Tag Archives: authority

The Fallacy of Absolute Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One from Ecclesiastes:

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

One from the Prophet Isaiah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

[3] Ex 20:7.

[4] Ex 20:16.

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

[6] Pr 4:24.

[7] Pr 5:3.

[8] Pr 10:32.

[9] Pr 12:22.

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

[11] Pr 15:2.

[12] Ec 10:12–14.

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

[14] Mt 12:36–37.

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

[16] Eph 4:29.

[17] Jas 3:1–3:12. Edited.

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

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

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

[21] Deuteronomy 29:18.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on by
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. No Other God’s;
  2. No idols; (No false worship)
  3. Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
  4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
  5. Hour your father and mother;
  6. No murder;
  7. No adultery;
  8. No thievery;
  9. No false witness;
  10. No coveting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

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

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

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

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

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

[7] Question and answer 95.

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

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

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

(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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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!
  3. 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, No 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.

Sola Scriptura (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

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.