Antinomianism is a disturbing trend in contemporary Christian circles. I don't think it's only those of us in the Reconstruction/theonomy/whatever camp who feel this way. In Evangelical circles, especially in the arts, I find there's a sort of disdain toward God's Law that, in my opinion, is wreaking havoc in our part of the Church.
We too easily look at God's commandments as simply that which no longer condemns us since we are in Christ. Being "freed from the Law," we pay no more attention to it. When someone brings it up as regards a particular issue (say sodomy since it's popular) we easily fall into the trap of the "shellfish fallacy." We for the most part dismiss the idea that the Law still has something to say about how we are to live. We're very concerned to not come across as Pharisaical legalists. We certainly don't want to be accused of guilt-by-association with whatever group of so-and-sos those on the other side of an issue want to lump us in with.
The attitude finds its way into our daily life. If we even read the Law we read the "offensive" commandments through lenses made of caveats, through the loophole if you will of our freedom from condemnation.
In certain circles lacking spiritual disciplines (such as Lent), I see at least a temptation to not deal with the idea that God has very definite ideas about what being like Him looks like and does not look like. In our concern to reach out to the lost we are afraid of confronting the idea that God really does despise certain things and requires certain others.
Are we too easily persuaded that it's kooky to look at, say, adultery in exactly the same way we look at murder? How about reviling parents?
Can we deal with the thought that those (to us) minor things which God considered on par with murder in His Law ought to be abhorred by us to the same extent, because that's what God is like?
It's worth trying on for size, just to see what you really think about it.
My Humble Suggestion:
Lent begins Wednesday. Over the days leading up to Easter, try reading Deuteronomy. Better yet, write it out into a notebook, maybe a chapter at a time. Read it with the attitude that these commandments are God's revelation of who He is, what He is like, and what He wants us to be like. When you hit something that sticks in your craw, don't simply quote Galatians at it. Think of it as the attitude you ought to have in your heart. Really try to believe it.
I promise you, when Good Friday comes around, you'll feel it. When Easter follows, your joy will be full.
You may or may not be persuaded toward the Theonomic position, but you will at least really know why.
P.S. I've already tried antimonianism and found it, shall we say, lacking.
Showing posts with label Theonomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theonomy. Show all posts
A Jennifer Knapp Excursus
The public announcement by Jennifer Knapp that she is a homosexual has resulted in the usual freak-outs, most of which I am not terribly interested in. One detail of the commotion though provides an opportunity to examine something a lot of Christians in the conversation are sure to miss.
Miss Knapp points out that those who are using the Scriptures' commandments against homosexuality to call her to repentance are not keeping the Biblical laws against eating shellfish, mixing fibers, and other "holiness" laws.
This is a really common tactic, which I addressed to an extent in the last Theonomy Primer post. In this usage, however, it's being done to make the lady's critics out to be hypocritical.
There's an obvious response which I doubt many will make, because of of the tacit antinomianism in the Evangelical circles.
The response is this: God has by subsequent revelation told us we are not to keep the holiness laws in that fashion, Christ having come. The issue of diet specifically is addressed with a divine commandment: "Kill and eat." Further instruction in how to handle the ceremonies is given in the Epistles. Yet no where is the issue of proper sexual relations modified in the slightest from that originally given in God's Law. Rather, it is specifically reinforced.
This highlights what our proper understanding is to be: God's commandments stand as they are given unless and until He alters them by subsequent revelation. Any other understanding leads to confusion, as in the case of this poor woman.
Miss Knapp points out that those who are using the Scriptures' commandments against homosexuality to call her to repentance are not keeping the Biblical laws against eating shellfish, mixing fibers, and other "holiness" laws.
This is a really common tactic, which I addressed to an extent in the last Theonomy Primer post. In this usage, however, it's being done to make the lady's critics out to be hypocritical.
There's an obvious response which I doubt many will make, because of of the tacit antinomianism in the Evangelical circles.
The response is this: God has by subsequent revelation told us we are not to keep the holiness laws in that fashion, Christ having come. The issue of diet specifically is addressed with a divine commandment: "Kill and eat." Further instruction in how to handle the ceremonies is given in the Epistles. Yet no where is the issue of proper sexual relations modified in the slightest from that originally given in God's Law. Rather, it is specifically reinforced.
This highlights what our proper understanding is to be: God's commandments stand as they are given unless and until He alters them by subsequent revelation. Any other understanding leads to confusion, as in the case of this poor woman.
Theonomy Primer, pt. 6
Balking at the Law.
Since it's been a bazillion years since I last posted, here are links to:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.
When discussing the role of the Law in the lives of believers, the discussion very soon turns toward the penal sanctions given in Old Testament case law. The usual "extreme" examples are brought out as a way of demonstrating the (supposed) absurdity of keeping God's Commandments in our (again, supposedly) more enlightened modern times. The laws regarding slavery, reviling parents, or sexual crimes are brought up as ridiculous, barbaric examples of...well, of God's cruelty, if the reasoning is followed out.
And sadly, many of us follow the reasoning. Christians are either embarrassed into silence or into retreating to a kind of soft Gnosticism, believing that the God revealed in the Old Testament is a meaner one than the one revealed in the New.
I don't have space to deal with each one of the "offending" laws, but there is a broader point anyway. The simple questions are these: "Who defines what is criminal," and, "Who defines what is a just punishment for crime?" I should hope that answer is obvious to the Christian mind. So the next question needs to be, "If God's punishment for x sticks in our craw, who has the problem here, us, or God?"
Can it really be that, say, the cursing of parents by a delinquent son really is enough of a threat to society, and an affront to God, that it would deserve the death penalty? Dare we think such things?
The point to ponder until next time ought to be, "Dare we presume to judge God's Law?"
Since it's been a bazillion years since I last posted, here are links to:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.
When discussing the role of the Law in the lives of believers, the discussion very soon turns toward the penal sanctions given in Old Testament case law. The usual "extreme" examples are brought out as a way of demonstrating the (supposed) absurdity of keeping God's Commandments in our (again, supposedly) more enlightened modern times. The laws regarding slavery, reviling parents, or sexual crimes are brought up as ridiculous, barbaric examples of...well, of God's cruelty, if the reasoning is followed out.
And sadly, many of us follow the reasoning. Christians are either embarrassed into silence or into retreating to a kind of soft Gnosticism, believing that the God revealed in the Old Testament is a meaner one than the one revealed in the New.
I don't have space to deal with each one of the "offending" laws, but there is a broader point anyway. The simple questions are these: "Who defines what is criminal," and, "Who defines what is a just punishment for crime?" I should hope that answer is obvious to the Christian mind. So the next question needs to be, "If God's punishment for x sticks in our craw, who has the problem here, us, or God?"
Can it really be that, say, the cursing of parents by a delinquent son really is enough of a threat to society, and an affront to God, that it would deserve the death penalty? Dare we think such things?
The point to ponder until next time ought to be, "Dare we presume to judge God's Law?"
Theonomy Primer, pt. 5
Crime and Punishment.
All transgression's of God's commandments are sins, but not all of them are crimes--at least in the sense of them being infractions against the social order punishable by the civil authorities. But when a crime is committed, God, being the One who defines both sin and crime, is the only legitimate source of authority for how such crimes are to be punished. His administration of justice in the civil realm involves two overarching concepts: equity and restoration. I want to look at these generalities and then in the next post or two get into the nitty-gritty.
God's judgements are perfectly just and equitable. The punishment fits the crime, every time. Unlike sinful man who more often than not punishes far in excess of the crime committed, God doles out temporal punishment that gives the criminal his due. The principle is lex talionis, "an eye for an eye."
I need to digress here to deal with a common misconception (with which our Lord also dealt on the Sermon on the Mount). "Eye for an eye" in the Old Testament does not refer to personal vengeance. That was the mistake of the Pharisees of Jesus' day: applying the commandment as a license to get back at one's enemy. The commandment is actually a restraint on the State. It prevents punishment in excess of the transgression (think of the Moslems cutting off the hands of thieves).
The lex talionis metes out fair and equitable justice to the criminal; no more and no less. The criminal reaps exactly what he sows, and no more. Every transgression receives a just punishment. God is a just Judge and men are responsible to image His justice in the civil realm.
The next principle is that of restoration. God's civil punishments are always designed to restore the victim to his position before the crime. What he has lost is repaid. Thieves must always make restitution to the victim for both the stolen item and all the other losses incurred by its theft. Injured parties are always made as whole as possible. In the case of capital crimes, the ultimate victim of those crimes, God, demands the ultimate payment for those transgressions. God loves and is concerned with the victims of the world, and the civil magistrate is to love them as well. Notice that He is not concerned primarily with any injury or debt to "society." Concern for the actual victim is paramount.
These two principles of justice are evident in all the penal sanctions of the Law. Next posting, I'll begin to tackle the examples given which most often trouble Christians and non-Christians alike.
All transgression's of God's commandments are sins, but not all of them are crimes--at least in the sense of them being infractions against the social order punishable by the civil authorities. But when a crime is committed, God, being the One who defines both sin and crime, is the only legitimate source of authority for how such crimes are to be punished. His administration of justice in the civil realm involves two overarching concepts: equity and restoration. I want to look at these generalities and then in the next post or two get into the nitty-gritty.
God's judgements are perfectly just and equitable. The punishment fits the crime, every time. Unlike sinful man who more often than not punishes far in excess of the crime committed, God doles out temporal punishment that gives the criminal his due. The principle is lex talionis, "an eye for an eye."
I need to digress here to deal with a common misconception (with which our Lord also dealt on the Sermon on the Mount). "Eye for an eye" in the Old Testament does not refer to personal vengeance. That was the mistake of the Pharisees of Jesus' day: applying the commandment as a license to get back at one's enemy. The commandment is actually a restraint on the State. It prevents punishment in excess of the transgression (think of the Moslems cutting off the hands of thieves).
The lex talionis metes out fair and equitable justice to the criminal; no more and no less. The criminal reaps exactly what he sows, and no more. Every transgression receives a just punishment. God is a just Judge and men are responsible to image His justice in the civil realm.
The next principle is that of restoration. God's civil punishments are always designed to restore the victim to his position before the crime. What he has lost is repaid. Thieves must always make restitution to the victim for both the stolen item and all the other losses incurred by its theft. Injured parties are always made as whole as possible. In the case of capital crimes, the ultimate victim of those crimes, God, demands the ultimate payment for those transgressions. God loves and is concerned with the victims of the world, and the civil magistrate is to love them as well. Notice that He is not concerned primarily with any injury or debt to "society." Concern for the actual victim is paramount.
These two principles of justice are evident in all the penal sanctions of the Law. Next posting, I'll begin to tackle the examples given which most often trouble Christians and non-Christians alike.
Is the Gospel in the Gospels?
Jeffrey Meyers asks that question, and answers it beautifully in the first of a series of postings.
Read, then let's discuss.
Read, then let's discuss.
Theonomy Primer, pt.4
We have seen that the ceremonial aspects of the Law, being types and shadows of redemption in Christ, are kept in a different manner in the life of the New Covenant. These commandments are restorative in nature, providing the means for the people of God to return to fellowship with Him when they have transgressed His Law. They deal with sin. Our sins being forgiven through Christ, there is no need for further restorative sacrifices. His having become our great High Priest, there is no longer any need to prefigure Him with an earthly one. The Spirit having been poured out on all flesh, there is no longer any need to typify Israel's sanctification in the holiness codes.
Note that all the commandments, in principle, are still being kept. Christ continually makes intercession for His people in Heaven, presenting His blood shed for them. The love and baptismal marking of Christians distinguishes them from those outside.
Note also that the means by which we know the ceremonial Law is kept differently in our age is subsequent revelation. God gave the commandments and then He revealed how they have changed.
This illustrates the guiding theonomic principle: All of God's standing commandments are to be presumed to be binding upon men unless and until He says otherwise.
"Standing" here distinguishes between statutes given in general circumstances rather than specific cases, such as "kill all the Canaanites."
Following this hermeneutical guideline, we will discover that God has in no way abrogated or altered all of the commandments of the Old Covenant. They are presumed to be binding in much of the Apostles' writing.
What we see is that sin has been definitively dealt with. The curse of the Law upon sin has been lifted from us.
Sins are forgiven. But what about crimes? Here is a crucial distinction. Crime involves mainly our transgressions of the Second Table, those commandments concerning loving our neighbor. Sin is our trespass against God. Both are defined by the Law, but that part which deals with loving our neighbor has not been altered or set aside by New Covenant revelation.
What does this mean for us? What does it mean for society?
It means that, in the Christian's life, he is to work out his sanctification following the pattern of conduct that God has provided in both the Old and New Testaments. He governs himself and his family by means of them.
It means that, in a Christian society, the loving of one's neighbor would be defined by fulfilling God's Law toward him. The principles and examples in the case laws would be the guidelines for civil law in the nation.
Now this includes the punishment of crime. And this is where modern people run into difficulty. In pt. 5, we'll take a look at that.
Note that all the commandments, in principle, are still being kept. Christ continually makes intercession for His people in Heaven, presenting His blood shed for them. The love and baptismal marking of Christians distinguishes them from those outside.
Note also that the means by which we know the ceremonial Law is kept differently in our age is subsequent revelation. God gave the commandments and then He revealed how they have changed.
This illustrates the guiding theonomic principle: All of God's standing commandments are to be presumed to be binding upon men unless and until He says otherwise.
"Standing" here distinguishes between statutes given in general circumstances rather than specific cases, such as "kill all the Canaanites."
Following this hermeneutical guideline, we will discover that God has in no way abrogated or altered all of the commandments of the Old Covenant. They are presumed to be binding in much of the Apostles' writing.
What we see is that sin has been definitively dealt with. The curse of the Law upon sin has been lifted from us.
Sins are forgiven. But what about crimes? Here is a crucial distinction. Crime involves mainly our transgressions of the Second Table, those commandments concerning loving our neighbor. Sin is our trespass against God. Both are defined by the Law, but that part which deals with loving our neighbor has not been altered or set aside by New Covenant revelation.
What does this mean for us? What does it mean for society?
It means that, in the Christian's life, he is to work out his sanctification following the pattern of conduct that God has provided in both the Old and New Testaments. He governs himself and his family by means of them.
It means that, in a Christian society, the loving of one's neighbor would be defined by fulfilling God's Law toward him. The principles and examples in the case laws would be the guidelines for civil law in the nation.
Now this includes the punishment of crime. And this is where modern people run into difficulty. In pt. 5, we'll take a look at that.
One Reason (Among Many) I Love My Friend, Frank
Discussing the Law, Frank sez,
"I believe that Jesus came to earth and died so we wouldn't have to do what God wants us to do. That's how stupid God is."Heh.
Theonomy Primer, pt. 3
The Commandments of God have a place in the life of the Christian. The New Testament makes that clear. But which ones? And how are they kept?
The Law is summed up in two great commands: love God, love your neighbor. These are fleshed out in the Ten Words. The first table, 1-4, deals with loving God, the second, 5-10, with loving men. These are fleshed out further in the 600-odd examples in the rest of the Torah.
Seeing this structure enables us to understand what the New Covenant requires of us in our lawkeeping. The New Testament teaches us that the ceremonies and sacrificial system were types and shadows of Christ's redemptive and restorative work on our behalf. They deal primarily with the first table of the Law. The apostles teach that we no longer follow the typological system, because those shadows are taken up into Jesus' High Priesthood in Heaven.
But then they also teach us to adhere to the same moral commands as before. Notice that that which they teach us to do pertains to the second table of the Law. These commandments are oriented man-to-man, not man-to-God. The relationship we hold to one another is the same as it has been, and therefore the requirements God has of us regarding our neighbor remain the same.
When we transgress the first table, we have a means of restoration that is applied differently this side of Christ's Advent. But what about when we transgress the second table? Ah, that will be answered next time...
The Law is summed up in two great commands: love God, love your neighbor. These are fleshed out in the Ten Words. The first table, 1-4, deals with loving God, the second, 5-10, with loving men. These are fleshed out further in the 600-odd examples in the rest of the Torah.
Seeing this structure enables us to understand what the New Covenant requires of us in our lawkeeping. The New Testament teaches us that the ceremonies and sacrificial system were types and shadows of Christ's redemptive and restorative work on our behalf. They deal primarily with the first table of the Law. The apostles teach that we no longer follow the typological system, because those shadows are taken up into Jesus' High Priesthood in Heaven.
But then they also teach us to adhere to the same moral commands as before. Notice that that which they teach us to do pertains to the second table of the Law. These commandments are oriented man-to-man, not man-to-God. The relationship we hold to one another is the same as it has been, and therefore the requirements God has of us regarding our neighbor remain the same.
When we transgress the first table, we have a means of restoration that is applied differently this side of Christ's Advent. But what about when we transgress the second table? Ah, that will be answered next time...
Theonomy Primer, pt. 2
The Law of God (in the Old Covenant specifically) has always been troubling for Christians. They never quite know what to do with it. They have a vague sense of needing to keep at least some of it, all the while denying that they are bound to do so, because as New Covenant believers we are "under Grace." So they usually settle on the Ten Commandments. That seems pretty clear. We have to keep the Ten Commandments. They're the big ones, right? But wait, Christian, are you saying we are to keep the Old Testament Law? Uh...no, isn't that legalism? We're "free from the Law..."
It gets confusing.
Consider Jesus' attitude toward the Law:
Now that gets interpreted in a lot of ways, which I'm not going to get into here. Suffice to say that whatever "fulfill" means, it can't mean "do away with," because the Lord just said He didn't come to do that. He goes on:
We see that there is a place for God's Law in the life of one who would follow Jesus. And, as the One Who fulfilled the Law, He kept it--perfectly. As those being conformed to His image, we grow in our Law-keeping. As we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, He begins to establish the Law in us. As we love, we fulfill the Law ourselves.
Do you see what is going on? The Law is a pattern of sanctification for the people of God. It is not about justifying oneself by following the rules. It has never been about that. Rather, it is the way that someone who loves God demonstrates that love--by keeping His commandments.
Next time, we'll look at how the Christian keeps the Law.
It gets confusing.
Consider Jesus' attitude toward the Law:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Now that gets interpreted in a lot of ways, which I'm not going to get into here. Suffice to say that whatever "fulfill" means, it can't mean "do away with," because the Lord just said He didn't come to do that. He goes on:
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.So the Law is to be taught and kept, according to Jesus. And yet, He has come to fulfill it.
We see that there is a place for God's Law in the life of one who would follow Jesus. And, as the One Who fulfilled the Law, He kept it--perfectly. As those being conformed to His image, we grow in our Law-keeping. As we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, He begins to establish the Law in us. As we love, we fulfill the Law ourselves.
Do you see what is going on? The Law is a pattern of sanctification for the people of God. It is not about justifying oneself by following the rules. It has never been about that. Rather, it is the way that someone who loves God demonstrates that love--by keeping His commandments.
Next time, we'll look at how the Christian keeps the Law.
Theonomy Primer, pt.1
Again, starting with some simple definitions...
"Theonomy" is a coined term for a particular approach to Christian ethics and government. It literally means "God's Law" as opposed to autonomy, or "self-law." This approach derives from many sources but is very highly influenced by the Presuppositional philosophy of Dr. Van Til (discussed in my last posting).
The basic Theonomic premise is that God has certain ethical requirements that men are bound to follow. In this sense, all Christians are theonomists to some degree. Theonomy as a particular view holds that these requirements apply to every area of life, including the family, Church and civil spheres. God's commandments cover much more than individual morality.
The real debate comes down to which commandments in the Scriptures apply to Christians. In particular question is Old Testament Law. Theonomists believe that all Biblical Law is binding upon men, though the New Covenant modifies the application of some of those laws.
It gets hairy for most folks at this point. Most Evangelicals have no idea what to to with the Law. They will instantly balk at an idea such as implementing the penal sanctions of the Old Testament for civil crimes. They often see the Law as barbaric or unduly harsh. We'll see if that holds true.
So next time, we will begin with the Law Itself. Where does it fit in the Christian's life? Anywhere? Everywhere? What would God have us to do?
"Theonomy" is a coined term for a particular approach to Christian ethics and government. It literally means "God's Law" as opposed to autonomy, or "self-law." This approach derives from many sources but is very highly influenced by the Presuppositional philosophy of Dr. Van Til (discussed in my last posting).
The basic Theonomic premise is that God has certain ethical requirements that men are bound to follow. In this sense, all Christians are theonomists to some degree. Theonomy as a particular view holds that these requirements apply to every area of life, including the family, Church and civil spheres. God's commandments cover much more than individual morality.
The real debate comes down to which commandments in the Scriptures apply to Christians. In particular question is Old Testament Law. Theonomists believe that all Biblical Law is binding upon men, though the New Covenant modifies the application of some of those laws.
It gets hairy for most folks at this point. Most Evangelicals have no idea what to to with the Law. They will instantly balk at an idea such as implementing the penal sanctions of the Old Testament for civil crimes. They often see the Law as barbaric or unduly harsh. We'll see if that holds true.
So next time, we will begin with the Law Itself. Where does it fit in the Christian's life? Anywhere? Everywhere? What would God have us to do?
Superman and Serial
I'm going to be posting a series of posts covering two dear subjects: the presuppositional method of philosophy/apologetics and the theonomic approach to ethics and government. A lot of visitors to this blog are either not theology geeks or have been brought up in Church environments where this sort of thought is unheard of.
Teaching these things is important to me because they are an important part of how I try to live my life, and I see them as the best hope for an effective Evangelical and Reformed impact in society. I think the Church in the West is in desperate need of reform, and I think these ideas are crucial to the blueprint.
I'm going to take it really slowly with each subject, and probably will not get terribly deep. There's plenty to read should I succeed in whetting appetites.
Teaching these things is important to me because they are an important part of how I try to live my life, and I see them as the best hope for an effective Evangelical and Reformed impact in society. I think the Church in the West is in desperate need of reform, and I think these ideas are crucial to the blueprint.
I'm going to take it really slowly with each subject, and probably will not get terribly deep. There's plenty to read should I succeed in whetting appetites.
The Woman Caught in Adultery: Our Lord's Glorious Obedience to the Law
Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."
Compare:
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.
If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. (Emphasis added.)
Those who brought the woman to Jesus were breaking the Law. Though they claimed she was caught in the act, no witnesses were brought forward, nor was the man with whom she had had sex. She was not brought before the judges (in this case that would be the Sanhedrin). Jesus' writing in the dust was more than likely His way of bringing to mind the "trial by ordeal" of Numbers 5. As they realized He was calling them out on their lawlessness, they left. As He was left alone with the woman, He, in His manhood, acknowledged that He could not condemn her under the Law.
Far from being the relaxing of the Law or an illustration against judging, this scene in the Gospel is an example of the perfect obedience of Christ to His own Law.
A Long Way to Go
One of the amazing features of God's Law is the way in which It is geared towards growing Man into maturity. I am ever humbled by Its Light exposing just how immature I am in the way I have lived, and continue to live, my life as a man coram Deo. Sanctification is a long, brutal process with a guy like me. Praise God for His mercy and His Word to us!
Growing Down
After many years of second-hand quotations I'm finally getting around to reading R.J. Rushdoony's magnum opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law. That study, combined with Matt Redman's musical quotation of Job, "Blessed be the Name," have gotten me to thinking about the modern mindset and its condescending attitude toward the ancients, particularly within the Church.
The common view among both theological liberals and conservatives (which they share with secular humanism, having derived their view from it) is that in the days of the Hebrew commonwealth and Kingdom, men were in their childhood socially and ethically (and, for the liberal, theologically, as their view of religion is evolutionary and not revelatory), compared to the enlightened, or shall we say, "Enlightenmented," view of modern man grown up into his own. The harshness of the Law compared to modern man's humanitarianism is seen generally as primitive and barbaric.
This is exactly backwards. Obedience to the Law leads only to maturity, freedom, and peace. Modern revolutionary permissiveness leads to chaos and sustained childishness. Think about it--your average modern, egalitarian revolutionary is little more than a two-year-old. He wants gratification now or else he will demonstrate, or strong-arm (via the State) those who won't give in into giving him his way.
A man who understands God's way of holiness understands the gravity of such wicked acts as dishonoring parents, undermining authority, blasphemy...all those things which moderns regard as the virtual duty of those seeking "freedom." He sees God's grace in providing true justice which purges a godly society of those things which ultimately lead to its death.
The common view among both theological liberals and conservatives (which they share with secular humanism, having derived their view from it) is that in the days of the Hebrew commonwealth and Kingdom, men were in their childhood socially and ethically (and, for the liberal, theologically, as their view of religion is evolutionary and not revelatory), compared to the enlightened, or shall we say, "Enlightenmented," view of modern man grown up into his own. The harshness of the Law compared to modern man's humanitarianism is seen generally as primitive and barbaric.
This is exactly backwards. Obedience to the Law leads only to maturity, freedom, and peace. Modern revolutionary permissiveness leads to chaos and sustained childishness. Think about it--your average modern, egalitarian revolutionary is little more than a two-year-old. He wants gratification now or else he will demonstrate, or strong-arm (via the State) those who won't give in into giving him his way.
A man who understands God's way of holiness understands the gravity of such wicked acts as dishonoring parents, undermining authority, blasphemy...all those things which moderns regard as the virtual duty of those seeking "freedom." He sees God's grace in providing true justice which purges a godly society of those things which ultimately lead to its death.
Worlds of Bodies
Jenni and I went to see Body Worlds, the museum exhibit of plastinated human corpses in various stages of dissection. I went with some trepidation, not because I get grossed out by that sort of thing (I don't--I like to watch operations on TV and stuff), but because I wasn't sure about the ethics of it all. There seemed to be a possibility that these images of God were being desecrated in the way they were put on display.
I didn't get that from the exhibit at all. What I saw was a presentation of how far "fearfully and wondefully made" really goes. The complexity of the design of our bodies is staggering.
Some have had a problem with this display based on the Law of God. There are all kinds of prohibitions regarding dead things and ceremonial cleanliness. But that principle, sanctification or holiness, is lived out in a different way under the New Covenant. We are set apart not by what we don't touch or don't eat, but rather by our love, and by the Holy Ghost within us. So the Law is the Law, but as the Apostles teach us the ceremonial types and shadows have given way to the antitype, and we obey in a different manner.
Truth be told, I was more offended by some of the quotations hung on banners around the display. All kinds of humanistic bullcrap by the likes of Kant, Nietzsche, Epikurus...though they also included some Truth by quoting King David in the Psalms.
Overall, what is told about the body by the exhibit itself is true, and IMO God is glorified in it.
I didn't get that from the exhibit at all. What I saw was a presentation of how far "fearfully and wondefully made" really goes. The complexity of the design of our bodies is staggering.
Some have had a problem with this display based on the Law of God. There are all kinds of prohibitions regarding dead things and ceremonial cleanliness. But that principle, sanctification or holiness, is lived out in a different way under the New Covenant. We are set apart not by what we don't touch or don't eat, but rather by our love, and by the Holy Ghost within us. So the Law is the Law, but as the Apostles teach us the ceremonial types and shadows have given way to the antitype, and we obey in a different manner.
Truth be told, I was more offended by some of the quotations hung on banners around the display. All kinds of humanistic bullcrap by the likes of Kant, Nietzsche, Epikurus...though they also included some Truth by quoting King David in the Psalms.
Overall, what is told about the body by the exhibit itself is true, and IMO God is glorified in it.
Fireworks
Glory and honor to King Jesus, Who on this day moved the States under His dominion to join together in confederation to declare their independence from the tyranny of the English Parliament and the corrupt King George III.
Praise Him for the innumerable blessings He has seen fit to pour out on this land.
Praise Him for pouring out His judgement upon it as it has strayed from His holy Law.
May He bring us to repentence and heal the land according to His Word.
*Quiz: Who was President of the United States in Congress Assembled when the Declaration was signed?
Praise Him for the innumerable blessings He has seen fit to pour out on this land.
Praise Him for pouring out His judgement upon it as it has strayed from His holy Law.
May He bring us to repentence and heal the land according to His Word.
*Quiz: Who was President of the United States in Congress Assembled when the Declaration was signed?
Independence Day
Today, I am grateful to the King of this country, the Lord Jesus, that He has graciously granted to these United States independence and a foundation of liberty and justice for all.
I am glad that, although this people has departed from the law of liberty, given itself to idols, and replaced God's justice with man's injustice, that enough inertia remains from our origin to allow my family to live in a great deal of freedom.
I pray, Lord Jesus our King, that You will have mercy on Your Church. Lead us to repent, to put away our idols of Asherah, Tammuz, and Marduk-Shamash, and then heal our land, according to Your Word. Deal with us first, render judgement, and use us, I pray, to preach righteousness, justice, and freedom to a stiff-necked people enslaved to sin.
I am glad that, although this people has departed from the law of liberty, given itself to idols, and replaced God's justice with man's injustice, that enough inertia remains from our origin to allow my family to live in a great deal of freedom.
I pray, Lord Jesus our King, that You will have mercy on Your Church. Lead us to repent, to put away our idols of Asherah, Tammuz, and Marduk-Shamash, and then heal our land, according to Your Word. Deal with us first, render judgement, and use us, I pray, to preach righteousness, justice, and freedom to a stiff-necked people enslaved to sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)