Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(God’s Shepherd alone has God’s Worldview)

The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

Having laid down the basis of our contention with broad brush strokes, we now need to move to the specifics. Thus far, we have spoken of a clash of worldviews and of the fact that Christianity and Humanism share fundamentally different presuppositions. This means that the two systems are mutually exclusive. Consequently, as noted earlier, Humanism ‘not only should not, but it simply cannot inform the Christian’.

Here, we will seek to show why this exclusivity exists and why reconciliation between the two systems is unachievable.[1]

The Biblical worldview, simply summed up, can be stated in four tenets: 1) God is; 2) Creation; 3) Fall; and 4) Redemption.

1.) God is: Giving fuller explanation to these tenets, Christianity posits and believes that there is a perfect, holy, benevolent, and just God who has existed from all eternity.[2] This God is a communicative Being, Who, though One Being, exists in three distinct Persons. These Persons have and always will enjoy complete fellowship and unity within the Godhead. This perfect God is rightly the Absolute.

2.) Creation: Moving out from this basic presupposition, we see that this perfect and eternal God created the universe. This universe, being so created, was perfect precisely because it reflected God. For this reason, God could pronounce over his creation the benediction, “It was very good!”[3] This benediction naturally and obviously included Man. Further, Man was exalted above the other creatures when created by God and placed upon the earth because he was the only true Image Bearer in all of creation. By this we mean that, whilst all of creation bears the Creator’s mark, Man stands above all else in his abilities to actively and consciously reflect the attributes of God in the operation of his being. As such, Man was made perfectly, with all aspects of his being reflecting his subordinate position as God’s vice-regent. Truly, Man was the bridge between heaven and earth.

Man’s elevated status is shown in the Cultural Mandate.[4] God spoke with Man, giving both covenant and blessing. Man’s task was to populate and rule over the earth whilst operating under God’s auspices. Man was to exercise a limited dominion, that is to say, Man was to rightly rule that which was below him whilst being ruled by God, Who alone was the true sovereign. Hence, Man’s identity, purpose, and essential nature are intrinsically tied to God. This comes as the essential consequence of being created by God, for God, and in the image of God.

Man did not make his own rules; he simply implemented God’s rules. Man did not exist in isolation, he existed in fellowship. This fellowship was upward to God and sideways to the creation. Man ruled in peace and was ruled in peace. As a subordinate, Man always had a superior unto whom he could turn for counsel, wisdom, perspective, and the like.[5]

3.) Fall: When we enter upon step three, the Fall, Man sets himself on a self-destructive course. Man loses the clarity of his identity and being because he no longer enjoys a peaceable fellowship with God. Having rebelled against God, Man now finds the creation in rebellion. The peace is shattered and replaced with a persistent tumult; a tumult which reaches to the very core of Man himself! Rather than service in submission to God, Man now, conflicted and without direction, either demands to be served or becomes willing to serve anything but the Creator.[6] This puts Man into a complete spin.[7] Rather than serving God, Man becomes a hater of God.[8] Man – at this point the ultimate Humanist – wants to carve out a new existence for himself,[9] but he cannot escape the indelible marks of the Creator that are stamped forever upon his being.[10]

In this, Man is like the rebellious son who shifts into his own home to escape his parents. Only too late does he realise that he may have his own space, but that it is impossible to escape his parents completely. After all, he sees reflections of them in his mirror, he hears their sound every time he speaks, and he witnesses their standards every time he acts – for he either finds himself conforming to or self-consciously rebelling against their standard.

In the Fall, Man transitions from a position of dominion to the place of subjugation, and this by all aspects of his being, his environment, and the creation he once governed. He loses perfection. He loses harmony. He loses peace. He loses ease. He loses fellowship. He loses control. In this state, Man is under God’s judgement. His one path to restoration – seeking God and his forgiveness – is the one path that he will not and, indeed, cannot now choose. Consequently, Man simply rails against God more vociferously in the hope that he will drown out his conscience.[11] Man, to use the modern term, “gets busy” spawning idols after his own image and of his own making so that he can live in a world without God. Man creates his own philosophy to explain how and why he thinks as he does. Man creates his own history so that God is nowhere mentioned as the origin of the species or anything else for that matter. Lastly, and pertinently, Man creates his own diagnostic tools to measure and explain his seeming dysfunction.

4.) Redemption: Man knowing that something is wrong, suppresses that knowledge and seeks alternate explanations. He seeks restoration and rightness (wellness), but what he does not seek is (Biblical) redemption. Man wants to be made right, but on his own terms. Man therefore relies on his deceptive, self-made diagnostic tools to help explain his seeming deficiencies.[12] Man will not turn to God, so the seeming deficiencies must be explained or excused by another theory. Here, Man is like the rebellious son in the analogy above. He wants to make his own way, but he can never escape the marks of his upbringing and these constant reminders become to Man a source of continuous consternation.

Enter, Secular Psychology—the restoration of Man by Man using his own deceptive self-diagnostic tools—and the crux of the problem. Man was made by God for God. This is hardwired into his being at every point. From this fact there simply is no escape. Consequently, any interpretation of Man that does not reference the four simplified tenets, above, becomes an overt attempt to remodel Man according to an ungodly or apostate pattern. This is Man’s ultimate act of vandalism as he seeks to actively deface himself in a vain attempt to remove from himself every remaining mark that says, “Made in the image of Almighty God!”

Naturally, this is not only a painful process; it is a frustrating one, for it can never fully realise its goal. Imagine trying to remove a tattoo with steel wool. The image, ingrained in your skin, can only be removed by tearing away layers of yourself. Yet, the process never really satisfies. The removal of the image causes great mental anguish, as you suffer the pain of that steel wool incessantly gnawing at your flesh. This has to leave a mental picture that you will carry with you and which will undoubtedly be a reminder to you of your actions and aims. Then there is that painful abrasion. When you look to the site where the image was, you now see an open wound, bloodied, weeping, sore, and uncomfortable. This needs treatment. So there are trips for healing, procedures, dressing changes, and medications – all reinforcing the desperate nature of your act of erasion. After months, the pain subsides and the wound heals. Are you now satisfied? Not likely. Every time you look at the site where the image was, you are confronted with an ugly scar. Now you try to hide the scar with make-up and clothing – anything to make you forget! However, the very act of covering the site is in itself a constant reminder of both the removal process and your motives for that removal.

Linleigh J. Roberts[13] showed the futility of this approach with an even better illustration, akin to the following. You go out to your car one morning. After several aborted attempts the car finally starts. Yet, it is immediately evident that something is wrong, for the car sounds like the proverbial “chaff cutter” and after running for several minutes it is showing no sign of improvement. Frustrated you call the mechanic. He arrives and looks over the car. He politely asks you for the manual. The mechanic takes it in hand and begins thumbing through the pages. After so many pages he would put down the manual, change a few things, and start the car. Yet, nothing changed. The car still sounded like the “chaff cutter”. In the end, you see the frustrated mechanic take out his pen and begin to rewrite the car’s manual. Rubbing insult to injury, you are flabbergasted when the mechanic returns the manual and tells you that the car is working perfectly, as it now conforms to the manual.

Again, I sense spilt coffee and some muttered words along the lines of, “You have gotta be kidding me! No one would ever fall for or accept that type of practice!” Well, if that is what you are thinking, you are simply wrong. This is exactly what transpires every time we turn from God’s word and God’s appointed means. This is exactly what occurs every time we turn from the Biblical worldview.

Linleigh’s illustration sounds absurd only from the point of view that the owner knew that the car originally ran differently and, armed with this knowledge, he should not have accepted the mechanic’s remedy.[14] This granted, let’s modify the illustration slightly. Let’s say that this is the fifth owner of the car and that when he purchased the vehicle it ran like this. Let’s also say that this was the experience of owners two through five. What now? Owner five has only two viable options at this point. Option 1: Return to the first owner (or believe the Maker’s Manual), the only owner who knows how the car functioned when it was tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, or; Option 2: Presume that the car has always, even from the assembly line, operated in this (defective) manner.

In essence, this is the quandary faced by all the Secular Humanists. When faced with a malfunction, a deficiency, the Secular Humanist does not return to the original owner or consult the Maker’s original manual. Rather, he amasses generations, owners two through five in our analogy, to support his supposition that Man has always operated in this particular way and that this model, homo sapiens, has always been attended by those particular rattles and clunks. However, it is important to note that this information is only based on the observation and experience of some of the owners. [15] No one has returned to the original owner and asked the question – “How did the car run when you owned it?” This distortion is then spread and confirmed by the mechanics who, having been taught to ignore the Maker’s manual, set about writing and disseminating a new manual which describes Man, with all his observed rattles and clunks, as normal.

Unpacking the illustration is very simple. God is the One Who wrote the Maker’s Manual – we call it The Bible. He knows Man’s vital statistics, so to speak. God made Man and God made Man to His standard. Therefore, asking any Man post-fall what Man should be or to what he corresponds is like quizzing owners two through five from the car analogy. All they know is the broken, fallen model, so they are of no use in finding out the original specifications. They simply cannot inform us as to Man’s original condition, for they are ignorant of that condition.

In terms of the four base tenets of the Biblical worldview, there is simply no agreement with Secular Humanism, nor can there be. The Secular Humanist does not accept that God is. The Humanist does not accept that Man was made perfectly in the image of this God. The Humanist does not accept the fact that man is a poor shadow of his former self because of the Fall. Hence, the Secularist will always look for auto-salvific means outside of God and rooted in Man.[16]

As a consequence, a Secularist can never arrive at the truth of God. Starting on the wrong road, he cannot reach the final destination. This is the key objection that must be noted. The Secularist may, as an image bearer living in God’s world, stumble across and observe certain of God’s truths. However, the Secularist can never see man correctly diagnosed or healed because he does not build upon the foundation of God and His Word. In essence, the Secularist sees counselling as corrective, not redemptive;[17] it is to bring inner peace, not peace with God; it is aimed at mitigation, not reconciliation.

Like the mechanic, the Secularist begins to re-write the Maker’s manual so that Man – the chaff cutter – is made to look normal. The process looks like this. Humanism’s basic presupposition is, God is not. Erasing God seems like an excellent start and it certainly helps to soothe Man’s aching conscience. Nonetheless, other issues are encountered. These can be summed up in the old chestnuts, “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” with the addition of “How did I get here?”

With God removed, we now must explain our origins. So a new religion is invented. This religion is Evolution. Man is no longer the product of an eternal, ordered, perfect God; he is but the product of random chance, time, and chaos. Okay, this helps explain how we got here without reference to God. Phew! How about, “Who am I?” Does that not now become a bit tricky? Well yes, as a matter of fact it does. If we are not image bearers, then what am I; what is Man? Well, the new theologians of Evolution come up with the answer. They tell us that we are just a base animal who currently resides at the top of the food chain. Cool! Now, can you explain why I am here? Oh yes. That one is easy. If I am an animal at the top of the food chain, then I simply must endeavour to remain where I am. I have two goals. I must remain the fittest and to do this I must eliminate the weakest.

Conveniently, questions about morals, faith, and these sticky questions get left out of the discussion. When someone feels that they need to engage in behaviour outside the norm, they are generally encouraged in that direction.[18] However, the Evolutionary religion cannot explain the internal struggle that many feel. Abortion is natural. This baby can threaten my body shape, my wealth, my attractiveness to men, and so on. What counsel does Evolution give to a mother who struggles to make the decision to kill her child or the mother who regrets killing their child? Honestly, the only counsel that they can give that is consistent with their religion is, “Wake up to yourself you stupid woman, you have no conscience, there are no morals, simply embrace your decision as that which secured your future, for this is your only concern, and move on!”

This response is harsh, very harsh, yet it is completely consistent with Secular Humanism’s religion and professed beliefs.

Humanism, denying God, must ipso facto deny Creation, Fall, and Redemption, especially as they are defined in Scripture. This Man does religiously and philosophically. What he can never do is achieve this goal empirically and experientially, for God’s “make plate” is stamped indelibly onto His creation, Man most of all. This is the dilemma and the source of the Humanist’s pain. Man lives as though God is not there, yet every shred of his existence tells Man God is there.[19] So Man rewrites the manual. Man scratches painfully at his own being hoping to erase any trace of the Maker or His mark, but all to no avail. Instead of a panacea, Man only creates a pandemic as he misdiagnoses and mistreats himself. Instead of ending the crisis, Man’s faulty presuppositions make sure his suffering, dissatisfaction, and hurt are endless.

It is for this reason that we counsel the Christian to have nothing to do with Secular Psychology and the Secular practitioner. The Apostle states: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”[20] Thus, our counsel is not opinion; it is given on the authority of God, His Word, and His Apostle!

When you seek out the Secular Psychologist, you are seeking out darkness, Belial, and idols. Therefore, only danger awaits if you choose to stand in the “counsel of the ungodly”[21] and ignore all the Biblical warnings.[22]

Put as plainly as possible: It must be understood that Humanism is a complete turning away from the Biblical worldview. Humanism is, therefore, Apostasy. Consequently, any science based upon such apostasy must of necessity partake of its poison. If we accept the science, we accept the poison. It really is that simple.

If you, as a Christian, baulk or are tempted once more to eject coffee from your oral cavity at these statements and the use of the term “apostasy”, then please consider this question: “Who, ultimately, are the Humanist’s rejecting?” Yes, that is right, Who, not what?

When the Humanist denies the basic tenets of the Christian worldview, this is not a harmless disagreement over what constitutes a worldview, it is, much rather, an obvious attack upon Who institutes your worldview. Thus, the Humanist does not start with the rejection of the material, Creation; rather he begins with the rejection of the Personal, there is no (personal, intimate, immanent) God! In rejecting God and His Personality[23] at the outset, the Humanist must continue to reject all of God’s Personal interactions with the world at every stage; Creation and Redemption. Thus, the Humanist is engaged in an outright and blatant attack upon God Himself, especially as He is revealed in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God’s only and beloved Son.

In each of the four tenets of the basic Christian worldview, as outlined, Jesus is of fundamental importance and plays an intrinsic role. Thus, the Humanist does not simply reject God; he rejects God’s Creator; he rejects God’s Judge; and he, therefore, ultimately rejects God’s Redeemer. Written out, in order to aid clarity, it would look something like this:

1) Who is God? Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Trinity;[24]

2) Who is the Agent of Creation? Jesus Christ is God’s Agent of Creation;[25]

3) Who is God’s Judge of the Fallen? Jesus Christ is God’s Judge;[26]

4) Whom did God appoint to be the Redeemer of His people? Jesus Christ is God’s only Redeemer.[27]

How then do we, as Christians, lie down with a system that blatantly attacks our beautiful and much beloved redeemer, Jesus? How do we claim to be obedient servants, if we are adopting and implementing a worldview, or parts thereof, that are built upon the explicit denial of Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture? How do we delude ourselves into thinking that such hostility and outright blasphemy can be baptised and then press ganged into service in the Church without detriment?

In conclusion, then, a denial of God, Creation, Fall and Redemption, or any portion thereof; a positing of another way of Salvation; an overt rejection of the fact that sin is separation from God and therefore lawlessness to be judged; or the adoption of any concept that denies that Man is made in God’s image, is nothing less than an explicit denial of the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ. That is a gross blasphemy. Therefore, if found in the mouth of a Humanist, it is sheer heresy; in the mouth of someone who claims to be a Christian, it is apostasy!

Footnotes:

[1] The only way that these systems can be united, generally speaking, is for the tenets of one of the systems to be erased, ignored, grossly misapplied, or misinterpreted. Generally, it is the Biblical standards that are washed of meaning. As we shall see later, Secular Psychology is adept at stealing Biblical concepts, reworking and rebadging them, and then sells them as something new of its own making—just like the triumphant explore who returns home victorious after naming a supposedly as yet undiscovered mountain. The explorer did not make the mountain, place the mountain, or magically cause the mountain to be manifest. No, he simply discovered something that already existed, that was possibly already known to others, that was already present, and that was already impacting the world.

[2] See Question and Answer 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is God? God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7–9) eternal, (Ps. 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his being, (Exod. 3:14) wisdom, (Ps. 147:5) power, (Rev. 4:8) holiness, (Rev. 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Exod. 34:6–7).

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] It is important for us to avoid the idea that because this relationship existed in perfection that it was a cold, automated relationship. Adam would have been in constant fellowship with God. Adam would have asked questions, gaining knowledge and wisdom through these interactions. This pattern is exemplified in Jesus. He knew His task. He knew what it was that He was born to do. Yet this did not create distance. Rather, it was the basis for a deep fellowship and mutual respect.

[6] Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

[7] Ephesians 2:12. Devoid of a covenant relationship with God, Man was without hope in the world. This lack of hope was the consequence of Man loosing / rejecting the one true guiding principle, God!

[8] John 7:7.

[9] Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 11:4.

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

[12] We speak of “seeming deficiencies” because Man will not admit to sin and moral corruption. Nonetheless, Man spends a great deal of his day seeking the Utopian dream. He speaks often of the “human condition”, expresses a constant desire for “peace” and “harmony”, and is constantly disappointed by and expresses outrage at Man’s own inability to realise these because of Man’s own self-destructive tendencies. The UN, Greenpeace, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, to name but a few, as well as the whole psychological movement are a testimony to the fact that Man acknowledges that he has a serious problem, a deficiency. Yet, he still refuses to admit that he has a moral problem. Man repudiates the idea that he has, if you will, a deep seated wiring problem (sin) that God alone can fix. Consequently, all Man’s panaceas must be of his own design and according to his own diagnosis. Man is simply deficient, not corrupt, and deficiencies can be corrected with education or coercion.

[13] A poetically licensed version. See Linleigh J. Roberts, Let Us Make Man, Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh. p 43. As Linleigh goes on to state, we would not accept this type of practice from a doctor. We would be rightly indignant if our GP simply rewrote his text books every time we showed at his clinic with an ailment. Why then do we accept this in the areas of philosophy and psychology?

[14] In terms of this illustration, though, we must remember that most people are mechanically inept and would therefore accept the mechanics judgement. After all, he is the professional. Similarly, most people do not have a clue about worldviews, so when the psychologist, the professional, suggests a remedy, they will generally imbibe it without question.

[15] An example of this can be seen in Andrew Marr’s, History of the World. In this BBC DVD set, subtitled “An epic and definitive account of 70,000 years of Human history”, Marr is left to conclude that the only thing from which we have to learn is our own history. There is no revelation from God; hence Christianity is explained away as the invention of Saul who had a bit of an experience on the road to Damascus – something akin to heatstroke! With this denial of revelation, Marr, and thousands like him, commit themselves to an ultimate futility. We can only know what Man might be or become based on what Man has been throughout history. Yet, history does not show Man to have been particularly successful at anything but bloodshed. Marr himself speaks words similar to, “Homo Sapiens means ‘wise man’”. He then refers to us as apes made good, before ultimately concluding that we are “smart” not “wise”. If this is what our 70,000 year history teaches us, what hope do we have? From whence does Wisdom come? The answer is, “Nowhere but our own history!” We must simply keep inventing and applying ideas in the hope that one day we may strike the right formula. Then, we must hope that the rest of mankind, looking back to us from the future, will realise that we had the right solution and adopt it for the sake of humanity.

[16] To be clear, Man does not truly seek redemption, he seeks wellness or rightness. In other words, he does not like his deficiencies. So, he is on a quest to discover the panacea. However, it has to be realised that it has become very fashionable of late for the Secularist to use the words redemption and atonement. However, he uses both terms erroneously. Redemption implies the act of redeeming, which means to “to buy back” or “buy out”. This is a perfectly Biblical word, as it aptly describes God’s action of paying for the sins of His people. We are God’s because He purchased us with the blood of His beloved Son, Jesus. What does the Secularist mean when he uses this term? How did he pay for his sins or remit the payment? Whom did he pay? With what did he pay? Similarly, the Christian treasures the term “atonement” as that which paid for our sins or covered over our transgressions. The Secularist has to break this word apart and make it say at-one-ment, thereby implying peace with himself.

[17] Compare Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p67 – “Any such counselling that claims to be Christian surely must be evangelistic. Counselling is redemptive.”

[18] See this article and note how the girl was guided to the Humanist options. Any other concept was dismissed. http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1401-a-wonderful-story-jean-lloyd-the-girl-in-the-tuxedo-two-variations-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity. It is also worth noting that the Humanist hypocrites still cannot or will not explain, on the basis of their religion, why homosexuality and polygamy are acceptable but bestiality and paedophilia are not. This said, some Humanists have taken that leap, realising that for their religion to be consistent that all restraints are to be removed. These are generally ushered to the rear of the car and hastily stuffed in the boot – that’s the “trunk” for our US brethren – because their desire for consistency ultimately gives the game away.

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

[22] Psalm 5:9 – “There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself; Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue.” Proverbs 12:26 – “The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 10:32 – “The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.” Proverbs 14:7 – “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.” — remember that the Biblical “fool” is not just a silly fellow, but the one that says “There is no God!” Surely, this is the Secular Humanist.

[23] That is, the Trinity. If God is rejected, then it follows that the Persons of the Godhead are equally denied.

[24] Judges 6:11-15; John 10:30.

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

[26] Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; John 5:22-24.

[27] John 14:6; Colossians 1:13-14; Luke 1:68; Romans 3:23-24. See also: Westminster Confession 8:1 – It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 1:19–20, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5) the Prophet, (Acts 3:22) Priest, (Heb. 5:5–6) and King (Ps. 2:6, Luke 1:33) the Head and Saviour of His Church, (Eph. 5:23) the Heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and Judge of the world: (Acts 17:31) unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, (John 17:6, Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10) and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (1 Tim. 2:6, Isa. 55:4–5, 1 Cor. 1:30)

Equality and Coercion: The Antipodes of Humanism

Posted on March 10, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

“You will know them by their fruits”, so says Jesus.[1] This is a wonderful piece of advice and one which every Christian should learn to put into practice. In essence, Jesus is telling us that if you want to understand what makes a man tick, look at the fruit of his ideas. If someone comes to you selling “sweetness and light”, but behind him there is a trail of stench and darkness, then you would rightly question the intrinsic nature of the salesman’s product. In such a scenario, the terms ‘witchdoctor’ and ‘snake oil’ would readily spring to mind.

As Christians in the year 2015, we have many witchdoctors peddling much snake oil, but it all comes packaged as “sweetness and light” or, more specifically, Religious Freedom and Equality. Yes, the packaging sells the product well. It is bright and shiny. It makes some wonderful claims that just warm the cockles of your heart. It’s calorie free. It can be consumed at any time. It will add volume to your hair and … you get the picture. Yes, it seems laudable and the racketeers, oh, sorry, marketers, do a fine job in pushing their product. However, have you stopped to look at the fruit of their wares? When you look at our culture, are people healthy, thin, and sporting voluminous bouffants or are they ailing, squidgy around the middle, and balding?

Brethren, what fruit do you see about you today?

This challenge is necessary precisely because the common place mantra in the Church today is “Do not judge; do not judge!” Consequently, when we as Christians are confronted with fruit that is rancid or which looks highly questionable, we tend to be duped or coerced into believing the packaging and its claims. Thus, we quote the mantra, breathe deeply, and take a bite, rather than dispose of the rotten fruit — pledging never to buy from that retailer ever again!

Two such pieces of ugly fruit, being mass marketed as we speak, are Religious Freedom and Equality. Yet, both are rotten to the core. They are so because they are anti-God and as such contravene explicit commands that God has given. As such, one would think that the average Christian would give these products wide birth. However, it still seems that Christians are willing to believe the promises of the racketeers, rather than the Word of God.

Reformation Ministries, Salt Shakers, and other Christian organisations, expend much energy on warning people, Christians in particular, about the dangers of Humanism and electing governments whose explicit agendas run contrary to God’s Word. Today, we place upon your table the fruit of Humanism’s hollow promises, garnished with a real life example of Humanism’s hypocrisy.

We are all aware of the terms Religious Freedom and Equality. Both are pushed by the Humanists. Both are said to mean that any and every man will be free to believe what he will and act in accordance with his own conscience. This sounds good to many, but it is in fact the first false step. Man was created in God’s image and for His glory.[2] As such, Man’s beliefs and conscience are inextricably tied to the Law and revelation of God as opened to us in the Bible.[3] In short, Man is not autonomous, he is Theonomic. Man is not “I” centred (anthropocentric), but “God” centred (Theocentric).

Applying this Biblical truth means that Man is neither free to follow any religion he likes or invents nor able to demand equality for every practice. By this we mean that Man must worship God, through Jesus Christ, as God has specified in Scripture and that Man’s acceptable behaviour is that, and only that, which God in His Word countenances.[4] This means that bowing to a golden image is as wrong today as it was in Daniel’s time. It means that the wicked are not equal with the righteous or the murderer with the innocent.

Thus, Religious Freedom and Equality are usurpations of God’s rule and authority and they are a manifestation of Man’s desire to ascend to the throne of God.

That this is so can be seen in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, which comes to us from the USA.[5] This 70 year old, a Christian florist, has fallen foul of the State authorities for refusing to supply flowers for a homosexual union – what is termed as ‘gay marriage’. In looking at this case, we see that the Humanist veil has completely fallen off, displaying their bigotry, bias, and hostility to Christ and His own.

The cut down version of the story is that a long time customer of Mrs. Stutzman took advantage of perverse marriage laws[6] and decided to unite with his homosexual partner. Mrs. Stutzman was in turn asked to provide flowers for the event. After careful consideration, she politely declined the invitation. From this seemingly amicable declining of an invitation, the story, carried by the great evil of social media, began to circulate. At this point, Washington State’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, having viewed the social media, stepped in and sued Mrs. Stutzman. That’s right. The Attorney General, without a complaint from the man involved launched a suit against Mrs. Stutzman. Bob Ferguson’s rationale is this: “My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I[7] will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”[8]

Here, we enter upon the conundrum. We subtitled this article, The Antipodes of Humanism, and we did so for this reason – Humanism cannot reconcile its two great mantras!

When Christians defend the faith, they can be criticised for being biased – which we are happily; biased toward God and His Word – and people can use that bias to disbelieve the message.[9] However, the above story, giving voice to the Humanist agenda, shows that the fruit of Humanist philosophy is rancid, unpalatable, and poisonous. It does so precisely because it proves that the two great Humanist mantras of Religious Freedom and Equality are completely incompatible. It proves that Humanism cannot guarantee everybody’s freedom. At some point, a person’s ideology (religion) is going to clash with another’s ideology as the fruits of that ideology (actions) are put on display.

Let’s make it simple. Your religion will dictate your practice. Your religion specifies your morals; your morals are worked out through your fingertips, so to speak. Now the fallacy of Humanism, and its outright hypocrisy, is that it tries to pretend that all actions and, therefore, all religions are equal. However, this simply cannot be true and the above story proves it to be so. A Christian operating on her religious convictions refuses a service to another person based on the fact that the other person’s religion and practice conflicts with her own. At this point, Humanism should be delighted. Both parties have expressed their conviction and have practiced their religion accordingly. Yet what we see is that Humanism is decidedly unhappy. Mr. Ferguson, wielding the power of the State, is incensed and feels that action is warranted.

Naturally, he must favour the Christian. After all, she holds to tenets that have been cherished and believed for thousands of years. She believes as the founders of America believed – in a Law giving God who proscribed homosexuality as an abomination. Hers is the established religion of centuries. The judges of America sit beneath the Ten Commandments. Surely, hers is the right! No. Not so.

You see, the new god dictates who is right and who is wrong. The worshippers of this new god know that Equality is a fallacy precisely because not all religions agree on every tenet and disagreement must mean a difference in practice.[10] Yet, they continue with their mantra hoping to blind as many people as possible.

The key lesson here is that Humanism is itself a religion and one that is, at present, far more destructive than the threat posed by Islam. Please do not be fooled by Humanism’s rhetoric of either Freedom or Equality; neither be fooled by Humanism’s claim to be neutral. All are lies. When a stalemate occurs, as in the above story, the servants of the new god become the umpires and they will always side with that which promotes their religion and their god.

This said, there are other disturbing elements to this story. For example, Mrs. Stutzman is not only being sued as a business, but also as a person. She has now also had lawsuits brought against her by the ACLU and the person involved. Then there are the homosexual activists who are now sending more requests to Mrs. Stutzman for flowers at their union ceremonies, knowing she will refuse and thereby increase fines and so on.

These elements are wrong and true justice is mocked. For example, how many times can a person be sued for one action? If the Attorney General proceeds first, in the name of the State, on what basis are these other suits presented. In essence, any person in America aggrieved at this lady’s action could sue her![11] Then we have to ask as to the rights of a business owner to refuse service to a person. How is refusing service to a homosexual any different to refusing service to a person with an inappropriate dress code or who is drunk?[12] Both these later examples are acceptable, with one being required by law. Hence, we can only conclude that discrimination is acceptable, it is simply a matter of whom you choose to discriminate against and on what basis.

This then leads us to a clarion statement: Christian, the persecuted Church no longer exists in Communist, Islamic, and Third World countries. It exists right here, in the so-called Christian West! America calls itself a Christian nation, yet She actively persecutes true Christians. Do not be fooled, the same is happening here in Australia. It may be less noticeable, but it is here. It is not different in nature, only in degree.

Hence, we, as God’s people, must take action whilst we are still able. Dear friends, this is why we ask you to join us in our stand against these false standards. This call is issued because, sadly, the Christian populace has largely embraced these false ideas of Freedom and Equality, either naively thinking that they were good or they have been coerced by law and threats of litigation.

In essence, Freedom of Religion and Equality are the Secular Humanist’s values enshrined in law and the means by which they will discriminate against all those who hold to a different religion. In the end, the question is not, “Will there be discrimination in our society?” but “Who is to be discriminated against and by what standard?”

We ask, therefore, that you might join in rejecting all forms of the Humanist agenda and thereby become an integral part of the Church Militant instead of the Church compliant.

[1] Matthew 7:20.

[2] Genesis 1:26-28.

[3] Question and answer 3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism highlight this: “What do the scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. (2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Tim. 3:16)”

[4] The perfect example of this pattern is to be seen in the Ten Commandments. The first four deal with God and His worship, the following six with how man should relate to man. God therefore loves the one who worships correctly and hates the one who presents false worship. God deplores the thief and the adulterer, but has regard for the one who honours his parents. In God’s eyes, not all religions are valid or all actions acceptable. God, as the perfect Sovereign, determines these things. Not Man!

[5] http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/florist-barronelle-stutzman-refuses-to-pay-fine-for-refusing-to-provide-flowers-for-a-gay-marriage-on-religious-grounds/story-fnizhakg-1227236997936. We are citing this case because the USA is further advanced in capitulating to the homosexual agenda and it is hoped that the ramifications seen there might awaken us to action before we begin to see and experience the same here.

[6] This is of course an imposition of the Humanist god. The One living and true God says that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that for life. God does not recognise homosexual unions as legitimate. They are viewed as rebellion.

[7] It is an interesting use of the personal pronoun at this point.

[8] If all discrimination is wrong, then open the jails. In fact, one must destroy all law. Any law, any compulsion, is intrinsically an act of discrimination or, at the very least, holds the potential to be discriminatory. Similarly, if Mr. Ferguson wants to remove “discrimination the basis of sexual orientation” and genuinely wants to be fair to all, why then does he only stand up for that which is Biblically and historically aberrant behaviour?

[9] Of course, the Humanists admit no such bias. They would have you believe that they were born in a vacuum and remain untouched by the world of ideas around them.

[10] A man whose religion sates that he is bound to obey a God who has revealed His will is going to have a very different set of practices to the man that sets himself up as god and believes that he rightly determines his own actions.

[11] It must be said that in Biblical justice the person wronged must be the complainant, unless that person is incapable of doing so. The Bible knows nothing of the State benefitting from cases of justice; the beneficiary must be the person wronged.

[12] We could even turn the question around and ask, “At what point will a customer be compelled to shop in a particular store against their will?” If the owner of a business is compelled to deal with everyone, when will he be able to compel everyone?

Hell: It’s Just Too Much

Posted on February 10, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Last week we published a post entitled the Hypocrisy of Humanism. The point of that post was to focus upon the obvious double standard and fork tongues employed by the Humanists when they use the phrase Freedom of Speech. The example in that post was of Stephen Fry’s ability to publically call God “stupid” without repercussion or outcry from those most apt at ‘kicking up a stink’ when they claim to have been aggrieved.[1]

Today, we witness another abuse. This time the source of our complaint is some structured editing or dubbing to mask a clear Biblical statement.

Darrell Waltrip, ex NASCAR driver and Christian, was invited to be the key note speaker at this year’s US National Prayer Breakfast. This event has made some headlines of recent because, in the midst of rampant Humanism and the presence of a God-hating President, the organisers have actually invited speakers who believe in prayer and, more importantly, the God of the Bible Who alone hears prayer. This year was no exception.

Waltrip’s speech focused on certain aspects of his life, including the car accident used by God to draw Waltrip to salvation. As a result of this accident, Waltrip was confronted with the reality that his life could have ended there and then. This led to the inevitable question of where eternity would be spent. Waltrip knew that he had never made time for God and that he had certainly not lived for God’s glory. Thus, he rightly concluded that his eternity would have been one of Hell-fire.

At this point, Waltrip turned the tables and challenged the audience. Boldly, he stated that “Good people go to Hell”. He then went on to proclaim the Gospel truth that it is only those saved and repentant sinners, washed in the blood of Jesus, who go to heaven. Pointedly, Waltrip then added: “If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if he’s not the Master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you of your sins, or if you are just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re going to go to hell.”

Well done Waltrip.

Now the interesting thing, and the complaint of this post, is that one of the video clips viewed dubbed to silence the words “going to go to Hell”.[2] Interestingly, the dubbed version appeared on a page with this headline: “Atheists Outraged After NASCAR Legend Says This About God and Salvation.” Hmmm? So the people who do not believe in God or Hell are now outraged. Why? Do they feel sorry for Mr Waltrip because he is deluded? Not at all. It has to do with Freedom of Speech. These atheists want to be free to not listen to any speech that reminds them that they are under obligation to obey God and His law. Consequently, they campaign vigorously and complain vociferously so as to allow only that speech which does not challenge them to obey or remind them of their obligations.

Once again, we see the insincerity of these Humanists who demand the right to be able to say what they want in pursuit of their ideals and goals, but then deny that same right to those who would oppose.

There is great hypocrisy in the dubbing of these words. Let’s face it, the atheists of Hollywood are always using the term “Hell”. It would be hard to find a modern shoot-em-up movie that did not use the word at least once. We remember Kurt Russell’s portrayal of Wyatt Earp in Tombstone. Toward the end, as he sets out for vengeance, he yells, “Tell them I’m coming and Hell’s coming with me!” So, obviously, some parts of Hollywood believe Hell is real. Obviously, you are allowed to use this term in public on certain occasions. After all, it’s not very tough to wave your shotgun around and scream, “Tell them I am coming and that imaginary place of the deluded Christians is coming with me!” or “Tell them I am coming and that the non-existent, unpleasant, supposedly hot, eternal residence of the unrepentant is tagging along!” Whimper. Does it not seem the tiniest bit foolish to breathe out virulent threats when the thing threatened is imaginary or non-existent?

No, the point is that Wyatt is out for justice. In the Christian worldview, Hell is a place deeply associated with ultimate justice. It is the place wherein God’s just wrath is poured out upon those who despise Him. This is Hell. This is the truth of Hell. It is this truth that Hollywood chooses to exploit for its own convenience when it suits them.

Can you see the hypocrisy? The atheist can steal a Biblical term and misuse it all he likes whilst at times keeping the original and Biblical meaning. Apparently, what you are not allowed to do is stand up as a Christian and use that word in its original and Biblical meaning! Somehow, it has become an error of the highest order for a Christian to use a Biblical word, filled with the Biblical meaning, the meaning given by none other than Jesus Christ, God and Saviour.

Boiled down, the thief can make use of his ill gotten gain as he likes; whilst the original owner of the item is pilloried for using his item as it was intended. The atheist can malign and ridicule by using a stolen term for sport, parody, or travesty, but the Christian cannot use a Biblical term as it was intended. Hmmm!

Neutrality is once more shown to be a myth!

[1] Since Fry’s outburst, Google has been interrogated looking for the proponents of Equality to rise up and denounce the outburst. Thus far we have searched in vain. Criticisms have come from Christians and Christians have responded, but we cannot find those Humanists, so concerned with justice and freedom for all that they introduce religious vilification laws, coming out with weighty denunciations. It may be worth adding that Fry has apologised saying he took aim at none in particular. Yet, he surely would have known that he was criticising the Christian God, for his complaint does not fit any other god but God.

[2] http://tellmenow.com/2015/02/atheists-outraged-after-nascar-legend-says-this-about-god-and-salvation/.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Authority)

5. God’s Authority:

The next relevant aspect in regard to the Office of Eldership is that these men, being instituted by God, act with God’s authority. This point is critical, yet it is overlooked and often despised today.

To drive this home, let me ask this related question, “What makes preaching powerful?” The moderns will tend to answer this question by focusing on personalities, oratory, word skills, and dynamism. The orthodox and Reformed Christian will answer, “Authority!”

Why does the preacher preach? He is commissioned to that task. What makes the preacher’s voice or words any more relevant, convincing, or convicting? The answer is power through authority! To be specific, it is Jesus’ authority. The preacher is commissioned of God, thus, when he speaks, he speaks with the very voice of Christ. This it is that rouses dead hearts and brings rebellious hearts to heel. This it is that pierces seared consciences and makes them responsive. This it is that makes the Christian yield to sound counsel.[1]

Please understand, it is authority and authority alone that marks the preacher as different. Nothing else! He has no special quality in and of himself. His words are powerful because the Holy Spirit works through him so that his voice is Christ’s voice and his words Christ’s words.

In the same way, the commissioned elder rightly wields God’s authority. That which sets his administration apart – his rule, counsel, deliberations, intercession, and judgements – is not his qualities as a person[2], as such, but the fact that he speaks and acts not only with the authority of God, but as God Himself.[3] This means that the elder must be humble in his use of this power, but it equally means that we who sit under the elder must be humble so as to submit to God’s authority administered through the elder. The relevance of this for pastoral care is almost unfathomable, however, fathom we must.

The Word of Authority: This is to say, as we have suggested, that the elder speaking as elder is speaking authoritatively in the name and as an ambassador of God. This means that his counsel immediately stands above the counsel of others. It is not to say that it is necessarily different in kind, rather it is different in degree. Where one may readily dismiss a brother with a hasty, “That’s your opinion!” one cannot do so with the elder.
The Action of Authority: The above aspect is made all the more pertinent when we look at the concept of discipline. In Matthew 18 we note that the issue begins among the brothers. It then extends to the brethren as witnesses. At this point, we observer the difference in degree. The brethren may have sound counsel, but it goes unheeded. However, when the issue is escalated to the Church, to the elders, the ballgame, as they say, changes. Now the Word is spoken with Christ’s voice and authority. It is backed by the possibility of severe punishment and eternal consequence, all of which are sanctioned by Christ Jesus. Here, the counsel changes from a positive suggestion to an ought!
The Need of Authority: This then leads to the crux of the matter. Man is spiritually dead. Man can only be brought to life by the Divine command issued by the commissioned man. Illustrative of this is the text in which Ezekiel commands the dry bones to live.[4] Equally, as God’s children, we can still, in varying degrees, fall into sin and become hardened to the things of God.[5] In such circumstances, we too need the voice of authority to command us to awaken and repent. So it is that often the difference is not in the quality of the counsel given, but in the authority with which it is given; not kind, but degree. Importantly, it must be understood that we need the authoritative voice.[6] Sound counsel is not enough. Sound counsel given authoritatively is what is most necessary.[7]

Let us take these points and transfer them to the real world. Bill Bloggs, Christian and local member of the Church, goes to a Christian counsellor. Let us grant that the counsellor is indeed sound. He counsels Bill to leave his sin. Session after session he pleads with his brother to forsake this sin and be reconciled to Christ. Bill refuses. What next? The counsellor has no ability to sanction Bill. The counsellor does not possess the keys of the Kingdom. The counsellor has no juridical power. The counsellor cannot cast him out of the Church for his rebellion. In point of fact, the counsellor cannot even truly implement the process of Matthew 18.

Moreover, depending on how the counsellor operates, he could not take the matter to the Church, even if he desired to do so, because he would be in breach of privacy laws enacted by the State. In some cases, there would even be other factors in play that protect Bill’s indiscretion from finding its way to the Church.

In another scenario, Bill’s rebellion and unrepentant heart may lead to depression. As the counsellor has no other means at his disposal, he is left to simply medicate the symptoms. Bill is left in his rebellion and the consequences of that rebellion are simply masked by the application of medicines.

Therefore, we need to grasp the serious reality that when we step out from under God’s order and authority, we step into impotency. The so-called ‘Christian counsellor’ may counsel, but in the end he is impotent. The counsellor only has as much authority or power to realise change as the so-called patient will give him or the State allows. Thus, it is the sinner who effectively sits in the pilot’s seat and guides his craft to the destiny of his choosing. He hides behind State protections and only allows inputs to the craft’s control column that will not alter his desired course. The counsellor, Christian or otherwise, is ineffectual in these circumstances.

Now, as we have noted, some will find this difficult, but that does not alter the truth of the matter. If we look around us, we will already see that counsellors, Christian and otherwise, are being constrained by the secular laws under which they operate. This has clearly come to the fore in regard to those who counsel homosexuals. In some instances, and increasingly so, those whose counsel to homosexuals is “forsake the practice” are being shut down or muzzled. The State has defined the air corridor – effectively conjoining itself to the rebellious sinner/pilot – and in so doing does not allow inputs to the control column that would see the craft deviate from its course—even though it is evidently heading for a mountain. Thus, the counsellor bound to obey the State must bow to his master’s will; even the so-called Christian counsellor.[8]

Equally, we must address the sinner and state boldly that they too, in seeking out the uncommissioned are placing themselves in a position of impotency. They are walking away from the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth[9] in which they can actually find help, power, strength, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Brother Posthuma rightly noted that some seek out the counsellor for anonymity.[10] This is understandable, but only to a minute degree; for we must ask as to the point of anonymity, if it also means impotency. Could it be that the anonymity sought is a guise in which one can soothe the troubled conscience without seeking a real remedy to the problem? Why would a person suffering from an ailment and supposedly seeking a cure, turn away from a medical centre simply because they were known at that clinic? Why seek out the backyard quack for the sake of anonymity when such action could prolong your suffering or lead to greater harm?[11] In point of fact, being known may lead to better, swifter, and more compassionate treatment.

The only genuine reason for anonymity is the fear of shame. After all, you only seek out a medical doctor anonymously if you have a medical condition or are in need of medical assistance because you are fairly certain that the condition arose out of a spurious circumstance. Similarly, you only seek out a counsellor anonymously when your spiritual circumstances are a result of spurious activities. Consequently, the whole counselling phenomena has, at its root, a faulty and unBiblical premise.

The reality is very simple. In turning from God’s order, we turn from God’s power and authority. As such, we turn to the impotent and embrace that which can never truly bring us the genuine help we need.

More coffee on the newspaper? If so, we are not sure why. Let us be frank. In Psychiatry, it is well known that many of the problems are medicated, not healed. People are forced to exist in a drug induced state in order to function, and that term is used very loosely. Medication is used because there is a fundamental inability to deal with the core issues. This is the impotency of which we speak. There is no God-empowered command that causes the dead to live and the rebellious to heel. There is no worldview that rises above. No hope on the horizon that can be given – particularly from the secular standpoint.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we grasp the importance of the fact that the elder operates under God’s commission and with His authority. The elder operates within the Biblical worldview and thus gives God’s answers to the troubles of this world. These attributes are not known to the secular counsellor, even the Christian counsellor, for at some point, they seek to introduce another worldview that conflicts with the Biblical worldview.

As an example, you would not go to a witchdoctor for advice, would you? Yet, the secular science of psychology comes from the same poisonous root. So why do we give it credence simply because it comes from a university? What makes this theory or view of Man more acceptable than the one outlined by God in His Word?

Friends, it is here that we come to the pointy end of the stick, for the essence of our contention, as we have noted, comes down to a clash of worldviews and to these two questions:

a) Will we faithfully accept what God says about Man and His creation as it is revealed in Scripture or will we seek out another worldview, another wisdom that is more acceptable to us in our circumstance?

b) Which man will we choose to counsel us—the man who stands with God’s authority and administers wisdom according to the Biblical worldview or will we seek out the man of compromise who seeks to supplant God’s wisdom with the wisdom of fallen Man; baptised though it may be?

Footnotes:

[1] It must also be remembered that in the Biblical covenantal paradigm, counselling and preaching can also legitimately harden a person in their rebellion so that God’s judgement is proved just (Psalm 51:4; See also Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17 as a practical example). God’s word is, as it always has been, both life and death. It is to one the aroma of life; to another the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). It is for this reason that much of the modern Church Growth theory should be despised and rejected. The truth does not in every case bring life. Sometimes it brings death. The only sure, categorical, and absolute statement that we can make in regard to God’s Word proclaimed is this: So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

[2] This is not to say that personal qualities are not important; they are! Biblically, the office of elder is only open to those who have certain, proven character traits. The point here is that we do not elect a good man, but a righteous man. We do not elect a smart man, but a wise man. We do not elect the popular man, but the godly man. We do not elect the rich man, but the spiritually wealthy man. We do so, on God’s command, so that, once in office, these traits are subject to and magnified by the power of God’s Spirit. Such a man becomes a powerful instrument in God’s hands because he is blessable; he is a worthy instrument through which God will work. As such he stands in God’s stead and should not be trifled with.

[3] Some may doubt this. If so, please turn to Exodus 16:2&8. There you will see that Israel grumbled against Aaron and Moses and in so doing they grumbled against the Lord.

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

[6] Is it not for this very reason that we are urged to attend upon the preaching of the Word in constancy. We are in absolute need of hearing God’s word – Christ’s voice – proclaimed with His full authority.

[7] It may be an oversimplification, but it is worth remembering that Man is a subordinate being to God. Thus God was right to give the Ten Commandments and not the Ten Suggestions or the Ten Helpful Pointers.

[8] It is worth noting the power of secularism at this point. Many pastoral care positions that are now advertised require that the applicant be eligible for enrolment in a Psychological Association or some such. This requirement alone generally rules out the Biblical counsellor and therefore puts the pressure on this group to undertake further studies so as to be “approved”. In essence, these situations effectually force a compromise. It also sees the field heavily stacked in favour of Humanism.

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[10] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[11] A pertinent example, here, is that of abortion. At every step along the way it was argued that legalising abortion would do away with the need for backyard practitioners who were causing pain and death. Yet, legalising abortion did not resolve this problem. The very same argument was once again paraded in the recent discussion over the abortion drug RU86.

The Hypocrisy of Humanism: Stephen Fry and his Blasphemy

Posted on February 5, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

A recent news article brought to our eyes yet another example of Humanism’s hypocrisy and double standards.

Popular television presenter, homosexual, and atheist, Stephen Fry has appeared in an interview on the Irish television show The Meaning of Life. He was asked by the presenter, in essence, if it turns out that he is wrong and God does exist, ‘What will you say to “him, her, or it” when you arrive at the Pearly gates?”

His answer:

“Bone cancer in children”, what’s that about? “How dare you? How dare you create such misery in a world that it is not our fault? It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.” “Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?”[1]

The article then goes on to add: “If the universe was created by some sort of God, Mr. Fry feels that divinity is “quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish.””

Now, I have no track with Stephen Fry at all. In this household no program that he appears on is allowed to be watched. Categorise it as “hate speech” if you will, but I would encourage all Christians to follow suit. That said, my issue, is not with Stephen Fry, as such.

Stephen Fry is a homosexual and an atheist; one highlighted in previous writings.[2] Consequently, it is not surprising, in the least, that his mouth would spew forth disgusting blasphemies against God. Tragically, he will one day have to give an account for these blasphemous words when he meets God’s eternal Judge, Jesus Christ.[3]

No, the bigger problem here is that he is allowed by the Humanist tyrants to sprout this muck on television, and that without censorship. A further problem, and one more disastrous still, is the role that Christians play in spreading Humanism’s hypocrisy by giving tacit, if not explicit, approval to their demands.

Consider this, seriously please!

If I write, ‘Homosexuals create misery, they are utterly, utterly evil, capricious beings – selfish maniacs – who create pain’; how long do you think it will be before the hate mail arrives. More importantly, how long would it be before I came in for unwelcome attention from the homosexual activists and the Humanist tyrants?

If you would like to help me conduct a straw poll, please cut out the words in pale green above and circulate them freely across the web. Nothing needs to be added other than the reference to this article. Anyway, I digress

The question before us then boils down to this: “Why is it that I cannot, as a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, say these things, even though they can be mostly proven, yet the homosexual can lampoon the God I love with impunity?”

Recently, Saltshakers highlighted the fact that a homosexual activist here in Australia had successfully sued a political candidate and is now set to sue Bernard Gaynor.[4] I wonder if this same homosexual activist is willing to sue his comrade-in-homosexuality for insulting God and thereby offending Christians across the world.

The abhorrence of this hypocrisy and its complete insistence on demanding insanity from those over whom it holds sway is evident at every turn. Following the Charlie Hebdo shootings, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke some eloquent drivel about not letting the terrorists rob us of the fundamentals we hold dear. Among the few things mentioned – sadly nothing about Christ and His righteousness – he spoke of democracy and freedom of speech. I laughed!

Where is this freedom of speech when people are being sued successfully for speaking the truth? Where is this freedom of speech, and the democratic principle of “equality” so highly treasured by the Humanist tyrants, when it only applies to those who hate God? How is it that, in a culture prizing the fallacy of “equality”, some are more equal than others? How does freedom of speech work, when it allows some to lie with impunity, shelters them from question, and then gags those who hold the opposite view? What is this democracy, so treasured by the tyrants, when it leads to innocent, righteous citizens being harangued, harassed, and persecuted in the name of this wretched “equality”?

Then, we would ask, “Is there not even one who dares to ask why “the Emperor has no clothes?” Of course not. Those who are “milking the system” understand full well that the whole thing is a hypocritical sham. Their purpose is to “make hay while the sun shines”, so they are not going to point out the hypocritical nature of the system; no, they will simply use it to their ends.

Now, in asking these questions, I do not expect the hypocrites to all of a sudden gain a conscience, have pangs, and become moral. These questions are asked so as to highlight the current state of affairs and to provoke you – the Christians – to think about the situation in which you find yourselves.

Here, it is necessary, yet again, to highlight the absolute fallacy that is the Myth of Neutrality. Listening to the Humanist tyrants, like David Cameron and most Australian politicians, you will hear words like “all” and “everyone”. You will hear the deceptive phrase, equality for all. This is the Myth of Neutrality in action. People are conned into believing that this policy will create and give to each individual absolute freedom of expression. The individual is led to believe that his creed, colour, and flag will be to him both sacred and sovereign. Yet, this is simply not the case.

The best example to explode this myth is that of Communist Russia. Communism promised equality. Most interpreted that to mean equality in wealth, prosperity, and opportunity. In reality, it meant equality in poverty, mouldy bread, and oppression. There was a small ruling elite who possessed great wealth and underneath were the rest – the oppressed. All dissenters; all thinkers; all religions capable of mounting a rational challenge – i.e. Christianity – were mercilessly suppressed. Does any of this sound familiar? If not, you may need to get out a little more.

In similar fashion, our equality will be to the line and only that line drawn in the sand by the Humanist tyrants that govern. Why sand? Because it is flexible, removable, adjustable, erasable! Here is our first clue that we are being hoodwinked. When God wrote, God wrote in stone – solid, eternal, absolute, indelible!

Explained a little differently, we can sum it up in this adage: What the government gives, the government can take away. If we are given equal rights only by the government and the law of man, then that government or a subsequent government can take them away. Remember when Bob Hawke, Australian Prime Minister, so kindly held a referendum to give us religious freedom. What would have been the outcome of a successful “Yes” vote? Simple. It would have opened the door for the government to curtail your freedoms.

Whilst that particular referendum failed, the Humanist tyrants have not given up. They have been working tirelessly to explore and implement other avenues by which they will reach the same goal. Enter, Human Rights! Enter, Religious Vilification! Enter, Equal Opportunity! Enter, any perversion of law written an enacted by the Humanist tyrants.

Daniel Andrews, recently elected Victorian Premier, has vowed to push through his anti-Christian, God-hating equality laws. Please read the fine print and take careful note that politicians or political parties will be exempt. The hypocrisy of this is that, as a Christian, I cannot refuse employment to those who do not share my beliefs or the tenets of Christianity, but dear ol’ Dan don’t got to employ a Liberal! Daniel Andrews is therefore an absolute hypocrite of the highest order. Moreover, he is an absolute liar. Anytime he speaks of “all”, you now know that you will have to read the fine print so that you are fully aware of who the all are in that particular case.

Here is a second clue. The governments rail against God, when in fact they seek to usurp God’s position. You will hear, as with Mr Fry, all sorts of allegations against God. He is a tyrant and a dictator because He gave us holy and righteous laws to follow that were all appended with, “No correspondence shall be entered into! Such a dictatorial manner. It is completely unacceptable. “Away with Him!” they yell; having failed to learn the poignant lesson of Psalm two. However, what do we find the Humanist tyrants doing? Nothing less than enacting absolute laws that enshrine their desire for mankind. Thus, they do exactly what God did only without the benefit of omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness – and off course, the right and legitimate authority to do so!

As stated, the world will not change without Jesus Christ becoming the Lord of their hearts. So the real import of this message is for you, the Christian. The simple reality is that things will not get better or change so long as we stick our head in the sand and capitulate to the Humanist tyrant’s every demand. It is time that we were willing to suffer loss for the sake of Jesus and stand up to these tyrannical hypocrites. It is time that we began to refuse to acknowledge their laws and supposed freedoms that are nothing more than chains with which to bind us.

Let me ask, Where are the preachers of righteousness? Why are our pulpits so silent? Why is it that men like Andrew Bolt, who do not have faith in Christ, are left to lead the charge? Why is it that they can see what you as a Christian either cannot or will not see?

Hard words? Yes, but pertinent nonetheless. How many churches have complied with the Humanist demands on a whole range of issues from Mandatory Reporting to Equality issues? Why is it that a prominent Christian organisation recently circulated an “open letter” to our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, which lacked at four specific areas? What were those areas? Father! Son! Holy Spirit! Scripture! In a one page letter, there were no references to God or to His authoritative Word, yet the letter contained at least six references to other research or articles.[5]

There is no joy in pointing to these things, for in the words of Paul – I shall not praise you![6] These things are highlighted so that we Christians may come to see that we have imbibed the Myth of Neutrality for far too long.

You see, Brethren, it is a myth because the World, the Humanist tyrants, call them what you will, are not neutral and they know they are not neutral. Their cunning plan – sadly all too successful – is to make you think that you are at a fair game being played on a level playing field, when neither is true.

The late Greg Bahnsen correctly stated, in reference to the Humanists, that “they are not neutral and we shouldn’t be.” Yet, we seem to continue to trust these Humanists. We continue to ‘give them the benefit of the doubt’. All this we do contrary to God’s Word, wherein we are taught that the carnal mind is enmity toward God[7] and that these are not only unwilling but unable to obey the law of God.[8]

Thus, the really pertinent question is not, “Why do the heathen blaspheme God?” but “Why do we Christians condone their blasphemy by seeking to play by and uphold the anti-God rules decreed by the Humanist tyrants?”

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/stephen-fry-calls-god-a-stupid-evil-selfish-maniac/story-e6frfmyi-1227204789990

[2] https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/06/on-being-born-that-way/.

[3] Matthew 12:36 -37 – “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.” Acts 17:30-31 – “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” 2 Timothy 4:1 – I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom.

[4] http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1393-being-sued-for-speaking-up-here-in-australia

[5] Cotton Mather, referring to the so-called uses of white magic against black magic, noted that it was “to use the Devil’s shield against the Devil’s sword”. Sadly, this is exactly what this organisation is doing. Without God’s Word, it is human reason against human reason; academic against academic. There simply is no authority, no absolute, no standard. Hence, we Christians lose the battles.

[6] See 1 Corinthians 11:22. The sad reality, as expressed in Paul’s words, is that Christians often stray from the principles of Christ’s law. They can think that they are doing well, as these Corinthians obviously did, yet the reality is that God’s hand of judgement is set firmly against them.

[7] James 4:4. Note James’ use of the term “adulteresses”. Remember, he is speaking to the Church.

[8] Romans 8:6-8.

Homosexual Paranoia

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34)! So says God. Scripture clarifies this statement further by noting that “Sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). The Westminster Divines ratify this definition of sin, stating: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature” (WLC 24).

Some of those “rules” given to the “reasonable creature” are:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog[1] into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.[2] (Revelation 22:15)

When we, as men, in whatever capacity we serve, break these rules, we “reasonable creatures” are qualified as “sinners”. We become the proliferators of sin. Consequently, we are both a “disgrace” and a means of disgrace.

Is it any wonder then that, as homosexuality is forced upon our society by a clamouring minority, we have begun to see more and more disgraceful acts? By this we not only mean individual acts, but also corporate acts.

Two such stories have come to light in recent days. The first is a case of a mother who murdered her young son because she believed he was a homosexual. [3] The second is in regard to the joining of forces by certain Australian sports codes to take a stand against “homophobia”.[4]

In regard to the first story, many people will be quick to scoff and jeer and that for a multiplicity of reasons. However, I think some reflection is in order. Homosexuality, despite the rhetoric, is not normal. Everything about it runs contrary to our true natures. It evokes very strong feelings indeed. People will talk politely about it in public because that situation is forced upon them by the State. Take them aside and the story changes. Proposition them in a homosexual manner and the reaction will be akin to a volnado (a volcano and tornado combined).

As such, are we surprised to find people acting violently when they are confronted by this disgraceful evil? Are we surprised at violent outcomes when people are forced to accept as normal that which they find repugnant and disgusting? Add to this the “born that way” nonsense and you really have a recipe for disaster. What I mean by this is that the “reasonable creature” knows that homosexuality is a choice and that it is wrong choice. Yet, the modern propaganda makes people believe that homosexuality is a genetic mutation that must be accepted.[5] It is no different, in essence, to that of eye colour – it is a genetic predisposition over which the individual has no control.

The result of this volatile mix is that parents begin to believe that it is within the realms of possibility and probability that two perfectly heterosexual people will give birth to a homosexual child. Thus, these parents are challenged at a visceral level. They do not want a homosexual child any more than they wish for a palsied child. So how do they react when they think[6] that they are the recipient of a genetic mutation?

The mother in this news article reacted in anger. She murdered her child. For this action, she will be condemned by many. Another couple, not that long back, raised their son as a girl because they believed him to be a homosexual or at least transgender. Many people condemned this couple. Yet, there is a commonality. Whilst the parents acted very differently in respect to their children and their situation, they both acted in respect to the same lie, namely, that homosexuals are born that way.

This is the disgrace spoken of earlier. Here, two families are ruined. Multiple lives are destroyed. Why? They believed the prominent homosexual lie. They were brainwashed into believing that homosexuals are born. They were forced to capitulate to the modern Humanist dogma that has become de rigueur. As a consequence of this disgraceful lie and its jackbooted propagation at the instigation of the State, two children are lost. Two families are or will be in disarray.

Friends, this is the power of lies and ignorance. This is a lesson in politics. This is a lesson in regard to sinful man being “hell bent” on his rebellious and destructive path. This is the result of the denial of God’s truth: Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people!

You see, the homosexuals are desperate to have their burning consciences eased. They believe that by legalising their debauchery their conscience will be set free. Thus, they badger, harass, demand, and deceive in order to see their dream fulfilled. What happens? People begin to believe their lies. Worse, people begin to act upon those lies. Enter homosexual paranoia. Parents begin to look at their children differently. Thoughts that were never present now begin to be entertained. Behaviours are scrutinised and reinterpreted in light of the lie. Innocent actions are now perceived as aberrant behaviour and indications that the lie is present in the child. Under this conviction, parents, and others, act and the result is devastating!

The second article deals with the major sporting codes uniting to fight homophobia. We will not spend much time on this article as we have written about this sort of nonsense on previous occasions. Here, we simply want to point out the hypocrisy of the situation and the utter nonsense that is “equality” in its current format.

Equality is indeed a Biblical ideal. What is not appreciated by the Moderns is that it is an ideal firmly rooted in the being of God. All men are equal on a very basic level precisely because they are created in the image of God. No life is worth less than another. A female is not worth less than a male. A black person is not worth less than a white person. God does not discriminate on this basic level.

Now come the caveats. To state these things is not to say that God considers all people and all activities of equal value and worth. God does not hold the murderer on the same level as the innocent. These are not equal in His sight. God does not hold the thief and his victim in the same esteem. God is a God of justice. God demands a verdict. God demands a separation between the guilty and the innocent. Similarly, God is the God of truth. God loves the one who speaks the truth and He despises the lying tongue (Proverbs 12:22).[7]

If we look at Psalm 15 we will see God’s discrimination:

O Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the Lord; He swears to his own hurt, and does not change; He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

It is at this point that the Christian must come into conflict with the Modern. The Modern, like the homosexual, demands that all men accept and abide by a lie. This time the lie is that every action deemed to be legal by Man must be accepted by all men as valid. Some would widen this definition to the point at which all actions are to be accepted as equally valid and above the designation of good and bad or right and wrong. Thus, the homosexual sides with the Modern to propagate the lie that every belief and all people are equal.

As can be seen, these two theories espoused by two camps use the same term, equality, but they mean very different things when they invoke the term. If you are a Christian and you subscribe to the Modernist theory, please, go back to the Bible, read God’s word, repent, and join the fight. We must oppose this Modernist rubbish. We must openly call it a lie. We must expose it.[8]

How? Very simple. If equality is the key and they are out to “eliminate discrimination”, we should ask:

Why did ‘Test matches’ in cricket once have a “rest day” on Sunday? When the decision was taken to abolish these rest days, did that discriminate against Christian players? Did this decision discriminate against the Church and the one day of worship appointed by God? After all, we have historically always worshipped on Sunday. To no longer recognise that fact is to discriminate against all, spectators, players, and officials, who hold to the idea that Sunday is a day of rest and worship. It is tantamount to forcing them to make a decision to compromise or to lower their standard.
When the AFL introduced football matches on a Sunday, were they considering the welfare of all? Was equality and non-discrimination at the fore front of their minds? Why did a trial match on Sunday not only become reality but a multiplicity? Equally, for several years now there has been a hot potato in the AFL as to whether or not there should be a game on Good Friday.[9] Discrimination? Fairness? Equality? Any thought given to the negative impact upon society? Any thought given to the impact upon those who worship on Sunday? Any respect shown for the Christians of this nation or the Christians in the AFL? Will orthodox Christians be invited to this game to declare the true meaning of Easter or shall we simply be subject to the pagan rituals of the Aboriginal community? Respect? Equality? Inclusiveness?

These are but two examples of the current hypocrisy. The simple reality is that to stand for item A is to automatically stand against item B. To stand for homosexuality is to stand against heterosexuality as unique. To stand for homosexual marriage is to stand against heterosexual marriage. To stand for de facto relationships is to stand against marriage. To stand for paganism is to stand against Christianity.

It is probably not a great theological stride to quote from a child’s movie, but here we go. In “The Incredibles” the bad guy, Syndrome, states, “When everyone is super, then no one is!” That is exactly what is happening here in these arguments. When all are equal under the law any can be discriminated against by that same law. By claiming that all people and actions are equal, the Moderns are claiming that nothing is unique or special. They are claiming that nothing is right or wrong. They insist that nothing is moral or immoral. They require that truth and lie become one in nothingness.

Under the guise of equality, the Moderns are out to brainwash people with a second lie, namely, that all is nothing. However, the conflict is immediate. Men know that there is something and that nothing is impossible. For example, Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson are going to champion the anti-homophobia cause for cricket. If all is nothing, I wonder what they are doing when they run up to the white line with a red ball in their hand. Why do they stop at that line? When they have tossed the ball, why do they get all excited and turn to this austere gent near the stumps with an enquiring, “How is that?”

Here is the hypocrisy. Both of these men know that there is something, not nothing. They both know that they cannot transgress that little, white, line without bringing a penalty. They know that there is a rule that guides their action. To deny those rules is to destroy the game and bring themselves into the realm of nonsense. Why stop here? Indeed, every code that has signed up to the “homophobia” nonsense represents a game that is based in law. There is a code! There is an umpire. There is, usually, a judiciary. There are penalties for breaching the laws of the game. Let us be honest. Let us face the simple fact. Without rule and law there is no game. Without rule and law there can be only chaos!

In a similar manner, the current call for the end of discrimination and the establishment of equality, based in Secular Humanism, is nothing short of a call for our nation to be plunged into nothingness and despair. It is tantamount to saying that we can have life without rule and law. It is to say that the Government alone is the giver of morals. It is nothing short of a declaration of war upon God and His revealed standard and, as a consequence, it is a declaration of war upon any and all who believe God and His revelation.

The hypocrisy and the hatred of God should be evident. If not, please allow me to spell it out. The Moderns hide behind the Government. They push and lobby until the Government caves to their position. They use words like “moral” and “right”, but these are simply smoke screens. If a Christian Government came to power, these moderns would not be happy with the idea that the Government has the right to make the laws that it sees as fit – particularly if these were Biblical laws. Thus, in reality, these Moderns hide the fact that they are anarchists and hypocrites. You see, in the end, these moderns will only be content when the goal of having all law and constraint neutralized unless it serves their purposes!

Look at homosexuality as a prime example. As a child growing up, I well remember the news stories about demands to decriminalise homosexuality. They claimed that they should be free to do whatever they wanted in their own bedrooms, behind closed doors. Then they demanded the right to open expression in broad daylight. Now, these same activists are using law to see that their opponents, who once enjoyed the daylight, are driven indoors with no right to speak. They want them locked securely in their bedrooms like naughty children. Eventually, they will argue that their opponents should not be free to practice their religion even in the privacy of their own home. So, are they really open, affirming, and tolerant? Not on your Nellie!

Therefore, it should be plain for all to see that the arguments about total freedom for all are nothing but barefaced lies. The homosexual lobby is about suppression. This begins with the suppression of truth as a general concept. It then turns to an expressed hatred of God as the objective standard and embodiment of Truth by demanding that His revelation to and for the “reasonable creature” be suppressed. As the old adage says, “The first casualty of war is truth!”

It is in this climate that Homosexual Paranoia increases exponentially with devastating consequences. People cannot tell truth from lie (having denied God’s objective standards). People react to a perceived truth (murdering their son because he was born homosexual) only to find out they have acted on a lie. People are bullied into acting and living as though the lie is true (sports codes uniting against the mythical ‘homophobe’).[10] Those who uphold truth are pilloried. The freedoms willingly given to those on one side of the debate are explicitly and forcefully denied to those on the other side. The end result of this is tyranny and fear.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in modern North Korea or to live in Russia of yesteryear? Wonder no more. Simply step out your front door and express your heartfelt opinions on all topics PC and you will get to experience these despotic regimes firsthand. We live today in a society that is manipulative, fearful, subdued, and apathetic. For all the talk of truth and freedom there is little of either. You are free to do what the Government tells you; free to believe what the Government tells you; free to be tyrannized by Government sanctioned bullies; free to have your “freedoms” trampled upon because you do not hold to the Government’s position.

Nobody is sure of anything anymore. People are confused. Principles are situational. Long held mores mean nothing or sometimes something, but you have to guess when and which. The law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion; yet the Christian religion is discriminated against on a daily basis – and every week by certain sports codes! People are cagey. People are untrusting. People are distant. Does this sound like certain countries previously mentioned?

Why is this? It is all due to a state of paranoia. In particular, a state created by Homosexual Paranoia!

[1] The “wages of a dog” is a reference to homosexuality in the context of temple prostitution. See Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Keil and Delitzsch, David Chiltern, Rousas Rushdoony, Langenscheidt, Brown, Driver and Briggs.

[2] The term “dog” is a derogatory word used throughout Scripture. Its specific meaning needs to be gauged from the immediate context. Here, I take the term “dog” again as a specific reference to the homosexual and his practice. This designation is based on several facts. First, given the general list included at this point, “dog” must mean more than simply a non-Christian or someone who is disobedient. Second, whilst the term “immoral person” had its roots in homosexuality, its meaning became much more general. Hence, the “dog” must be something more specific. Third, some commentators speak of a sevenfold classification at this point. To achieve this they included the terms “love and practice lying” in the list. I tend to think that the ‘love and practice of lying’ qualifies the five sins listed. In other words, these five sins have at their heart that which is equivalent to blasphemy, namely, the mocking of God by mocking His true standard. As such, the “dog” mocks God as the Creator and Designer of man; the “sorcerer” mocks God as the sole Revealer; the “immoral person” mocks God as law giver; the “murderer” mocks God as Sovereign life-giver; and the “idolater” mocks God as the Sole Object of man’s worship. Thus, at every step, there is the practice of lying and a love of that practice. This accords perfectly with Paul’s statement in 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.”

[3] http://www.news.com.au/world/jessica-dutro-killed-son-zachary-4-because-she-thought-he-was-gay/story-fndir2ev-1226874066760?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180.

[4] http://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/major-australian-sports-unite-against-homophobia/story-fndukor0-1226878438434.

[5] Please see our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Reformation-Ministries/156961371169115) and the entry on January 20.

[6] “Think”, here, is an important word. Remember, there is no test for homosexuality. So the determination rests purely on the subjective opinion of the parents. As the news article shows, this mother thought her child walked and talked funny. Nothing objective. Just a mother’s hunch. The truth is the child may have walked and talked “funny”, but there are a number of real medical possibilities on the list before the imagined “born that way” concept!

[7] Consider also 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.”

[8] Ephesians 5:11-12: “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.”

[9] Today, 30 April, 2014, saw the new AFL chief appointed. He has signalled that Good Friday games will be up for discussion. So, several weeks after joining the “homophobia bandwagon” on the basis of equality, the AFL steps up to take a swing at Christ’s Church.

[10] How many of those public faces had an option? How many were willing to put million dollar deals on the line for the sake of truth or conviction? Could anyone in any of these teams objected for conscience sake without being penalised? Was there “choice” and “freedom” or simply obligation and coercion?

SRI Religion V religion

Posted on March 27, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Yesterday, the afternoon news carried a story about a banner being unfurled on a Melbourne billboard. My interest was initially piqued by the large picture at the centre of this banner. Here, being spread out for everyone to see was a picture of Jesus patting a dinosaur. Only after turning up the volume and having time to read the banner did I realise that this was actually a protest against Christianity.

The fist wavers (Psalm 2) were at it again. This time they were out to have SRI (Special Religious Instruction) banned from Victorian schools. For most of us, we realise that these campaigns are not new. Equally, we are aware that with the decline of Christianity, these demands are going to become common place and vociferous.

The truly disturbing aspect of this story was in listening to the ignorance and drivel of those demanding that SRI cease. Those familiar with our writings will be aware that we often speak of worldviews. This story is one more example of why we need to understand what a worldview is and the importance they play. (See here, and here, as examples.)

One of those interviewed stated, in essence, ‘that religion had no place in our schools.’ Interesting! What would they call Secularism, Humanism, or Evolution? In regard to Evolution, its own proponents acknowledge it as a religion. So what this person was really demanding, in our world of Tolerance and Equality, was that the Christian religion be excluded from our schools. They do not want all religions banned; only that religion which shows that they are idol worshippers.

Another example concerned a lady who stated that “the children go from a science class (read – absolute rational fact) to the SRI class (read – absolute irrational myth) where they are told that dinosaurs do not exist.” I have added the words in parentheses in order to highlight the intention of her words. Again, it is important to see the contrast. This woman is happy to subject our children to the religion of Evolution and to its god, science; but she is quite unwilling for our children to be subject to the Christian religion and the One Living and True God!

Equally, note the disparagement present when it is claimed, without substantiation, that these children would be taught that dinosaurs do not exist, simply because they are being taught by Christians.

At this point it is fundamentally important that we come to terms with how a worldview shapes a person’s outlook. Here, we see that those interviewed had imbibed the fallacious belief that a religion is equivalent to an organised system of belief rooted in a god. As such, these people typically take aim at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Is Animism not a religion because it posits no belief in a god and has no system? Are Eastern religions in fact non-religions because, though organised, they strictly do not believe in a god (Buddhism rejects the notion of God as external; Hinduism has multiple gods, but they are all attempts at representing Brahman, the ultimate god that is beyond knowing)?

The answer is, of course, No! These are all religions. They are so precisely because a religion does not need of necessity to posit a belief in god, be organised, or, for that matter, codified. The essence of religion, like the exploration in Physics, looks for the god-particle, but it does not need necessarily to look for a god, personal or otherwise. In our day, the god-particle or god-idea can be reduced to searching for the essence of being or be the “central directedness [of a person] … toward the real or presumed ultimate source of meaning or authority.”[1]

The Christian has a religion based in God’s revelation. It is a religion “directed” to God as the absolute source of being. From this central tenet, the Christian’s worldview branches out to embrace and interpret all other fields and spheres. What needs to be seen here is that the same mechanics are at work in other ideals. God and revelation may be substituted, but there are still similar touchstones to be found. For example, the Rationalist seeks being / source / authority in the mind. The mind becomes as God and the mind’s projections become as revelation. At this point, he engages his worldview. The Evolutionist seeks being / source / authority in time and chance. The Humanist seeks these things in Man (capitalised, for Man becomes god). The Secularist seeks these things anywhere but in a God / god that cannot be manipulated.

So it is that, like the more comprehensive worldview, all men have a religion.

An anecdote I like to use in these situations is as follows: Many years back, I went with a farmer friend, a fellow Christian, to pick up some goods from another farm. Whilst there, it was disclosed that we were Christians. The owner of the farm trotted out the hackneyed, “Do not care for religion as it has caused so many wars!” Of course, this is offered as the final statement on religion and the conversation is supposed to end with respect and contemplative silence. Well, you should have seen the look on this guys face when I sympathetically agreed with his statement. I then went on to list the atrocities committed in those religious wars instigated by Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and so on. Suffice it to say, his mouth was agape.

You see, all too often, Christians are not taught adequately about worldviews / religion and how to expose a person’s basic premise for understanding. Consequently, when they run into statements like those mentioned in this article, they are stumped. They have no answer. They are immediately on the back foot and usually end up relying on a subjective and erroneous retort. Ask yourself, honestly, ‘How many times have you had “the Crusades!”, or “religion (Christianity in particular) causes war!”, or , “if God is love, how can he send people to Hell?” type statements or questions cast in your way in order to silence your proclamation of Christianity?’ How did you respond?

My plea here is that Christians might be taught and be willing to learn about worldviews. Every accusation that can be thrown at the Christian can be thrown back manifold to the opponents of Christ. Ban SRI! Why? Crusades. Hmmm. How many died during the Crusades? Too many, yes! So we throw out Christianity. What, then, of Evolution? What is its death toll? One hundred thousand babies a year in Australia. Fifty million babies in the US since Roe v Wade! According to the World Counter for abortions, we have murdered 9 million babies so far this year alone.[2] I am not really sure that the Crusades came close![3]

We might even go so far as to ask a more mainline question, namely, “How many lives are lost to Evolution through despair, injustice, lawlessness, non-accountability, Racism, and the other evils that flow from mantras such as “survival of the fittest”? Unlike Christianity, where death is an intruder and life is the norm, Evolution posits that life can only exist through death. Thus, Evolution exalts death and its devotees desire to mask this obvious truth because they do not want it known that their religion is worse than the one they are seeking to abolish.

In the end, it is important for Christians to realise that the debate is never about the questions: Will we have religion? Will we have law? Will we have government? Will we have morals? or Will / Should religion be taught in schools? The debate is summarised in the question, “Whose religion, law, government, and morals will we adopt and have taught in our schools?

Thus, those unfurling this banner were not objecting to religion, but firing salvos in a distinctly religious battle. They were protesting against our God only in order to exalt their god.

[1] B.J. van der Walt, Culture, Worldview and Religion ; (2000) 11.

[2] http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[3] Wikipedia suggests between 1 million and 3 million. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll.

The High Court and Homosexuality

Posted on December 28, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the last weeks, we have witnessed the High Court of Australia hand down a decision in regard to homosexual union. This ruling had particular reference to the attempt by the ACT government to introduce its own legislation allowing homosexual union.

What do we, as Christians, make of this ruling? What are the ramifications? Should we rejoice or should we weep? What must our attitude be moving forward?

Well, if you are up for it, let’s take a look together. I cannot guarantee that this work will be short. I can guarantee that it will be provocative. I have no idea of your current stand on the issues that will be presented. I do know that if you will read and consider the ideas presented that you may well find yourself with a need to abandon one or many of them.

1. A Wake-up Call.

The first thing to say is that this ruling by the High Court of Australia should be and must be a wake-up call to all Australians, but particularly to the Christians of this nation. For a long time, various people and organisations have been alerting us to an ever creeping and thus ever growing darkness that is pervading our land.

Many have ignored these warnings. Some have dismissed the warnings because a bit of darkness has allowed them to indulge in pet sins. Others have dismissed the warnings as the paranoid ravings of the lunatic religious fringe. Then there are those whose sleeping ears have not been alert to the warnings.

After this ruling there simply is no excuse for not believing and not acting positively upon these warnings. Here, a right parallel can be drawn in regard to the “gun debate” that has long endured in this nation. As a shooter, it was not uncommon to hear derisive comments when certain arguments were made for owning guns. The scorn was at times palpable. Then came September 11. This was followed by the Bali bombings in 2002. Then, in 2005, there were the London and second Bali bombs. People no longer pour scorn and derision on these same arguments.

The simple fact was that the critics had to concede that what was once, in their estimation, nothing more than the ‘outlandish speculations of the fringe dwellers’ had now become a distinct possibility in our ever changing world.

So it is that this ruling should be considered as a cataclysmic event that has not only justified all the previous warnings, but which awakens us from our slumber and encourages us to take a stand.

2. God is the standard of Truth.

The issue of homosexual union has become a massive debate in this country. The question that is rarely, if ever, asked is, “On what authority do we stand?” This is very problematic for the Modernists and Postmodernists who have no belief in objective truth. All they can argue is feeling, opinion, or brute desire. They have no ground for a moral or ethical argument. Nor do they have ground for a timeless argument.

For example, in the current debate we hear a lot about “traditional marriage”. What then, if we pose the following questions — What is this convention? What does traditional mean? What is a marriage? What constitutes a marriage? Who performs a marriage? What makes a marriage binding?

How shall these questions be answered without an objective reference? The simple response is that they cannot be answered or they must be answered by contrivance. If I do not believe that truth is knowable or that objective truth exists, how can I argue the merits of anything? You see, at this point, I not only have no framework for deciding right or wrong, I do not even possess a framework for knowledge, understanding, or communication.

So may laugh at this. Nonetheless, the fact remains. Without a belief in the Bible’s God as the source of all truth, one is simply guessing in the dark. One of the greatest examples of this is the doctrine of Evolution. How does order come from chaos? How does cognition come from the incognisant? The very core doctrine of Evolution demands that something which is today, will not be tomorrow. No consistent evolutionist could be a mathematician because in his world twp plus two may equal four today, but tomorrow it may equal grapefruit!

Thus, when the Bible’s God is removed as the source of truth, a person, a nation, a culture cannot help but enter a state of flux and requisite confusion.

3. God is the Standard of Truth.

To borrow a line from Red Dwarf, “I am aware that it is technically the same point, but it is such a big point, I thought it was worth mentioning it twice!”

My charge to my brethren and to my countrymen is this, “Do you believe in objective truth?” Now, let’s make it simple. When you hold your wife in your arms are you holding a real woman or are you embracing a figment of your imagination? If you choose the first, then you believe in objective truth. The simple reality is that we all operate on the fact that objective truth exists each and every day. We simply could not function if we did not.[1]

Regrettably, when it comes to morals and ethics, we like to pretend that this absolute and objective truth ceases to exist – yes, even Christians are guilty at this point. We like the stipulation of God’s law, “do not commit murder / steal”, but we are wont to become hazy on “do not commit adultery / covet.” Now, the salient point: As we have become hazy on the stipulations regarding sexual deviation and perversion we have become more apt to compromise on the murder and theft issues as well.[2]

This illustrates the fact that we cannot deviate from God as the source of truth on one or two issues and stay faithful on the rest. When we turn from God, we turn completely from God. Man’s rebellion against God is not half-hearted or timid. It is complete. You see, when Man starts to turn from God, he does not start with “thou shalt not murder / steal”, he starts with, “I am the Lord God, have no other gods but Me!” Once this command is jettisoned, the rest become cultural hangovers and social mores that are malleable, plasticine, and ephemeral.

Therefore, we must understand that these issues are inextricably linked. The glue that binds them is Almighty God. As James says, we cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. God gave them all. If we contravene one, we, in essence, contravene them all.[3]

The lesson here is that we, especially we Christians, must be consistent. If you wish not to obey God’s law, then put your hand up and identify yourself as an anarchist. Start driving on the wrong side of the road. Cross on the red light. Do not pay for your groceries, and make your neighbour’s wife your own.

What you cannot do is feign obedience. You cannot, as it were, sit on the fence. You cannot say that you will accept the position outlined in God’s law at X, Y, and Z, but deny it at A, B, and C. This is the same challenge as that thrown down by Elijah on Mount Carmel – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”[4]

God’s word alone is truth. All else is a subjective morass of opinion, speculation, and brute desire. Our people, our nation will be, and are, bogged down, unable to move. Having been robbed of the True foundation, they stand in this quagmire, slowly and surely sinking. Each move, each demand for yet more Godlessness only hastens the body’s submersion in the muck.

At this point, I particularly appeal to my brethren. Let us stop arguing figures, surveys, and science, and start arguing, unashamedly, for the whole of God’s revealed truth to be applied to our lives and to the statutes of our nation.

4. Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness.

Over the years, I have seen and heard many Christians become excited at the news of this ‘survey result’ or that ‘court decision’. Sadly, however, this joy is fleeting.

I understand the desire that these sincere brethren display. They believe that Jesus is King. They believe that Jesus has the right to be heard. They understand the nature of spiritual warfare. All this is very good.

However, we must realise that a single court case or survey result means very little. The content of that survey or court decision must be unpacked and explored. As an example, I have heard for years and years about the proportion of Americans who believe in “God”. On the surface, this is wonderful news. However, when we begin to think it through we quickly find problems. In what God do they believe? If so many believed in the God of the Bible, why is America on a downhill slide? If so many Americans believe in the One living and true God, why does it seem as though God has abandoned that country?

One does not need to be a great theologian to discover that the Bible teaches that God only blesses obedience. Equally, one does not have to be a great theologian to see that the Bible also illustrates clearly that people are apt to go through religious motion when the heart is far, far from God.

So let us not mistake an action or decision, which seems to go in the right direction, for heartfelt, God-honouring obedience and true reform.

5. The High Court – Our Response in Summary.

Whilst many in this nation rejoiced at the High Court’s decision to overturn the ACT’s law on homosexual union, the simple and harsh reality is that there was no cause for joy in that decision.

The High Court did not act for God. The High Court did not act in obedience to God’s word. Neither did the High Court act from heartfelt obedience nor a right sense of obligation to strike down this attempt to normalise homosexuality. The Court simply came to the decision that two laws were in conflict and that the Federal law had priority. As such, this decision was not a win for God or for Christians. It was nothing less than a technical decision that maintained the status quo.

On the other hand, there are many diabolical elements contained in this decision that few in this country understand. These elements should place fear in the heart for they are the fulfilment of all the warnings that have been issued thus far. That is why we termed this decision as a “cataclysmic event”.

It is clear that the High Court favours the normalisation of homosexuality. One even gets the impression that they wished that they could have given the whole thing a green light there and then. However, they were constrained by technicalities at law, not by morals, to overrule the ACT’s legislation. [5]

This conclusion can be illustrated, in part, by the High Court, first, deferring a decision and, second, allowing unions under the ACT law while the court deliberated. This led to the provocative situation of some 20 odd couples going through a ceremony that was annulled a few days later. This was an unmitigated stunt on the part of a body that should know the meaning of integrity.

This said, the real devil was certainly in the detail. When the High Court explained itself, we were led into the Postmodern conundrum of decision without foundation. We were introduced to meaningless drivel being served up as the basis for law. In fact, we can go further, the High Court eradicated any foundation or standard for law, meaning, and governance outside of the brute will of the elected government.

Some may be hesitant at the statements made. If so, continue with me, please, as we explore and unpack some aspects of the High Courts decision.

6. The High Court – A State of Flux.[6]

One of the reasons that the Church and our nation – indeed, nations around the world – are experiencing upheaval and discontent can be directly attributed to the concepts embodied in the modern adage of “Change for changes sake!” When this maxim was embraced and coupled with the Postmodern denial of truth and absolutes, it made for a deadly combination.

These philosophies of decay, embraced in the 19^th century, meant that change was not only good, but possible, for there were no longer any moral absolutes or objections standing in the way of change.[7]

The philosophy that change for no reasons other than change was good and change was possible bred discontentment. It allowed sin to take the reins. If people did not have something new every so often, they were unhappy, unsatisfied, and often considered themselves as somehow less than others. You know this to be true. How many people do you know, especially in the younger generation, who have to have a new mobile phone as soon as the next model is released? There is nothing wrong with their current phone except that it is superseded.

When we think in these terms we can see the principle. However, when we speak simply of gadgets we can be tempted to see this purely in terms of consumerism. To show how this state of discontent has wide ranging ethical implications, let’s apply this theory to marriage. What happens when you see the next model? It comes in a new case and is of a more attractive design. It may also be a bit lighter than the current model. It has certain assets that get you excited. They may be nice to play with. At this point your imagination is running wild with the possibilities offered by the new model.

So let’s pause for a minute. Let us approach it differently. Let us start with this question, “What is wrong with the current model?” Truthfully, the answer is, “Nothing!” Then we can think back to the days when we first received this model. It had great assets. It too got us very excited. We were intrigued with it for quite a while. Then we ask, “Has it failed us in some gross way?” Again, we must answer, “No!”

So at the end of all this, the only reason that you have for tipping out your current wife and obtaining a new one is that she has aged. Newsflash. Stand in front of the mirror buddy. I bet you ain’t so hot anymore either! Anyway, I digress.

Can you see how this discontentment is easily spread? “Change for changes sake” when coupled with the abandonment of truth and morals is a dark adage that has spawned great evils. It has pandered to the selfish desires of the masses and created untold damage. It makes people think only of what might be, not what is or what was. It causes you to live in a fantasy world free from moral restraint.[8]

In opposition to this, The Bible talks about contentment. Proverbs 5:18-19, speaking of marriage says this: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.”

The simple reality of life is that we grow old.[9] Discontentment will easily creep in to a marriage if we are only thinking of ‘what might have been’ or ‘what might be.’ This is particularly true if you have imbibed some foolish, worldly, and ephemeral view of marriage that looks only at the needs of the individual.

One of the doctrines that can help us most at this point and one of the doctrines most hid from view in our day, is the Doctrine of the Immutability of God. This doctrine states that God, in His essential nature, plans, purposes, and powers does not change. Why can I believe the promises of God? God does not change!

In this current debate – and many beside – this doctrine gives us a solid foundation. When we return to the book of Genesis, we find a whole lot about marriage.[10] The first thing that must be noted is that marriage is founded by God and for His purposes. God made Man in His image and He made this Man male and female. We also see that this Man was given a mission – he was to take dominion over this world in God’s name. Furthermore, we see that this dominion was directly related to the sexuality of Man as male and female. God designed Man to marry and through marriage to bear children in order to take dominion.

The importance here is that marriage is immutable for it was founded upon and given purpose by the One living, true, and immutable God. This is precisely why laws protected marriage. In times past we spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. In short, we acknowledged that marriage was more than a social construct or tradition. We acknowledge that it was holy, that is was set apart, that it was not to be trifled with. We did this because we understood that marriage in its design and purpose rested upon the immutable, the unchangeable and unchanging God of Scripture.

December 12, 2013 and the High Court of Australia rewrites history and takes a pair of scissors to the Bible. In section 16 they state:

The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable.

In this statement, the High Court has revealed the single reason that marriage has been systematically attacked and undermined in this country. It reveals the reason that has led to the current demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry – in the Court’s opinion, there is no absolute standard for marriage![11]

From this point, the High Court goes on to give various illustrations of how marriage has been reinterpreted over time, especially since federation.[12] The problem is that they are guilty of a logical fallacy or of “straw man” syndrome. In short, they presuppose that marriage is mutable – changeable. They presuppose that marriage is a social status that may have different forms at different times in history. Thus, they bring in illustrations to show these changes and thereby legitimise their decision.

Let’s illustrate the problem with this analogy. As a Christian it is not wrong to undertake any lawful vocation. Conversely, those vocations that are illegal or immoral are excluded. Now we must ask, who decides on the legality and morality of a vocation?

It is Victorian England. Murray’s daughter comes home all excited. She announces to her father that she has gained employment. He excitedly asks, “What is the position and for whom shall you be working?” His daughter then states that she is going to be a prostitute and that she would be working at the local brothel. Victorian Murray would not rejoice at this news and would most likely toss his daughter out of his house.

Fast forward. It is 2014, Murray’s daughter comes home. Same exuberance. Same conversation. What is modern Murray’s response? He rises from his chair, embraces his daughter, and congratulates her on choosing and old and enduring profession. What else can he do? After all, brothels are now legal.

Modern Murray must accept his daughter’s decision, if we are to believe that morality and ethics are transient and not immutable. Modern Murray has no ability to rebuke or criticise his daughter’s decision because the government has said that brothels can now operate legally.

This is the quagmire entered into when morality is removed from it foundation in the immutable, eternal God and placed upon the ephemerality of finite Man’s opinion. Everything must change. What was yesterday will not and cannot be the same tomorrow.

Therefore, what the High Court has declared is that marriage is a social construct that is completely malleable. Marriage can and must be formed or shaped by the social needs of any nation, at any time, in any place up to and including the abolition of all marriage. The institution of marriage has no link to the Bible’s God. It has no moral basis. It has no reference to Man as male and female. Marriage is not the immutable creation of God, but rather the social construct of fallen Man.

7. The High Court – The God of the Bible is Dead!

The repercussions of the High Court’s decision and reasoning are immense.

Some in this nation have been warning about the consequences of Australia becoming a Secular nation. Those people have been ridiculed and persecuted. As with the “Gun Debate” analogy above, we hope that those rumblings will now settle down. We hope that people will see the monster that has been released by the High Court.

Now, let me be clear. The anti-God philosophy displayed in the High Court’s decision is not new. It has been slowly but surely building both momentum and followers for some time. The point is that now the ramifications of that anti-God philosophy should be clear.

When people call for a secular Australia, when politicians refer to decisions good for us as a secular state, understand that they are speaking code. When they use these terms they are calling for nothing less than a concept of government that is completely uniformed and untouched by the God of the Bible. Implicit in these statements is the tenet that God is Dead – if not in reality, then as an exiled son, cast out and no longer welcome.

This is why Christians have been given less and less voice. This is why other minorities have been encouraged. This is why Christmas is attacked. This is why ridiculing Christians and Christianity is acceptable.[13] This is why free speech, particularly, true speech is gagged. This is why PC is a one-way street – leading away from God’s immutable and eternal decrees.

The reality is very simple. We are not arguing about whether there should be a God for this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have law in this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have cultural structure and rules in this nation. No. What we are arguing over is Who is the rightful God and the determiner of law and morality in this nation! That is the battleground.

The High Court has declared the One living and true God of the Bible dead. However, this cannot be construed as the High Court denying all sovereignty. When God is pushed aside, a void is created. Man cannot live with this void. It makes him uncomfortable. Being formed in the image and likeness of God, Man likes rules and government. Man, in general, likes order. The sticking point is, again, the question of, “Whose rules are to be obeyed?”

Fallen Man cannot abide the governance of God, so he must declare that God is dead. Man must clear the path for a god of his own making to be established, worshiped, and obeyed.

8. The High Court – The Elected Government replaces God.

Consequently, the High Court had to focus upon the Federal Parliament’s right to make rules regarding marriage without reference to God.

In section 9, we read:

This Court must decide whether s 51(xxi) permits the federal Parliament to make a law with respect to same sex marriage because the ACT Act would probably operate concurrently with the Marriage Act if the federal Parliament had no power to make a national law[5] providing for same sex marriage. If the federal Parliament did not have power to make a national law with respect to same sex marriage, the ACT Act would provide for a kind of union which the federal Parliament could not legislate to establish. By contrast, if the federal Parliament can make a national law providing for same sex marriage, and has provided that the only form of marriage shall be between a man and a woman, the two laws cannot operate concurrently.

What is being said here can be simplified to this – Does the Federal Parliament have an absolute right to decree what marriage is to be up to and including, but not limited to, homosexuality?

The High Court answered with a, Yes! The supposed dilemma that the Court faced was this – if the Federal Parliament could not make legislation in this area, then the ACT’s law could stand. However, if the Federal Parliament did have the authority, even though they did not exercise it, the ACT’s law could not stand.

Therefore, context aside, the High Court has ruled that the Federal Government is to replace God as the source of morality. The Federal Parliament can now make any law that is deemed to be within its right, regardless of the dictates of God.

Speaking Biblically, the above court case should never have got off the ground. A judge true to his oath and calling would have struck this legislation down as he would have realised that the proposition was contrary to God’s law. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into, by governments or lesser judges.

Yet, as we have seen, what the High Court did was to foster the God is Dead philosophy by paying homage to the rights and power of the Federal Parliament. In taking this stand, the High Court has declared the Federal Parliament to be omnipotent. The Federal Parliament can now rule with absolute surety that all is within its power.

We have witnessed this type of government many times throughout the ages. It is called tyranny! When the law makers refuse to acknowledge that they are themselves men under authority, the only possible end is tyranny.

The High Court has now handed to the Federal Parliament the very thing it has been champing at the bit for, carte blanche! It now has the power to terrorise every Christian and dissenter. It has now been given entry into your homes and to the very essence of your being.

“How so?” you ask. It is a matter of warfare and of equal and opposites. If the Federal Parliament establishes laws in favour of homosexual unions, especially if it is termed as “marriage”, it automatically attacks every authentic marriage. Just as counterfeit money disturbs the genuine currency, so a fake marriage must disturb the genuine marriage.

As the Federal Parliament only knows cooperation through force, people will be coerced into complying with the new definition of marriage. You should not be shocked at this statement. You already witness this tactic – Racial Vilification laws; Equal Opportunity laws; Anti-Discrimination laws. All these have one real aim – to force all to comply with the Federal Parliaments ideals of a harmonious and just society. The only real difference is that homosexual unions will bring the issue closer to home.

Therefore, once marriage is redefined, wholesale changes will need to be made to a range of official documentation, dictums, and conventions. For example, I already resent the term “partner” that appears on forms instead of husband / wife/ spouse. What terms will be presented for our enjoyment with the redefinition of marriage? What happens to terms like Mum and Dad? Rewrite the dictionaries! Ridiculous? Not at all. We have already seen this. Consider this dictionary definition of marriage:

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: [Examples deleted]
(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
[mass noun] the state of being married:[14]

Note that the second point has been inserted already as relevant to “some jurisdictions”. All that needs to happen is to delete the first definition and elevate the second and voilà the secular revolution in regard to marriage is complete.

What then of education. You believe marriage to be as God intended; a man and a woman for life. How do you object to this at the school council? What happens when you insist that your child answer contrary to the State’s position? What is your response to a please explain from the education board?[15]

What of the Christian marriage counsellor. What will happen when homosexuals turn up for counselling? Will you turn them away? Will you capitulate to the State and recognise them as legally married? Are you willing to risk your business and even jail by turning these people away?

These are but a few examples of the situations that will arise, given current examples, if the Federal Parliament legalises homosexual union.

Oh please, do not be the ignoramus par excellence and claim that the Government will add caveats or exemptions for certain Christian organisations. What the Government giveth the Government can and will taketh away![16] The Government, having been granted unlimited power, will not be slack in using that power to enforce its will.

When the Government supplants God as the final arbiter on morality, we are in for a sticky end. It is no accident that every culture that has embraced homosexuality has faltered and slipped from the pages of history. We often hear about the glory of Rome and her system, but few speak of the fall of Rome as a consequence of her debauchery.

Enamoured with her own power and authority, Caesar claimed to be a god. From this point, totalitarian rule and tyranny became the order of the day. Men were slaughtered for pleasure and entertainment. Sexual perversion abounded. Children were left to die. Life was both honoured and cheapened.

It is a dark day when the Government believes that it can rightly sit in God’s seat and rule by its own power.

9. The High Court – The Ramifications.

When Man usurps God, the consequences are incalculable. All that can be said is that there most definitely will be ramifications and that those ramifications will be negative. We have noted some ramifications already. We have hinted at the definite possibility of others, based on current practice. Still others come to light in the High Court’s reasoning.

Disturbingly, the High Court, in section 33, states:

Once it is accepted that “marriage” can include polygamous marriages, it becomes evident that the juristic concept of “marriage” cannot be confined to a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde and other nineteenth century cases. Rather, “marriage” is to be understood in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.[17]

The reasoning at this juncture is once more questionable. That the Family Law Act recognises polygamous marriages is a fact. However, it does not do so permissively, but rather functionally. In other words, the Act recognises polygamous marriages from outside Australia for the sole purpose of enabling the Court to deal with them.[18]

Regardless of this fact, what we need to see is that debauchery begets debauchery. The High Court introduces the practice of polygamy only to enable the Biblical view of marriage to be maligned. By introducing a heterosexual distortion, it is but a small step to utter perversion.

Hence, this section does not speak about a man and a woman, but of “natural persons”. The whole point is to deny sexuality as a criterion for marriage. Also note, please, that the High Court’s definition is numberless. Having used polygamy as a jimmy bar to pry open the door, it cannot now limit the number of persons to that marriage.

What now? Well, my advice is that you go out and by one of those rain suits that covers you from top to bottom for things are going to get murky and filthy.

First, if Postmodernism were not so popular, the High Court would be a total laughingstock. When the theory of the Court is analysed it becomes clear that they have absolutely no objective criteria for marriage and no objective or absolute foundation on which they base the form and content of marriage. The best that they can establish is ‘marriage is what Federal Parliament says it is.’ As there is no objective basis for this decision, the power of the Federal Parliament is established by the power of the High Court. Thus, one entity validates the other in reciprocal acts of “back patting” and authentication.

What this means for every Australian is that the concept and definition of marriage will now be subject to complete change at the will of the Federal Parliament. As marriage is but a social construct, the Parliament will be able to issue its own decrees as to what form and content marriage should possess.

This is the precipice to which relativism and the denial of absolutes leads. You have forty people in a room and forty opinions are shared. Truth is not established on an objective foundation, nor by consensus, but by the person holding the highest office.

Just the other night, I came across a television show in which Tony Abbott’s assertion that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman” was shot down by a reference to a Roman emperor who had two husbands. Triumph for the homosexuals!

The point here is not to bat for or against Tony Abbott, but to show that appealing to culture, science, or past happenings is not a valid means for establishing truth or ethical principle. It is for this reason that I have often been critical of brethren who use these methods. We cannot establish ethical principles for tomorrow based on what is or what was.

The weakness in Tony Abbott’s arguments is also shown to be present in the High Court’s reasoning – because both are secular rationalists who deny God’s revelation as truth. The High Court has no objective standards, so they are reduced to a set of arguments concerning this case or that case or what happened when, particularly limiting the time frame to Federation. Consequently, we are introduced to statements like:

Observing that, at federation, English law would recognise as a marriage only a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde, and would not provide matrimonial remedies in respect of any other kind of union, accurately describes the then state of the law. (Section 28.)
The great conflict of laws writer, A V Dicey, described [43] the rule which was adopted in the cases as an “instance of the principle that the rules of (so-called) private international law apply only amongst Christian states”. The rule treated some, but not all, forms of marriage contracted according to other laws as either not worthy of recognition or not able to be recognised because their incidents were not compatible with English law. (Section 29.)
These being the bases for the nineteenth century decisions, those decisions did not then, and do not now, define the limit of the marriage power (or the divorce and matrimonial causes power) in the Constitution. Decisions like Hyde v Hyde reflect no more than the then state of development of judge-made law on the subjects of marriage and divorce and matrimonial causes. Subsequent development of both judge-made law and statute law shows this to be so. (Section 30.)
First, it was established in 1890 by Brinkley v Attorney-General[44] that, despite the frequent reference found in earlier decisions to “Christian marriage” and “marriage in Christendom” as distinct from “infidel” marriages[45], a monogamous marriage validly solemnised according to the law of Japan between “a natural born subject of the Queen … having his domicil in Ireland” and “a subject of the empire of Japan”, though not a Christian marriage, would be declared to be valid in English law. (Section 31).
More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like “marriages throughout Christendom”[47] or marriages according to the law of “Christian states”[48], or terms of disapproval, like “marriages among infidel nations”[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what “marriage” means.[19] (Section 36).

I realise that such quotes are not easy to read and can induce tedium. I would appreciate it if, despite this, you could ponder these texts to see how standing on shifting sand is both dangerous and ultimately futile. The High Court begins with what was the accepted standard for marriage and introduces excuse after excuse as to why those definitions or terms are no longer valid. Please note how section 36 takes to task the usage of the term “Christian” in making a distinction in marriage and ultimately asserts that all these law-makers were guessing in the dark – “obscure(ing) circularity of reasoning” and “begged the question of “what” marriage means”.

This is astounding, for these judges have basically stated that all (well, most) of the law on marriage is a guess by their predecessors and the lawmakers of the day as to what marriage is to be. Horrifyingly, in making this assessment, they have laid the foundation for their own interpretation of marriage to be accepted as the standard for our day – as they too guess in the dark!

You see, these men argue from no foundation in law to the relative laws of various jurisdictions today and at every turn they simply shoot themselves in the foot. The quotations show how the Court has argued for its point of view from and through a limited time period. Yet, the real kicker is their opening gambit – “The cases commonly referred to as providing a definition of “marriage” in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution must be read in the light of the issues decided in those cases. Each case dealt with a particular question about either succession to property or the jurisdiction of the English courts to grant a decree of dissolution in cases concerning a marriage contracted in, and governed by the law of, a foreign country.”

What the Court admits at this point is that none of the cases cited were actually looking at the questions of the source of, form of, and essential constitution of marriage. Rather, these were cases of property settlement or divorce. Thus, at best, these cases can only be cited in a cursory way.

Similarly, after the Court’s little tour through history and its arrival at tacit approval for polygamous and homosexual unions, we are granted this little gem – “Other legal systems now provide [50] for marriage between persons of the same sex. This may properly be described as being a recent development of the law of marriage in those jurisdictions. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened.”

Excuse me! Not useful or relevant to consider the how and why of these current decisions!! How can that be? A building falls down and there is an enquiry into the “how” and the “why” immediately. All attempts are made to make sure that these things do not happen again in future. So why is the High Court of Australia not interested in the “how” and “why” of the “recent development” of this issue?

It is very simple. If the Court opened that particular door and chose to walk through it, they would first have to admit that they are the Biblical fools of Psalm 14, who have ‘said in their hearts “There is no God.”’The Court would have to admit that there is only one foundation for marriage – God! The Court would have to admit that outside of Scripture there is no other basis for the institution of marriage. The Court would have to admit that there is only one type of marriage – Christian marriage – for marriage was ordained and commanded by God for all men. The Court would have to admit that marriage is timeless, ethical, purpose driven, and is founded upon absolutes. The Court would have to admit that marriage is not a social or cultural construct. Lastly, and importantly, the Court would have to admit that it was mistaken and that it too is bound by the authority of God Almighty. This the Court will not do.

In other words, the Court dismisses this necessary investigation precisely to guard its own premise – God is Dead (See footnote 18). If the court undertook this investigation, it would be obliged to highlight the correlation between the decline in moral standards and the acceptance of homosexual union. It would be patent that a moral shift had taken place within the culture and that the adoption of a new morality or paradigm for morality had led to the acceptance of these aberrant practices.

By now you will be tired of the words “absolute” and “objective”, but I hope that you can see more clearly the diabolical nature of modern relativism. We have before our eyes the High Court of Australia making fundamental decisions based on a foundation with less tensile strength and integrity than packaged custard!

When absolutes and objective truth are denied, relativism must take over. As we have said already, the consequences are enormous. Every man – including the High Court and every politician – will do what is right in his own eyes and chaos shall ensue.

Second, having established the Federal Parliament’s right to state what it will concerning marriage; having opened some doors to dubious behaviour; and having established these concepts on the all conquering principle of relativism, the Court is now reduced to contradictions and hypocrisy as they continue to argue their case. Truly, if it were not so disastrous and serious, I would be tempted to wax lyrical.

Think this through. The High Court have set out a point of law which states that the Federal Parliament alone has the right to determine what marriage is in this country. Having done that, it continues to argue its point by elucidating its thought process. The trouble is that the process utilised, as we have seen, is fundamentally flawed.

According to the High Court, a marriage is a “consensual union between natural persons”. If this is so, then all manner of abominations are possible. How many are too many in a marriage? Then it is not only plurality that is courted but homosexuality. Marriage could be six men, six women, three men and three women. As long as these are “natural persons” – no nestene duplicates[20] – and the relationship is consensual, there can be no limit! Moreover, as this is the Court’s reasoning and that reasoning has no terminus or restrictions in morality – the only terminator being the Parliament’s will – then whatever the Parliament allows is not only right but must be obeyed and instituted.

At this point, it would seem that bestiality is ruled out, though I have nagging doubts. After all, evolutionary theory states that Man is just one of the animals. I have also read some weird stuff on what constitutes “personhood”. Placing these two together with the High Court’s ridiculous definition could mean that ‘Dolly the sheep’ is popular again and that for the abominable reason.

Equally, we cannot let the “consensual” part of the definition go unnoticed. What of pederasty? What of incest? What of those laws that have prohibited consanguineous marriages?

Now, to be fair, the High Court states, in section 43:

Eligibility to marry is fixed by the two Acts with only one difference. Under the Marriage Act, a person aged between 16 and 18 years may marry [63] if certain consents are given or judicial authorisation is obtained. Under the ACT Act, an adult person may marry [64]. Both Acts prohibit [65] marriage between persons within the same prescribed degrees of affinity or consanguinity.

However, if marriage is mutable, without an absolute definition possible, then how do the High Court and the framers of the ACT legislation decide that these limitations should remain? If polygamy and homosexuality are legitimate by way of reasoning that there is no absolute definition for marriage, then marrying your son, daughter, sister, cousin, and /or aunt – remember, no limitation on numbers – should also be legal.

Once more, from where were the limits on consanguinity derived? They are Biblical.[21] Yep, that’s right; you will find them in the Bible and only the Bible. All other writings are simply playing “catch up” or are seeking to apply or interpret what the Bible has stated. So, here on display for all to see, is the High Court’s hypocrisy. The very Court that denies God any place in marriage, the Court that tells us that marriage cannot be absolutely defined, also turns out to be a court that insists on certain Biblical standards for the marriage covenant.

The parallel here takes us back to the beginning – we will accept ‘do not murder / steal’, but we do not want ‘do not have false gods or commit adultery’. Rebellious Man enjoys God’s command when it affords him protection, but he despises God’s command when it limits his rebellion. This principle has just been clearly demonstrated by the High Court.

When God is denied, all becomes a state of flux and guessing in the dark! If the High Court were consistent, in the slightest, they would admit that the only right application of their reasoning means that there is no limitation to marriage outside the words “consensual” and “natural persons”. Thus, restrictions on age could only be governed by the term “consensual”; that is to say a court would need to adjudicate on the question, “At what age does a person understand the concepts implied in marriage?” Outside of this, there can simply be no restriction.

Third, and this is a change of topic, but there is an unseen and unspoken ramification that is rapidly coming to the surface. It is a ramification that will affect us all. It has the possibility to be momentous in our nation’s history.

I speak here of the dissolution of the Federation of States that constitutes this nation.

One of the truly disturbing aspects that has come to the fore through this whole debate is the rancour of those arguing for homosexual union. So rabid are those people that they will stop at nothing – even, it seems, the destruction of our nation.

What is clear from the process with the High Court is that this has been a deliberate venture. Those bent on destroying marriage have launched the ACT legislation as a test case. Right now, highly paid lawyers will be looking through the High Court’s ruling seeking loopholes. The ACT sought to have their legislation stand alongside of the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act. The High Court has said that in its current form it cannot.

In Western Australia there is another piece of legislation being presented. They hope that by framing things slightly differently that the result will be a piece of legislation that will stand beside the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act in a way acceptable to the High Court.

What this means in reality is that this nation is going to see a series of High Court challenges. Tax payer’s dollars will be wasted by this anarchistic minority who will not accept any other decision but the one that gives them legal right to debauchery. These people agitated for and were given a vote in Parliament. They lost. They were soundly defeated. Then came the excuses. They were offered a referendum; that was not acceptable because the outcome was unknown and permanent. So now they relentlessly hassle the politicians and clog up the courts. For what? The destruction of our nation.

Please, think this through. At Federation the States surrendered certain aspects of governance to the Federal Parliament. Now, at the behest of a debauched few, that Federation is under attack. If a state finds a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the High Court as an adjunct to the Marriage Act, then it will have the ultimate effect of nullifying the Federal Parliament’s authority.

This being the case, how many court cases are going to be presented before the burden causes the Federal Parliament to cave? If the Federal Parliament does not cave, at what point are they going to, if ever, say, “Enough!” When homosexual and polygamous unions are legalised by the States, “What is next on the agenda?” Put another way, the current question is a Constitutional one. Therefore, if a State can find a way of negating the Federal Parliament’s sole right as the authority under the Constitution, as with the Marriage Act, what effect will that have for the very existence of Federal Parliament?

Stating it as plainly as possible, if any Sate can legitimately take on a function of the Federal Parliament, once the loophole is found, then each State will be able to bypass the Federal Parliament at will. What then? What will happen to our nation as a federation of States?

Again, some may see this as the stuff of doomsday prophecy. I assure you it is not. I have said many times that there are few, if any, Western countries that have not had a civil war. Australia stands out as one that has not been down that road. However, how long will it be before some in our society become tired of being bullied by this anarchistic minority? How long before the relativism and lack of truth spoken of in this article breeds contempt for law, indeed nullifies law altogether? After all, if there is no objective truth, the opinion of the highest office or biggest stick rules!

So please, give some thought to the possibility of this ramification. With the High Court officially embracing and endorsing relativism there is no objective answer. There is no right or wrong. There is only what the law allows or the law forbids. If the law allows adjunct law by the States, “What will happen to our nation?”

Conclusion:

The decision of the High Court is disturbing and that for many reasons. In this article we have simply tried to pin point the fundamental error in the Court’s thinking, or, if you will, in their premise or presupposition. We have also attempted to outline some of the ramifications of this decision. Some have to do with marriage. Others go far beyond that topic.

In the end, we must simply restate the old maxim, “Ideas have consequences”. The idea that “God is dead” will have consequences. The idea that Federal Parliament can rule without reference to God will have consequences.[22] The idea that marriage is nothing more than a social or cultural construct will have consequences. Allowing homosexual and polygamous unions will have consequences.

It may have been appropriate to add some words on the hot topics of “God and government” and “morality in law”. These topics need to be addressed for they have many people confused, including a good number of Christians.

Let me then add some help here. Church and State are separate institutions, but they are not the only institutions. These institutions exist because God created them. Therefore, they owe their full allegiance to God. The separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of “God and government”. God made government. Romans chapter 13 informs us that government is a minister of God and that it is bound to do His will. Therefore, laws must reflect morality – God’s morality.

Allow me to close with an apt quotation from the late R.J. Rushdoony:

The other night, a prominent lawyer, appearing on television, asked for the repeal of laws against abortion, narcotics, sexual perversions, and a number of other things. “You can’t legislate morality,” he said, “and it’s about time we stopped trying to do it.” The man was lying, and he knew it, because all law is about morality. When you legislate against murder, theft, libel, and the like, you are legislating morality. When you institute traffic laws, you are again legislating morality: you are penalizing traffic behavior which may endanger the life and property of another man. In other words, you are enacting specific forms of God’s law: Thou shalt not kill, and Thou shalt not steal. Legislation about the forms of court procedure is in terms of the law banning false witness; the purpose of such laws is to further true testimony. Even the salaries of public officials have moral implication: “[T]he labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18).

At every point, the law deals either with morality directly or with procedures for its enforcement. All law is enacted morality. Every criminal law says that a certain thing is right, and another wrong. Every law is thus a piece of legislated morality. Moreover, all morality represents a religion, as that every system of law is an establishment of religion. Thus, there can be a separation of church and state, but there cannot be a separation of religion and the state, because every system of law is a religion and a morality in action.

What the lawyer was actually saying was that he hated a Christian law system and wanted to replace it with a system of humanistic law. This is exactly the nature of our legal revolution today. The courts are changing the law by changing the religion behind the law.

What all law does legislate is morality, and you had better believe it before it is too late before you wake up to find the revolution is over, and you are the new outlaw in terms of the new morality, the new law, and the new religion. This has happened elsewhere, and it is happening here.[23]

[1] These are trite examples, but they illustrate the point. You would always return home from work with apprehension because the wife you left in the morning may not be the one you return to at night. Similarly, it will take you a long time to get home each night as you will need to drive all over town looking for your home because you cannot guarantee that it will be in the same place.

[2] Abortion and Euthanasia are but two examples. These were rarely heard of in the days when marriage and sexuality were esteemed. As to theft, where do I begin? We all know that the burglar has more rights than the victim. Need anything more be said.

[3] See James 2:10-11. I have adapted the point of James argument and applied it to the topic at hand.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21. Note well that the question or challenge is rhetorical. Elijah demonstrates concretely that Yahweh is God and that Baal is nothing.

[5] The High Court’s decision is one more in a long line (of decisions by various courts) that displays the erroneous belief that morality and law have nothing in common.

[6] All references to the court’s reasoning come from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html.

[7] Thus a man could leave his wife and children and “move on”, as it were. People could say that this was a poor decision. They might say it was selfish. What they could not say any longer was that it was a wrong or morally corrupt decision.

[8] This is one of the truly great dangers of pornography. It is not so much the pictures, but the combination of words and images that creates the belief that there is a greater perfection than what you currently possess.

[9] I am using marriage as an example because of its relevance to the High Court’s decision. This discontentment can come into other areas of life also. Discontentment is bound to rise amongst those who refuse to see themselves as limited, finite creatures.

[10] Please see our work, Marriage is Life!

[11] In section 37 we find these words: “The boundaries of the class of persons who have that legal status are set by law and those boundaries are not immutable.” Note that the High Court once again states that marriage is not immutable. At this point they are seeking to establish that the class of persons to be married is to be determined by the “the law” but that such law is changeable.

[12] For example, Clause 18 says, in part: “More generally, it is essential to recognise that the law relating to marriage, as it stood at federation, was the result of a long and tangled development.” (Italics added.) There are references to Federation, the Council of Trent, and to Roman law, which are dismissed. Interestingly, the words of Jesus are never quoted, “And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”( Matthew 19:3-9.) Please note Jesus’ reference points: God and from the beginning! Federation, Trent, Rome! They are all superfluous and irrelevant. In the beginning God is the only reference point that matters and it is the one reference point the High Court a priori ruled out of the discussion.

[13] Have you noticed that for a Christian to condemn the homosexual and his practice is to be guilty of hate-speech and holding them to ridicule. However, it is acceptable for homosexuals to march in a Mardi Gras each year dressed mockingly as Fred Nile, nuns, priests etc, and to be openly blasphemous. Read Romans 1:32 for some insight!

[14] Found at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage. Viewed 32/12/13. Interestingly, my Little Oxford from 1986 does not mention the second definition! Understand well, even our dictionaries are rewritable at the dictates of PC.

[15] Some years ago, Homeschoolers in Victoria were required to register. As a part of that decree, certain topics were set out as mandatory. How long before this sinister element is used to force secular doctrine onto our children? It is already happening to some degree in State schools.

[16] In section 21, this quote by Higgins J is cited: “Power to make laws as to any class of rights involves a power to alter those rights, to define those rights, to limit those rights, to extend those rights, and to extend the class of those who may enjoy those rights.” What the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away! This fact is cited in the document discussing the Marriage Act. In short, any exemptions given by a Government can be altered by a Government, whether that be extension, diminution, or revocation.

[17] Bold added.

[18] It does not seem at all appropriate to argue from this perspective that Australian law gives explicit approval to polygamy. This is what one would term as “drawing a long bow”. Equally, it is another example of evil begetting evil. One does not need to legally recognise polygamy to deal ethically with the fallout of a failed polygamous marriage.

[19] This statement is interesting. It notes that these citations were attempts to “mask the adoption of a premise”. Nothing new here! Those familiar with the pages of Post Tenebras Lux will know that we have spoken previously about presuppositions and basic ‘faith’ positions. The real point of interest is in the question, “What premise is the High Court of Australia 2013 seeking to mask?”

[20] Just for DW fans!

[21] See Leviticus 18:6-18. Thus the Westminster Divines can say, “Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. (Lev. 18, 1 Cor. 5:1, Amos 2:7) Nor can such incestuous marriage ever be made by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. (Mark 6:18, Lev. 18:24–28)” Unlike the High Court’s ramblings, the Divines had no problem going straight to the source to find out what form and content were appropriate to marriage.

[22] You may wish to ponder the implications of Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7.

[23] By R. J. Rushdoony. Taken from A Word in Season: Daily Messages on the Faith for All of Life, Vol. III, p. 66. Emphases added.

Your Sunday Best (Pt 5)

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

As Man has shifted his focus in worship from a transcendent, absolute, holy God to himself and to his own gratification, we have witnessed a patent transformation, not only in the form of worship, but also in the form of the worshipper.

In recent years, I have had many discussions on the topic of an appropriate dress code for worship. Most have been with the younger generation and, of these, some have been family members. The objections put forward are telling in themselves. Apparently, one has to be comfortable in order to worship. One must recognise that God looks on the heart. One must not offend a brother who has less than you. One must be able to connect with the stranger who comes in off the street, and so on.

The common denominator in all of these objections is that they focus on man. As such, they are all exploitable because there is no quantifiable standard. What constitutes “comfortable”? Is not “comfortable” a subjective term? Hence, I could state that I am quite comfortable when I am butt naked in a hot bath. Does this now become an acceptable form for my appearing at Church? God looks on the heart – does that mean that our “wayside pulpits’ now carry the words, “Worshippers Welcome. Clothes Optional”? Wear nothing or everything, for God only views the heart. Our poorer brother! Must I now ring him every Sunday and ask what he is wearing, just so I do not turn up dressed slightly more upmarket and create an offence? As for the stranger, if my connection is not even skin deep and relies completely on my “threads”, well …!

About now, the scorn and derision will be forthcoming from those who hold to these views. Apparently I am overstating the case; going to the nth degree; and just being, ‘plain ridiculous’! Am I? Not in anyway. What I want to show is that when we move from God, the immutable and absolute standard, we move into the subjective. When we move into the subjective there is no absolute, no right or wrong, there is only the opinion of the individual.

In the context of worship, this means that each individual decides for himself what it is that God should receive in worship, the method by which He should receive it, and the quality of the thing offered, right down to the worshippers attire. However, as we have already seen, when the opinions of the individual are at the forefront of the decision making process, God’s revealed standard means little. In fact, God is not in view because the individual is consumed by the exalted self.

In opposition to this, when we come to worship God truly, none of these objections even come into view. When we are consumed by the offering of praise and worth to our Saviour God, these objections pale into insignificance. When I am consumed with God, my comfort is of little importance. When I am consumed with God, I realise that my heart and everything else about me, is laid bare before God’s all seeing eye. When I am consumed with God, I am not looking at clothing labels and nor is my brother. When I am consumed with God, the stranger will be welcomed in compassion – “for you were strangers once”![1]

Tragically, the result of worshipping God in accord with our standards rather than the Biblical standard is that we Christians have begun to reflect an extreme casualness in the way we worship God. This is seen both in how we present for worship and what is offered as worship. This is the consequence of taking our eyes from God and fixing them upon Man. Subtly, we have imbibed a false doctrine that maligns God as unimportant and dismisses His holiness as a standard for our conduct and appearance.[2] As a result, the modern Christian, especially the young, present to worship God, bleary eyed, yawning, late, and dishevelled, but supposedly ready to worship in spirit and in truth. Methinks not!

Okay, yes, it is easy to criticise. It is easy to point fingers. In this case the finger pointing is essential and that for two reasons: First, to highlight a major sickness (issue) within the modern Church; Second, to show that it is a problem by pointing to the Biblical data.

You see, when I have had the aforementioned discussion and I posit that the Bible does have something to say about dress codes, I am invariably met with a blank stare, a look of derision, sheer disbelief, or a ‘New Testamenty’ – “God looks at the heart!” thus endeth the discussion![3]

So let us look at the evidence.

First, let us look at our culture. Now, to be sure, culture is not authoritative. However, it is instructive. It has rightly been said that “culture is religion externalised and made explicit”.[4] This means that when you view culture, you are viewing the application of the major ideologies or religion(s) of that culture.

Now, very few, if any, would dispute that our culture has undergone a transformation, and that not in a good way. Most would perceive that there has been a general downturn in morals, ethics, and standards. This is particularly so when we talk about law, justice, honesty, and so on. What of the dress standard? Is it not also true that we have seen a major decline in the way people dress? Gangsters are mimicked. Hats are worn sideways and backwards. Faces are shielded by hoods as though the wearer were allergic to light or ashamed of their very being. Modesty has all but become a forgotten term.

What is at the root of this downturn? It has, no doubt whatsoever, to do with the fact that as a nation we have abandoned God. In exactly the same way that this piece contends that Christians have pushed God aside in worship, so we have pushed God aside nationally as a people. We threw out the old religion, Christianity, with its holy God and His pernickety rules and embraced new religions that gave Man freedom – Secularism, Humanism, Evolution, and others. Each let Man off the leash, to run free in the park, but what was the consequence? What happens when a fallen creature is given unbridled freedom?

Well, look around you. The downward spiral you witness every day is a direct result of this nation swapping religions. Murder, mayhem, theft, despair, PC, homosexuality, promiscuity, divorce, abortion, etc., etc., are all a result of the new religion. The incongruity for us as Christians is that we quite happily recognise this downturn in regard to the big moral issues, but we skirt the question when it comes to the lesser and more personal item like a dress code.

For those old enough, think back to the term, “Your Sunday best”. Whenever you were required to go anywhere of note, you would speak of ‘putting on your Sunday best’. Implicit in this statement is the fact that the best was reserved for Sunday, God’s day, and for His worship. Culturally, we had a regard for God. Culturally, there was honour for God. Sunday was a day of rest and worship. It was a sanctified day, a day set apart to God, and as a culture we reserved our best for that day.

It is also noteworthy that at that time, the dress code was generally of a higher standard. Modesty was in vogue. People did not appear down the street in their pyjamas. Hats were worn for a purpose and as part of a standard. They were even worn correctly.

Yes, people can mock, but it does not alter these facts. Simply put, when God was honoured in our nation, we saw a higher standard all around, including in personal hygiene and appearance.

Sadly, the national trend of jettisoning God was expedited by the Church’s capitulation on many fronts, but particularly in regard to worship. As a child I remember that many preachers wore robes and or dog collars. Yes, even in some Protestant denominations. At the very least the minister would wear a suit.

Then came the influence of the new religion, and regrettably it held sway over a good number of the clergy. They began to argue for dumping the robes and dog collars. Sure, they started off in suits, but as they had no objective standard, it was not long before the tie was abandoned, the jacket became uncomfortable, it was cheaper to by jeans, and so on.

As the dress standard amongst the clergy waned, so did their standard in a number of other areas. With the clergy actively lowering their standards, it would not be long before preaching on these topics evaporated. Without preaching, “How would the people hear?”

This is a simple cause and effect scenario. Lamentably, it is more than a scenario. It is a matter of history.

As stated, this is not authoritative, but it should show, to any who are genuinely interested, that when God was honoured our standards and the standards of our society were far higher. The degradation caused by apostasy is not just seen in sexual perversion and the aborting of the unborn. It is seen in us, Christ’s people, as we succumb to the standards of the new religion instead of maintaining the holy standard of righteousness given by God.

Let me ask, seriously and genuinely, “Where would your “Sunday best” gain you admittance?” The footy? The pub? The museum? Would you wear it to court, if summoned? Would you wear it to a wedding or civic function? Would you wear it to meet Premier, Prime Minister or Queen?

Second, let us turn to the Biblical evidence.

At the outset, we must state that a major problem with many topics like the one before us is that Christians have been robbed of an ability to study the Bible. Proof texting became the rage. In so doing it taught Christians that if a doctrine was not stated in a single text of a few words, then it must not be in the Bible.[5] Consequently, Christians, in studying this topic, would look up a concordance under “dress code for worship” hoping that they would find a reference to Hezekiah 12:24 – When thou comest unto worship, wearest thou thy bestest suit, adorned (pronounce the ed) sufficiently with a tie of matching character.

Of course, purists like myself look predominantly to verses 25 and 26:

When thou comest unto worship, wearest not upon thine feets the cultural icon of the ‘thong’, nor adornest thy body with that abominable shit of T. Knowest thou not that any buttonless shirt be unholy. Also present not they body clad in the jean even though it dost have the holy name ‘Levi’ writ upon it. Be thou shaven or bearded. Comest thou not unto worship with thribble growth.

However, having looked and found nothing, they conclude that the Bible is silent. Yet the Bible is not silent. Not even close.[6]

Our first text is Genesis 35:1-4. There we read:

Then God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone.” So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.[7]

The first thing to notice is the context of this text. It is firmly planted in the context of redemption and worship. God calls upon Jacob to move to Bethel – the House of God – and to build an altar there. In response to this call by God, Jacob undertakes a covenantal clean up. Jacob gives three commands to all under his authority:

Remove all Idols;
Purify yourselves;
Change your garments.

For those committed to the view that dress is unimportant in the worship of God, point three becomes a real challenge. If God only looks at the heart, why is Jacob concerned with how his people look?

However, if we are going to give the text the respect it is due we will see that there is a logical progression. First, true worship calls for the destruction of all other gods and idols. This is but a precursor to the Sinaitic command, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”.[8]

Having put away the external symbols of falsehood, the people were called upon to purify themselves. They were to repent, to turn fervently to God and embrace all His ways. They were to hold Yahweh as the one true God. The Hebrew word behind our term “purify” is quite strong. Wilson states that it means “to be ceremonially clean, clear, or purged from moral pollution; to be cleared from the penal consequence of sin.”[9] Not only this, the form of the verb means that they are to cause themselves to conform to the required state. Therefore, they must purify themselves, make themselves clean, and make themselves acceptable.

Before moving on to discuss the garments, I would like you to note the pattern and principle established so far. These people were pagan or, more appropriately, polytheists. Although Jacob had met Yahweh, he had allowed his wife to have a household idol. This being so, it was unlikely that he had taken a tough stand with any of his servants who were from foreign nations. Their casual attitude to religion was manifest in their external appearance. Not only did they have household idols, but presumably they carried trinkets and talismans. The reference to “the rings in their ears” is most likely due to the fact that they were a talisman or an actual depiction, in miniature, of a foreign god.

Clearly established, then, is the principle that the inward belief was represented by the outward and external action and dress of the people. Therefore, when Jacob called his people to repentance and purity they had to cast off the old appearance that promulgated the false religion and clothe themselves in a manner that disseminated their dedication to Yahweh.

When this principle is properly understood, it makes absolute sense that the command to “put way idols” and to “purify yourselves” is followed by a command to “change your garments”. The change of heart was to be reflected by the discarding of one external appearance and the embracing of another. Thus, Keil and Delitzsch remark:

The burial of the idols was followed by purification through the washing of the body, as a sign of the purification of the heart from the defilement of idolatry, and by the putting on of clean and festal clothes, as a symbol of the sanctification and elevation of the heart to the Lord (Josh. xxiv.23).[10]

It was necessary that the change in heart be reflected by an external change. It is strange, then, that this concept seems so foreign to the modern Christian, for we are talking nothing other than sanctification. The believer of any age should be marked as different by the fact that the external and observable is different. If it be but the same as the pagan, how are they to be distinguished? If “the old has gone and the new has come” why is there nothing distinctive about the new? If, in terms of Psalm 40, we have been lifted from the pit, out of the miry clay, been given a rock upon which to stand, and have had a new song placed in our mouth, why is it that we are tuneless and look as though we have just competed at a mud wrestling tournament?

Despite what those of the opposite view may think, these are valid questions. The simple reality, established as Biblical warrant by this text, is that our outer attire should be a part of our Christian witness and worship. Just as our actions and our words should always be to God’s praise, so should the way we dress. This article focuses primarily on worship, but the principle has currency for the rest of life. We are to be a Christ exalting people who bring Him glory by taking dominion over this earth in His name. Taking dominion is nothing other than bringing Christ’s rule by His principles over the world – starting with ourselves.[11] Nowhere should these principles and our obedience to them be more evident than in our corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.

Rather than dismissing this text and the principle embodied in it as a cultural anachronism, we would do much better to cherish it and through it better and more elegantly worship the One Living and True God, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Love for God should make conformity to this principle an offering a joy and not a burden. Focus upon God’s worth should, indeed, makes us forget about ourselves. Rushdoony rightly said: “Respect for God from the time of Genesis to the present has meant such cleanliness as a sign of respect.”[12]

Our second text is found in Exodus 19:10-15:

The Lord also said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments; and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. “And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. ‘No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the ram’s horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain.” So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.”[13]

Moses has led the people out of the land of bondage and to redemption. He has led them to the foot of Mount Sinai and to their God. At this point, the people are about to meet God in a very personal way. In preparation, Yahweh sets forth His principles of worship so that the people can enjoy their worship of Him without fear. Consequently, the requirement of holiness is stressed by a command to “consecrate” and another to “wash” their garments.

When these texts are viewed together we see that they are set in the context of redemption and worship. Whether that be at the familial level (Jacob) or at the corporate / national level (Moses) the principle remains the same. Redemption / salvation is to worship and that worship is to take place in accord with the standards that God has set.

Equally, it must be seen that God’s standard not only impacts the composition and structure of worship, but that the worshipper’s comport is also in view. In both these texts, it is God who states that the external appearance of the worshipper must reflect the consecrated or holy estate into which the worshipper has been brought.

As we move forward in redemptive history, we see Yahweh hand down His Law to His people. In that Law there are strict guidelines for worship and purification. Not surprisingly, we encounter many occurrences in which the washing of the outer garment is required in order to complete the purification rite.[14]

Those who disagree with the position espoused will claim that these are ceremonial laws that have passed away and are no longer binding. Even if that be granted, would we not be wise to apply ourselves to understanding the principles involved and applying them to our modern situation?

In reality, it is hard to see how these key elements can be dismissed as passé. Are we not talking about redemption and worship? Are these not concepts that transverse the Testamental divide of the moderns? Are we not talking of core principles that transcend time and reach into eternity precisely because we are speaking of the attributes and character of God?

With these questions in mind, let us leave the Old Testament and look to the New Testament. This shift is not because we are not satisfied with the Old Testament data as some of our readers may be, but because it is important to see that the Scriptures are unified on this subject.

When people think of the New Testament teaching on the subject of clothing, many will think of that solid New Testament principle, which states that “God looks on the heart”. This is a fundamental New Testament statement that shows forth the unity of Scripture. It does so because this solid New Testament passage is actually found in 1 Samuel 16:7!

The second principle that many would focus upon is that found in the book of James. In chapter two, verses one through nine, James speaks of the rich man and the poor man in the assembly. However, his argument does not have to do with the standard of dress or cleanliness, but with the attitude displayed by Christ’s people. Instead of palavering to the rich and despising the poor, the Christian should have been courteous to both. Judging by external motives alone is declared by James to be “bad reasoning”.

Why pander to the rich man when he is the one who exploits / dominates people and takes them to court in person? Why despise the poor man when he is in fact an heir of the promise, called from the foundation of the world, and washed clean in Jesus blood? The point of James’ argument is simple – our discernment should be spiritual and not simply based on sight.

Does James contradict our thesis? No. As stated, James is speaking to a different issue. If we were to focus upon the issue of clothing in worship and ask James for advice, I am sure it would go along the lines of the rich man helping the poor man to take a step up.

Does the New Testament have any other data that may help us? Yes, it does. Let us start with the opaque and work toward the perspicuous.

Matthew 22:1-14 contains the parable of the Wedding Feast. As this is a parable, we need to make sure that we do not stretch the evidence or deal falsely with the text. However, that does not mean that evidence or principle cannot be gleaned from the passage.

Of interest for us are the verses eleven and twelve, which read: “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless.”

At the outset, we must understand that this text presents some difficulties. Commentators are unsure as to how to bridge the gap between verses ten and eleven. Were the guests to hurry home and dress appropriately? Did the King provide the garments? These are questions of debate.

What is not unclear, given the King’s response, is that there was a standard of dress appropriate to a wedding function. Calvin says:

There is no point in arguing about the marriage garment, whether it is of faith or a holy and godly life; for faith cannot be separated from good works and good works proceed only from faith. All Christ wants to say here is that we are called by the Lord under the condition that we be renewed in our spirits into His image, and therefore, if we are to remain in His house … we are to practice the new life so that our appearance … may correspond to our honourable calling.[15]

Calvin’s words, at this point, echo what has already been established, namely, that our external appearance (dress or behaviour) must reflect the reality of Jesus Christ as a holy and righteous King. As Kingdom participants, we are to be different and identifiable by that difference. Importantly, that difference should reflect the higher standard held by the Christian precisely because Jesus is his King.

A second text in the opaque category may be that found in Matthew 17:2 – “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.”

We will not attempt any great commentary on this passage. We simply wish to pause long enough to note that whatever happened to Jesus in the transfiguration also affected Jesus’ clothing. Jesus’ face shone and so did Jesus’ garments.

Transitioning from the opaque to the perspicuous, our first port of call is James 5:2 – “Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten.” In this text, James is condemning the rich by showing how “their sins will find them out.” James points out that their riches are really nothing of significance for they will not pass God’s test. Their clothes are rotting and their gold and silver have rusted (v 3).

Like the parable of the Wedding Feast, this text is a negative example that shows the Biblical principle that the internal and external are inextricably linked.

Last, we would present a number of texts from the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 3:4-5– But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy. ‘He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments.
Revelation 4:4 – And around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
Revelation 6:11– And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.
Revelation 7:9, 13-14 – After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands … And one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where have they come?” And I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:14 – Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

Despite the reservations of many, the Book of Revelation is not a deep mystery to which there is no understanding. On the contrary, much of its teaching is plain. Essentially, we see in the Book of Revelation King Jesus waging war against the enemies of God. As part of that picture we are introduced to the magnificence of the salvation won for us by Jesus and the heavenly scene of glorified saints at worship.

These themes are presented to us right from the start when Jesus comes to seven struggling congregations and speaks to them in person. In those places we see that the heavenly warfare is played out on the earthly stage. We see covenant sanctions, both positive and negative, set before the people as a spur to righteousness and as a deterrent from sin.

In the congregation of Sardis there is a delusion present. Most think they are alive when in fact they are dead. However, Jesus points to a few who have not “soiled their garments”. Their reward is that they will “walk with Jesus in white”. Then Jesus encourages us all by stating that the one “who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments”.

Similarly, the church of Laodicea shared a related delusion. They thought themselves rich and clothed in fine raiment when in fact Jesus condemns them as poor and naked (3:17). Jesus urges the Laodiceans to come to Him for all their needs, including “white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (v 18).

These words to the Church are important for us as they give a setting for all the following references to “white robes”, “washed robes”, and “white garments”.[16]

It is important that we allow Scripture to speak and to show us the continuity found in the Book of Revelation. In that place, the saints are always in white. Soiled clothing and nakedness (the two inappropriate standards) are replaced by white robes washed and made clean in the blood of the Lamb.

Please take this in. We are not introduced to clean and changed hearts, though that be true. We are not given intricate details on justification by faith, though that be true. Rather, we are shown the true nature of our redemption in a simple picture – we are given clean white clothes to wear.

When this evidence is brought together the consistency from Genesis to Revelation cannot be denied. God clothed Adam and Eve in the garden and He clothes the saints in Revelation. Throughout we see that the outer garment is a sign of the heart’s relationship to God. The naked must be clothed. Those with soiled garments must remove them and wash them or they must change them for a new set. Likewise, we see that this change of clothing is always associated with God and His worship.

In conclusion, we once more need to challenge those who would readily dismiss the teaching of these texts. After all, we are talking about two concepts that are familiar to every Christian – holiness and sanctification. As the redeemed of God in Christ, the fact that we are reclothed through regeneration should also be evident in us possessing a sanctified and elevated approach to God’s worship. In short, our standard of dress on a Sunday should reflect the fact that we are bought with a price, that we are washed and sanctified, and that we have no greater joy than to meet with God’s people to show forth His eternal worth.

We have argued elsewhere that heaven, rather than being a tantalising dream, should be a standard for our present reality and lives. The import of this statement is simple. If it is true of heaven, then it should be a goal here and now. To say this is simply to express the prayer Jesus taught us in different language – Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

When we glimpse heaven through the pages of Scripture we see the exalted saints of glory gathered together in white gleaming robes, surrounded by angelic beings, worshipping God and the Lamb in purity. This is our goal. This should be that for which we strive earnestly and unceasingly now.

Salvation is worship. Salvation is worship in purity. Worship is showing forth God’s worth. How do we show God His worth, when we offer Him second best and worse? Did not Yahweh condemn Israel for brining blemished sacrifices? Yes. Yahweh even went so far as to say, ‘How many of your governors would be happy with these offerings?’[17] Yet here we are, the enlightened of the space age, and we will not understand two basic concepts: 1. God demands and deserves the best of everything; 2. All offerings must be offered in accordance with His command.

Part 6

[1] Deuteronomy 10:19

[2] Much of this harks back to comments made previously to the effect that large portions of Christendom have dismissed large portions of the Bible, namely the Old Testament. As they dismiss its teaching as authoritative they are a priori unwilling to listen to and learn from the principles taught therein. As it is in Israel that man is primarily taught how to worship an absolutely holy God, closing those pages can only be detrimental for our understanding and practice of worship.

[3] It may be worth noting that this “New Testamenty” text actually comes from the Old Testament and can be found in 1 Samuel 16:7. It is picked up thematically in Luke 16:15, but it is not directly quoted.

[4] Henry van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture.

[5] This was before the new religion of the exalted self caused them to lay there Bible’s aside and rely on their own judgement.

[6] Once more, a part of the problem is that the “New Testament” Christian will not read the Old Testament or simply dismisses its teaching. Thus, vital and pertinent evidence is discarded.

[7] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977.

[8] Exodus 20:3-5.

[9] William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (MacDonald Publishing Co, McLean, VA.) SV: Pure, Purge, Purify.

[10] Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (6 vols) volume 1, pp. 242-243.

[11] For those questioning the legitimacy of this process, may I point you to Jesus’ words in the Great Commission – Teach the nations to obey (keep / guard / protect) all that I have commanded.

[12] Rousas John Rushdoony, Genesis (Ross House Books, 2002) p. 230

[13] The pertinent verses for our discussion are 10, 14, and 15. The rest are included to give a context and to help the reader grasp the gravity of the situation.

[14] Please see: Leviticus 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 13 as examples. Compare with Leviticus 17:16.

[15] John Calvin, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol 2. P. 109. Italics added.

[16] There are also several references to “bright / white linen” etc.

[17] Malachi 1:8.

Sola Scriptura (Pt 3)

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

If we are to effectively reform the Church in our day, we must begin by turning back to and embracing the Scriptures as our only rule for life and faith. We must return to the solas of the Reformation and to the cry – Sola Scriptura!

This wholehearted return to Scripture as our only and final authority is necessary in order to counteract each and every attempt by man, yes, even redeemed man, to govern autonomously. Even as the redeemed of the Lord, we still show the tendency of Adam to question God’s perspicuous statements and commands and to believe that we can construct or invent a better way – even if we are not so bold as to state it in these terms!

Let me outline two prominent errors found in the modern Church:

1. The New Testament Christian: This position, implicitly or explicitly, denies the authority of large portions of the Bible, namely, substantial parts of the Old Testament. Those holding to this position would avow that they believe the Bible, however, when pushed, you would find a tacit acknowledgement that the Old Testament is passé to the Christian.

Let us be clear. These people believe the Old Testament. The problem is that they believe it only as history. They believe it as a set of events that have transpired. What they do not believe is that the Old Testament has actual authority to guide and direct their lives. As noted elsewhere, the Old Testament is largely viewed as ‘examples to follow and sins to avoid’. The Bible is not viewed as a single, authoritative whole.[1] Thus, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever ‘Thus says the Lord-ish’ about these Old Testament portions.

2. The Age of the Spirit: This group takes very seriously the fact that the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit has come in power as a sign of the New Age. So seriously do they take this teaching that they, in effect, lay down their Bibles. These, too, see the Bible as passé, albeit in a slightly different manner to group one.

Where the first group would claim that “the Bible” is authoritative, they restrict that authority to the New Testament and often to words directly attributed to Jesus. Thus, they have, at the very least, an interesting concept of “the Bible”.[2]

This second group tend to accept much of the Old Testament. However, their belief in the Spirit sees Scripture subordinated to the Spirit’s leading. Their teachings in this area prompt people to give up on the study of Scripture for a higher and more enlightened path. Thus, regardless of what they say about the Bible’s authority, it is in effect overridden and superseded by a belief in the Spirit’s superiority.

Both of these errors present themselves differently (symptoms), yet they derive from the same source – a failure to believe the totality of God’s word. Room does not permit an in-depth hermeneutical discussion on interpreting the Old Testament. Suffice it to say that what should be clear to all, based on Biblical example, is that the Old Testament is nowhere debunked in Scripture as passé.

On the contrary, we see the exact opposite.

When Luke introduced John the Baptist and sought to describe his mission, Luke quotes directly from Isaiah 40:3-5. When Jesus is taken into the desert to be tempted, Luke shows that His defence against Satan is the very Word of God – “It stands written!”[3] When Jesus revealed Himself and His mission to the world, He did so by quoting Isaiah 60:1-2.[4] When the Rich Young Ruler asks Jesus for direction, Jesus points him to the Ten Commandments.[5] When Herod asks where the Christ is to be born, he is answered with a quotation from Micah.[6] When Paul wants to prove that all men are dead in sin, he quotes from the Psalms.[7] When Paul wants to prove the cardinal doctrine of salvation – justification by faith – he quotes Hosea, Genesis, and a Psalm.[8] When Matthew wants to prove the virgin birth of Jesus, he does so by quoting Isaiah 7:1.[9] When Jesus confronted the disciples on the road to Emmaus, to what did He appeal in order to instruct them? He appealed to the Old Testament: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”[10]

The Biblical evidence, in regard to the written Word and the work of the Holy Spirit, shows no sign of conflict. This evidence points to a priority, not a conflict. What may surprise some is that priority is given to the Word. The picture we are shown is that the Holy Spirit authored the Word and then uses that Word to guide men.

Peter declares:

But know this first of all, 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 Peter 1:20-21).

When John records Jesus’ words in relation to the coming of the Holy Spirit, we are told that the Spirit will convict[11], bring to remembrance Jesus’ words, [12] and speak from Christ.[13] In other words, The Holy Spirit does not come with His own message and His own ideas. He comes as an extension of Jesus. He brings back to the mind the words Jesus spoke so that the Apostles can convey them correctly – whether by word or in writing.

Jesus is the Living Word. The Holy Spirit enabled men to write down the things which Jesus spoke and which testify to Him – the written Word.[14] As such, the Bible does not contradict the Living Word. As such, the Holy Spirit does not lead to, contradict, or establish different truths, principles, or standards than those established by God and revealed by Jesus. As such, the directions of the Holy Spirit will never contradict the instructions given in Scripture – whether by God, Christ, angel, prophet, or apostle.

Let us also note a simple occurrence in the Bible. When Paul commended the Bereans he noted that they were nobler because they “searched the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11). He did not commend them for greater revelations in the Spirit. He did not commend them for having access to mystical powers. No, they were commended for going back to God’s authoritative revelation of Himself.

This is important, for at this point, Paul simply mimics His Lord. Think back to Jesus’ encounter on the road to Emmaus. Why did Jesus rebuke these two disciples? Unbelief – “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (v 25) Later, after these disciples had returned to the eleven in Jerusalem, what gift did Jesus give to the disciples? Did Jesus endow them with mystical abilities? Did Jesus give them over to substantial operations of the Holy Spirit? No. Jesus simply ‘opened their mind to believe the Scriptures.’[15]

Jesus, the Living Word, the very Son of God – a man fully endowed with the Holy Spirit and able to impart it to others[16] – directed men back to God’s authoritative word, the Holy Scriptures. This was Jesus modus operandi.

When speaking to the Pharisees and in order to prove his point, Jesus asks this question, “Did you never read in the Scriptures?” and then immediately quotes from Scripture.[17] A little latter, Jesus points out the reason for the Pharisees error: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”[18] Once more, Jesus makes the statement and then appeals to Scripture to give the correct teaching.

Also, Jesus and the Apostles are fully aware that the happenings, current in their day, were events that had been predicted in Scripture. Therefore, Jesus can say:

But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.[19]
I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.[20]

Likewise, Paul states: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”[21]

Last, let us consider Pentecost. Some may assert that some of the texts used to substantiate our claims predate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and therefore do not have validity. However, any and all objections fall completely flat when we examine the text of Acts. There we see that the Holy Spirit is poured forth (Acts 2:1-4). The next scene we have is that of Peter preaching. Peter’s sermon (2:14-36) uses around 570 English words. Of these, some 250 are direct quotations or references to the Old Testament Scriptures.[22]

If the Holy Spirit’s outpouring superseded Scripture, why does Peter immediately appeal to Scripture rather than use some other esoteric means? Is it not also interesting that Peter appeals to Scripture to prove that the catalytic event that caused the initial commotion (v 6) was in fact the promised coming of the Holy Spirit? Having established from Scripture that the coming of the Holy Spirit was a valid Messianic event, Peter continues with his sermon in order to prove that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah – a fact also established by Scripture.

When we view this text, we must immediately be struck by the fact that the Holy Spirit did not move Peter away from Scripture and to some arcane means; rather He moved Peter to Scripture. In this text, we see that the Holy Spirit incites Peter to validate His own appearing by appealing to Scripture. Again, this is significant. The Apostles had been told by Jesus that the Comforter would come. These men knew that Jesus had predicted and commanded this very event. Yet, Peter does not appeal to Jesus. Rather, following his Master’s example, Peter appeals to Scripture as his final authority. Like Jesus, Peter was content with, “It stands written!”

When we pull these threads together, we are faced with the immovable fact that both the aforementioned positions, and any variations based thereon, are erroneous because they have no Biblical support. Constantly and consistently we see the writers of the New Testament place themselves under the authority of God’s word. Even Jesus, the Son of God, did not presume to be heard on His own. Jesus took His stand on God’s revelation and in doing so gave credence to the fact that He speaks that which He heard from the Father.[23] In exactly the same manner, the Holy Spirit sought vindication, not in new revelations and teachings, but in the prophetic utterances inscripturated in God’s word.

In closing out these proofs, it may be informative to consider the fact that God Himself holds to and stands by His written word! Consider Isaiah 65:6-7:

Behold, it is written before Me, I will not keep silent, but I will repay; I will even repay into their bosom, Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together,” says the Lord. “Because they have burned incense on the mountains, And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom.

The lesson? If we say that we love Jesus; If we say that we walk by the Holy Spirit; If we say that Jesus is our example in life; If we understand that salvation means obedience; If we dare to call God, Father; then we must listen to and live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of our Father God. No other standard is acceptable. No other standard carries power. No other standard comes with a Holy Spirit backed guarantee.

We cannot pay lip service to this doctrine. We cannot say that we believe the Bible and then come up with a belief or excuse that sets the Bible and its authority aside. We cannot state that we believe the Bible and then set out to pit its authors against each other as though they are confused and divided. We cannot claim a mission based on Biblical warrant and then devise a mission plan in and of ourselves without further reference to God’s revelation. We cannot claim to worship God and then ignore everything the Bible teaches on worship. We cannot claim that marriage is Biblical and then ignore God’s pattern for that marriage. Finally, we cannot make claims that are unsupported by Scripture on the basis that we have taken to the Bible with a pair of scissors!

The redeemed in Christ must submit to God the Father and all that has been revealed by Him for this is the humble estate of God’s true child. It is the estate in which we acknowledge that our Father is all wise and powerful. It is the humble estate in which we acknowledge that He is and we are not! It is the humble estate in which we accept that our Father knows the end from the beginning and that all things will fall out according to His purposes, plans, and power. Therefore, the obedient child trusts the Father, especially when he does not understand and things do not make sense, and rests entirely upon His Father’s word as true, faithful, and correct.

Part 4

[1] This view comes to the fore clearly when men operate on the principle that unless an OT concept is restated in the NT it has no validity.

[2] It was a similar view that led to Theological Liberalism. They said the Bible “contained” the Word of God. However, where the orthodox would understand this in the sense that the Word was contained in the Bible in the same manner as a bucket contains water, the Liberal understood it to means that the bucket held other than pure water. This subtle change led to a range of manmade methods by which the ‘true’ words of God were to be discovered. The obvious fact of this action was the equal declaration that some of what was in the Bible was not God’s word. When we deny God’s authority we are bound to invent belief and action based on our authority, desire, or limited understanding. Therefore, in the Church today we often invent programmes to fill perceived holes in the Bible when, in reality, the hole is in our understanding because we have been unwilling to listen to God’s instructive voice.

[3] Luke 4:4, 8, 12.

[4] See Luke 4:18-19.

[5] Luke 18:18-20.

[6] Matthew 2:6.

[7] Romans 3:10-18. Quoting portions of Psalm 14; 5; 140; 10; 59 & 36.

[8] See Romans 1:17; 4:3 & 4:7-8.

[9] Matthew 1:23.

[10] Luke 24:27.

[11] John 16:8.

[12] John 14:26.

[13] John 16:14.

[14] It must be remembered that this process was not new and only relevant to the New Testament. We are apt to forget that when the New Testament writers referred to Scripture, they were speaking of that which we now call the Old Testament. Thus, Peter’s statement says more about the Holy Spirit’s operation throughout the Old Testament than it does, in essence, concerning the New Testament. Some may find that a little hard to swallow. What is meant by the statement is this; when Peter wrote those words, he had in mind primarily the Old Testament – the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets – and not the works of the New Testament. What Peter says is true of the New Testament. Yet, from his standpoint, he was affirming the role of the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture – the older canon. He asserts that the Old Testament is authoritative and reliable precisely because it is the Spirit authored Word of God.

[15] Luke 24:45.

[16] John 20:22.

[17] Matthew 21:42.

[18] Matthew 22:29. Consider also the account already cited in which Jesus engages with the disciples on the Road to Emmaus and then with the Eleven.

[19] Matthew 26:56.

[20] John 13:18 & 17:12. See also John 19:24, 28, 36, 37.

[21] 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

[22] Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32; Psalm 16:8-11; Psalm 132:11; Psalm 110:1.

[23] John 8:26.

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