Tag Archives: Jesus Christ

Infused with PC, Not JC!

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Preaching Evangelism and only Evangelism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Disunity and denouncing Brothers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Preaching the Text – Kind of, maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

[5] John 6:38 (NASB)

[6] Jn 4:34.

[7] Lk 22:42.

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

[9] 1 John 3:4.

[10] Ga 3:24.

[11] Ro 3:19–20.

[12] 2 Ti 3:16–17.

[13] Mt 5:16.

[14] Jn 21:15–17.

[15] Eph 4:11–14.

[16] Romans 8:29.

[17] A lengthy phone conversation was also undertaken.

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

[19] Galatians 1:8.

[20] Ps 139:1–24.

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

[22] Matthew 10:37 ff.

[23] Ps 1:1–2.

The Gospel: What is it?

Posted on by
Reply

The Gospel! Only two words. These are words known by most men, whether from within or without the Church. These are words used by most Christians on a regular basis. Those attending worship will hear them often. Yet, “What is the Gospel?”

This topic needs to be urgently addressed for whilst the term “The Gospel” is an ever present term, it is also a regularly undefined term. Some say that The Gospel is “good news”. What is it, then, that makes The Gospel good news? When asked about the nature of The Gospel we will be told that it is salvation. Asked where we will find The Gospel, most will reply, “In the New Testament?” Asked as to the ownership of The Gospel, we will be told that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Macquarie Dictionary, as an example, defines gospel as: “(often capital) the body of doctrine taught by Christ and the apostles; Christian revelation.”

How right are these answers? What do you think? Does any more need to be said or are these definitions adequate?

Our concern at this point has to do with the limited nature of these definitions and the fact that these popular definitions fall in line with the modern truncated view of Scripture and therefore of God’s work. For example, I recently had a conversation with a young man. In the context of being offered advice, he told me that the opinions of all were held up to the light of “The Gospel.” Admittedly, I should be ecstatic, should I not? Is this not an excellent answer? Well, the answer to that question depends on the answer to this question, “What did he mean by Gospel?”

I fear, for good reason, that his answer was akin to those above. What was meant by The Gospel was a particularly narrow, non historical, New Testamenty, Johnny-come-lately concept that highlights grace and peace and which makes no demands on sinner or saint. It is a concept the divides Scripture, brings a sharp focus to Jesus, His words and life, which thereby discounts or diminishes other writers, and generally excuses sin because grace has arrived.

Okay. Grab a nice coffee. Sit yourself back down. Wait for the tremors to cease. Dry your eyes. When you are composed, we will continue.

The summary definition of The Gospel given may not be completely accurate in all cases. Nonetheless, elements of it, to a greater or lesser extent, will be found in the ordinary definition of most Christians – especially those under the age of thirty. Importantly, it must be apprehended that the summary definition or those answers given earlier are not The Gospel. If you believe these statements to be The Gospel, then you are in error. Remember, not everything called “Gospel” is The Gospel: “even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”[1]

In contradistinction to these modern concepts, The Gospel, Biblically defined, must be seen as the totality of God’s revelation and promise as it comes to fulfilment in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. In this sense, The Gospel is Old and New Testament – the whole of Scripture; it is salvation and wrath; it is grace and law; it is vindication and condemnation; it is of Jesus Christ in fulfilment, of God in inception, of  prophet in promise, of the Apostles in proclamation, of the Holy Spirit in power; it is given in time and it is eternal; it speaks of a King and of a Servant; it is Majesty and it is humility; it is Command and it is Promise; it is a free gift yet it requires payment; it is of the earth and it is heavenly; it is ultimate freedom and it is obligation; it is good news to those who believe and truth tragically realised to those who disbelieve; it is extreme joy and it is the gnashing of teeth; it is life and it is death.

Alright! Do we need another coffee break?

These truths may be hard to bear, but bear them we must. When this definition is given, it will be at once obvious that it stands in contradistinction to those outlined above. Of all the definitions above, the Macquarie dictionary comes the closest to the truth because it at least acknowledges a “body of doctrine” and speaks of “Christian revelation”.

If you have believed the truncated view of The Gospel, for whatever reason, it is time to put that in the past. Now is the time to move forward into greater light and understanding that we may become better and more faithful servants of Jesus Christ.

As always, you are not to believe the opinion of man, so let us look to the Scriptures to show that the definition given is that which the Bible teaches.

  1. Whose Gospel:

Given the modern, truncated view of The Gospel, we often hear that The Gospel is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’. This is true enough; however, we must ask why it is defined as the Gospel of Christ. The answer is that Jesus Christ forms the centrepiece and fulfilment of God’s promise. Thus, when The Gospel is defined as belonging to Jesus Christ, the defining aspect of The Gospel, in this instance, is to be found in Jesus Christ as the focus and fulfilment of God’s promise.

However, we must grasp that this is but one aspect of The Gospel’s nature. It is vitally important for our understanding that we perceive the nature of The Gospel as variously ascribed to different persons and states. Thus, it is imperative that when we see The Gospel ascribed to Jesus that we do not forget that this is but one aspect, one vantage point, if you will, and begin to think that Jesus came to give us something new, different, or contrary to God’s revelation and promise. No, The Gospel is multifaceted and it depends on what is in view as to the correct appellation used.

The truth of this point is born out for us by the fact that The Gospel is attributed to various persons, institutions, and states. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom.[2] It is the Gospel of salvation.[3] It is the Gospel of peace.[4] It is the Gospel of God.[5] It is the Gospel of His Son.[6] It is the Gospel of the Grace of God.[7] So much so is this the case that Paul can legitimately refer to The Gospel as “my Gospel”.[8] Paul proclaimed what he had been given—so indentifying with the promises, the fulfilment, and his commissioning, that he could, without compromise, speak of The Gospel as his Gospel.

The Gospel belongs to any who own it, Christ Jesus, God, Paul, and yes, you!

  1. The Beginning of the Gospel:

This is one of the most important aspects of this discussion. We have inferred that many of the moderns see The Gospel as something new that arrived with Jesus. Thus, we previously referred to the “New Testementy” aspects adored by the moderns. In this view, Jesus comes with The Gospel, not as its goal and fulfilment, but, in essence, to introduce new doctrines and the like. Yet, this is false. The truth is that The Gospel predates Jesus by millennia. The truth is that The Gospel, as with Jesus Himself, was promised to us by God.

Paul says that his Gospel is the Gospel of God, which “He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.”[9] If, then, The Gospel was promised in the Scriptures by the prophets, it makes perfect sense that The Gospel, even if in embryonic form, predated Jesus and His incarnation. Thus, it is not new.

Equally, if The Gospel is promised by the prophets, its shape and content must have already been known to some extent. In fact, is this not exactly why and how we know that Jesus is the Messiah? Is it not true that Jesus could identify Himself as the Messiah because He could show exactly how the promises were realised in His person and work? Thus, the content, aim, and purpose of The Gospel are not new.

Then we have to consider the words of Paul when he states that, “… the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”[10] Hmmm! Very difficult to see The Gospel as “new” and bringing “new content” when The Gospel was both preached to Abraham and defined by promise for Abraham.[11]

Thus, we must correctly conceive of the complete Scriptures giving to us a complete Gospel in type and antitype or in promise and fulfilment. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  1. Is the Gospel “good news” only:

This is one of those questions that nobody likes to answer because the answer requires stating truths that Man does not like to hear. Even Christians who say that they believe the Bible are reluctant to take Scripture on face value when it comes to answering this question. However, Scripture is our only foundation and there we must stand.

The Gospel, etymologically speaking, can be and is translated as “good news”. Hence, to speak of The Gospel as good news is not wrong, but it is one-sided. It is one-sided because there are two types of people on this earth and there are two destinies. For those who are saved The Gospel is most definitely good news. Indeed, it is most excellent news. It is the news that God saves hopeless sinners. It is the good news that God pays the debt we owed. It is the good news that Jesus the Just died for the unjust. It is, for God’s people, wonderful news. For the rest, however, the news can only be considered ‘good’ from the perspective that God’s justice will be holy, perfect, and delivered as per His promise.

For many, the fact that God judges sin and sinners is not viewed as part of The Gospel. Indeed, for many moderns, God’s wrath and judgement are considered to be contrary to The Gospel. Hence, these aspects are dropped from preaching and worship services the world over. After all, do we not hear, constantly, the false refrain that ‘God loves the sinner but hates the sin’? Yet, the truth of the matter is that God never divorces sin from sinner. The sinning one will perish; the sinning one will be judged; the sinning one must pay the penalty for their sin. Hell will be full of unrepentant sinners paying for their sins.

Unpalatable as this may be to some, the simple and basic reality is that this judgement of sinners is as much a part of The Gospel as is the wonder of salvation. Indeed, it is a Biblical fact that salvation is always accompanied by judgement.[12]

Consider these Scriptures:

“From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”[13]

“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.”[14]

“…on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”[15]

Each text informs us that The Gospel holds a message of condemnation as much as it does a message of salvation. Men are blinded to the truth. Some were cut off so that others may be engrafted. The Gospel contains the fact that God will judge men through Jesus Christ.

The truly sad reality is that Scripture is deliberately skewed at this point because men do not like this aspect of The Gospel. Tragically, we have become those who preach a different Gospel because we refuse to preach and teach The Whole Gospel. This fact is demonstrated most clearly by our refusal to abide by and proclaim the totality of God’s revelation as it is found in Scripture. The best example would be that of John 3:16-17, which says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.” All good so far! However, the searching question is, “Why do we not readily quote verses eighteen through twenty?” These verse state: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”

  1. Conclusion.

The Gospel! Only two words. Nonetheless, the most important words the world has ever received. These words convey the truth and gamut of salvation history. These words contain the fullest expression of God’s revelation. These words span the millennia of Scripture. These words contain a movement from embryo to adulthood; simplicity to complexity; promise to fulfilment. These words are code for the complete revelation of God in Jesus Christ His Son. This is The Gospel. This is The only Gospel.

Brethren, why do we have a penchant for having a different gospel? Why does the Church Growth Movement insist on dropping doctrines from The Gospel? Why do many of us feel more comfortable with this alternative gospel? Why do we rob The Gospel of power and God of His glory by adopting this different gospel? Why do we insist on the cut-down, race version, which turns The Gospel into a gospel; a version devoid of power and the Holy Spirit? Why do we insist on the diet-lite version, rather than be satisfied with the full and complete meal of the Word that is satiating?

Brethren, if we would see God work in might and in power in these dark days then we must return to the true proclamation of the whole counsel of God, which alone is The Gospel. If we would see sinners saved, wickedness dispelled, Jesus Christ exalted, the Church united, the nations obey Jesus, righteousness as a standard, and so forth, then we must believe and proclaim The Gospel!

Footnotes:

[1] Galatians 1:8. Emphasis added.

[2] Matthew 4:23.

[3] Ephesians 1:13.

[4] Ephesians 6:15.

[5] Romans 1:1.

[6] Romans 1:9.

[7] Acts 20:24.

[8] 2 Timothy 2:8.

[9] Romans 1:2.

[10] Galatians 3:8.

[11] We might also point out that Genesis 3:15 is also referred to as the protoevangelium or the ‘first gospel’. Whilst the term “gospel” does not occur in the text, theologians throughout history have traced back through the promises of God and arrived at this point – God’s initial promise to save through judgement.

[12] We see this fact in many places in Scripture. In footnote eleven, we spoke of the protoevangelium found in Genesis 3:15. There we find this juxtaposition. God declares war on Satan and his seed and declares that the seed of the woman will be attacked and bruised, but that this Seed will be the one Who deals the death blow. In essence, salvation (Jesus being bruised on the cross) is accompanied by Jesus ultimate destruction of Satan and his minions. See also 1Peter 4:17-18; Romans 9:27-30. Paul’s words in Romans may seem difficult, but the essential point is that God judged Israel for sin leaving a remnant that was both life and hope. In the midst of just Judgement, Yahweh left a remnant by which Messiah would arrive and purchase for God with His blood “men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.”

[13] Romans 11:28. Paul’s argument is that Israel was partially hardened and judged in order that wild shoots may be grafted in to where the natural branches had been broken off. Judgement for Israel meant salvation for the gentiles.

[14] 2 Corinthians 4:3.

[15] Romans 2:16. This text is very understandable. Paul’s Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, contains the undeniable truth that God will judge men through Jesus Christ. Thus, judgement and wrath are a part of The Gospel. See also Acts 10:42.

The Active Destruction of the Family

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. The Long War against God!

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. established by God;
  2. created by covenant;
  3. given for a stated purpose;
  4. regulated by Law; and
  5. protected by Law,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morality wanes. God’s judgement waxes.

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

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

  1. The Destruction Continues!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Conclusion:

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

[2] Deuteronomy 19:15.

[3] 1 Timothy 5:19.

[4] Matthew 19.9.

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

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

[7] Proverbs 16:25.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Posted on by
Reply

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

  1. Scripture:

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

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

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

  1. It Stands Written:

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

  1. Texts:

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

          3.a Jesus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Footnotes:

[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[2] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

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

[4] Matthew 19:16-22.

[5] 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on 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.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Theocracy: The First Part of the Question.

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

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

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

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

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

          Theonomy: The Second Part of the Question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

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

[2] Proverbs 16:25.

[3] 1 Corinthians 15:25.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21.

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

[6] 1 Kings 18:39.

[7] Matthew 28:18-20.

[8] Revelation 1:5.

[9] Revelation 11:5.

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

[11] Romans 13:2.

[12] Matthew 22:37-40.

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

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

Nonsense in the Name of God

Posted on by
Reply

In the current debate regarding homosexual union, it is patently obvious that “truth has become the first casualty in this war.”  Many are adducing arguments in support of homosexual union that are simply non arguments. We have written elsewhere in regard to such facile arguments as “Love is Love”. However, the greatest nonsense being spewed forth on this issue comes from those who, claiming to speak for God, tell lies in the Name of God.

At this point, we particularly single out those people who claim to be Christians, claim to love Jesus and at the same time claim that practicing homosexuals are acceptable to God, loved by God, and are therefore not required by God to repent of their sin and rebellion. It is not our intent to interact with their claims at this point, for that is just an exercise in futility. Rather, it is our purpose to show the folly of their position by looking at the Biblical evidence. Specifically, we simply intend to draw some parallels and then leave the reader to make the obvious conclusions for themselves.

The Older Testament concludes with these words:

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the Lord of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” “But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. “And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts. “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. “And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”[1]

In looking at this text, three things are to be noted. First, it is important that we understand the place of judgement. Throughout the Scriptures, salvation is always associated with judgement. God’s people cannot be saved unless God’s adversaries are judged. Thus, Malachi rightly begins with a stern warning to the evil doer. He, like his fellow prophets,[2] points us to the great and awesome Day of the Lord. Second, the line of demarcation is given in the words – for you who fear [or revere] My name. Both in Hebrew and Greek, the terms for name go far beyond simply being an appellation appended to a person in order to distinguish him from another. Rather, these terms point to character and being. This is why we see names being changed in Scripture. This is exactly why the Pharisees forbade Peter and John “to speak or teach … in the name of Jesus.”[3] Consequently, those who serve God, who love God, will reflect His character and being in their lives morally and ethically. Third, the text points us to the source of knowledge wherein we find God’s revealed standard – Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him – so that we may show our love in true, not feigned, obedience.

Now, some will immediately object that this is the Older Testament and that we in the Newer Testament are somehow under a different set of rules.[4] This is simply more nonsense; an objection raised in the hope that the guilty conscience may be eased. In truth, the points highlighted from the text of Malachi are all treated equally in the Newer Testament.[5]

In bringing these three points together, we learn the following:

a) As God judges the wicked, there are obviously behaviours which He disapproves of and condemns.

b) The truth of a) is found in the fact that those who are accepted by God are those who love and revere His holy name and therefore seek to abide by the characteristics of His eternal Being.

c) God, realising Man’s sinful estate, gave through Moses the revelation of His eternal Being so that Man would know what was and was not acceptable to God.

Therefore, if we want to please God we must obey those laws, given by God Himself, in which the holiness of His character and His right as Sovereign are manifest. It means that we, the creature, respect the parameters placed upon us by God, the Creator, and live by His rules.  If we do not obey those laws or abide by His rules, we can never be said to “fear” or “revere” the name of God. If we do not “fear” or “revere” the name of God, then we must be considered as the “evildoer”.[6] This truth is superbly clear in Scripture. Yet, today, we have those who say that they “fear the name of God”, that they love Jesus, and that they are Christians; all the while they despise the laws and rules given by God.

This situation outlined is seen definitely and clearly in regard to the battle over homosexuality and homosexual union. Thus, it seemed appropriate to highlight the absolute inconsistency of those who speak nonsense in the name of God.

God’s law prescribes the death penalty for a number of sins; significant sins that attack either God or Man. Thus, God says that the following are to forfeit their lives:[7]

  • The Murderer (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13; Exodus 21:12-14);
  • The Kidnapper (Exodus 21:16);
  • The Rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24);
  • The Adulterer (Leviticus 20:10; Exodus 20:14);
  • Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10-13);
  • Bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23);
  • Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16);
  • The Homosexual (Leviticus 18: 22; Leviticus 20:13).[8]

The point of this list is to highlight the nonsense spoken in the name of God by those who say that they are practicing homosexuals, fearing God’s name, and respecting God’s law. These twist the words of Scripture in order to justify their perversion and their false rhetoric is made apparent when a list like this is adduced.

Please, allow me to explain. Here is a list of crimes against God and Man that God so loathes that He, in His divine wisdom and sovereignty, has proscribed with the death penalty. Now, in our modern day, we have those, claiming to follow God, love God, and honour God, who say that the proscription of  and penalty prescribed for homosexual behaviour is no longer of any consequence. They go on to add that they can practice their homosexuality and serve God without any detriment or compromise.

Now, arguments can be adduced to counter those claims, but we want to take a much simpler road – How welcome would categories 1-7 be in your local church or any church for that matter? Think about this! How welcome would be the unrepentant Murderer, Kidnapper, or Rapist? Would there be a general feeling that God loves this person so much that their sin, practiced openly and without remorse, should go without rebuke? How many would willingly send their daughters to Sunday school or on the church camp with men like this in their midst?

Which one of you would front up to church on Sunday morning eagerly awaiting a sermon from a Satanist or blasphemer? How eagerly would you attend the Bible study if these same persons were to be in charge and lead? How comfortable would you be with the Pastor conducting home visits when he is known to be an adulterer, unrepentant and on the prowl for his next conquest?

We could go on and give an example of bestiality, which would make you vomit; but there it is! How would you respond to any church that allowed the open practice of murder, rape, blasphemy, witchcraft, kidnapping, or bestiality? How would you respond to any congregation who refused to rebuke such sin and call for people to repent of it immediately?

To those who are of a more liberal ilk, “Where would you draw the line?”

The point here is simple. All of these behaviours are proscribed by God. Almighty God avows that those who commit these crimes should be put to death. Yet, in our day we have a number of people, calling themselves Christians, who want us to believe that one, and only one, of these heinous crimes is no longer either heinous or grotesque.

Yet, it would seem that they still want the other crimes to be considered as heinous. After all, we have not heard vociferous cries to stop discriminating against murderers and pedophiles. We have not heard calls to overturn various “Proceeds of Crime” Acts, as these intrinsically discriminate against the criminal element. No, here there seems to be contentment. Why?

When all these crimes are viewed consistently from the Biblical perspective,[9] we see that it is indeed sheer nonsense to claim or believe that practicing homosexuals have any place inside the Church of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Even more ridiculous is the claim by these people that practicing homosexuals should be allowed to hold office in the Church of Jesus Christ.

One may be more sympathetic to the claims of these people if they were to be consistent and assert that the murderer, rapist, and kidnapper should all be allowed to ply their trade without discrimination or consequence. However, should they do so, the veil would completely fall, we would see behind the mask, and they would be exposed as evildoers who do not revere the name of Almighty God or obey His law.

The last word must be that of Scripture – a text that shows that those who claim to be God’s whilst openly rebelling against Him are deluded liars! The Apostle John writes: And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.[10]

Footnotes:

[1] Malachi 4:1-6.

[2] Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. Importantly, Joel’s reference is picked up and used by Peter in Acts 2.

[3] Acts 4:18; See also Acts 5:28.

[4] This very supposition is indeed problematic. When this supposition is brought to the fore, there is a tacit implication that God has changed in His essential character. This tacit implication suggests that the God who spoke in the Older Testament has mellowed with age and no longer finds certain moral deviations from His law objectionable. This view is popular, but it lacks in one important detail – there is no credible Biblical evidence to support it!

[5] Judgement – 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.” John 5:22-23 – “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” The Name: a unity – John 5:43 – “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him.” John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.” John 10:37-38 – “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” John 4:34 – “Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.” Obedience, law, Love – John 14:15 – “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” 1 John 5:3 – For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.” Luke 18:18-22 – And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. “You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

[6] Again, reference to the Myth of Neutrality must be made. There are only two types of Man – obedient and disobedient. As Jesus said, you are either with Him or against Him!

[7] This list is not exhaustive, but highlights the main crimes. For an exhaustive list, see Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 235.

[8] For those who do not like the Older Testament, we see that most of these crimes are denounced in the Newer Testament: I Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Timothy 1:8-11 – “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” Revelation 22:14-15 – “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. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

[9] These crimes are prescribed as crimes by God. They are all proscribed by death. They are all denounced in God’s law, particularly in the Torah. Many are said to exclude a person from God’s presence, heaven, if you will. Hope is in Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ means repentance and turning from sin, not embracing it. Thus, what is true of one must of necessity be true of the other. Therefore, it is a logical fallacy, if there be no Biblical evidence, to assert that one of these crimes is now wiped from God’s statute book while the others remain.

[10] 1 John 2:3-6.

The Evangelism of Despair

Posted on by
8

Evangelism, it really is the “buzz word” in Christian circles today. Question the concept or the methodology and you are in big trouble. Yet methinks that there has probably never been another time when the Church new so little of the true nature and essence of evangelism.

When viewing modern evangelistic programmes and listening to people apply these various philosophies, there is one aspect that I find striking. Most Christians seem to be attempting to engender hope in the lost. It seems that there is a lot of hugging, back patting, and arms around shoulders, with the accompanying words, “It will be alright!” We have “friendship” evangelism. We have “hospitality” evangelism. We have “Creative” evangelism; not to be confused with “Creation” evangelism. We have tele-evangelists, radio evangelist, internet evangelist – how long before tele-marketing-evangelists – ‘Hello sir, I am calling you tonight from “Inspired Creations”. No, we are not selling anything, I just have a question…!”

My criticism at this point is that the Christian is putting faith in his ability to woo, coax, cajole, and educate the dead sinner into the Kingdom. It is like watching “Slick Willy Inc” run a marketing seminar with all the latest and proven techniques to ‘get your foot in the door’ and ‘close out the sale’. In short, this type of methodology is nothing short of a rank Humanism that has been given a spritz of holy water and then gang-pressed into church service.

Any hope derived from man and for man, is simply no hope. As stated, its correct title is Humanism.

The truth of Biblical evangelism lies not in (false) hope, but in (true) despair. If the rebellious sinner believes that there is something that he can do, no matter how slight, then he has hope in and of himself. This is a false hope. It is a fool’s hope. It is so because it denies the truth of God’s revelation.

What must be declared to the rebellious sinner is that he has no hope. We must bring to the sinner the sense of absolute despair. I speak here of a palpable, gut-wrenching, and loathsome despair that truly makes one fearful. I speak of a fear and a terror that brings absolute dread. The picture is of a man who, faced with a truth or an object, has turned ashen, his legs will not hold his weight, his body trembles involuntarily, and he, so weak that he cannot move, can but whimper. At this point, man is robbed of all his devices.

Now, true evangelism can occur. At this point, God alone is Man’s saviour. At this point, Jesus Christ is magnified as a Man’s only possibility for salvation. Now, there is true hope. It is a lasting hope. It is not the fleeting hope of the ephemeral, but the certain hope of promise founded in the Eternal. It is the truth that God saves sinners. It is the truth that from eternity God has set His love upon His people and that He is reconciling these He loves to Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is hope. This is evangelism.

(References: Acts 2:37; Acts 16:29-30; Daniel 5:6; Isaiah 13:6-7.)

Part 2