around us today. It culminates in the demand for ultimate freedom for the individual. Society falls from view. Each man becomes king over his little kingdom, the individual life. Concomitant are demands for individual expression; the supremacy of personal choice; ironically, the demand for society to recognise, uphold, and abide by my personal choice[19]; the death of truth as individual opinion must now hold sway; the denial of censorship as the opining individual can never be wrong; and the list could continue.

Over and against this chaotic and anarchistic worldview, we have the Biblical worldview outlined above. God’s worldview says that there are evil speeches and there are naïve people, the combination of which can, and often does, end in disaster. Therefore, I am to be my brother’s keeper. I will not speak evil in his presence nor allow him to hear evil. That is my duty before God as a godly censor. This is not oppression. It is not infantile. It is not treating my brother as a child. It is keeping him safe in a world where there are dangers and pitfalls, many of which he may not be aware. Equally, putting any hint of arrogance to bed, he does exactly the same for me!

We have mentioned worldviews throughout, precisely because they are the nub of the matter. If you listen to the Devil, you will deny God, absolutes, and the idea of man as deficient in any way. Putting this worldview to the test, particularly if you have walked this earth for more than a couple of decades, ask yourself the simple question: “Is life better now”? An honest appraisal must answer, No! Has the Social Media phenomenon of everybody shouting into a microphone brought us to utopia or the edge of the dystopian zombie apocalypse? Is our society or country unified, expectant, prosperous or are we rent, downcast, bankrupt – and I do not just mean fiscally.

We once had a way of life, given to us by God, in which we recognised the dangers and pitfalls that are extant in the world. We were willing to build little fences in order to keep people safe. We did not want people to suffer, as per our analogies above, so we built those little fences; we shepherded, guarded, guided, and we worked hard to keep people from danger – yes, even the dangerous ideas. We did this because God revealed His truth to us in Jesus Christ. We learned to be servants, one of the other, and we benefitted in kind—I cannot be happy if my brother suffers. We learned from the Bible sayings like: Do unto others as you would have done to you.

This is Biblical censorship. It is a censorship that recognises good and evil. It seeks to honour God and protect man. However, we need to recognise another totalitarian type of censorship, one that is prevalent today, but which is largely unrecognised. This censorship, which we shall label ‘suppression’ has no aim other than to silence. It is not interested in debate. It is not interested in truth. It is not interested in absolutes. No, this suppression creates silence amidst the clamouring hordes. “Hang on” you say. “How can there be silence and clamouring hordes?” Good question. First, the clamouring hordes are encouraged, e.g., ten seconds of fame on Facetube or Twittergram. Everyone becomes used to having a voice, but, subtly, certain messages are given more volume, so as to persuade the naïve and garner support. Then comes the silencing. Those not “getting with the programme” are turned down until they are turned off.

We noted at the outset the silencing by the Tech Giants. It has recently been revealed that one such company has a policy to deny the reality of your situation based on the promotion of its ideals. A simple illustration. You take a photo of your fleet of fishing boats. This company thinks fishing is environmentally questionable, so your photo is put in the rubbish bin. Maybe, you just have a fleet of ships, but this company’s ideal is air travel. Your photo is shredded. Your reality does not gel with their ideals, so you are silenced. Another example was the suspending of an account belonging to someone who did some research on voter fraud during the last US election. This person simply sent individuals to photograph the addresses of people who had voted. Many were vacant lots. For putting this information in the public domain, the account was suspended. This is tyranny and silencing. It is not true censorship.

Yet, these Tech Giants are not the only ones guilty of this. Our Governments are becoming more and more tyrannical with their use of suppression. In what is truly a cruel irony, we have people and governments extolling the virtues of free speech, yet at the same time demanding or implementing wide ranging measures for the suppression of speech.

As an unhappy Victorian, let me give some examples from my home State. The Andrew’s government introduced laws on religious vilification, supposedly assuring that I could never be vilified for believing what I do. It then introduced certain things on homosexuality, which run counter to my Christian belief. Now, we have certain conversion laws that make it illegal for me to explain my beliefs on certain topics, even if I am asked by someone for such an explanation. Suppression to silence![20]

This oxymoronic state exists precisely because God is denied. If there are no absolutes, then there can only be the arbitrary. If the arbitrary holds sway, then so does rampant individualism and fickle governmental policy – until the two collide. When this is the status quo, anarchy must be the outcome. When anarchy is present, society, however that is to be understood, will only be ordered by forceful, tyrannical suppression. In short, some man or government will play god; they will appoint themselves as the determiner of truth, right and wrong, good and evil – all the while denying these very points.

Before concluding, just a few words on Marcus’ statement that the internet is a great place for exposing lies. Again, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Once again, the presupposition of such a statement seems to be that men are willing to think critically about any given issue. This has not been my experience at all. Most people do not think deeply. As we have noted above, we do have the naïve in our society and these do not always show a propensity toward deeper learning. Moreover, the internet is full of lies and deceit. Take as an example two recent instances. One post was in regard to a speech given by Bill Gates to a class of 6^th graders or some such. It may have some good points, but the common consensus is that Bill Gates never gave such a speech. Another recent example is of a quote by Cicero. This quote speaks against the enemy within and points out the dangers of the traitor. It is very apt for our day and makes a sound point. However, research suggests that it came from a fictional novel (A Pillar of Iron) based around Cicero and was written by Taylor Caldwell.

These are just everyday examples of the cut and paste methodology that so many people use today. Scan the Net. See something you like. Cut, paste, post, without ever stopping to see whether it is in fact true. Of course, if Bill Gates or Cicero said it, it must be true! Equally, no one is going to plagiarise and then falsify by adding someone else’s name, just to gain more traction, are they? I mean, the Net is above such things. It is a bastion of truth. Just like Leonard said so sarcastically to Penny, “Right, it’s not like they let anyone have a website!”

As a Christian, I can equally point to many web entries on Christian history and doctrine that do not represent the historic, orthodox position of Christianity.

No, the Net is not a bastion of truth and integrity. Just like every other tool man has created, it will be used according to one’s worldview and the ethics determined thereby. It will serve God or it will oppose God. It will speak truth or it will lie.

One last word. It is worth noting that Free Speech, like many other things, is a perversion of Christian truth. The Reformation sought to correct many errors that had come to the Church and World. Central to the Reformation was the fact that God’s Word is not only truth, but it is absolute authority. Consequently, the Reformation gave us the concept that one man armed with God’s Word could ably stand against the fifty-one percent.

In short, as we see today, the vote of fifty-one percent in our modern democracies does not always work for the benefit of a nation. Fifty-one percent are not always right. The governments elected by the fifty-one percent do commit evil and they do act foolishly. Consequently, the Reformation posited that one man armed with God’s truth could stand against the fifty-one percent. Indeed, such a man is under an obligation to stand for the truth and, therefore, has the right to speak out—not on his own authority, but on God’s, not with words and concepts of his own making, but with God’s. Authority to speak and God honouring content is the essence of speech that is truly free.

Conclusion:

The modern infatuation with free speech and the opposition to true censorship only serves to prove two things: 1. The enemy has done an exceptional job with its smoke screen; 2. How the mighty have fallen.

Saying that you are a conservative and then saying in the same breath that you are a free speech absolutist just points up the confusion that reigns in our current day. All roads do not lead to Rome, just as all roads do not lead to freedom, peace, and prosperity. The pathway of absolute free speech is a path that will lead only to destruction. If you want proof, turn on your television, look out your front door, or look at the discussions (please read “rant-fests”) on social media.

Absolute free speech is a pernicious evil and it is time that we were awakened to that fact.

The Lord Almighty warned Man to be vigilant at all levels of society, “lest there shall be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.”[21] This free speech absolutist position is a poisonous root. The carnage caused by the consumption of its deadly fruit is on display for any with a discerning eye.

Lastly, we would do well to remember that, Biblically speaking, speech is rarely free. In fact, errant speech, in particular, is said to come at a great cost – it can cost reputations, it can cost lives, and, yes, it can cost you a positive eternity.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Now, I wish to be clear here. Although I disagree with Marcus, I have not singled him out for attention because he is worse than others or any such thing. It just so happened that, as this article was bouncing around inside my head and the opportunity to begin writing was presented, this video came into my ken. Equally, when extrapolations are made from these statements, it does not mean that Marcus would subscribe, necessarily, to every option.

[2] In fact, when you listen to the free speech absolutists, you would think that they are reading straight from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In that document, free speech is espoused with very few limitations. Yet, the French Revolution ended in a bloody mess because it was never underpinned by God’s absolutes—but I digress.

^[3] Ex 20:7.

^[4] Ex 20:16.

^[5] Pr 6:12. Literally, with crookedness of mouth. Emphasis added.

^[6] Pr 4:24.

^[7] Pr 5:3.

^[8] Pr 10:32.

^[9] Pr 12:22.

^[10] Pr 6:16–19. One can legitimately infer that the ‘spreading of strife’ may well employ tongue and speech.

^[11] Pr 15:2.

^[12] Ec 10:12–14.

^[13] Is 32:6–7. Note, here, how slander is used as a tool against the one who speaks truth. Have you seen any instances of this during Covid, for example?

^[14] Mt 12:36–37.

^[15] Col 3:8. Interestingly, the Greek term behind the word ‘slander’ is the same word from which we derive our word ‘blasphemy’.

^[16] Eph 4:29.

^[17] Jas 3:1–3:12. Edited.

[18] As an illustration of this point, think of our television ratings system. The Mature rating is at the extreme end. Porn, nudity, gambling, occult, drugs etc etc are allowable under this label. In short, the Mature are the ones who fill their eyes and minds from the toilet bowl of entertainment. Biblically, the Mature would be the one who knows that this is excrement and would turn himself and his neighbour away from this poison.

[19] So, for example, in Australia that means that society would have to uphold and abide by 20 Million plus opinions and somehow work through all the resulting conflicts. You can imagine what a nightmare that would be! No imagination necessary – You are living it in stereo baby!

[20] The true evil in this legislation is that it was premised upon a lie simply to legitimise governmental suppression. Once more, we are back to the topic of speaking evil.

[21] Deuteronomy 29:18.

Infused with PC, Not JC!

Posted on March 23, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

To measure anything correctly, we must have the appropriate instrument and the appropriate standard. As a simple example, a portly gentleman can put his mind at ease by standing beside an obese person, whereas, to stand beside a wiry / thin person would cause the opposite reaction.

The same requirement for an accurate standard of measurement needs to be applied to the Church today. It is easy for individual congregations and denominations to find false measuring rods. We can attach ourselves to some mega-church that has the latest and greatest version of church-growth-philosophy and convince ourselves that such size means that ‘God is truly with us.’ Conversely, we can attach ourselves to some small, struggling congregation and content ourselves that all our problems stem, not from disobedience, but from the fact that we, alone, are that small, faithful remnant always to be persecuted.

Similarly, we can look at the lack of impact that the Church is having, especially in the West, upon our societies and culture. We can blame governmental interference. We can point our fingers at the so-called militant left. We can complain that the local paper will not run our pieces. We might even complain that God has not given us enough young folk to successfully complete our planned leaflet drop. All this, however, is simply illustrative of the fact that the Church has adopted the wrong standard of measurement.

The Church has one singular standard of measurement and that is God.[1] Explained more fully, it is God’s morality revealed in His Law[2] and ultimately in His Son, Jesus Christ.[3] We can distil this just a little more by saying that God’s morality revealed in His Law and in Jesus demarcates that which is pleasing to God and that which is not – life v death, obedience v disobedience; blessable v condemnable; His presence v His absence.

Now, most orthodox Christians reading this are not going to have their heads explode. Indeed, even some at the more Liberal end of the scale, who still acknowledge Scripture, will at least give a little nod. So, what is the problem? Well, the problem, in a nutshell, is the issue of theory versus practice. That which is outlined above is truth and it is the theory on which we should work as the Church. However, in practice, it is not.

The Church’s guilt lies in Her breaking one very pertinent and serious commandment – something which should never be is! – and that commandment is found in both Deuteronomy and Revelation:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.^[4]

Both texts are extremely specific in their warnings, but, sadly, the true fear and reverence for God and His standards are largely missing from the Church; thus omission and substitution become very real options. When we adopt the practice of omission and substitution, rather than submission and obedience, we place ourselves in a very precarious position. We turn from the path of life to one of death. We begin to subtly deny doctrine, which, by its very nature, becomes a subtle denial of God and the attributes of His Being.

In our day, the perceived problem is that the Church is infused with PC and not JC. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father, despite the great personal cost to Himself. Pain, suffering, and alienation were His because He loved His Father and was committed to obedience and the actions required by obedience:

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me;[5]

“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.^[6]

“Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.”^[7]

This meant that Jesus was willing to affirm God’s morality as it is expressed in God’s Law and demonstrated in His own life, no matter what the consequences. Are we as equally committed to this process? No! We have moved from JC to PC. We have allowed our culture, sinful and rebellious, to lay out a charter before the Church in which this evil World demands that its sensitivities, ideals, and agendas be respected, at all costs. Disappointingly, and to the detriment of the Many, the Church has largely laid her signature to this charter.

Here, three experiences will be relayed and the ramifications of each explained:

Preaching Evangelism and only Evangelism:

When it comes to this fist topic, many may ask as to the nature of the problem. Is not evangelism Biblical? Well, yes, it is Biblical, but it is still a problem. Heresy!! “How can something that is Biblical be wrong?!” Very easily. Above we quoted texts that warned about adding to or taking away from Scripture. Well, in the same vein, underemphasising or overemphasising something can be wrong. Grace is a Biblical doctrine, but this writer often speaks of the “heresy of grace” precisely because it is overemphasised to the point where antinomianism and blatant disobedience are excused under the guise of ‘grace’.

Thus, in recent years, there has been a real trend to use almost every sermon as a goad to guilt Christians into the streets to evangelise. All sorts of things are laid out before the Christian to send them on one of these all-expenses-paid guilt trips. Yet, despite decades of emphasis upon evangelism; courses on evangelism; 12 foolproof techniques to evangelism; car-boot sale evangelism; puppet-show evangelism; not to mention the probable millions invested in and spent on evangelism, the Church is not prospering. Numbers dwindle. New converts are rarely seen. Why? Precisely because of the emphasis upon evangelism.[8]

Confused? Do not be so. You see, through various Biblical texts, the Church of older ages came to speak concerning “whole counsel of God”. This is what preachers should be preaching – the whole counsel of God and nothing less. This means that everything God has revealed should be fodder for the preacher. Not so anymore. Through being enamoured with PC and not JC, we have now subscribed to the “hole counsel of God”. The term sounds remarkably similar, but this new version leads to a completely different place.

The “hole counsel” is exactly what it says: It leaves big holes in God’s counsel! These holes are left when the PC fanatics take their scalpels to God’s counsel in the like of a surgeon cutting out cankers. Let us be clear. There are no cankers in the whole counsel of God, yet those infused with PC rather than JC perceive that there are cankers. Consequently, they excise this bit and that bit and then vainly try and make it look more appropriate with some ill-fitting and hastily applied patches, hurriedly sewn into place.

To some, this might just seem like just a piece of wild poetry that may sound pleasing, but which lacks substance. Fair enough. Let us then look at some practical examples.

1. When the Westminster Divines wrote their catechism, their first question was: What is man’s chief and highest end? They answered that it was “to glorify God and fully to enjoy Him forever.” This quote accurately reflects what Scripture teaches. God should be, indeed, must be, First! Yet, what we find in the preachers infused with PC is a subtle shift away from God being first. Their priority becomes sinful man and his desires.

We see this, for example in our worship services. Worship should be God-centred. We come to show the worth of God. Worship, by definition, is, therefore, for those who know God through Christ and wish, as a consequence, to express that worth. Not so, to the PC brigade. We want to welcome rebellious sinners (the unsaved) into our midst. We do not wish to offend them, so we will make some changes to accommodate them in the hope that we do not offend them. In this instant, our gaze is no longer firmly fixed on God and what He says is appropriate for and in worship, but we have turned to the rebel to ask for his opinion. Whether we go any further than this is irrelevant. Our eye is taken off God. We have, in essence, committed idolatry, because we have allowed something else other than the dictates of God to influence or decision making.

2. Following this turning from God to the sinner, it is inevitable that the Church will no longer stay true to the Doctrines that God has declared. When we seek to court the rebel, we will, of necessity, not wish to offend them. After all, they will not stay long in our midst if their conscience, lifestyle, and thought patterns are constantly assailed.

Thus, it all starts with a toning down. We may start with the Doctrine of Sin. The Bible says sin is “lawlessness”.[9] Oh, but we cannot tell the rebel that he is the living equivalent of the despotic bad guy in the old Western. So, we tone it down. Sin is … feelings of self-doubt; feelings of inadequacy; a failure to love oneself appropriately, and so on. Having first toned things down, it then becomes requisite to be vague and nonspecific. Having changed the definition of sin, then we must deal in turn with the doctrines of Hell and Salvation, which both the impinge upon the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ.

Jesus came to save us because of sin – a state of being that places us in opposition to God and thereby unable to ever enjoy His presence because, as a sinner, we now hate everything concerning God. The unsaved go to Hell as punishment for their rebellion. To be saved, one must be washed in the blood of Christ to once more be in a position of desiring and enjoying God’s presence. Hmmm, but we have just made sin a subjective, emotional-come-mental state that has nothing to do with transgressing God’s Law. Which means, God is not really going to send someone to eternal punishment because of self-doubt. What then of Jesus? If sin is redefined, Hell lessened or eradicated, what role does Jesus play. We do not really need a Saviour in that big sense, because … you know, umm, sin is a bad feeling, so now Jesus is nothing more than a cosmic psychologist whose always open?!?

Of equal importance, at this juncture, is the whole question of the applicability of God’s Law. Through the influence of PC, God’s Law has, in the main, been pushed off stage and hidden from sight. Why? Precisely because the ultimate aim of PC is at odds with the aim of JC. Just as in the ‘evolution v Creation’ debate, here too, there is no common ground between PC and JC; yet there are Christians and others that are trying to yoke these concepts together. However, to do so means the eradication of the point of conflict, which, in this instance, is God’s Law.

As we saw above, Jesus came to save the sinner as he is defined Biblically – a transgressor of God’s Law. This means that the sinner must pay the debt for his infraction of the Law. It means that if he cannot, someone else must or the sinner will be justly condemned. Enter Jesus! He alone has the credit, through a life of obedience, to offer Himself in the stead of the debtor. This is restitution or propitiation that is in accord with God’s Law. But wait … There is more!

Interestingly, in the PC universe there is a great emphasis upon evangelism. Yet, as we noted, it is often ineffectual. Why? Precisely because of its meddling with and downplaying of God’s Law. The Law of God defines sin. The Law of God outlines the remedy for sin. So far so good. Yet, what is missing today is the third part: God’s Law is the only thing that shows the rebellious sinner how destitute he is in the sight of God and thereby magnifies Jesus the Christ as the only One through Whom he can have peace with God. Consider these words:

Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.^[10]

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.^[11]

Paul’s version, the version of a man enamoured with JC and not PC, is vastly different to that of the moderns. Paul did not consider God’s Law to be passé, a mere relic of the past that belonged to some angry, lightning-bolt throwing god. No, Paul understood it to be essential to his Gospel, for it was the very thing that showed the sinner his need, magnified Jesus as the sinners only hope, and as the means through which the Holy Spirit works to draw men to Christ.

The Apostle’s theory of salvation was wholly Biblical and focussed rightly on God’s Law – the sinner is so because he transgressed the Law; his restitution is outlined in the Law; being a sinner he thinks he is alright until he is confronted with God’s Law, which, like a huge mirror, shows him warts and all; thus, the sinner is shown that Jesus and his cross are the only means of salvation.

Compare this with the evangelism of PC: The Law is passe, it is now about grace; they don’t want to offend the sinner otherwise he may stop listening, so they push Law and doctrine aside; they preach Jesus as Saviour, but will not dangle the sinner over the precipice to gaze into the pit of Hell, so what is it exactly that Jesus saves from and why is He necessary?

Evangelism apart from the Law of God is an exercise in Humanistic psychology and amounts to little more than making people feel good about themselves while they stand in the mud and mire. It does not bring change; indeed, it cannot bring change precisely because it does not magnify Christ. The man who feels content or is made to feel content with himself whilst in the mud and mire, will never cry out or experience the wonder of the Psalmist: The Lord, He heard my Cry! The Lord, He lifted me out of the miry pit. The Lord, He gave me a firm place to stand. The Lord, He set me upon the Rock, which is Jesus the Christ. The Lord, He put a song of worshipful praise in my mouth.

3. For this third point, we will do an about face. If the preachers are predominantly preaching on evangelism, their preaching always heading in one direction, especially a direction akin to that outlined above, let us pause and ask, “What, then, are they not preaching?” If the whole counsel of God becomes the “hole” counsel, if pursuing the evangelistic mantra means changing doctrine, lessening consequence, and becoming vague on specifics, we must confront an equally grave consequence, namely, the man of God is never equipped for his task here on earth.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.^[12] This is a well-known text. It is often used as proof text for the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. However, to focus on that point is really to miss the point of the point. Scripture is inspired; it is God-breathed. Therefore, it is able to fulfil the purpose for which it has been given, viz, that God’s people are equipped and perfectly fitted for the work in which they are called to engage.

The simple question, then, is, ‘How is the man of God made adequate, if he is never exposed to the whole counsel of God?’

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.^[13] Another well-known text. Jesus lays this command at our feet as He concludes His discourse on the essential nature of the Christian as salt and light. Note well, please, that verse fifteen emphatically makes the point that lights are not lit to be placed under an up-turned bucket. No, they are placed high, in the open, so that the light reaches to the furthest possible extent.

Applying this text, we are once more faced with the fact that the Christian must be obviously different from the man of the World. The Christian must possess personal holiness. He must be righteous and upright. He must be Christlike. Not in some metaphorical or spiritualised manner, but in heart and reality. The very cruel irony of the evangelism bandwagon is seen right here. Earlier, the point was made to the effect that we see little fruit from evangelism today precisely because of the overemphasis on evangelism. This may have confused some. However, it is really very simple. One of the key ingredients to true Biblical evangelism has always been the quality of the lives lived by the Christian.

Peter speaks of giving a reason for the hope that is in you “to anyone who asks.” Why would anyone ask about that hope if your life is hopeless? If the victory of Christ Jesus is not evident; if light is not your nature; if you are a decaying and not preserving (salt); if you are unequipped, because you have not been corrected and trained so as to be perfectly adequate, why would anyone come and ask about the quality of your life that is so patently absent? Peter’s challenge begins with these words: Sanctify – set apart – Christ as Lord in your hearts! These words naturally lead to the discovery of another eroded doctrine, thanks to PC, and that is the Doctrine of Sanctification – our being set apart wholly unto God for His work, His purposes, and His glory.

With the erosion of sanctification and the lowering of the spiritual bar, it is often very hard to distinguish Christian from non-Christian. As the Church has become infused with PC and not JC, we see the impact more and more. Christians are no longer victorious over the World; they are conquered by the world. They are weighed down with worry, they have the same hang-ups as their neighbours, they take the same anti-depressants, they attend the same psychologists, and even the moral codes, that once marked the Church as different, no longer stand. As a boy, divorce, marital unfaithfulness, domestic violence, and apostasy were rarely heard of in the Church. Now, one does not need to look too far to uncover any of these vices.

Jesus said to Peter: “Tend My lambs” and “Shepherd My sheep.” ^[14]

Jesus, speaking through Paul, gave us this insight: And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. ^[15]

Please note the emphasis upon Christ’s people. They are to be tended, shepherded, and equipped for the work of service. Please also note the emphasis upon maturity and how that maturity culminates in Jesus the Christ. This means teaching men how to be good heads of households, good husbands, and good fathers. It means teaching women the art of submission and true beauty in their roles as wives, mothers, and fellow heirs of the Kingdom. It means teaching on what makes a good employee, citizen, and societal participant. It means teaching and training God’s people how to glorify God even in the most mundane of circumstances. It means teaching them how to apply God’s morality every day. None of these things can be attained through PC. They can only be attained in and through JC.

When the preacher becomes enamoured with the modern evangelistic bandwagon, and other non-Biblical bandwagons beside, people suffer. The rebel suffers because he never hears what he needs to hear in order to convict him of his sin and lead him to repentance in Jesus Christ. PC cannot do this. JC can and does. The Christians suffer because they are no longer conformed to JC,[16] finding in Him light and life, victory and purpose; rather they are given PC, where they are erroneously taught that being helpless, victimised, weighed down, and burdened will give them a place of commonality with the rebel and therefore an opportunity to evangelise. Sadly, the PC scenario is akin to two drug addicts lying in a filthy room, both shooting up, one enjoying it, the other speaking about the virtues of being clean, but with no credibility to his words precisely because his situation is no different.

Disunity and denouncing Brothers:

The second experience involves the ‘Israel Falou’ saga. This topic has been tackled elsewhere, thus, for this article focus will fall upon the current disunity in the Church that is associate with PC and not JC.

The Sunday following Israel Falou’s publication of a Biblical text on social media, we went to church. The sermon that day focussed upon this publication and the subsequent furore. Many things were said in a vain attempt to sound orthodox, but all this unravelled when the preacher basically stated that ‘Israel Falou had brought the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute’.[17]

If this is indeed a fact, then, logically, every time a preacher preaches a text that confronts both sin and sinner, he too would be lowering Christ’s name. Yet, (puzzled expression) isn’t the preacher meant to confront the sinner with the truth of Who Jesus Christ truly is and why He alone can reconcile unto God? Is he not meant, in all things, to present truth and reality?

Therefore, the question must be asked, ‘What was the preacher’s real beef with Falou’s comments?’

Sad to say, the answer boiled down, mostly, to another modern error, “Its not what he said, it’s how he said it!” This saying has become more popular over the last couple of decades and it too must be denounced as a pernicious evil. Inherent in this saying is the idea that truth can be dismissed if the hearer does not appreciate the tone in which something is said. Thus, the veracity of the statement and the statements message become secondary to the terms in which it is couched.

Off course, we must not be unnecessarily belligerent when delivering the message of Scripture. We are told, are we not, to speak the truth in love. Yet, it is precisely at this point that we encounter the dilemma. If we truly love, we will speak the message that needs to be heard and that message is the truth as God has revealed it. We can turn this 180 degrees. We receive the message from Jesus and because we love Him, we will speak that message as it was given, without alteration. In both these instances, love and the message go hand in hand. This is Biblical. This fulfils the two great Commandments. Loving God and neighbour, we speak what is required of us by God and that which will benefit our neighbour because it is God’s Word – the Word that saves and edifies.

Here, we must also underscore the fact that Bible’s emphasis in speaking and preaching falls upon the attitude of the speaker and not the hearer. The Bible is abundantly clear that fallen and rebellious man does not seek reconciliation with God. In fact, the rebel’s hearing of God’s Word is akin to a vampire being flung into the midday sun or Gollum being tied with an Elvish rope – “It burns us!” In such situations, the rebel hearing God’s truth will, unless there is a work of grace by the Holy Spirit, recoil from that word and protest vehemently at the sound in his ears. This is the case. This was the case. This will ever be the case.[18]

Please, you are implored, understand this point well! The sinner’s reaction to the Gospel – the Whole Counsel of God – can never be the measure of success or the reason for changing either the presentation of or the Gospel itself. Never!

Enter the gospel infused with PC. Here, as we noted above, the gaze has left the Holy Father and now rests upon the sinner. With this change of focus comes an unbiblical emphasis, viz, the sinner’s reaction must be considered. We want the sinner to listen to the message, so we encourage his feedback so that we can tweak and modify, discard and rearrange, all in the vain hope that the message may get through, not because of the power of the Holy Spirit, but because of our craft as men.

Let us use some picture language. How do we allow a vampire to walk unharmed in the streets? There are only two ways. He must walk in darkness (the cover of night) or we must blot out the sun, both of which amount to the same thing. Similarly, Gollum cannot abide the Elvish rope because the natures of each are incompatible one with the other. So, too, the Gospel will never sit aright in the sinner’s ear. The nature of each is incompatible one with the other. Hence, the sinner must, by the power of the Holy Spirit, have his inherent, sinful nature changed. Consequently, the reviling’s of the sinner should never be considered a just cause to edit or modify the Gospel – indeed there never is a just reason for such an act. We are forbidden to add to or take from God’s Word. Paul tells us that even if an angel brings us another Gospel, that one is to be accursed.[19] Why then would be undertake such an evil task to satisfy the burning ears of a sinner? Yet, undertake, they do, and in so doing the PCites rend the body of Christ and nullify the Chief means of grace – the preaching of a full and unfettered Gospel.

As the illustration of the Israel Falou saga shows, this preacher was willing to take his stand against a fellow Christian who was proclaiming God’s Word because he believed that his efforts at effective evangelism would now be hampered by such negative press. This preacher was concerned that his efforts at bridge building would now collapse because Israel Falou took a public stand on a supposedly sensitive topic. This affront to PC could not go unchallenged. Armed with his diatribe and not the Word of God, this preacher ascended his pulpit and essentially shamed a brother in Christ because he had the courage to stand up and stand upon God’s Word.

Such actions are infused with PC not JC. They smack of the pride of man and of ego, not of the humility that Christ expects of His own. These actions tear at Christ’s church; they rend the body, and they sow discord. Denounce a man if he is a heretic, by all means, but denounce a brother for stating what the Bible says! Alas, how the mighty have fallen.

Preaching the Text – Kind of, maybe?

This last example comes from the Seminary classroom, the Homiletics class to be precise. Students are paired. One student picks a text to be preached, the other has the responsibility of preaching that text. Camped out by two students, it was fascinating to listen to their discussion. Student A put forward one of his favourite texts. It was a Psalm, a good Psalm, a well know Psalm. What was of interest was Student B’s response. Recollecting the events as accurately as possible due to the passage of time, Student B first recoiled. Then there was a subtle hint that maybe Student A should pick a different text. Then came the stronger offer, “Maybe something from the New Testament.” The onlooker’s spidey-senses tingled. The mind began to question, “Why this hesitation?” The answer that came to mind immediately was PC not JC.

Student B pushed back a little more, but, thankfully, Student A stuck to his guns. After all, this was a text that he chose because it meant a lot to him personally. Now for the test, the actual preaching. Would it deal with the text and fill it with JC or would the PC infiltrate so that the audience would witness some fast and furious footwork of the type that would make Fred Astaire proud.

The text? Psalm 139. Please feel free to read it now:

O Lord, Thou hast searched me and known me. Thou dost know when I sit down and when I rise up; Thou dost understand my thought from afar. Thou dost scrutinize my path and my lying down, and art intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, Thou dost know it all. Thou hast enclosed me behind and before, and laid Thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Thy hand will lead me, And Thy right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,” Even the darkness is not dark to Thee, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to Thee. For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them. How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with Thee. O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, And Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way.^[20]

Reading the Psalm may even be a litmus test for the reader. Did you find the Psalm encouraging or were there some … ‘Oh, what is that theological term? Oh, yes!’ … icky bits?

This is a good Psalm, indeed a great Psalm. Student A does well to treasure this Psalm for the comfort, hope, and guidance that it brings to him. Indeed, it can be said with confidence that Student A treasures this Psalm precisely because he is full of and enamoured with JC. This, however, cannot be truly said of Student B. What became evident through this activity within the homiletics class was the fact that PC had begun to take a place in Student B’s heart.

The evidence for this conclusion was partly presented in his opening statements to Student A when he wanted to change the text to a New Testament text. The second, but more conclusive evidence, was found in the sermon itself. Student B preached all the way through the text, verse by verse, until he came to these verses: Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. At this point, no words were offered that might have explained the text; nor was any help given to the listener in the form of an interpretive key. There was not even an acknowledgement that, as a student, the understanding of this part of the text eluded him. No, these words simply sailed through the Bermuda Triangle of PC and vanished form the text.

Is this assessment harsh? No! As with all these movements there are discernible patterns. We noted earlier how PC turns one’s eyes from our holy God and refocuses them on rebellious men. We noted how Doctrine must be altered, modified, toned down, and reinterpreted. Along with this comes a preference for the New Testament. Why? Because Jesus is there? Maybe? Predominantly, however, the desire for the New Testament, we fear, is less motivated by the presence of Jesus and more by the absence of strong language, such as that found in Psalm 139.

PC tells us that the Old Testament is full of violence, hate, and darkness, whereas the New Testament is tolerance, love, and light. When your mantra is ‘evangelism and only evangelism’, then tolerance, love, and light, trump the mislabelled violence, hate, and darkness.

Proof of this can be found in the Israel Falou saga, mentioned above. The man quoted an exclusive New Testament text and was howled down by those from without and within the Church. It was the New Testament that was quoted, but it did not measure up to the tolerance, love, and light scenario, so the messenger had to be shot—some of those involved in the denouncing from within the church still have enough orthodoxy not to denounce the text of Scripture, but they do not want anyone pointing out that their PC emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Here, in essence, is the problem with PC. Before it modified any of the Doctrines mentioned in this article, it had already made some significant modifications to the Biblical Doctrines regarding fallen man and God Himself.

The first rejection was the Bible’s description of fallen man as being dead in trespass and sin and under the condemnation of God. It was decided that such a description was hardly appealing. Extremely hard to hold a conversation of the “How to win friends and influence people” type, when your description of them makes the despotic bad guy in the Western look good.

The second rejection or modification courtesy of the PCites was to arrange an ‘image consultant’ for God. He needed some help in trying to portray a better image to the wider reading public. Thus, the anger issues, the lightning bolts, the ‘I hate …!’ comments, the ‘My people disappoint Me!’ remarks, and the thing with all the rules— ‘What’s that about?’— all had to go. Of course, there is nothing new here. Marcion took a pair of scissors to his Bible; Declared the God of the Old Testament to be a sort of tribal deity with anger management issues; and proclaimed Jesus to be sent from a different “god”, the Father. The New Testament was considered to be under the influence of the Jewish god, hence the scissors. Paul was the only true apostle of Jesus, but even his works were not spared the scissors. The only real difference, thanks to the PC brigade, is that we are no longer allowed to call people heretics—the appellation that was correctly applied to Marcion.

Now, please understand, Student B may not raise his right hand and swear to all these points. Most do not and will not. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that there has already been a subtle shift in his thinking. Logically, if the Holy Spirit does not convict him of this shift, then his future ministry is, more than likely, to be tainted by this movement. It may begin with omitting a few lines from a text here and there, but gradually, a few lines will become whole texts, then complete topics and before long the whole counsel is nothing but the hole counsel.[21]

By contrast, Student A is far more assured because his stand is infused with JC. He understands, truly, that love to God comes before love to any other.[22] That is precisely why he finds no trouble with hating God’s enemies. The true believer in Jesus Christ will hate what God hates and love what God loves. The fact that Student A, along with the Psalmist, declare hatred for God’s enemies is nothing less than an absolute declaration of their love for God. The PCites cannot see past the word “hate” to grasp and understand that what is on display in this text is actually an unequivocal chorus of love. Do we not gather in worship and sing the words of Psalm 1: How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.^[23]

One cannot love God whilst batting for the other team. One cannot truly love God whilst espousing the playbook of the other team. No. Love to God is singular. The command is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. Thankfully, men like Student A understand that point, precisely because they are infused with JC and not PC. A man and his God; loved and loving; known intimately by his God, warts and all, and loved. Searched and found wanting, yet loved. A man. Yes, just a man, but a man who loves God absolutely. A redeemed man, acknowledging all his faults, with but one prayer on His lips – Father make me more like Jesus! This man knows His God encompasses him. This man knows that his God is everywhere. This man knows that should his foot slip, all he will know are the everlasting arms around and about. This man knows that God knit him in the womb. This man knows that before his eyes ever opened, he was loved absolutely by his God. Therefore, this man, Student A and those of his ilk, will absolutely hate what God hates and they will do so because they are filled with the Spirit of JC, a Spirit that loves and obeys the One, True, and Living God.

Lord, please, please, fill the land with men like this; men of whom the world is not worthy; for they are the true evangelists. They are the true culture changes. They are the true light bearers. They are so, because they are infused with and therefore diffuse the light and life of Jesus Christ, and like Him, their Saviour, they have no greater pleasure or purpose than to honour their God.

Conclusion:

If the Church is to return to and be faithful to Her mission, then She must repent of Her sins, forsake false standards, cling to what is good, and have nothing to do with the vain philosophies of the World. She must return to and measure Herself always by the correct standard. She must be willing to see through words to content and action. What do I mean? Simply this: It is easy to witness historic God- words and to hear the lingo of the so-called faithful, but Jesus looked at and He looks for the fruit. Does your Christian life, does your congregation’s life, bear the marks, the fruit, of being enamoured with Jesus the Christ or has it settled for orthodox type words whilst all the time holding to the doctrines of PC culture?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, the Life, THE Standard. Brethren, accept no substitutes!

Footnotes:

[1] Leviticus 19:2; Matthew 5:48.

[2] Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4.

[3] Hebrews 1:1-2; John 10:37-38.

^[4] New American Standard Bible. (1986). (electronic edition., Dt 4:2; Re 22:18–19). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. See also Dt 12:32; Prov 30:6. All Scripture references are from this source.

[5] John 6:38 (NASB)

^[6] Jn 4:34.

^[7] Lk 22:42.

[8] When we speak of this overemphasis on evangelism, we have two things in mind. First, there is the goading to be about saving the lost as the Christians highest and only pursuit in life – an unholy message that often does more harm than good. Secondly, this emphasis on evangelism often sees the application of the sermon boiled down to, “Come to Jesus and be saved!” Such a constant emphasis in application robs the Christian. How so? I’ve been a Christian for x number of years, I may be a new Christian, so the question, “What comes next?” is never answered.

[9] 1 John 3:4.

^[10] Ga 3:24.

^[11] Ro 3:19–20.

^[12] 2 Ti 3:16–17.

^[13] Mt 5:16.

^[14] Jn 21:15–17.

^[15] Eph 4:11–14.

[16] Romans 8:29.

[17] A lengthy phone conversation was also undertaken.

[18] Acts 17:32-33 clearly portrays the two outcomes of preaching. See also Acts 14:1-2; Acts 2:12-13; John 10:31-39.

[19] Galatians 1:8.

^[20] Ps 139:1–24.

[21] This aspect can even bee seen in how a preacher approaches the text. One such preacher was witnessed rearranging the text, that is, preaching through it is a different order, so that he could end on the verse he wanted with the emphasis he wanted.

[22] Matthew 10:37 ff.

^[23] Ps 1:1–2.

Israel, Complacency, and Disunity

Posted on March 4, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Every now and then, the Lord so orders happenings into our lives for the purpose of giving us clarity and perspective. These events unfold in such a way that the studious onlooker should immediately gain clarity and perspective on such things as law and order, the faithfulness and obedience of the Church, the humility or tyranny of government, and the predominant ideology that pervades society, Church, and government.

At present, Covid-19 is one such happening. It has certainly brought things into a stark reality; but more of that in a different article. At this point the focus will fall upon the “prequel” to Covid-19, known colloquially as the “Israel Falou saga”!

When our Mighty and Gracious God acts to bring us to an awakening of our sins and our parting from His ways and the reckless abandonment of His law, He rarely goes directly to lightning bolts, plagues and pestilence, or the sword wielding enemy. The history of Israel shows that there were always gentle reminders as well as stern warnings before the ultimate state of calamity unfolded upon the people.

In the Israel Falou saga, we had one of these gentle proddings. It should have awoken the Church from its stupor and, if nothing else, alerted us to the great divide and lack of unity that is current in Christianity; and that is to say nothing about the Church’s lack of credibility in the World’s eyes.[1]

The time is April, 2019. Israel Falou uses social media to push back against certain pernicious evils that have been growing stronger throughout the land over the previous decades. His communiqué is a basic quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Immediately, there was a hue and cry. The clamorous hoards broke out their repertoire of pejoratives and began to recite the prescribed mantras outlined for them by the high priests of Humanism. Now, the response from this quarter was banal to the extreme, went on ad nauseum – please pass the bucket – and was hackneyed by any estimation or appraisal. It said nothing new. It simply resorted to the bullying and harassment tactics that have become the stock and trade of this movement.[2]

Much noise was made. Many things were said. All sorts of people opined based upon their subjective experiences or feelings. Absent from the chorus was the one important question, given the statement made by Israel, namely, “Is this what God has truly said?”

At this juncture, we intend to narrow the focus in looking at the response to this Biblical passage. Of course, non-believers and god-haters are going to come out and object to these passages in the most vehement terms. That is to be expected. The proclamation of God’s law in the sinner’s ear reminds him of his accountability to God and of his rebellion against God, so naturally he is going to demand that the voices are silenced so that he can return to his untroubled rebellion.

It was even expected that the Liberal elements that claim to be part of the Church of Christ, and are not, would come forth and sprout their baptised Humanism, in which they preach love, light, and tolerance without any real reference to Scripture and the Holy God therein revealed.

What was not expected was the response from the so-called “Conservative” wing of the Church. Now, some clarification is needed here, of course. Not all Conservatives remained silent. Not all Conservatives are known to us.[3] This said, however, it was a source of amazement that so many seemed to look for an excuse and a reason to duck for cover and to remain silent on this issue. It was sad, indeed, to see some scrambling to find uncommon ground so that one could safely distance themselves from the man and his comments.

In one example, the minister of a so-called “Reformed” denomination chose to preach about this particular issue. He tentatively paid his respects to the idea that Scripture is our standard and that we should not back away from its message. So far, so good – or so it seemed! Then came all the caveats. These were simply a bowing to Humanism and they, in effect, negated anything heretofore said. We were told, in essence, that this quotation of scripture by Israel had brought the name of Jesus into disrepute. In typical psychobabble, this was couched in and around the popular phrase, ‘it’s not what he said, but how he said it!”

Now, for those who may be unaware, this term has been gathering popular momentum as the ultimate reason to deny a truth that is obvious. Imagine this scenario. An average Aussie, with the language of an average Aussie, say, a truck driver, is on his way home. Suddenly he is confronted by the sight of a home being engulfed by flames. Risking all, he kicks in the door, makes his way to a back room where he finds a man oblivious to what is happening. In first class Ocker, the truck driver outlines the situation with expletives, relays the imminent danger, again with a random scattering of expletives, and then urges upon the occupant of the house the somewhat dire need of the aforesaid to ‘get his scrawny butt moving!’ He does not respond.

Fast forward. Fire fighters have entered the house and dragged the man out at the insistence of the truck driver. He is given medical care on scene, but he is beyond hope. Asked why he did not leave when warned by the truckie, he musters the last of his strength and his final lungful of air to explain, ‘Well, his tone was rough and, above all, he did not say “please”!’

Question time! In this scenario, who would criticise the truck driver? More later.

The second example, is, we admit, an amalgam. During this time, many conversations were entered into regarding this subject. We admit to deliberately steering conversations to this topic so as to be able to gauge the responses. What was evident, sadly, was the lack of solidarity and backbone amongst these “Conservatives”. On more than one occasion, responses like these were heard: ‘He belongs to … denomination’; ‘He does not believe … doctrine’; ‘I think he might believe … idea’; and the favourite, ‘Did he really quote Scripture?’

Seriously! Imagination time again. What if it wasn’t a rugby career on the line, but a man’s life? If this same quotation were to see a man incarcerated for a decade or, worse, his life forfeit, would such foolish and trite reasons still have been trotted forward? Would we have sermons denouncing the man or would the tone and direction of those sermons have changed?

Alright, time to make some statements and to pull some threads together.

First, there is no relationship with Israel and on this sojourn that is not likely. Second, there is most definitely disagreement with some aspects of his life and belief. Yet, none of that should have caused the reactions and the excuse-making it did. The Church was in the midst of its most crucial battle in years, if not decades. Indeed, it may well be the crucial battle of a lifetime. We lost! Why? For all the reasons outlined in this article!

We were too busy tracking through some pro forma checklist on orthodoxy attempting to assess whether Israel Falou was close enough to “our clan” to see whether or not he was worthy of support. All the while missing the most basic point – He is a blood-bought brother who took an accurate stand on Scripture precisely when it was most needed in the midst of a war. That stand deserved the Church’s support, if only as a conversation starter and a rallying point; but, no, we were too busy ticking boxes of orthodoxy or protecting our brand of evangelism to side with Biblically accurate commentary. We focussed on the messenger and not the message.

The Lord gave us a prodding to show us where we stood. The Lord shone light upon the Church and showed that the adoption of unbiblical ideas had led us off the path. Israel’s courage showed us that very point. Did we listen? Did we learn? No, we did not. We got rolled because a ‘house divided cannot stand!’

As Christ’s Church we have three main unifying points: Jesus, His Spirit, and His Word, Scripture. These are what should have been front and centre in our minds and nothing else.

Brothers and Sisters, please, let us learn the lesson.

Excursus:

There are additional points to be made, which may impinge upon how you view these happenings and this article.

First, what Israel quoted was Scripture. No doubt. If his quotation is disqualified, then we must disqualify several Biblical writers who do not quote texts verbatim. That the order is changed does not impact the message when it is simply a list. That some points are combined does not alter the message.

Second, Israel’s list contained eight sins that would disqualify form the Kingdom. How much did you hear about the seven that stood apart from homosexuality? I didn’t hear anything from the International Fraternity of Liars; nothing from AA – adulterers active; nothing from Animists for Idolatry. Anyway, you get the point. Homosexuality became the point of discussion precisely because it was the relevant point under discussion within our country at that time and it was the point being vehemently espoused by the radical God-haters. Again, the highlighting of this single point to the exclusion of all other points raised should have been a red flag to any Christian onlooker.

Third, did not Jesus, our Commander and Chief, tell us that we would be hated. The World did not accept the message from His lips, so It is going to raise a ruckus when It hears the same message from ours. Was Jesus not worthy of hearing when he preached condemnation?

Fourth, Israel has shown the courage to speak out or stand on a number of issues. During the fires, he drew attention to these being Judgement from God. Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who should have known better, followed the party line and labelled the comments as “appallingly insensitive”. Was Jesus appallingly insensitive when he spoke of hell and judgement? Was Jesus appallingly insensitive when he warned the people to fear God, Who, after killing the body, had the power to cast into hell? Was Jesus appallingly insensitive when, in Luke 13, people address to Him the issue of Pilot murdering certain Galileans and He turns the issue on its head, addressing the living and not the dead, urging His hearers to consider their standing as sinners? This is important. If Jesus were judged by the evil, PC standards of our day, He would be condemned as a monger of hate-speech, intolerant, unloving, and one who failed the test of inclusivity!

Fifth, most recently, Israel refused to get down on his knee in support of a particular protest. Again, the clamorous hoard started up their evil ‘sinphony’ and condemned the man. This condemnation even states outright lies. On the Wikipedia entry for Israel Falou, we find reference to this incident and some commentary that concludes that the protest in question was a “symbol of solidarity against police brutality and racism.” Now, I know of no such protest. I am aware of a “Black Lives Matter” movement, but is that the same thing? Why would Wikipedia’s entry not say “BLM”? Why would it rather choose to imply that, in essence, Israel Falou is pro both police brutality and racism?

The point here is a call to unity.

Is God’s Law still relevant?

Does God judge sin here and now using nature and the like?

Will our culture survive, if we continue to provoke God to anger?

Why did Jesus say so much about Hell, if there is nothing to fear?

Why did Jesus preach repentance, if Man has not transgressed God’s moral code?

These questions must be answered. As the Church, we will continue to be “rolled” in the cultural debates of our day and into the future until we return to the unity that Christ commands – a unity found in His Person, His Word, and His Spirit.

Lastly, we need to return to the truckie. Would any reasonable person reading that story ever begin a “it’s not what he said but how he said it” type conversation?

Do you think that the ambulance officers and fire fighters, upon hearing the victim’s confession, would have begun to lambaste the truckie, demanding or at least strongly suggesting that he should think of attending ‘finishing school’? Do you think that the driver’s companions would have abandon him in droves and then begun to enumerate reasons such as, ‘he buys the wrong tyres’, ‘I never have liked the colour of his truck’, ‘he drives for … company’, and ‘did he really fill in his work diary correctly?’

We hear a lot about love today. The question that needs to be asked, though, is this: Are we loving sinful Man more than our Holy Father in heaven? You see, true love tells a man what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. Equally, sometimes that message can only be delivered with certain words and certain tones.[4] Jesus was not appallingly insensitive. On the contrary, because He loved He spoke forth God’s warnings based on the truth and reality that all men will one day be called to give an account.

The current and errant view of love – an emotion that excuses and accepts all – and the adopting of the this “not what he said but how” gibberish is a pernicious evil. If you doubt this, simply look at the erosion of the Church’s doctrine over the years. We have been trying for years, to mellow the concepts of sin and hell in order to present them in a nice way – making the ‘how he said it’ acceptable to the rebellious sinner. What is the result? We have mellowed these doctrines so much that in many circles they no longer exist! We have sugar coated these doctrines so much today, that we simply preach jellybeans – all sugar with a pretty coloured coating, but no substance.

Before us, brethren, is the choice: Continue to turn the doctrines of Christ, one by one, into jellybeans or speak God’s truth, as hard as that may be at times, and allow the Holy Spirit to use the Word of Christ to glorify God.

It is the Gospel, full and unfettered, that is the power of God unto salvation – not nice words and jellybeans – and of this Gospel, full and unfettered, the true disciple of Christ Jesus should never be ashamed.

Footnotes:

[1] Here, we do not mean the current attempt by the Church to curry favour with the World by capitulating to its demands, rather the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:7: And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church.

[2] Please note this well. In the current sorry state-of-affairs, those who are labelled as the “lefties” – an errant term to be corrected – do not engage in sound arguments. They simply shout louder and louder in an attempt to drown out their opposition or, worse still, they just do not allow them to speak. Over the years the people have been warned about the coming censorship associated with the PC Movement. Many scoffed. Look now at what the Tech Giants are doing, as just one example. They have appointed themselves as the arbiters of truth and they will shut you down for simply quoting facts that disagree with their agenda.

[3] We are aware that an online petition was circulated. We are aware that ACL set up a page to fund certain defences. We are aware that not every Christian turned their back. The point of this article is to focus upon the so-called “conservative wing”; those who were once the champions of Biblical doctrine, once the “unafraid”, once the “defenders of the faith”.

[4] One is yet to figure out how the reality, substance, and sheer horror of Hell can be accurately portrayed by slapstick!

Knowing God

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Christian! Are you battle weary? Do you find yourself quietly questioning the Lord as to what He is doing or not seemingly doing?

There is no shame in admitting that you answer these questions in the affirmative. In fact, it is a positive that you do ask such questions. In asking these questions, you are asserting two beliefs. The first is that you are tired of the seeming triumphs of a “wicked and perverse generation” over the righteous. The second is that you realise that revival and reform can only come from the hand of God.

The other day, I sat in my study and asked God, “What can I do to bring revival?” Some may see this as arrogant; see this as God’s hand being forced by man. Is this the case? Not at all. First, God’s hand can never “be forced” by the will of man. Second, God desires His hand to be moved by the prayers and supplications of His people. God desires to bless His people.

This is made abundantly clear to us in Scripture. Jesus said as much in John 16:23-24 saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name. “Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be made full.”

What then can we do to bring revival?

First, and most obviously, we must pray.

Second, we must set a Godly example through obedience to God’s word.

Third, we must act and not grow tired of acting in and for righteousness.

Fourth, we must carry the acts of the wicked to God for His attention.

Fifth, we must ask God to act and not be afraid to ask forcefully.

Sixth, we must be patient, persist in doing good, and continue to implore God to act.

These steps are not invented by the mind of modern man. These are the steps of a righteous man, an oracle, who sought to know and express His desire for God in all of life. This genuine desire to know God and obey God often landed this man in “hot water”. We know that he was not a perfect man. He stumbled. He fell. Yet, he knew that in every circumstance of life, Yahweh was the answer. Note please, Yahweh did not have the answer; Yahweh was the answer!

Who is this mysterious person? We know him by many names. Most commonly, we call him the Psalmist.

In Psalm 119:121-128 we read these words:

I have done justice and righteousness; Do not leave me to my oppressors.

Be surety for Thy servant for good; Do not let the arrogant oppress me.

My eyes fail with longing for Thy salvation, And for Thy righteous word.

Deal with Thy servant according to Thy lovingkindness, And teach me Thy statutes.

I am Thy servant; give me understanding, That I may know Thy testimonies.

It is time for the Lord to act, For they have broken Thy law.

Therefore I love Thy commandments Above gold, yes, above fine gold.

Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.

Please note how each of the steps outlined is a step followed by the Psalmist.

The Psalmist begins with a confident assertion that he has been obedient to the Law of God. He has not just believed; he has actually done justice and righteousness. His is not a theoretical knowledge. It is knowledge in action.

We then note that the Psalmist gives voice to those who “oppress”. In other words, the Psalmist has opposition. There are some who care not either for his doctrine or his way of life.

In this “oppression” we can sense the tired notes of the Psalmist’s voice. He asks that the Lord spare him the “oppression of the arrogant.” Yet, even in this trial, the Psalmist will not surrender. He takes heart. He is encouraged. He continues to “look for Yahweh’s salvation and His word (or promise)”.

What an encouragement to all of us. This man was oppressed. He realised that the source of his oppression was the fact that he believed God and obeyed God. Yet, he refused to be shaken from this stand or deviate from this course.

Take heed of his response. The Psalmist not only continues to look for the fulfillment of Yahweh’s word and promise, he asks Yahweh to “teach” him more statutes; he asks for “understanding” so that he might rightly “know” Yahweh’s testimonies. The Psalmist wants more! In our language, he may be termed a “sucker for punishments.” In Biblical language, his soul hungered for the knowledge of God. Not only is the Psalmist not content with where he is at, he wants to know more of God’s Law so that he can do more justice and righteousness.

Wow! How do we compare with this? The Psalmist realises that he is oppressed because of his faith; yet his response is not to decrease his faith; to make some vain attempt to slip under the radar; or to compromise. No, his reaction is to ask God for more of everything that constitutes faith and Godly practice!

Then the Psalmist arrives at the critical juncture. He understands that the oppressors are outside of his power and jurisdiction. Therefore, he calls for Yahweh to act against them; whether to transform or crush. The Psalmist reinforces his plea for action on the part of Yahweh by bringing the deeds of the ungodly to Yahweh – “Look, my Father. They have broken thy Law. Your Word and testimony are despised in their eyes. Act. Vindicate Thy righteousness and Thy servant!”

With this said, the Psalmist makes affirmation of his love for the Law of God as his only standard. This Word is to him of more value than gold. This Law is “esteemed” in his sight.

Precisely because he loves God’s law, his final confession is that “he hates every false way.”

The Psalmist is a great example to us. His love for God and His Law is paramount; it is his life! How do you view God’s Law – or His Word, if you are more comfortable with that term?

The Psalmist grew weary. He faced opposition. Yet his reaction was to ask God for more faith and more practical works, which no doubt would have brought more opposition. How do we respond? Do we drop our proverbial “bundle”, seek to remain quiet, or do we come to the throne of God and plead for the fullness of the righteousness of Christ?

Lastly, we must observe the antithesis evident in the Psalmist. He so loved God and His Law that he hated all else. If it were not from God, it was repudiated. How do we fair on this point?

We must wrestle with these questions, like them or not. God does act in accord with His will. Most certainly, He acts at His time. However, we cannot use either of these as excuses for what we perceive to be God’s inaction.

In acting, God also takes note of His people, their actions, and their pleas. Are we holding God at arm’s length because we are comfortable with some sins? Do we want God to act against certain sins, but would like others to remain because we are at ease with them? When we look at the world, are we disgusted with their actions and policies or do we find them to be, for the most part, fair? Can we say, wholeheartedly, that we “hate every false way”?

The answer to these questions are tied up with the answers to our opening questions. Battle weary? Wonder why God seems silent? Could it be that we have not followed the Psalmist’s example and proven our wholehearted desire for God and His Law? Could it be that the Lord, gracious in mercy and all wise, is letting the weight of oppression rest on us until we realise that the object of our love is wrong; that the expression of our love is insincere; or that we are so out of touch with God that we do not even realise there is a problem!

Brethren, study the Psalmist. Learn from him. Seek God. Know the fullness of His love and express it back to Him in an obedient life. Jesus did not hold back His love or life from us, how dare we hold ours from Him.

Apostasy

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

What is in a name? Understood properly, we would have to answer, “A lot!” A name describes. It explains. It divulges. All this seems strange to us because we think of names simply as a label. By extension, we have lost interest in the meaning of words; we simply use them too as a label.

The modern Church has been caught up in this fad through the general principle of Political Correctness. It is now mandatory to “be nice” to everyone and, therefore, we are told that we should not use certain words.

Two words that the Church has dropped from its vocabulary are Heresy and Apostasy. Both terms have to do with false belief. Heresy describes the false belief; Apostasy describes the action of turning to that false belief from the position of truth.

Here, I would like us to think about the terms Apostasy and Apostate.

When we speak of Apostasy, we generally use this term in the sense of a complete turning away. A Biblical example would be that of the Israelites rejecting Yahweh as King by asking for an earthly king (1 Samuel 8:4-9). However, when we analyse the situation, we see that Israel’s request was not a radical change. It was not a “bolt from the blue.”

Examining Scripture, we see that there were a number of steps along the path. Israel did not pursue the conquest of the land as they were commanded. Thus, foreign people and foreign gods remained in the land to tempt Israel. We see throughout the book of Judges an ebbing and flowing in the fortunes of Israel because they did not obey the Lord or listen to His word. We then arrive at the failure of Eli and Samuel, Judges in Israel, to discipline their sons and instruct them in the ways of Yahweh.

Accordingly, we see that there were quite a number of bricks laid that created the path to Apostasy. We may label each brick a heresy, but, regardless of the term, the path lead to Apostasy; to Israel turning away.

Brethren, are you apostatising?

That is a big question. No, I am not asking, have you turned or are you currently turning your back on the Lord so as to totally deny Jesus and His revelation. I am more interested in those individual bricks.

Friend, are their things in your life, belief, and action, here and there, which constitute Apostasy? Do you have little deviations away from the Lord Jesus and His commands?

Again, I am not speaking of trips and falls into sin. We all do this. What I am speaking of is a deliberate deviation into the drive-through of your favourite spiritual fast-food outlet knowing that you have promised your loved One that you will stick to Their diet!

These deviations are not slips and stumbles. These are deliberate course changes brought about to feed a sinful desire. You go there precisely because you want to be there and nothing will dissuade you.

Beloved brethren, beware of such deliberate deviations from Jesus Christ. Each trip to the drive-through makes it easier to go there another time and to select something else from the varied menu. Each time you go, you disappoint your loved One – The Lord Jesus Christ. Each time you go there the turning away becomes easier and the degree greater. Before long, you will find yourself permanently parked in the fast-food outlet’s car park. You will have no desire for healthy food. As to your promise to Jesus … “What promise?”

Remember the Apostle Peter’s words: “For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them” … “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 2:20-21; 2 Peter 3:17-18).

Beloved brethren, beware the turning! No matter what the rate or degree, beware the turning! Apostasy leads from Jesus, not to Him. Apostasy is built on false belief.

Therefore, cling to the truth. Jesus Christ is God’s truth.

I am a Hater – a Godly Hater!

Posted on October 31, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Fairy Floss.

Playground politics, Postmodernism, and Political Correctness make a volatile and disastrous combination.

Playground politics equals bullying. Postmodernism equals a denial of Truth. Political Correctness equals a biased, pseudo-egalitarianism. In such an environment, cogent arguments, truth, fact, and even reality are dismissed. In their place come name-calling, bullying, meaningless terms and lies. This modern estate is the “fairy floss”[1] estate—you are handed a bright and colourful substance that looks real, but once you put it in your mouth it disappears! In effect, you have paid for the joy of eating nothing and remaining hungry.

In the current debate surrounding homosexual union, we are being handed many brightly coloured tidbits and asked to swallow them. Yet, once they are in our mouths they evaporate to nothing. Then, when we have the audacity to point this out, we are labelled, condemned, harangued, and treated as completely unworthy.

Two recent examples stand out:

Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, had this to say: “I don’t believe that people’s relationships and love for each other need to be submitted to a public opinion poll. … I don’t want to give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock and make life harder for LGBTI people.”[2]
The second instance has no name and not much detail. For this I apologise. After visiting my elderly father in hospital, I was driving home and decided to listen to the radio. I came across a woman’s voice arguing for protection from “hate speech”. I can only assume that this was a debate into the removal of clause 18c from the Racial Discrimination Act. Anyway, the point of interest came when the speaker highlighted her coup de gras question that she asked of her opponents: “What hate speech do you wish to use?” She went on to announce that this question had her opponents “nonplussed” or stopped cold.

Let’s analyse these statements.

Please note the bullying and name-calling that come to the fore. People who have a different opinion are immediately labelled as “haters”, those who dwell under “rocks”, and those who delight to use “hate speech”.
In keeping with this name calling and bullying, there is an automatic assumption on the part of the speaker that their position is the correct one or the morally superior one. Thus, the opponent is labelled and pigeon-holed for no other reason than they disagree with the speaker’s point of view.

This is truly fascinating. My wife has worked for years in the health sector. Several decades ago there came a huge, government sponsored push to avoid, at all costs, “labelling language”. People were not to be pigeon-holed or labelled in a way that would cause them detriment. Now, these same governments wish to label people without cause just to win political arguments and “Brownie” points.

All of this leads us to ask questions regarding Morality and Truth. When the above people spoke, they did not appeal to any Absolute, they merely insisted that their opinion or view on this subject be accepted as absolute. In such a situation, who is the umpire? Does Bill Shorten win simply because he is Opposition Leader?

Time to connect the dots. The reason that we are subject to bullying and harassment is precisely because these people do not have an Absolute on which to base their arguments. They have no logic, no absolute, no moral, no consistency—so they must develop their own brand of sanctioned and sanitised “hate speech” with which to browbeat those who oppose them. Then, when this phase is effective, they will pass laws and then label those who oppose as criminals and a danger to society and then invite them to spend time behind bars.

Today we are told that everything is sweetness and light. Everything is equal. Two men together is as valid as a man and a woman. Yet, we ask, on what basis is this assertion made?[3] Indeed, even incestuous relationships are now being embraced and given their own alphabet soup so that they can be legitimised.[4] We are being handed fairy floss!

Herein is the hypocrisy. An honest citizen who has committed no crime – other than to insist on moral absolutes – becomes to these people the equivalent of a thief, paedophile, or murderer. If you think this is foolishness, then simply reverse engineer their arguments. If all are truly equal and morality does not exist, then there can be no wrong. If morality is simply what the Government of the day makes it to be, then we are all in danger for morality will change with each new law, with each passing year, and the turn of a new decade.

Think about this! You raise your child on the moral principles of the day. That child is a successful, law abiding citizen until they are in their mid-thirties when, due to a change in legislation, they now become a pariah. Society now punishes them for what society previously taught them.

Absolute Morality – Loving and Hating.

The only safety net available to this or any society is to return to or embrace God’s absolute morality. God has spoken. Obedience alone will bring His blessing. Empirically, we know this to be true. Our nation is in turmoil; it is in its death throes. If we are honest, we will admit that we are further from God than we have ever been, yet our estate is worse than it has ever been.

Our only hope, therefore, is to reject Man’s egalitarianism and subjective morality and embrace God’s absolute morality. We must learn to love what God loves and Hate what God hates.

At this statement, some will be greatly perplexed. They will never have heard these types of words before. Sadly, this is a confirmation of how much the World has penetrated the Church and Her theology.

Our minister has been preaching through Corinthians and he noted that the Corinthian problem was that there was too much World in the Church. Conversely, it may be argued that there is too little Church in the World. Perceive it as you will, the point is that the Church no longer believes God and His revelation of Morality and Truth. Therefore, She shies away from taking a stand. The Church has become so enamoured with being popular and with winning souls that She has forgotten what Holiness and Righteousness are and in Whom they are to be found.

This was brought home to me clearly many years ago when I made a statement about God “hating” certain things. I was immediately rebuked and told that such concepts were erroneous. I shook my head, disbelieving what my ears were transferring to my brain. Sadly, decades later, I am hearing a growing chorus of dissenters who are simply being blasphemous because they are speaking lies concerning God.

It is time to evict the World from the Church and inject the Church into the World! This eviction must begin with us believing what God says in His word about His own Being and Character, and as a consequence, jettisoning all the Worldly fair floss that we have purchased.

This jettisoning process must begin with acceptance of the very simple fact: God hates! As a Christian, as a Man created in God’s image, I must hate what God hates. If I do not hate what God hates then I am being treasonous. Strong words by modern standards, but they are, nonetheless, true words. Think about it. Are we not citizens in a Kingdom? Are we not bound to obey the great King? Yes, we are; on both counts! Thus, to love what the King hates is to bring evil and falsehood into the Kingdom.[5]

Now, let’s be clear. We are speaking of God and as such we are speaking of intrinsic Morality as God has created and revealed it. We are not talking Ford v Holden, Pizza with or without anchovies, or whether we should drive on the left- or right-hand side of the road. No, we are speaking of God’s Morality intrinsic to Man as a consequence of being made in God’s image and likeness.

What then does God hate? Well, the answer is that God hates anything that digresses from His express will, decree, and standard. If we think of the Ten Commandments as a summary of God’s Morality, then we see that any digression from these Laws would be a thing that God dislikes intently. Thus, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, greed, robbery, false worship, murder, and so forth are all things that God hates. It is for this reason that I say there are too many blasphemers who today speak lies in the name of God.[6] There are too many Christians who simply do not believe what God says about Himself.

If you are in doubt in regard to the basic thesis that God hates, then please consider the following (As you do, think about the relationship of each item to the Summary of God’s Moral Law, the Ten Commandments.):

Proverbs 6:16-19 – “There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”

Isaiah 61:8 – “For I, the Lord, love justice, I hate robbery in the burnt offering;”

Jeremiah 44:4-5 – “Yet I sent you all My servants the prophets, again and again, saying, “Oh, do not do this abominable thing which I hate.” ‘But they did not listen or incline their ears to turn from their wickedness, so as not to burn sacrifices to other gods.”

Amos 5:21 – “I hate, I reject your festivals, nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.”

Zechariah 8:16-17 – “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. ‘Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate,’ declares the Lord.”

Malachi 2:16 – “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

To this list we could add those texts that speak, like several here, about that which the Lord God Almighty declares to be an abomination. As one example, please consider Deuteronomy 12:31 – “You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.”

As per usual, we are keenly aware that detractors will state that these texts are from the Old Testament and then justify this statement with some new spin on an old heresy. To these, we can only suggest that it time that they got their head around the Doctrine of God’s Immutability.

Anyway, for these, we will give one text which is very important. Here are Jesus’ words; the words of God’s eternal Son; words that Jesus, the resurrected Lord spoke to His Church concerning a group of wayward heretics: “Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”[7]

Yes, Jesus hates. That is what the text says. Jesus commends His people for hating the deeds (works) of these heretics because Jesus also hated them. The commendation comes because at that very point these people were one with their Master.

This then gives us a clue as we move forward and look at what our attitude should be to those things which God hates. Indeed, this is not a clue or a hint; it is the reality of our relationship with God, through Christ Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit – we must be one with our God!

The Psalmists have this to say:

26:5 – “I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked.”

31:6 – “I hate those who regard vain idols; But I trust in the Lord.”

97:10 – “Hate evil, you who love the Lord, Who preserves the souls of His godly ones; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.”

139:21-22 – “Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies.”

119: 104, 113, 128, 163 – “From Thy precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way; I hate those who are double-minded, But I love Thy law; Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way; I hate and despise falsehood, But I love Thy law.”[8]

Next, a simple question: The fear of the Lord is …? How did you answer this? Did you say “knowledge” or maybe “wisdom”? Not incorrect, but did you realise that the same pen also wrote: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted mouth, I hate”?[9]

Again, for the New Testamenty Christians we have this selection:

1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 – “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”[10] (NIV: Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.)

Jude 22-23 – “And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.”

Romans 12:9 – “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.”

Lastly, let us conclude with two statements from Jesus:

Luke 14:26 – “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”

Luke 16:13 – “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

What these statements teach us is that God in Trinity must have the priority in our lives. There is no human relationship, nor is there wealth, life, philosophy, ideology, policy, or organisation that can make a claim on us that is greater than that which God makes. If we are God’s servants in and through Jesus Christ, then we must serve as Jesus did – My food is to do the will of Him Who sent Me and to accomplish His work!

It means that we can only love that which God loves and that we must hate and abominate that which God loathes. We cannot claim to be God’s faithful servants and then disown those things which are the essence of His nature. We cannot befriend that which God hates nor can we accept that which God has declared unacceptable.

Therefore, I am crawling out from under my rock and the hate speech I wish to say is this: Thus says the Lord, “Homosexuality is an abomination in My eyes”. As His servant, I say, “Homosexuality, along with murder, rape, thievery, and the like, is an affront to His holiness. If we as a nation continue to pander to the rebellious homosexual minority, in particular, and if we continue to fail in providing true justice, then we will ask for God’s wrath to be delivered to us both in time and space and in eternity. Our nation will not prosper. We will continue to face dangers from without and within. Our freedom will become slavery. Our joy will be turned to sorrow. We will inflict great suffering on the generations to be born.

Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Shorten, and all those who support the homosexual movement’s radical rebellion, know that you are playing with fire by angering Almighty God. Know that all your statements are falsehood. Know that you speak lies and impugn the integrity of God Almighty. Know that you betray your office as Ministers of God. Know that He will not acquit the guilty. Know that you are bringing destruction to this people. Know that you will give an account before His judge, Jesus Christ. Know that unless you repent, there will be no account that you can give of yourself that will be acceptable. Know that ideas and actions have consequences and your continued rebellion will bring ruination to this people in time and in eternity!

I adjure you by the mercies of God, forsake your folly; Kiss the Son lest you perish in your way; Flee from the coming wrath; Repent; Hate evil; Do what is Good; Live! Exalt this nation rather than cover it in shame and disgrace! In short, fulfill the great Commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind!””

Footnotes:

[1] “Cotton Candy”, for our North American brethren.

[2] Taken from Saltshakers News Update, September 9, 2016.

[3] The nonsense of the current position being thrust upon society is seen in the growing alphabet soup. Once, homosexuals were labelled as “queer”. This was not acceptable to the moderns so it was changed to LGBT. Now this is not adequate. Apparently the fraternity of the sinful have embraced their former appellation, so a “Q” was added. Now this is not adequate, so the soup has been extended yet again to LGBTQIA, to included “intersex” and “asexual”. What next? All we will add is, please note that there is no “H” for heterosexual. Apparently it is okay to accept every sexual orientation except the one created and commanded by God!

[4] http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/im-in-love-with-my-brother-and-were-going-to-get-married. http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/mother-and-son-face-jail-as-they-fight-to-stay-in-sexual-relationship. This is now referred to as GSA – Genetic Sexual Attraction. The sickening aspect is that I had bookmarked one account of a Father and daughter. This story had disappeared, but I easily found two new ones on the same site – Vomit bags on standby!!!

[5] Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Proverbs 17:15 – “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.”

[6] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/welcoming-but-not-affirming-being-gay-and-christian/7798226. I refer you to this site for the picture, not necessarily for the article content.

[7] Revelation 2:6.

[8] Note that in these particular Psalms the contrast is always between God’s revealed standard – Law, Precept – and what the Psalmist sees in men.

[9] Proverbs 8:13.

[10] We would do well to remember that the “form” of evil begins with the evil thought. The evil thought produces evil actions. Thus, we must always be on guard against believing anything which contradicts God’s word for this is the evil root which will produce the evil fruit.

The Active Destruction of the Family

Posted on September 4, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Australia is a country at war. It is divided. It is torn. It is unsettled. It is restless. It is confused. It is lost. It gropes in the darkness.

Worse than this, Australia is a nation lead by a murder[1] of political buffoons who have little or no clue on how to repair, restore, and improve this nation.

Worst of all, this murder of political buffoons are so enamoured with their own political theories and the rightness of their rebellion against God that they will not turn from their evil and destructive ways despite the evidence that they are killing their own so as to feed upon their flesh.

Truly a gruesome and disgusting picture, but one which is very true and it is high time we realised this fact.

The current topic of evil is homosexual union. Debates rage over the pros and cons of this abominable practice. We are held to ransom by an extreme, errant, and malevolent minority. Our politicians have voted. Then they wanted a popular vote of the people. Now, they want to vote again themselves; not for righteousness sake, but for bragging rights.

Yet, whilst this topic makes headlines every day, the populace does not seem to be concerned about other “issues” that are being sanctioned and implemented on a daily basis that are as equally destructive.

The Long War against God!

Whilst we fight and oppose any push for homosexual union, the real tragedy, at least to me, is that most Christians in this country do not even understand how we arrived at this point. I have heard genuine, Christ loving, Bible believing brothers speak about the speed with which this degradation came upon us, as though it has come as a bolt from the blue. Of recent, I have heard several prayers thanking God for the freedoms we have in this country, especially in regard to worship and prayer meetings.

Now I plead before God that I offend neither Him nor the brethren when comments and criticisms like these are made, but the truth is that these comments must be made. The Christian populace must wake up. The Church must be awakened. The Church must face the harsh reality of what lies before Her, in Her very gaze, or She will face even darker days.

The simple reality is that homosexual union has been on the cards for decades. It is not new, nor did it arrive quickly. Secondly, the Church is persecuted daily. Christians are persecuted daily. Our freedoms, given to us by God, are being eroded almost exponentially. Our worship is impinged upon. How long will it be before our Bible studies and prayer meetings become Secularist cannon fodder? Learn we must that this is not the beginning of a process, but the culmination of a process aimed at the destruction of God’s order.

This process began, at least officially, in 1975 when this country had “no fault divorce” foist upon it. This may seem innocuous to many, but it is not. This proclamation is the smoking gun of homosexual union, the destruction of the family, and the erosion of our freedoms.

To comprehend the implications of no fault divorce, we must understand, a) the very nature of divorce; and b) every institution and concept that is inextricably linked to or impacted by the nature of divorce.

First of all, as is obvious, divorce is linked to marriage. As marriage is:

established by God;
created by covenant;
given for a stated purpose;
regulated by Law; and
protected by Law,

we must apprehend that marriage is, therefore, first and foremost, moral. As marriage is a moral institution, not a cultural convenience or evolutionary wonder, it stands to reason that everything that stems from or impacts upon marriage is also to be considered a moral entity or as having moral qualities.

When God established marriage, one purpose given to it was procreation. Hence, marriage is inextricably linked to family. To achieve family, Man had to be made in such a way that he could procreate – for that reason God made Man male and female. God also instituted roles within marriage. Thus, marriage, procreation, and family become moral entities and are to be governed, protected, and assessed only according to the moral standards that God instituted.

When it comes to forming marriages, this morality also governed who performed marriages and the standards to which any ceremony had to adhere. We may often wonder where some aspects of a wedding ceremony may come from, but they are not hard to figure out when Scripture is studied. For example, the words, “We are gathered here in the sight of God”, simply state the most obvious truth concerning marriage – it is a covenant instituted by God, for His glory, and it applies to all men. Hence, the omnipresent God can never be ignored when it comes to marriage.

Of equal importance is the “in sight of these witnesses”, for in God’s law everything had to be established by the word of two or three witnesses.[2] So intrinsic to Man is this law that Paul invoked it in the New Testament in regard to charges against an Elder.[3] Thus, the affirmation of a true marriage had to be in accord with God’s law. It had to be witnessed so that should any breach occur there was true testament that a valid marriage had been instituted and violated.

What of a father walking a bride down the aisle and answering the call of, “Who gives this woman to this man?” Is this just a quaint happening? Not on your Nellie! Hang on! This is going to get rough!!! This process signifies the transfer of the God-given headship from the father to the husband. It is a sign that the father approves the marriage and deems that the husband-to-be is of sufficiently fit character to take on and execute the role of covenant head. It is following God’s design for the protection and nurture of families in generational covenant.

Much more could be said, but these points alone lead us toward the conclusion that marriage is moral, ecclesiastical, and familial. Above all, these points teach that marriage is not, nor can it ever be, Secular! This means that a Government may oversee marriage as a legitimate part of its Office, but it can never fiddle with the parameters of marriage, for they have been established by God. The Government’s job, according to Romans 13, is to bear the sword and vigorously pursue the evildoer, in this case the wife-basher, adulterer, adulteress, and the immoral.

This leaves only one conclusion: the dissolving of any marriage can only take place on moral grounds. In other words, divorce is only legitimate when there is a proven moral failure – a transgression of God’s law – on the part of one of those in the marriage covenant. Is this not exactly what Jesus said? Did not Jesus say that, “whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery?”[4]

Please note Jesus’ words carefully. These words are unpopular today, but we need to hear them and heed them. Jesus teaches that one moral failure actually begets another. Divorce, far from solving problems, actually multiplies problems. Divorce, conceived of falsely, begets social ills, bringing and spreading God’s judgement.

No fault divorce. A Government takes to itself power and authority it cannot have. A Government wages war on God and His standard. If marriage is moral, then divorce procedures must be moral. 1975. No fault divorce. A piece of legislation is enacted. God and His morality are wiped quietly from the statute books and the Church does not raise a whimper. In this wretched piece of legislation, we witnessed the loosing of morality from divorce proceedings. Concomitantly, there was a silent declaration that marriage was no longer a moral entity, but was now just a cultural institution. Likewise, the family was knocked from its pedestal of sanctity. It was no longer special, no longer defined and protected by God’s design and law. All were now just cultural constructs to be defined by Man.

Consequently, from this time, we began to see a reshaping of all these institutions. Marriage became an optional extra. Try before you buy; multiple relationships etc., etc, became more and more acceptable. Morality waned. God’s judgement waxed. Families disintegrated and the social fabric of our nation was rent asunder. The central building block of our society, the family, has been remoulded after fallen Man’s design until we reach the point where same sex union is considered to be the acme of marriage.

Those who cannot procreate and have natural families are put on the pedestal once occupied by God’s family. Those who cannot ever be a family now turn to other morally bankrupt schemes in order to have children. Those who despise marriage are allowed to breed and clog up society with ill disciplined children. They are allowed to beat, maim, and deprive their children of nurture, justice, and the God-given pleasantries of family. Then we have those who simply choose to have children to multiple fathers. Marriage never enters their mind.

Morality wanes. God’s judgement waxes.

All the while, we heterosexual, God-moulded families, must now enjoy the privilege of not only being mocked as an anachronism, we must also enjoy the right to pay for these debauched ones to have their illegitimate children and their tax-payer-funded sex changes, their day in court when their “unions” disintegrate,[5] the wonder of welfare payments for the unmarried to have children and to raise them as social misfits. We have the privilege to sit by and watch the atrocities committed by “partners” against their “de factos” or their “de factos’ children” and then suffer the ignominy of having God-moulded families thrown into the same basket as these.

Morality wanes. God’s holy and righteous judgement waxes!

The Destruction Continues!

The simple reality is that all levels of government are presently at war with God-moulded families. They profess support for families, but in this they do not conceive of God-moulded families, only those moulded after the minds of fallen men.

My story. I recently took my fifteen year old daughter to a specialist’s appointment. At the end of the consult, we paid our dues and the receptionist stated that the Medicare rebate would be processed automatically. Several weeks later, no money had been received. A little while later, a letter was received, stating that Medicare owed us money, but that we needed to provide details.

Being a cooperative lad, I logged on to make sure everything was up to speed – I suspected it should be as I had only just changed all our accounts. Anyway, I could not find a place to update my daughter even though she was clearly listed on the page. So, I logged out. Knowing the communistic, feminising tendencies of our governments, I logged in as my wife. Same issue. Oh dear! That sense of dread swept across my body. I now had to ring a government department!

Anyway, the call was answered sooner than expected and I asked my question. Brad was on the other end and he explained that my daughter now had to have her own log-in details on her own access or, at the very least, he had to speak to her.

Have your heard of the “Berserkers”? Well, one came to visit! I asked Brad why the government was bent on the destruction of the family. Brad spun his rhetoric and went on to note that when a child turns fourteen, they are to have their own log-in, etc. He explained that she could use my bank details for the Medicare payment, but that she needed to establish an account with the details etc. I pushed, “Why?” Then Brad spilled the proverbial “beans” – it was so that she could have a medical consult or procedure without our knowledge! So, I once more asked Brad why the government was waging war on the legitimate families of this nation and pushing them to destruction.

Can you see the problem? Parents are now nothing, but a breeding pair. Once the child is born, the parents are being denied any rights. God’s design is turned on its head. The child, at fourteen, must now give the father permission to collect from the government the money to which he is entitled. The child is now the one with the power and authority and it is the parents, the father in particular, that must now ask if he can have the car keys!

Think this through. This child cannot drink, marry, or vote until she is eighteen. She cannot, depending on the State she is in, give legal consent to sexual activity until she is 16 or 17 years old. Yet, she can go behind her parents back with Government consent and procure a range of medical services, e.g., an abortion.

As I pondered this, fumed may come a little closer, it was my intention to include in the article the example of a British school that was caught handing out the Pill to girls without parental consent. This happened a few years ago and I was wondering where I might find the reference.

No need! Our very own atheistic, God-hating Premier, Daniel Andrews, came forward with a better and more relevant case. Doctors working in government schools will be able to prescribe the contraceptive Pill to girls as young as twelve.[6] The Herald Sun article goes on to say that “the State Government has not decided if parents will have to give consent”, but immediately goes on to quote Mr. Andrews as saying that students can already access certain medical clinics. The article also quotes the AMA state president as saying that children “can be given medical care if they can demonstrate they understand what is happening.”

Much could be said, but here is the State-sponsored destruction of the family highlighted for all to see. Reading between the lines, we must conclude that those sending their children to government schools are incapable of providing proper medical care for their children. Then there is the obvious question, “Why the Pill?” If these poor waifs are uncared for, should we not start with the much more common ailments? What of the boys? Hey, common, we live in the age of sexual equality, what are the twelve year old boys getting? Probably just a lecture that will feminise them that bit more. This leads me to ask the really important question, “If the safe-schools programme is run, our boys bashed into submission until the can recite feminist dogma in their sleep, then why will the girls need the Pill?” At this point our boys will be turned into quivering wrecks, trained to be afraid of women and find sexual fulfilment only amongst their own gender!

Facetiousness aside, how long will this be restricted to government schools? Already we see that the State forces non-government schools to teach or push certain of its corrupt ideas. We see that the Governments of this nation constantly over step the mark and abuse their power. So, legitimately, we ask, how long …? How long until the list of pills grows? How long until the services are compulsory – just like State education, free, compulsory, and Secular? How long until their reach is extended? How long …?

Seriously, brethren, we need to wake up and act. Those stories, those horror stories, that once were so because they were rare, are no longer so because they are common and we are desensitised.

Why were homeschoolers made to register their children? Why? The story of the girl who ran away from home at fourteen only to find she did not qualify for welfare and returned home repentant—until her fifteenth birthday when she did qualify. How many of our homeless youth are truly homeless? How many are State sponsored runaways? How many are exploited and have their lives ruined because they were encouraged by the State to run away from home simply because dad had a few rules, which they did not like. How many abortions, murders, are carried out because these children are supplied with the Pill, but, because of their immaturity, they use them incorrectly and end up pregnant?

Conclusion:

The Governments of this nation have declared war on marriage and the family and they have done so by stripping these institutions of God’s design and God’s morality. Pretending to be god’s, these fools now play with society and try to craft it after their own design, but all they do is bring death and destruction to us.

Have you noticed how they point fingers? 1975. No Fault divorce; the beginning of the end for marriage and family. The beginning of the end for marriage and family as God designed it. Forty years of war against God’s family. Yet, families are not better. Families are not multiplying. Families are no longer healthy places in which to raise children. Families are in chaos. Do the politicians blame themselves? Do the politicians do an about face and admit they were wrong? No, they do not. Why? Simple. They would rather live in the chaos and continue their long war against God, His design, and His morality than repent, bow the knee, and confess that God was right all along.

Brethren, let us keep our eye on the ball. Let us, as Christ commands, Stay alert! Let us be aware of the “thin end of the wedge.” Let us apply our minds, renewed in Christ and by the Holy Spirit, so that we may see the outcome of any proposal. Remember, all laws, ideas, concepts, and proposals can only have one of two outcomes – life or death. As Proverbs says, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”[7] Our Governments believe that they are on the right path, but God’s word and the evidence all around us only show death and carnage. The lessons for us, as God’s people, are that we must listen to God’s word; believe that God’s word is our only rule for life and faith; and fight to see God’s order implemented, honoured, and obeyed.

Footnotes:

[1] Yes, usually a collective applied to crows. However, when trying to think of a collective name for those running our country, somehow it just seemed right to name them after a hated, black bird that is a nuisance to productivity and which feeds on the dead flesh of others.

[2] Deuteronomy 19:15.

[3] 1 Timothy 5:19.

[4] Matthew 19.9.

[5] I wrote recently of a conversation in which a lady argued that same sex marriage should be allowed because heterosexuals divorce and often cause hurt to children. Hmmm! What then of those homosexual relationships that fail and which have children involved? One hit the headlines just the other day. Same sex marriage will not stop the mess, it will only increase it!

[6] Herald Sun. Friday, September 2, 2016. Front page.

[7] Proverbs 16:25.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In this last part, it is our intention to look at two concepts and then some texts that show us clearly that the Old Testament and the Old Testament concept of Law were neither unknown nor forsaken by the New Testament writers.

Scripture:

The first concept is that of Scripture itself. As Christians we are familiar with this term. We use it all the time to refer to our complete Bible. However, this understanding can also lead us astray. For the Early Church, their Scriptures, their Bible, if you will, were the writings of the Old Testament.

Thus, when we read statements in the New Testament in regard to Scripture, we must understand that those statements, in the clear majority of cases, refer to the Old Testament. This is important, for the term Scripture occurs over thirty times in the New Testament. It is also important because this term is used by all New Testament writers bar one, Jude.

Consequently, when Paul, writing to Timothy, says that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”[1], he has in mind, primarily, the writings of the Old Testament. Similarly, when Peter states that, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”[2], his statement, likewise, must be taken as referring to the Old Testament in the first instance.

It Stands Written:

A second important concept has to do with the phrase, “It stands written”, which is often used by the New Testament authors to introduce the Old Testament Scriptures. This phrase is important, first, because of its frequent usage and, second, because it occurs in the Perfect Tense. As the name implies, the perfect tense points to perfected action. In Greek, the perfect has the connotation of something that is completed in the past, yet has abiding validity in the present. As such, the use of this term in this tense to introduce Scripture makes a potent statement about the nature of the Scriptures being quoted. In other words, this tense suggests to us, very strongly, that the Old Testament Scriptures are still valid and authoritative and that they are not to be easily forsaken, overturned, or discarded.

Texts:

Next, we want to demonstrate just how widely the Old Testament was relied upon by the so-called New Testament writers. Now, please understand, the point here is not simply to multiply texts or Old Testament quotes. It is, rather, to display the importance of the Old Testament text, the range of the texts relied upon, and the speaker’s or writer’s emphasis upon the validity of the Old Testament for founding, making, or completing an argument.

3.a Jesus:

Have you not read: Beginning with Jesus, our first port of call is to see how Jesus rebuked His opponents for not reading and knowing Scripture, the Old Testament. Four times in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus replies to questions or challenges with, “Have you not read?” This phrase is very much akin to the “It stands written”, spoken of earlier, in that it establishes the Old Testament as an authoritative source.

Equally, we must see that there are three topics in view when Jesus uses this term – the Sabbath, Sexuality / Marriage, and the Resurrection. Let us look at each briefly:

Sabbath: Jesus shows that the Law of the Sabbath is by no means contrary to mercy, compassion, or genuine service (to God). To prove this, Jesus brings in two historical events, one concerning David (1 Samuel 21:6) and the other from the practice of the priests via the phrase, “Have you not read in the Law how …?” Jesus caps of this teaching with a further rebuke, “… if you had known” – implying very clearly that His opponents did not know – and then quotes Hosea 6:6, “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

The point here is that Jesus does not dismiss the Sabbath as no longer relevant. Jesus does not expunge the Law of the Sabbath. Rather, by appealing to the Law and the Prophets, Jesus shows to us the true nature of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is then a sacred and hallowed day in which we must cease from our labours and turn our thoughts and actions unto God, but it is also a day that is pre-eminently about mercy and compassion.[3]

The important point, in regard to our argument, is that Jesus does not simply quote the fourth Commandment and give some instruction. No, Jesus, quotes from history, the Law, and from a prophet to show the validity of the Sabbath and its true meaning. If it is only the Ten Commandments that are valid and authoritative, Jesus must have made a grave error or, the more likely scenario, we have contrived a falsehood when we insist that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law.

Sexuality / Marriage: Jesus is asked one of those sticky questions by the Pharisees regarding divorce. In answering, Jesus goes first to Genesis 1:27 (5:2), the Cultural Mandate, to establish the fact that Man was crated male and female with genuine, purpose built sexuality and then moves to Genesis 2:24 to show that this sexuality reaches its acme in the covenant bond of marriage. In short, male and female being fruitful, multiplying, and ruling, only occurs legitimately in the permanent bond of marriage.

Again, note that Jesus’ answer is not the quotation of the sixth command, but a restatement of God’s creation order and purpose. In taking this tack, Jesus is upholding the summary of the Law in the Ten Commandments, but He is also showing that God’s Moral Law and God’s Morality can be found in narratives that predate the Law and the Ten Commandments.

This point is essential for our understanding and for pressing home the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in our daily lives. Take, as one example, the issue of homosexuality, which looms large today. There is much nonsense peddled in Christendom today with the result that many are confused. Our local Anglican Bishop came forward and stated that he could not see that homosexual marriage would be in anyway contradictory to the teachings of Christ. Such a position can only be arrived at through gross and wilful ignorance. Jesus, in the passage before us, upholds God’s creation order. In doing so, Jesus, by good and necessary consequence, upholds the fifth, seventh, and tenth Commandments as well as validating texts like Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and Revelation 22:15. Jesus 1; Bishop zip!

Resurrection: In regard to the resurrection, all that needs to be noted are these basic facts: 1. Whist the OT acknowledges eternal life and resurrection, it does not give much information; 2. We would expect that Jesus may have given us clearer information regarding the resurrection; 3. What Jesus did, however, was quote the narrative of Exodus 3:6 to show that God is the God of the living.

Once more, we see that Jesus went back to the Law in order to make an authoritative statement regarding a little known subject. Using the narrative of Exodus, Jesus simply affirmed that the patriarchs were alive. The implication then being that all Abraham’s true children will live. What Jesus gave us was not a new revelation, but an authoritative restatement of what was already known, but not grasped and understood.

Equally, we cannot miss the point that there is authoritative and valid information contained in the Law, occurring outside the Decalogue and on subjects to which the Decalogue does not speak.

2.What is the Law? Most Christians know the story of the Rich Young Ruler, as it has come to be known. Here is a young man who declares that he has kept the Law from his youth. What many people miss, particularly in Matthew’s[4] account, is the very nature of what is to be called “the Law”.

Most Christians generally refer to “the Law” as the Pentateuch, the Torah, or as the first five books. This is acceptable, in one sense. However, as we have seen, many or most Christians, when pushed, would state that it is the Ten Commandments alone that are the real “Law”, the Moral Law, which unaccompanied is binding and valid. With this view in mind, let us see what Jesus’ encounter with this young man reveals.

Jesus is asked concerning life eternal. Jesus’ reply is “keep the commandments.” It is an aside, but it is very interesting that Jesus asserts that keeping God’s law goes hand in hand with eternal life! Anyway, in response to Jesus’ statement, the young man asks, “Which ones?” Jesus then gives this reply: “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Looking at this list of Commandments, and thinking of the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law, do you notice anything odd?

Let’s go through them. Jesus lists six Commandments. They are, in the order Jesus gives them, six, seven, eight, nine, five, and … whoops, what happened? The last Commandment that Jesus gives is actually a partial quote from Leviticus 19:18 and it is this same partial quote that forms the second great commandment, recorded in Matthew 22:39.

Now, it is very possible that Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 as a parallel to the tenth Commandment, “Do not covet”, for, indeed, to covet your neighbour’s wife or possession is to show an extreme lack of love to your neighbour, especially if this errant desire is acted upon. However, in regard to our argument, it is imperative that we once more grasp the fact that Jesus gives Moral teaching from the Law, but not from what we so often label the Moral Law. Once grasped, we must acknowledge that equating the Ten Commandments with the Moral Law, as done by the moderns, is in fact a modern aberration. The Reformation Church, with its teaching that the Decalogue is a summary of the Moral law, had a much sounder and more Biblical belief.

3.b Paul: The Apostle, Paul, has some interesting uses of the Old Testament Law that are instructive. They are so precisely because the moderns would never, by their standards, classify these Laws as applicable, abiding, or moral—indeed they would categorise them as those particular to Israel and of no benefit to modern man—yet Paul picks up these Laws and applies them to his day and in such a way that they must be understood as applicable, abiding, and Moral.

First, we read in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.””

Here, we come face to face with two case laws that would be, by most modern Christians, placed in the “judicial law” category, which is supposed to have passed away with Israel and therefore be of no relevance to us. Yet, Paul picks out these two Old Testament case laws, one dealing with a threshing ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) and the other dealing with a labourer’s wages (Leviticus 19:13), and applies them squarely to the issues of the sustentation and honour of the Elder. In making such an application, Paul demonstrates that these Laws were of Moral importance in their original setting and, in applying them to Elders, a continuing office of the Church, he makes these Laws applicable to every situation and for all time.

Next, we must understand, and we do mean must, that these Laws did not take on an authority because Paul, the Apostle, quoted them and somehow filled them with authority and validity. No, Paul quoted these Laws because they were already filled with authority; for they contained the very breath of God. Paul, in quoting the case laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was but practicing his own advice that he gave to Timothy, his son in the faith: “All Scripture is God breathed and useful!”

Second, in 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul confronts a real issue of morality with the words: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.”

In looking at this text, it seems a bit pedestrian on the face of things. However, if we focus on the last three words – his father’s wife – we will see that these words bear a striking resemblance to certain Laws contained in the Old Testament. For example, we could look at texts like Leviticus 18:8, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness”; Deuteronomy 22: 30, “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he shall not uncover his father’s skirt”; or Deuteronomy 27:20, “Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt.”

To make sense of this, let us look more closely at the text. Note that Paul states that there is “immorality” in the midst of the Corinthians. Immorality implies that a sin has been committed. What sin? The Greek word used (porneia) means any unlawful sexual transaction. This term does not specify the sin exactly; only that it is of a sexual nature. To make clear why this fellow is guilty of a sin, Paul then makes reference to the Law. Thus, once more, it is the Law that is the authority; it is the Law that has been transgressed; and because the Law has been transgressed, the man is guilty of a sin, which is classified as immorality.

Please also grasp the fact that Paul did not simply appeal to the fifth Commandment, “Honour father and mother”, but looked passed the summary to actual laws that embodied this principle and showed exactly how to honour one’s parents by elucidating specifics.

Third, and briefly, we will make reference to Romans 1:32: “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Focussing upon the phrase “ordinances of God”, there are two points to be made. The first is that of understanding the term “ordinance”. It is not a term familiar to us in common usage. We might be more familiar with the term through our televisions, for the Americans use terms such a “city ordinance” more commonly. That usage shows to us that the term ordinance has at its root the concept of law. Thus, Paul is not speaking of a vague concept in regard to God, but rather of His law and His righteous decrees.

The second point comes in the form of a question, “To what is Paul referring?” The only possible answer that makes any sense is to say that Paul refers to the sins that he has listed in the immediate context, namely, the preceding verses.

Once more, Paul takes his stand in the Law of God. Man is to be condemned because he has turned from the knowledge of God and wilfully broken His righteous decrees even though Man knew that to do so was to court death.

3.c Peter: Lastly, let us consider a few words from Peter. In regard to the first quotation, it is to be admitted that we will change tack slightly. The point at this juncture is that the New Testament writers understood the abiding validity and significance of God’s word. Says Peter, 1:1:23-25, “For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God. For, “All flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever.” And this is the word which was preached to you.”

Peter’s contrast, so it seems, is between the transient nature of man and the abiding Word of God. Man is but a “flash in the pan” compared to the eternity of God and His word. We are perishable and perishing, but God’s word is imperishable and abiding.

However, when we dig deeper we see that the brilliance of the passage is in its correlation of salvation for God’s covenant people. Peter quotes from Isaiah (40:6f), an Old Testament prophet who spoke to God’s wayward covenant people concerning God’s great day of redemption. Peter, speaking on this very same topic, only from the point of fulfilment, not type, highlights that the abiding Word which brings life is the Gospel. It is the Word proclaimed by Isaiah, preached by Peter. It is the abiding Word that not only brings life, but which then governs and orders life so much so that we must “fervently love one another”.

The second text from Peter, returns us to the point that God’s Morality can be found throughout the Old Testament and not just in the Decalogue. Likewise, this Morality, precisely because it belongs to God, is eternal and binding. Noting that there is to be a moral and righteous relationship between Christians on the basis of our redemption, Peter says (1:3:8-12), “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, “Let him who means to love life and see good days refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. “And let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. “For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

Can you see Peter’s methodology here? First, Peter makes certain statements in regard to what Christians should be and why. Then, to prove the correctness of his position he gives an extended quote from Psalm 34:12-16. Once more, the Old Testament does not become authoritative because it is used by Peter. Much rather, Peter uses the Old Testament because it is authoritative.

Similarly, we must see that the Psalm, not being part of the Decalogue, is nonetheless considered to be both Moral, valid, and abiding.

Conclusion:

When the Biblical evidence is assembled, it shows that Theocracy and Theonomy are not terms to be shunned, much rather, they are to be embraced. Furthermore, the very lack of understanding in regard to these concepts stems from the fact that we are using the World’s wisdom to gain understanding instead of turning unto God’s wisdom.

For example, we are being told by the word that Theocracy is bad and that it equates with tyranny (as if the World does not have a barrow to push!). We are told that a Secular government is right because it alone is neutral and will govern for all citizens. The simple fact is that both of these are lies, blatant lies!

Yes, from the Caesars to Idi Amin there have been those who have believed that they have been given a divine right to rule. In one sense they are right. God appoints all rulers and their place and time in history (Job 12:23; Daniel 2:21), but this act of Sovereignty by God is by no means equivalent to a genuine Theocracy. The true Theocracy is a rule established by God and for God. It rules by God’s law and for His glory. Despots with a “Jesus complex” or who delude themselves are rightly to be called rebels not theocrats. Even in regard to Israel, whilst we use the term Theocracy readily, we must understand its use in a loose manner. If the king, like an Ahab, did not fear Yahweh and seek to fulfil His commands, such a king was rebellious and not theocratic. He was in the truest sense a usurper and a pretender.

So, let us not use cases of abuse and cases which are not Theocracy to deter us from believing in the truth of a genuine Theocracy.

The second lie is that of Neutrality. All governments must be biased. They will of necessity be biased toward their fundamental belief system. Even a Theocracy – the very reason it is denounced – is not neutral but actively biased to God. Thus, when Bill Shorten, as one example, campaigns under a slogan of government for all Australians, he is nothing but a bold faced liar. Mr Shorten peddles the politics of Socialism. Therefore, he will discriminate against one group in favour of another, based on his belief system. For example, he has pledged to introduce same-sex marriage within so many days of taking government. This is not governing for all, as it immediately discriminates against every person who believes homosexuality to be errant.

So let us not as Christians, continue to peddle the Myth of Neutrality and concepts like religious freedom and the right of a Secular government, and so on, for it is this plurality that has led us into the current crisis. By admitting that there are many ways that are right, we have denied the exclusivity of God, His right to rule, and His right to rule by His law. In taking this stand, we Christians have opened the door to pluralism and fostered its uptake. Now the chickens are roosting and we are to pay the piper. How long will we halt between two opinions?

Lastly, let us remember the words of Paul: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”[5]

Paul calls God’s people to prayer. Paul calls God’s people to pray for those in authority. This must, of course, include those who form government, no matter what form that government takes. For us, the importance comes when we consider the purpose for which we are to pray – that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (NIV: holiness; we like “reverence”).

If we take these words seriously, then we cannot just pray a flippant prayer; we cannot just pray for a good government; No, we must pray for a righteous government! It is only righteousness that leads to peace and tranquillity. Godliness cannot be achieved through a Secular government; neither can holiness or reverence.

Therefore, if we are to be true to Paul’s command, we must be praying for a government that fears and honours Jesus Christ and such a government can only be had when the hearts of those men forming government are yielded to Jesus by His Spirit!

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.”

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Footnotes:

[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[2] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[3] Even the Westminster Divines, who are big on worship and Sabbath acknowledge this point: WCF 21:8 – This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exod. 20:8, Exod. 16;23,25–26,29–30, Exod. 31:15–17, Isa. 58:13, Neh. 13:15–19,21–22) but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Isa. 63:13, Matt. 12:1–13)

[4] Matthew 19:16-22.

[5] 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial “Theo-” words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity.

Our first answer in relation to the extent and application of God’s law began by focusing upon our love for God. If we truly love God with all our being and God rules our hearts and minds, we can only be Theocratic and Theonomic in our outward expression of His manifest love. After all, if God rules our hearts and minds, we are already, as individuals, Theocratic and Theonomic, so it is only logical that the truth that governs the inner man ought to flow out through our words and actions.

This then hints at the first stumbling block – are we loving God so completely that He rules our hearts and minds? The reason that Theocracy and Theonomy are a challenge for many Christians in regard to the public arena has to do with the fact that they are not yet Theocratic and Theonomic in the inner man. The inner man, truly yielded to Christ the King, will live out the Theo- words in all of life. In fact, unless he be an utter hypocrite, it is impossible to do otherwise. Conversely, the inner man, not truly yielded to Christ Jesus the King, will remain committed to and under the rule of the Auto- words.[1]

Another stumbling block seems to be that, for many Christians, we have succumbed to a lie which tells us that law and love are opposed to each other. Most find it odd to have obedience tied to love, fealty tied to surrender. Thus, we have trouble with Jesus’ “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” because we try to rework our definition of obedience to fit with our skewed concept of love. Correspondingly, we have fallen for modern, erroneous notions that like driving wedges between concepts. Thus, obedience is opposed to love; law is opposed to grace; freedom is opposed to requirement, and so forth. This is what the moderns teach, but it is false. God loved us so much that He placed the requirement of the Law on Jesus so that He could show us grace and mercy. If we love Jesus, we will obey Him, just as Jesus loved the Father and obeyed Him. Our freedom from law is found in our obedience to God’s law. God’s law is grace because adherence to it keeps us safe[2] and nurtures us in the life of Christ.

So, please, let us grasp the idea that a profession of love to and for God means that we love Him exclusively, explicitly, and absolutely. To love God after this manner means surrender to His will and standards, which can only mean obedience to His revealed Law. To reject this package is to follow apostate Israel into adultery and idolatry and to contradict Scripture’s clear teaching.[3]

Moving on, a second answer comes from John. The apostle states that “sin is lawlessness.”[4] What law, then, are we “less” in order to be considered a sinner? Is it Man’s law or God’s law? The Westminster Divines asked and answered this question thusly: “What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)” So, to be lawless is to sin and to sin is to be “less” the law of God.

If you are in doubt, consider the next verses from John: “And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.” Says John, ‘God appeared to take away sin; God does not sin; the one who loves God does not sin; the sinning one does not know God.’ Confused? No need to be. It is very simple. Sin is Lawlessness. Sin is the lack of conformity unto or the transgression of the Law of God. If we are God’s, we are Lawful and sinless; if we are not God’s we will be Lawless and sinful.

Therefore, Biblically and historically, the Church, in the case before us the Early and Reformation Churches, has recognised that it is God’s law alone that provides the standards by which all things are to be measured. The transgression of God’s law brings sin and is sin, which equally equates to the fact that God’s law must be and is the only standard of righteousness.

Consequently, no individual, no family, no part of the Church, and no State can claim to be honouring God if they are not living under God’s King and honouring God’s law.

A third answer would be in regard to the Ten Commandments. Most Christians, erroneously, state that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God, but importantly, most admit that this Moral Law is still binding upon all men.

The question that springs to mind is, “If the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God and are still binding, why do we pick, choose, and discriminate between these Ten?”

What do we mean when we ask this? Well, let’s do a little survey. Below is an abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments. Please have a quick look and ask yourself, “Which of these are still valid for today?” Place a tick beside those you believe are valid.

No Other God’s;
No idols; (No false worship)
Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
Hour your father and mother;
No murder;
No adultery;
No thievery;
No false witness;
No coveting.

If we are consistent with the belief professed that these Ten Laws are equal to God’s Moral Law and that they are, consequently, still binding upon all men, then everyone should have ten ticks. Do you have ten ticks? If not, why not?

Now, we will make it tougher. All of these Ten Laws had penalties applied to them. How many of these Laws do you believe are still valid and abiding along with the original punishments? How many ticks do you now have? Less than the first time? If so, why?

The point of the exercise is to demonstrate how we will give hearty approval to ideas and concepts, but often, when those concepts are to be applied, we become shaky and our resolve evaporates.

For most Christians, there will be an affirmation that God’s Moral law is still binding. Christians will tell you that murder, thievery, and adultery are wrong. Some would even agree that the penalties given in the Law should still apply. Yet, here, we are already seeing the gap of opinion widen. For example, most Christians would agree that capital punishment for murder is right, but few would agree that capital punishment for adultery is right. How then do we justify this difference?

Most Christians agree that God alone must be worshipped and that idolatry is wrong. Yet, how many Christians believe that mosques and Buddhist temples should be banned in Australia because God is God and false worship is incorrect? Not many, judging from conversations and experience. Why this inconsistency?

The fourth Commandment establishes the Sabbath as a day to be hallowed, but to this most Christians would say, “Sabbath! What Sabbath?” Even though this is the Fourth of the Ten, Christians question it readily and they do so with no apparent reason. Why is this one Commandment not relevant any longer?

Again, these questions and points are not irrelevant. Experience has taught us that many Christians will give a hearty, “Yes! God is King. He must be honoured and obeyed!” but when it comes to practice, they will not oppose the mosque because this is Secular Australia. We will be told that we must accept homosexuality because God has either changed His mind on the subject or that we are no longer in Israel. These answers then entitle us to the privilege of once more listening to the hackneyed “love and tolerance” speech of the moderns.

Yet, we must ask, “How do we justify this type of double standard?” If God is God and He is jealous for the integral holiness of His Character – reflected in and by His law – how do we dismiss, change, or denigrate the first or any of the Commandments? Equally, for those enslaved to the “New Testament Christian” concept, we ask, “Where in the New Testament are we taught that God has abandoned His holiness, that God no longer cares about morality, that God has whittled the Ten Commandments to Four Plausible Proposals? The answer is, “Nowhere!”

It seems that we arrive at these points of inconsistency precisely because most Christians and most of Christendom are not committed to the Biblical concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy. Consequently, when we seek to live our lives we operate on principles that make us inclusive, implicit, relative or conditional, and plural, rather than being exclusive, explicit, absolute, and singular.

Turning again to the Church of the Reformation, we will find two snippets of wisdom that are very helpful and which will assist us to see that the principles of the moderns are new. The first is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and asks, “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. (Deut. 10:4, Matt. 19:17)”[5]

This first help comes in the word “summarily”. The Reformation Church did not believe that the Moral law was the Ten Commandments; it believed that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the Moral law.

Thus, the Commandment on adultery, for example, becomes case laws that proscribe fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality whilst conversely promoting and upholding marriage, family, and sexual purity. The Commandment on thievery becomes a command not to shift a boundary stone or to offer a bribe in order to pervert justice.

When understood in this manner, we see that the case laws are not irrelevant abstractions for the Old Testament people, which had no continuity to the Moral law, but were, rather, an application of God’s holy character to life and were themselves Moral Laws.[6]

The second help comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism and asks, “Of what use is the moral law to all men? The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, (Lev. 11:44–45, Lev. 20:7–8, Rom. 7:12) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (Micah 6:8, James 2:10–11) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: (Ps. 19:11–12, Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7) to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, (Rom. 3:9,23) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (Gal. 3:21–22) and of the perfection of his obedience. (Rom. 10:4)”[7]

The Reformation Church is most helpful in clarifying this point. As noted above, we today want to drive wedges between concepts. Consequently, we will not preach Law, contrary to Biblical commands, because we want Man to experience God’s love. Because we will not preach Law, we must then try and invent ways to evangelise. When these manmade inventions fail, we simply move on to ‘Version 2.0’ rather than repent and seek God’s wisdom. However, in contradistinction to the modern concept, the Church in former ages realised the validity of the Law as a God appointed instrument of righteousness by which men will see Jesus the Christ and His perfection as their only hope.

Therefore, if we want to see God in Christ glorified, we must understand the importance, centrality, and abiding validity of God’s Moral Law, which is summarised in the Ten Commandments. If we would see a holy people and a holy nation that willingly bow before Jesus in heartfelt gratitude at the wonder of His salvation, then the one firm Biblical directive we have is, “Preach the Law!” (Galatians 3:24.)

God almighty is not divided; neither is His word; neither are the Persons of the Trinity; neither are His revelations. As God is One, so is all that He has given to Man for wisdom and instruction. The Old Testament does not teach one way to God and the New another. Jesus does not appear on the pages of the New Testament other than as the Messiah who was foreshadowed and promised in the pages of the Old. Jesus does not arrive with a different Law or set of principles, indeed Jesus could not, because He came to make known the Father; Jesus came as the exact representation of the invisible God![8]

Hence, any view that denounces Theocracy and Theonomy must be dismissed as attacks upon God’s Kingship and Rule over His creation through Jesus Christ, His Son, and, by extension, through His saved people. The Church in history has understood these points and has given us sound wisdom and we will ignore it to our peril.

God is King! He does rule and He must rule. We, the Church, are redeemed that we might “reign with Christ”[9] and our apprenticeship is now. If we love God, we will honour and obey God’s King, Jesus Christ, by living according to all that God in Christ has commanded.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are fundamental concepts that play an essential role in imbuing us with the essence of our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High God. We seem to forget that we were created and ordained as God’s viceregents, those given rule over God’s creation for God’s glory – fruitful, multiply, subdue, rule! We forget that our redemption is a restoration and re-empowerment to achieve this task. We forget that we are a people redeemed and called to worship (to declare the worth of God)—Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created! (Revelation 4:11); called to display His wonder upon the earth by reflecting His Kingship; called to live in obedience as a witness to Man that God is rightly to be obeyed for He alone is the true Sovereign; called that the display of God’s righteousness in us will convict men of their sin and show the exceeding wonder and perfection of Jesus, God’s Saviour and King.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] It would seem that too many have fallen for the heretical, “Take Jesus as your Saviour, but the lordship of Christ is an optional extra” line. Yet, the truth is that Scripture only knows a Saviour that can save because He is first and foremost God the King.

[2] My father spent a few years in the police force. He recounts a conversation with one old sergeant in which this experienced man said, “If you ever find someone at the bottom of the river, they will have fiddled with the till or with someone’s wife.” Thus, according to his observations, if we ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not commit adultery’, we have less probability of swimming with the fishes in an unhealthy manner.

[3] John 14:15 — If you love Me, you will keep My commandments; John 15:10 — If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love; John 14:21 — He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him; John 14:23 — If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him; 1 John 5:3 — For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome; 2 John 6 — And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. Please note the consistency of the theme: to love God is to obey or keep his commandments.

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

[6] I do not wish to labour his point, but would beg your indulgence for a practical demonstration of this point. The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 104, reads: “What are the duties required in the first commandment? The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; (1 Chron. 28:9, Deut. 26:7, Isa. 43:10, Jer. 14:22) and to worship and glorify him accordingly, (Ps. 95:6–7, Matt. 4:10, Ps. 29:2) by thinking, (Mal. 3:16) mediating, (Ps. 63:6) remembering, (Eccl. 12:1) highly esteeming, (Ps. 71:19) honouring, (Mal. 1:6) adoring, (Isa. 45:23) choosing, (Josh. 24:15,22) loving, (Deut. 6:5) desiring, (Ps. 73:25) fearing of him; (Isa. 8:13) believing him; (Exod. 14:31) trusting (Isa. 26:4) hoping, (Ps. 130:7) delighting, (Ps. 37:4) rejoicing in him; (Ps. 32:11) being zealous for him; (Rom. 12:11, Num. 25:11) calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, (Phil. 4:6) and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; (Jer. 7:23, James 4:7) being careful in all things to please him, (1 John 3:22) and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; (Jer. 31:18, Ps. 119:136) and walking humbly with him. (Micah 6:8)” Here the Divines are speaking of Man’s duty to God as it is outlined in the first Commandment. We would simply like to draw your attention to the list of texts to which they refer in order to prove their statements. The Moral Law, summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, is proved to be true for the whole of Scripture.

[7] Question and answer 95.

[8] See: Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-2.

[9] See: Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:6; 2 Timothy 2:12.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In part one of this article, we looked at three reasons as to why the terms Theocracy and Theonomy had created a stir. We did not, by any means, plumb the depths of the controversy, but hope that we presented enough information to help people think clearly.

In this second part, it is our desire to show a little more clearly that the modern rancour exhibited toward the concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy, and those who hold such beliefs, is both new and a departure from historic Christianity, especially historic Reformed Christianity.[1]

Christianity is not only a religion, it is a worldview. Our theology, based in God’s revelation, forms the basis of what we think and why we think it. A cogent paradigm may be that of a pilot flying high in the clouds. He has no sight to guide him. His senses are unreliable and, once he is subject to “spatial disorientation”, his senses can actually betray him. In such a situation his only hope is to rely upon his instruments. In the same way, Man, this side of the fall, cannot trust his sight or his instincts and, if he relies upon these, he will find himself betrayed.[2] His only hope is to be guided by the instrumentation of God – God’s word, the Bible.

The point is that God is a moral Being. Post-fall, Man is an immoral being. Conflict! Will Man rely on his wonky sight and unreliable senses or will he turn to the instrument panel supplied?

When Man fell, through rebellion and attempts to claim God’s throne, he was estranged from God and cast from His presence. However, Man never ceased from his desire to be God and to rule by his own law. Thus, throughout history we have witnessed a constant warfare between God’s order and that of fallen Man; a warfare by which Man seeks to supplant God. Consider recent history: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Obama, and Turnbull, just to name a few, are all examples of men who sought or are seeking to reengineer society after their own design. They do not look to God —though some may pretend—and the standard for society is that of their own making with the end goal being their own popularity and a name in the history books.

By contrast, Scripture categorically declares that God alone is the sovereign ruler and the rightful King. God the Father has, through Christ Jesus the Son, re-captured and extended His rule over all of His creation. Jesus has been appointed as God’s King in order to rule and subdue God’s enemies.[3]

So the question at the heart of these controversial “Theo-” words is: Who has the right to rule and by what standard or law does that rule take place? The second question, which is also very important, is; “If we say that God must rule by His law, are we going to live this declaration to the full?”

These are not random questions. They cut to the very heart of the matter. When Elijah stood before apostate Israel and said, “How long will you halt between two opinions, if Yahweh is God serve Him; if Baal, serve him?”[4] Elijah was not just shooting the breeze or listening to his own voice. No, he was making a declaration that you cannot serve two masters; you cannot live by two contrary philosophies; you cannot hold to two different religions; you may not have two Gods. Elijah threw out a concrete challenge to the people asking them pointed questions in regard to their faithfulness to Yahweh, the One God, Who alone had a rightful claim to their obedience. In essence, to use our terminology, Elijah demanded singularity and not plurality. Although Elijah gave the apostate people the option of serving Baal alone, the significant point was that it is impossible to serve two Gods as absolute, especially when their laws and standards were radically different.[5]

Indeed, the subsequent showdown between the prophet of Yahweh and the prophets of Baal was about the question, “Who has the sole right to rule?” In this encounter, we would do well to think of some ancient battles in which, to save lives, opposing armies would put up a single soldier to fight on their behalf with a winner takes all stake. A clear Biblical example is found in David opposing Goliath. Elijah stood alone for Yahweh and he triumphed.

Important to this narrative is the people’s response. When Yahweh’s prophet emerged victorious, the people gave up their silence, their initial response to Elijah’s question (v 21), and cried out, “The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God!”[6] With these words the people ceased to be silent and stationary. Finding both their voices and their feet, they acted in accord with the prophet’s call to seize the enemy. The opposing army was vanquished.

This showdown on Mount Carmel is just one of many in the Bible that drive home the fact that this world must be ruled Theocratically and Theonomically. This showdown reflects God’s jealousy for His own right to rule and His vehement opposition to usurpers. This showdown is a true reflection of the words found in Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.”

Of course, sadly, some will once again raise the issue of these encounters being those of the Old Testament. Once more there will be a tacit denial of the unity of Scripture and of its authority. This being the case, let us simply give three New Testament texts that show the unity of this theme throughout Scripture:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”[7]
… from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.[8]
And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.[9]

We will say nothing more in commentary than each of these texts is Theocratic and Theonomic. Each text shows one or both of these aspects. Together all show that God in Christ is the ruling King and that the nations must obey His commands and laws.

Therefore, when it comes to answering our question posed above, many Christians will answer the first part by saying that we should obey God and His law. Equally, many Christians, those who stopped reading at the first mention of Theocracy, find the Theo-words more than troublesome. However, the real controversy is arrived at when we ask the second question in regard to the extent and application of God’s rule by God’s law.

Theocracy: The First Part of the Question.

Let continue our argument with a concrete example. Paul Miller has written a book, Into the Arena, subtitled, Why Christians should be involved in Politics. On the back cover there is one little sentence that gives the game away. That sentence reads: Just how should God’s law relate to a secular society? Puzzled? Seems like a good sentence. Christians are being urged to go into politics in order to make a positive contribution. So what is the problem? Well, it is plurality. Notice that the fundamental presupposition is that a Secular State has both a right to exist and a right to make law. Note that the Christian is the one left to figure out how God’s law should fit into the Secular State, rather than the State being called upon to submit to and obey God. It may be overstating the case, but there is at least a hint of the fact that Christians are the transgressors seeking to force themselves into an arena in which they have no business when, in fact, the truth is the exact opposite. Thus, it will come as no surprise that in this book Paul Miller denounces both Theocracy and Theonomy. He rejects singularity for plurality.

The plurality, at this point, is seen in multiple streams of government and law. God is King. He has a law, and people should live by that law. Yet, the Secular State has a legitimate claim to a Secular rule and a right to institute its own law. So how do we resolve this tension? Many Christians have resolved this tension erroneously by positing that Christ rules the Church and that the Secular State is welcome to the political sphere, but this is not a resolution, it is capitulation and compromise. Nor is the answer to be found in Miller’s answer, which sees the Church as an Oliver asking, “Please Sir, can we play too?”

The true resolution, Biblically speaking, is found in Romans chapter thirteen. There we read a very simple statement, but one which is loaded with import: “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”[10] Put simply, God alone rules and every other institution that has rightly been given governance must rule as an extension of God and, therefore, by His standard—His law! Consequently, you must now take out your red pen and strike down the line in the above paragraph that states that the Secular State has a right to its own rule and law, for that statement is a lie. If a Secular State exists, it must be absolutely inconsistent with its own philosophies. It must rule according to the Word and Law of the One true God or be considered a usurper and suffer the consequences: “Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”[11]

Therefore, it is of absolute importance that we Christians cease to have a divided view of God’s Theocratic rule. We cannot say that ‘God is the absolute King!’ and then follow that statement with a litany of quid pro quos and caveats a mile lone. We cannot say that God was absolute King in the Old Testament. Does He no longer rule? We cannot say that God is absolute King, but only over the Church. What then of the Great Commission or the other texts listed above? We cannot say that God’s rule is absolute, but only in heaven. Do we not pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” Resultantly, we cannot give any credence at all to modern political schemes that state that God is not welcome because we are a Secular State or a Secular Society. Such statements are mere rebellion dressed in the language of deception.

If, then, we accept this incontrovertible teaching from Scripture in regard to Theocracy, we are left with the main controversy concerning the nature of God’s law and the extent to which it should be applied.

Theonomy: The Second Part of the Question.

The simplest answer, surely, is to be found in the words of Jesus when He answers the question, “Which is the great commandment?” with: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment. “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”[12]

When people read this answer, their focus is usually upon love. However, very few ever stop to ask concerning the true nature of love. If we take Jesus’ words and parable in explanation of “love for neighbour” as a paradigm, we see that such a love was sacrificial, selfless, and always had the other party’s best interest at heart. Armed with this basic definition, the question to be asked is “How do we express our love to God?” Seriously, we want you to think hard and give an answer. You see, as a Christian we have heard a lot throughout the years of God’s love for us, but ne’er much on our love for God. Do we love God by giving Him all our heart, soul, and mind? Do we show due love to God by surrendering to Him the seat of our being, giving to Him our eternity for His glory, and by thinking His thoughts after Him so that we will, in every instance, prove and obey the perfect will of God?

Brethren, this is serious stuff and it cuts to the heart of the matter under consideration. How do we say that we love God in all His Being and ways, and then give allegiance and obedience to another? How do we claim Solus Christus and Sola Scriptura, then bow to laws made by Man that run contrary to God’s revealed will and which seek to unseat God’s anointed King?[13] How do we, either logically or in love, say that Jesus is God’s King and then ignore Jesus and His word, choosing instead to accept and obey the statutes of Men – whether as the individual, the family, the Church, or the State?

How is it that we, as God’s blood bought people, could or would equate love with anything other than obedience to God’s law? Did not Jesus say, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments?” Is it not then very much requisite that we see that love for God and obedience to His commandments are but two sides to one coin? Is it not right that these two expressions be understood as stating the same thing? It would seem so; especially when Jesus “love” answers are said to by that on which the Law and the Prophets hang![14]

Conversely, is not a betrayal of our professed love akin to idolatry and adultery – two things proscribed in God’s law? Did not God accuse Israel of these very crimes because they honoured God with their lips and not their hearts?

What then makes the Christian any different? How can we mimic Israel by failing to love and obey God explicitly and exclusively and then claim that we are not guilty of idolatry and adultery just as they were? Why would God, having revealed to us the fullness and completeness of His Son, Jesus Christ, expect less of us than of those who dwelt in type and shadow?

Elijah still speaks; he still calls to the Church today – “How long will you halt between two opinions?” – and his call is to love God explicitly, exclusively, and absolutely! If we love God with all our heart, mind, body, soul, and strength, then in our attitudes and actions we must and can only be Theocratic and Theonomic. It is that simple. Any other standard is to introduce an Auto- word and it is to betray our Love and become adulteresses and idolaters.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] It is very important that the reader understand this point. Theocracy and Theonomy are based upon a Reformed world and life view that is derived from Scripture using a consistently Reformed hermeneutic. Therefore, other brothers, not sharing theses presuppositions are not likely to agree. This point is made especially for the sake of those who may have read negative critiques or heard outlandish claims – like Theonomists do not believe in personal salvation or that they want to rebuild the temple and start animal sacrifices again – for it is important that you understand from what perspective those critiques or claims were made. The other important factor to understand is that in the mid-seventeenth century, there was great unity amongst Christians in general on these points.

[2] Proverbs 16:25.

[3] 1 Corinthians 15:25.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21.

[5] As a simple example, how do you have sexual intercourse with a temple prostitute in service on one god, whilst at the same time honouring and serving the true God who has proscribed such behaviour with death?

[6] 1 Kings 18:39.

[7] Matthew 28:18-20.

[8] Revelation 1:5.

[9] Revelation 11:5.

[10] Romans 13:1b. Of course, this statement is a simple condensation of the much fuller expression given in Psalm 2!

[11] Romans 13:2.

[12] Matthew 22:37-40.

[13] Psalm 2 clearly shows that Jesus, Messiah and Son of God, is the anointed King. If you are in any doubt, look up the cross-references and you will see this Psalm applied to Jesus.

[14] Which again is a learning curve for most, is it not? Sadly the Church, for too long, has been taught that the Law is negative, restrictive, merciless, and without love; yet Jesus, the Son of God, says that the Law and the Prophets – the whole Old Testament revelation, hang on these two great commands of love.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Apologetics

The Fallacy of Absolute Free Speech

Infused with PC, Not JC!

Israel, Complacency, and Disunity

Knowing God

Apostasy

I am a Hater – a Godly Hater!

The Active Destruction of the Family

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)