From Eric Rauch at American Vision: The Power and Authority of Words

This article is a companion to the previous post.  As I state in the previous post, Joel McDurmon and Eric Rauch really hit the proverbial nail on the head in these two articles.  Can be found at:

http://www.americanvision.org/article/the-power-and-authority-of-words/

I urge my readers to think about the meaning of language, speech,and words; their power and authority.  Think about the words we say each day, for which we are held accountable to God – even the “idle” ones.  And think about the words that God says, how that none are “idle”, and all are significant.

The Power and Authority of Words

by Eric Rauch

In the New Testament, the Greek word for “authority” is sometimes translated as “power.” Even though there is a separate Greek word for power, the concepts of power and authority are so intimately connected in the Western mind, that modern translators often view them as synonyms. But translations aside, there is a biblical distinction that should be made between authority and power.

We discussed previously the relationship between author and authority, where an author has “authority” because he is the originator, the creator. Authority, in the biblical sense, is usually referring to the legitimacy of the individual or individuals. For example, when Jesus finished his Sermon on the Mount, Matthew records that “the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29). In other words, the crowds recognized something different in the words of Jesus that was lacking in the words of their own teachers. The scribes had the “power” of the Scriptures, but lacked the ability—the legitimacy—to speak them with any authority. When Jesus, the author and finisher of faith (Hebrews 12:2) spoke however, he spoke with authority because he was the author; he had legitimate claim to the power AND authority of the Scriptures.

You’ve heard it said that “knowledge is power.” And while this is true, we must not forget that knowledge exists only in words. In reality, words are the real power of the created world. Meaning is infused into words by an authority. French artist Marcel Duchamp despised language because he understood that it pointed to a transcendent Message-sender. Duchamp set out to create his own language, free of any meaning and authority. When he realized that by creating his own language, Duchamp had merely replaced God with himself, he destroyed his work. Language—any language—is authoritarian by its very nature. The creator of the language must give meaning to his “words” in order to communicate. Without meaning, communicating is impossible. Duchamp learned the lesson of the Tower of Babel too late. Words have power because they come from an authority.

This is why one of the first actions of any regime seeking to subvert the current authority will always involve language. Redefining words, creating new ones, controlling the media, and restricting access to alternate viewpoints must take place before any coup can be successful. In “The Principles of Newspeak,” an appendix to George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, we are told:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism…The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression  to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. [1]

Orwell understood the power of words. Control the language; control the people. Notice that Orwell understood that even Newspeak was limited in that it was only effective “at least so far as thought is dependent on words.” Even though this is theoretically true, how many of us actually think in anything other than words. We primarily think and reason conceptually, not pictorially.

Words are important to God as well. He gave us his word—the Bible—and he gave the Word—Jesus Christ. He made words the focus of two of his ten commandments: the third and the ninth. In the third commandment, we are told to not take his name in vain, referring primarily to vows and oaths. In the ninth, we are told to not bear false witness against our neighbor, a reference to being truthful and providing trustworthy testimony. God expects his people to be truthful, to be without reproach in what we say and do. This idea is repeated over and over throughout the entire Bible and when we get to the New Testament we find an interesting application of this concept.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes an observation regarding the third commandment. In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus says: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” Paul and James both repeat similar admonitions in their letters (2 Corinthians 1:17-20; James 5:12). Commentaries on these passages refer to the historical tradition of the first century Jews to make any and all sorts of vows and oaths against sacred objects, in order to give their promises validity (i.e. authority). Stated another way, they had gotten to the point where their words were no longer trustworthy; their words no longer carried any power because their authority of being truthful people—ones that obeyed God’s third and ninth commandments—had been corrupted. There is no honor among thieves or liars…

Endnote
[1]  George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Signet Classics, 1983 [1949]), 246

 
Article posted June 4, 2009

From Joel McDurmon at American Vision: Blashphemy and Freedom

The following article is copied directly from the American Vision website at http://www.americanvision.org/article/blasphemy-and-freedom/

I’m assuming that I am not violating any copyright laws or Internet eticate by copying the post as I am doing here, but if so, somebody let me know and I will delete it.

I urge my readers to read this article and think about what it is saying.

Although I don’t consider myself a “dominionist”, nor do I hold any particular affection for theonomy, I do listen to the Gary Demar Show and visit the American Vision web site almost daily.  Whether I agree with them or not, I appreciate the usually well-researched and thought-out opinions they articulate.  

This article and the one I will be post afterwards shows us the eternal, transcendent significance of words, something I tried to express way back in one of my first posts on this blog in attempting to exegete the word “logos” in John 1:1 (and clumsily trying to work in some Clarkian scripturalism with it).

Joel —not me— but McDurmon, gets it right here, as does Erick in the post to follow.

Blasphemy and Freedom

by Joel McDurmon

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Ex. 20:4-6).

You’ve probably heard the question, “What’s in a name?” Remember that it comes from that famous dialogue between Romeo and Juliet? The maiden from the window above says,

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?

Deny thy father and refuse thy name;

Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,

And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

…which was her surname. Romeo mumbles to himself, listens on; Juliet continues:

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s a Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.[1]

In Juliet’s view, names are, or should be, so meaningless that they can simply be switched whenever convenient. The problem is, society just doesn’t work that way. In fact, her own woe, you may recall, derived from the fact that her and her lover came from feuding families, and those families having detested each other for generations, could not even stand the nameof the other for all that it entailed. She argues that the substance of the thing, or of the person, and not the label, should determine why we value them. But when long use establishes a certain character with a certain appellative, then to overturn that relationship will cause a great social shift. Sometimes, perhaps, that shift needs to take place, other times it necessarily should not. And nowhere is that relationship between character and name more important that at the very foundation of society—religion.

The concept of “God’s name” so closely pertains to His Being and Nature that any affront to any of God’s attributes is subsumed under the very mention of His name. Calvin writes of the Third Commandment, “It is silly and childish to restrict this to the name Jehovah, as if God’s majesty were confined to letters or syllables.… God’s name is profaned whenever any detraction is made from His supreme wisdom, infinite power, justice, clemency, and rectitude.”[2] The reference to God’s name invokes all that God is and stands for.

We have similar references in the New Testament: of Jesus Paul says, there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phil. 2:9-10).

So the idea of the majesty of God as represented by God’s name confronts mankind at every turn of life. And so, the commandment against taking God’s name “in vain” fairly warns us against all forms of action, or neglect, concerning the very nature of the God we serve. It means that the Biblical doctrine of God (Who is He?, What is His nature?, What has He done in history?) must inform every act and every decision we make. If the foundations of society rest upon anything less than that God, when we act in the name of God Almighty (for example, the presidential oath including “So help me God”), we have violated the Third Commandment. Conversely, when society begins to denigrate, curse, or swear at the name or mention of God, then we have an even worse situation in which society has attacked God Himself, and has sought to replace Him with something else as the foundation.

Consider for a moment the language of the Commandment. What does it mean to “take” in this passage? We can understand the word in the sense of “carry” or “bear.” Think in this sense of the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant, or of the Israelites pitching their tents beneath respective standards which bore their identities as children of YHWH. Think of the label “Christian,” first given in Antioch (Acts 11:26), and which we bear today. How do we “carry” that label? How do we present that label to the world, and what justice do we do it? Do we bear it in any degree of vanity or emptiness? Implicit in this Third Commandment is a condemnation of hypocrisy—of wearing a label we don’t measure up to in substance. And in not measuring up, we prove ourselves hypocrites, and we dishonor, we can even say blaspheme, the name of the God whose name we bear.

We have such a low view of taking the Lord’s name in vain today. This results from the overall decline of the religion and the influence of the church in society. Today the idea of cursing seems to have much less to do with God’s name than with more mundane forms of vulgarity. This always happens when religion wanes in society. The Oxford scholar Christopher Hill, a renowned expert on the Puritan era, notes the phenomenon long after the end of that age of piety. Speaking of the power of swearing and oaths he writes, 

They survive in industrialized and protestant countries, but as shadows of their former selves, and often the users are unaware of the original significance of swear-words which they employ every day. Blasphemy is no longer a fine art. The live swear-words in such societies are those which offend against something which has much more social reality than God—respectability. Sex and the lavatory have replaced deity, saints and devil as the source of live expletives to-day, because their use breaks a taboo that is still worth breaking.[3]

This has always been my experience. I personally don’t remember a time when cursing didn’t refer to bodily acts, and I was always taught, of course, that these certain words are the curse words, these words are “bad” words and you don’t say them. And while all of that may be true, there was always this great disconnect between the idea of taking God’s name in vain, and what I understood as cursing. That list of bad words, of course, included instances in which the word “God” or the name “Jesus Christ” served as expletives—as we hear all over the radio and TV today—but this only caused me greater confusion. Were theseinstances the actual sin of taking God’s name in vain? If so, why were the other words bad? Later in life when I actually thought about these questions, and grew a little more biblically literate, I decided that the distinction didn’t matter, because St. Paul went well beyond merely the Lord’s name and said, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying” (Eph. 4:9). “No corrupt communication,” pretty much covers it all. But this was a sort of happy state of ignorance for me, since I still really didn’t understand what it meant not to take the Lord’s name in vain.

So what was this “original significance” that Hill mentions above? He gives us a hint of it with an introductory quotation from that same chapter. The following appears in an anonymous tract written in 1614:

The safety of the King himself,… every man’s estate in particular, and the state of the realm in general, doth depend upon the truth and sincerity of men’s oaths.… The law and civil policy of England, being chiefly founded upon religion and the fear of God, doth use the religious ceremony of an oath, not only in legal proceedings but in other transactions and affairs of most importance in the commonwealth; esteeming oaths as not only the best touchstone of trust in matters of controversy, but as the safest knot of civil society, and the firmest band to tie all men to the performance of their several duties.[4]

Proper, honest, godly oath-taking, forms the mortar of healthy society. At the bottom of all, is the foundation of allegiance to God; and the commandment does not forbid swearing period, but swearing in vain. Bearing God’s name in truth—not in vain, but in truth—is the bedrock of religion and therefore of social health. In fact, the very word “religion” means “to bind” in the sense of binding allegiance. Such language fills the Bible: the whole concept of being God’s servant relates to this idea. Paul was a servant of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:1). I hear St. Patrick singing his hymn, “I bind unto my self today, the strong name of the Trinity.” With it all I hear a Scripture passage that Christians hardly ever quote: Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name(Deut. 6:13)!

How often do we as believers exhort each other actually to swear? Swearing, we’ve been taught, is a “no-no” across the board. And yet God commanded the Israelites to do so—to swear by His name. The point is that at the bottom of every way of life, of every religion and every society, stands an ultimate oath. You have to serve somebody. Somebody is your god and you have sworn allegiance to him (or her) already whether you know it or not. You cannot escape worship, authority, or oaths. If you zip-your-lips, and lock the door and swallow the key, and refuse to take any oath whatsoever, you just took one. The question is not “oath or no oath.” The question is Whose name did you take it under? Here we must follow the example of God Himself, “For when God made the promise to Abraham, since he could swear by no one greater, He swore by himself” (Heb. 6:13). No wonder He commands us to swear by that name, too.

Not to swear allegiance to God, is to profane His name, and put yours in place of it. The misuse or abuse of God’s name is an initiatory act of rebellion. In society, it represents revolt and revolution. “All swearing is religious, and false swearing represents a subversive drive in society.”[5]This fact manifested recently in a debate between atheists and Christians at Cape Town University on the subject of blasphemy. The atheist professor who agreed to debate backed out two hours before the event started, leaving Peter Hammond of Frontline Ministries alone to lecture from a Christian viewpoint and then field questions. One atheist young lady expressed the myopia of humanistic reasoning in trying to denigrate religion while exalting man: “To call me stupid would be hate speech and be illegal; however, to call Jesus stupid is not illegal and is a religious issue not a legal one.” Another added that hate speech “should of course be illegal,” yet Blasphemy given free reign “because unlike hate speech against homosexuals, no one is going to get hurt.”[6] The first argument, of course, begs the question, assuming up front what it intends to conclude: that religious issues don’t count as legal issues, therefore blasphemy is not “hate speech.” Christians, rather, should argue that blasphemy is the most fundamental and most serious and subversive form of hate speech, and should carry requisite legal sanctions. The second argument simply ignores the facts, that 

every year over 200,000 Christians are murdered worldwide for their Faith. Over 400 million Christians in 64 countries live under governments which do not allow religious freedom. Every year government sponsored hate speech in these countries leads to mob violence against Christians, the burning of churches, often with the congregation inside it, the beheading of Christians, even of young teenage girls, the stoning to death of Christians, crucifixions, mutilations, enslavements, etc.[7]

Logical and factual blunders aside, both arguments display the implicit attack on religious faith that humanism entails. When man sets a higher legal standard for speech against man than he does for speech against God, He explicitly rejects God as King and sets himself in the place of God. Legalized blasphemy represents treason to God and country. George Washington, spying the revolution of atheists, radicals, and deists in France, devoted a portion of his “farewell address” to warn our nation of the consequences of such blasphemy. In this passage—often quoted merely for its positive reference to religion—notice the emphasis on reputation (name), and oath:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?[8]

Atheists and humanists begin with man and wish to derive “hate speech” from that standard. This devolves into a state where individuals, culture, law, and art can curse and mock all religion, virtue, sexuality, and all transcendent standards, and seek legal protection for such acts. Thus, homosexuality for example, which incarnates a gross perversion of the sex act—indeed the ultimate mockery of it—seeks legal protection from even criticism. To even decry homosexuality as a perversion is to practice “hate speech” in such a worldview, and in some so-called liberal democracies that boast of so-called “free speech,” a preacher who even reads the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual perversion publicly can find himself in jail. Mankind cannot escape “blasphemy” laws: the question is of who determines whatconstitutes blasphemy. Meanwhile, to highlight a degenerate society’s social hypocrisy, the standard interpersonal curses themselves pertain to sexuality: listen to any rap radio station and you will drown in a deluge of racial slurs interspersed with epithets of maternal incest, while any given foul-mouth on the street finds his readiest curse in willing a forcible sex act upon his annoyer: “f— you.” Humanism wishes legally to protect its perversions while in practice admitting them to be perverse, employing them as curses.

When society displays such characteristics, it reveals the depth of its rebellion against the Creator. The proper way to protect name, reputation, and human rights in general, is not to profane God and exalt man, but just the opposite. Unless men first revere God and honor an ultimate allegiance to the divine origin of mankind, and protect these beliefs by legal consequence, they shall denigrate everything glorious that man can be, and then protect their perversions and obscenity by recourse to legal force.

And so, as with many others of the Ten Commandments, the Third presents us with something that sounds elementary and almost trivial on the surface, but in reality reaches to the most profound depths of human experience. Based on something that we take for granted every day—a name—God shakes us to the very core of our identity. “What’s in a name?” If you’re talking about God, the answer is “everything.”

Endnotes
1 Shakespeare, “Romeo and Juliet,” II.ii.33–49.
2Quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 116.
3 Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England(New York: Schocken Books, 1967 1964]) 419.
4 Hill, 382.
5R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Religion, 110.
6 Reported by Peter Hammond, “Blasphemy Debate at University,” rontline Fellowship News, 2009 Ed. 2, 7.
7 Peter Hammond, “Blasphemy Debate at University,” Frontline Fellowship News, 7.
8Partially quoted in R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Religion, 112.

 
Article posted June 5, 2009

Politics and Basketball – More Similar Than You May Think

——-Political Commentary——- 

I took my position under the basket – an unusual position for me, being a small guard.  But my opponent, whom I was defending against, felt he could do more good near the basket than far away.  As the shooter prepared to launch a long shot, I felt myself instinctively pushing against the chest of my foe with my back.  As the ball approached ever closer to the rim, the intensity of the mutual shoving increased exponentially, until finally, as the ball hit the rim, my opponent and I exploded into a shoving, clawing, jumping, fierce and bloody battle.  For what?  For the REBOUND!  O!  How we both desire to get that rebound!

 But let me ask – just what does this scenario indicate?  It indicates an obvious fact: the fact that the reason I was fighting for a rebound is because I DID NOT HAVE THE BALL, else, rebounding would not have been an interesting activity.

And so it is in politics.  The team without the ball is always looking for a block, a steal, a rebound.

Recently, a statue of President Ronald Reagan was unveiled in the rotunda of the United States Capitol building.  This is an honor he richly deserves, seeing that he is perhaps the most historically significant and inspiring US President of the twentieth century.  One might argue that that title belongs to Franklin D. Roosevelt, but Roosevelt worked in an atmosphere of cooperation and support while Reagan worked in an atmosphere of vehement opposition from the mainstream media, Hollywood, and the collectivist one-world.  One must admit this regardless of party or political persuasion.

While Reagan stood in the bitter cold of Reykjavík, awaiting the arrival of the leader of the communist world to negotiate an end to the earth-threatening Cold War, rebounders hoped for his failure.  Later, with victory in hand and standing before the infamous Berlin Wall, with all the boldness of a lion in righteousness, and in direct defiance of frightened advisors, he openly demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, TARE DOWN THIS WALL!”  Can anyone forget the effect of that speech:  The moistened eyes, the tightened throat, the chill bumps as we realized that we were witnessing greatness at its greatest and the overwhelming pressure that it brought forth on the Russian president, who ultimately acquiesced?  And yet for all that, rebounders were hoping for his failure.

And I believe I can say the same about our most previous president’s tenure.  As George W. Bush bravely faced a lying, sneaking, cold-hearted murderous enemy, his political opponents shamelessly hoped for his failure.  And these rebounders, void of any concern for our people, and apparently motivated only by their own ambitions to power, rather than lending an ethos of optimism to the cause, spewed venomous criticisms on the effort, hoping above all for the failure of the man they seem to hate with an unsurpassed irrationality.

And just what was it about George W. Bush that brings out the tantrumous worst in his haters?  Isn’t it just his cowboy-like mannerisms and lack of a smooth tongue that bothers them?  Not policy (it was relatively liberal), not lack of irenic spirit (he readily compromised with his opponents and even wined, dined, and hosted his bitterest foes in the White House), not even the war (both liberals and conservatives had been beating the drums for war in Iraq unceasingly since the end of the first Gulf War*).  No, I don’t believe it was any of his policies that were the real cause for the foaming loathing of the man.  Really, wasn’t it just his lack of polish that was the source of irritation for liberals, democrats, “moderate” conservatives, and such?

Are we so shallow?  Are we so vain?  That we would destroy our own President because he lacks the suave and debonair of a Frenchman, or the stiff-lipped stoicism of a Brit?  I fear this is so.

President Bush literally stood in the ashes of the buildings and bodies of the World Trade Center and promised to visit the perpetrators of the greatest evil of the twenty-first century with a wrath worthy of their deeds.  And yet for all that and more, a short five years later, the man could not even endorse a candidate for president, being so hated by the people he game himself over to protect.

He shot and missed in Iraq, and the rebounders took possession of the ball.  He shot and missed on some other issues, but politically speaking, Iraq was the big one.  The bad economy sealed his doom, but in reality he had little to do with the economy.  He simply was following the boom-bust Keynesian model like all other presidents since the early twentieth century, and was both blessed and damned by it like most of those presidents.  But no doubt, his handling of Iraq was “a shot and a miss”. 

In basketball, rebounders EARN their rebounds.  But in politics, they simply stand around criticizing and criticizing, slinging mud, slinging mud, until the opponent slips up and the mud begins to stick.

And why do we reward the rebounders?  Political rebounders do nothing to deserve our support, yet we reward them with great acclaim and access to important offices and such.  They promise us the world, and we elect them in hopes that they will deliver on their promises.

But time and time again we are disappointed.  Once in office, they don’t deliver on their campaign promises, nor CAN they deliver on them.  In fact, their policies are often strangely similar to their predecessors.  And so it is today.  Barack Obama is no different than any promise-making candidate before him.  His policy on Iraq and foreign policy in general was to be radically different that Bush’s, but the only difference has been in rhetoric.  But, alas, it seems that to shallow Americans, smooth-talking and false praise for avowed enemies IS policy. 

The reality is that Obama faces the same difficulties that Bush faced.  North Korea continues to build their nuclear powers.  Shallow Americans thought they would stop doing that if we just got a president that would talk nice to them instead of warning and threatening them like Bush did.  But what is the reality?  North Korea has nuclear weapons, they are continuing unabated in perfecting their delivery systems, and they fully intend to use them to intimidate the world into giving them the goods, services, and wealth that their communistic economy cannot provide itself.  And worst of all, they may even actually use them some day.

And how about Iran?  Have they decided to stop their march to nuclear capabilities?  Have they suddenly decided not to destroy Israel as soon as possible now that the President of the United States “talks nice”?  (By the way, George Bush effusively praised Islam as “a religion of peace”)

Yet it seems that the world of politics is the world of the rebounders.  And so the tide ebbs back and forth.  Republicans win, and then the Democrats win, Republican, Democrat, so on.  The phenomenon reminds me of the preacher’s observation in Ecclesiastes:

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.  (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

And so is the nature of basketball and politics.  Back and forth.  Shoot, miss, rebound, shoot, score.  And who wins?  Usually, whoever has the ball last.

And in politics, like in basketball, the crowds become irrational.  Hysteria sets in, and in the primal urge to win, we turn our opponents into demons that deserve our unchecked hatred. 

Just look at basketball fights, how violent they can be.  And political fights too.

Wounding opponents is typical of politics, but the demonization of George W. Bush got way out of control. 

I think some apologies are in order.  Don’t you?

I’ll get back to you – soon!

To my readers:  Studying Koine Greek is taking all of my spare time lately, but I’ll get back to posting some articles and quips as soon as I can. 

In the mean time, I’m asking my Christian friends to pray for me and the ministry as we need to make some critical decisions soon.  We are progressing ever more closer to reformed theology in our thinking and we are weighing the arguments of the Westminster Confession in certain areas of doctrine in which I must have some measure of conviction before we can go forward in the ministry. 

Thanks.

Understanding Covenant Theology #5

Since I’m having a tough time getting back to this to wrap up this series on Covenant Theology, I thought I should at least provide my readers with a link to some good materials on the subject.

Nathan Pitchford has written an excellent little book called “What the Bible Says About The People of God”, which is essentially a work that accomplishes exactly what I am attempting to do with this series on Covenant Theology.  It outlines the basic tenets of Covenant Theology using simple statements that are easy to understand, and then follows these statements with copious Bible verses showing how these tenets are arrived at.

Follow this link to Monergism Books and when you get there look for the “Online PDF version” link just under the advertisement for Nathan’s book.  

This little book is an excelent resource and I am thankful that Nathan and Monergism Books have made it available at no cost online.  But not only do I recommend purchasing the book, I recommend taking advantage of the bulk purchase offer and get some to give to your friends.

Here is the link:

http://www.monergismbooks.com/What-the-Bible-Says-about-THE-PEOPLE-OF-GOD-p-17332.html

The Supreme Court and Child Raptists: Has America Sinned Itself to Death?

There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.   1 John 5:16

Sometimes I don’t know if I should pray for my country or not when I consider that our Supreme Court justices – those who are supposed to be the wisest among us – have determined that the “rights” of a child rapist is more important than the justice due the victim of that despicable act.  It may be time to throw in the towel on America.

Maybe Reverend Wright, the now-infamous former pastor of President Obama, was right after all.  How can we honestly petition God to bless such a wicked nation?  It seems we’ve gone beyond wicked to outright insanity.

The case in point is officially known as “Kennedy vs Louisiana”, which was decided on Jun 25, 2008.  It is odd to me how such a landmark decision made it under the media radar.  Most people haven’t even heard of it to this day.

But on that day, the Court ruled in a five to four decision that applying the death penalty to perpetrators of child rape to be unconstitutional.  The majority opinion - held by justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer – ruled that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” and is therefore unconstitutional under the eighth amendment of the constitution.

These five – alleged to be actual human beings - even they admit to the great repugnancy of the crime at hand (child rape), and the outrageously heinous nature of the particular incident over which this decision was made.  I could not include in this article the details of the crime without violating the sensibilities of even the most thick-skinned among us.

And yet for all that, they perceive to themselves a duty to protect the guilty and deny the innocent the justice they deserve.

And what is the rational given by the five animals to justify this insult to humanity?  Here it is in the words of Justice Alito who spoke for the four dissenting members (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas):

The Court today holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the Court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be. The Court provides two reasons for this sweeping conclusion: First, the Court claims to have identified “a national consensus” that the death penalty is never acceptable for the rape of a child; second, the Court concludes, based on its “independent judgment,” that imposing the death penalty for child rape is inconsistent with ” ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’ ” (underlines added)

 

Can you believe it?  The Supreme Court makes rulings based on their opinions of what constitutes a “national consensus”!  And if that were not enough of the mind of human depravity, they further reveal their hatred of everything decent by stating that the death penalty for a child rapist is “inconsistent with evolving standards of DECENCY”!!

Words of protest fail me at this point.  I can only stand like the perplexed Habakkuk with mouth agape in wonder at the contradiction of it all.

 If the Lord delays His coming, the day is surely coming in which decent people will be forced to keep silent.  Although we already face the ridicule and scoffing of a self-absorbed and nihilistic world, at least we still have some remaining modicum of freedom to speak out against the encroaching darkness.

There is a Supreme Court in Heaven to which the Supreme Court of the United States must answer.  God has made is ruling on the issue:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  (Romans 13:4)

 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.  (Psalms 9:17)

Understanding Covenant Theology #4

I found the following material on the website of the Western Reformed Seminary.  It is a good coverage of what I have attempted to teach in this series already, and more clearly stated to boot. 

It is by John Battle as taken from WRS Journal 2:1 (February 1995) 2-6, retrieved from the web site http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Journals/2-1%20Feb-1995/Battle%20-%20Premillennialsim%20&%20Covenant%20Theol.pdf:

“The Bible contains many covenants and many dispensations. Those who put primary emphasis on the differences between these covenants and dispensations often are referred to as dispensationalists. Those who see a unity in these covenants and dispensations are called covenant theologians.

 

Covenant theology understands that God has one over-arching purpose in his dealings with our universe—and that is the establishing of his eternal kingdom through the plan of redemption.

 

Dispensationalists rather see God’s plan as manifold, involving one plan and purpose for his earthly people Israel, and a separate plan and purpose for his heavenly people the church. They see a unity only in the common thread of God’s glorifying himself in all his plans. The main distinctive of dispensationalism is the belief that Old Testament Israel is totally distinct from the New Testament church. In fact, the church, in their view, did not exist until Pentecost.

 

Covenant theologians say that the invisible church began with the first saved person (Adam!), and that the visible church as an institution started long before New Testament times, with Abraham.

 

While dispensationalists divide the Bible into dispensations, covenant theologians detect an underlying unity—all these dispensations, and the biblical covenants which define them, are outworkings of one great covenant of grace. The Westminster Confession of Faith defines this covenant of grace as follows:

 

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [the covenant of works made with Adam], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (7:3)

 

Reformed theologians often speak of another covenant which undergirds this covenant of grace. That is the covenant of redemption, which was made between God the Father and God the Son before the world began. It is by this covenant that Jesus Christ was ordained to obey his Father, come into this world, and redeem his people to salvation in himself. This covenant provides for Jesus his eternal kingdom, in which his elect ones will find their place of glory and service forever.”

 

If you happened to visit the link provided, you might have discovered that while Mr. Battle is a Covenant Theologian, he is not amillennial, but is in fact a premillennialist.

 

Why do I mention this?  Because it is very common in this day to assume that if one is a premillennialist, he is also a dispensationalist.  But the fact is that premillennialism existed centuries before dispensationalism was ever heard of.

 

But I need to remind my readers at this point that Covenant Theology and its counterpart Dispensationalism is an overall view of the entire Bible, not just a view of the end times.  But as you might expect, your view of the overall message of the Bible is bound to affect your view of that particular portion.  We will deal with the four primary views of the end times in due time, but for now, let’s keep focused on the idea of Covenant.

 

Here is the chronological order of the three primary Covenants:

 

1.  The Covenant of Redemption

- In eternity past God the Father decreed that in time God the Son would obtain, and God the Spirit would apply redemption to the elect.*

 

 2.  The Covenant of Works

- In the Garden of Eden God required Adam to obey the command in order to live.  Adam failed and came under the curse of the Covenant.

 

3.  The Covenant of Grace

- After the Sin of Adam, God promised to send a redeemer (Christ) that would crush the head of the serpent (Satan).  Since Adam did not deserve a redeemer, God saved Adam because of His inexplicable gracious motives, hence the Covenant of Grace.

Hence, the entire Bible is the story of how God brings about that plan of redemption and executes the Covenant of Grace in saving his elect from their deserved damnation under the covenant of works.

 

This has been somewhat repetitive of the previous entry but we shall try to make more progress in the next installment.

 

 

 

*Traditional reformed theologians teach that the covenant of redemption involved the Father and Son only.  I do not agree with them on this point.

Understanding Covenant Theology #3

What is the Bible all about?  That is, what is its overall message and theme? 

We could say that the Bible is the story of Christ, or we could say that it is the story of redemption, or we could say it is the story of grace; we could give each of these as our answer and be correct in each case. 

The Bible, BOTH OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW, is the story of Christ, the gracious redeemer.   

This is important for us to understand, for some of us have been taught, either directly or by implication, that the Old Testament is about Israel, and the New Testament is about the Church.  Or it might have been said this way, “The Old Testament is about Moses and the Law, and the New Testament is about Jesus and grace”, pitting Israel against the Church, Moses against Jesus, and Law against Grace.  This idea, that the Old Testament and the New Testament stand in opposition to one another, comes from that system of doctrine known as DISPENSATIONALISM.

But listen, friends, if you take a closer look at scripture, you’ll see that Moses, the Law, and Israel works in concert WITH Jesus, grace, and the Church in bringing about God’s plan.  This is what the system of doctrine known as COVENANT THEOLOGY teaches.

For example, Moses declares the authority of Jesus when he (Moses) prophecies:

Deuteronomy 18:15 (KJV) The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 

And we see that the Law was not an enemy of grace at all, but an helper to it:

Galatians 3:24 (KJV) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

And we see that the Church and Israel were more alike than they were different in that they are both called “the people of God,” (NOT the peoples of God), with Israel being called “the church” in a certain place and the Church being called “the Israel of God” in a certain other place:

Acts 7:37-38 (KJV) ³⁷ This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. ³⁸ This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Galatians 6:16 (KJV) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Further, notice in the following passage how Moses is said to prefer the suffering of the people of God and the reproach of Christ to the riches of Egypt:

Hebrews 11:24-26 (KJV) ²⁴ By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; ²⁵ Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; ²⁶ Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

Do you see how “Christ” and “the people of God” are used as if they were almost the same thing?  And that is speaking of an OLD TESTAMENT EVENT! 

Do you see the continuity yet?  Let’s keep going.

Did you notice that phrase in the verse from Hebrews that is quoted above:  “the people of God”?

DISPENSATIONALISTS tell us that there are TWO peoples of God – the Church, and Israel.

But it is clear that COVENANT THEOLOGY gets it right by pointing out that there is only one people of God, as scripture makes abundantly clear:

Ephesians 2:11-22 (KJV) ¹¹ Wherefore remember, that ye beingin time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; ¹² That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: ¹³ But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. ¹⁴ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; ¹⁵ Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; ¹⁶ And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: ¹⁷ And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ¹⁸ For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. ¹⁹ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; ²⁰ And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; ²¹ In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: ²² In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

We could provide more scripture proofs, but this should suffice for the present.  We must note this ONE people of God in this age is the CHURCH, and the “Church age” continues throughout the remainder of human history:

Ephesians 3:21 (KJV) Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

DISPENSATIONALISTS tell us that the “Church age” will end some day, and God’s people will go back to Moses’ Law.  This is in direct contradiction of the plain teaching of scripture, and I might add that dispensationalists like to boast that their interpretation of scripture represents the “normal and plainest meaning of the scripture”. 

Well now, this post has not gone the way I had planned.  It is not as short as I would have liked, but it is important to established the importance of understanding continuity in the Bible before I can go on to explain the Covenant of Redemption , and other issues I raised in my last post. 

We will endeavor to proceed to those issues in the next installment.

This Blog May be Moving Soon

I’ve had it with the filth on WordPress.  I opened the WordPress home page tonight and was greeted with “Merry ****ing Christmas” from some blog in the “Hawt Post”, whatever that means.

It’s one thing if people want to blaspheme on their own blog, but neither myself nor my children should be subjected to such insulting garbage.

If it happens again, I’m outa here.

Joel.

Understanding Covenant Theology #2

As I struggle to get a fuller understanding of Covenant Theology myself, I want to share with my readers what little nuggets of truth I might have captured along the way.  I will do some small posts – sound bites, if you will, geared toward helping my dispensational friends grasp the concepts at a very basic level.  This is not to insult those who might have an advanced understanding of the issues, but to help those that are like myself, needing concepts broken down into basic building blocks before I can see the whole.

And I would like to invite any experienced Covenant Theologians that may happen by to critique my work here so that we may all learn.

First of all, the thing to know about Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT), is that it is not so much about the idea of covenant against the idea of dispensation, but it is the idea of continuity or flow against the idea of discontinuity or stop/start. 

CT emphasizes the continuity of scripture – the flow, as a river is a single body of water, and flows from its head to its end.  DT emphasized the changes in scripture — like a river that flows but is quickly confronted by a dam which requires a major diversion of the flow before it continues.

But this does not mean that CT does not recognize changes, nor does it mean that DT does not recognize continuation.  The difference is in the emphasis and how those aspects fit into the puzzle as a whole.  For example, CTer’s often speak of dispensations, and likewise DTer’s often speak of covenants.  But when a CTer speaks of a “dispensation”, he may or may not be talking about a period of time, whereas a DTer is nearly always talking about a period of time.  CT recognizes that “dispensation” can mean either a period of time, but more often, it means to dispense or distribute in the working out of a commission or or tasking.  See Ephesians 3:2 for an example of this.

But let’s get back to the idea of flow and my example of a river.  Imagine a River named “Covenant”, and the head of this river is called “Grace”.  CT speaks of the “Covenant of Grace”, which is the single, continuous, unifying theme of the entire Bible.  We learn of this Covenant of Grace first of all in Genesis 3:15: 

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” 

This is the first time in the Bible we read of a promise from God to save His people.  “It shall bruise they head” is the promise to Adam and Eve and their believing descendants that Christ (the “seed”) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan), thereby silencing the “accuser of the brethren”.

Since God was not obligated to save Adam and Eve, the fact that he DID save them is called “grace”, hence, the Covenant of Grace.  From this point forward, the entire remainder of the Bible is the story of how God brings about the fulfillment of that Covenant.   

Let’s think about these things for now.  Here  are some things I will cover in coming installments:

- The covenant of redemption

- The covenant of works (both of which preceeded the covenant of grace)

-  The issue of discontinuity and “economy” in the dispensational view

-  How does the Law flow in the same direction as the Gospel

- To whom does the Covenant of Grace apply?