Enlightenment Hermeneutics
By R.D. Smith
The second point of the covenant asks, “Who is in charge?” Peter Enns says in his book, Inspiration And Incarnation, that the method of the apostles in interpreting the Old Testament seems odd. He says, “The New Testament writers do some odd things by our standards.” (Maybe we need to change.) He cites several examples of how the New Testament writers seemed to quote Scripture out of context. They did not seem to use our so-called “more enlightened” method. Where did they get the authority to do that?
He even thinks Jesus used an odd (odd to we who are influenced by Enlightenment rationalism) method of proving the resurrection of the body. He quoted what God said to Moses. “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Why would that seem odd? What kind of a God would be the God of men who are dead and gone and will never arise from the dead? He would be the God of the dead. That sounds like the devil. He might as well be the God of cockroaches. His answer certainly stopped the mouths of His adversaries. No one dared to ask more.
The apostles learned from Jesus how to interpret the Scriptures. On the Mount of Transfiguration, God said, “This is My Son. Hear Him.” Hebrews 1:1 says God spoke to us in old times by the prophets but now speaks through His Son. After Jesus arose, He expounded from all three divisions of the Old Testament on the Scriptures that spoke of His passion and resurrection. He taught them how to interpret Scripture. Paul said that the mystery that had been hidden from the ages was now revealed through Christ. Jesus said that “life” from the Old Testament is from those Scriptures that speak of Him.
The method that was taught was that the things in the historical account of the Scriptures were types, copies, and shadows of things that are fulfilled in Christ. The Second temple culture was somewhat familiar with allegorizing, but men like Philo of Alexandria and others were quite fanciful with that method. However, the Alexandrians with whom Stephen debated had no trouble understanding the analogies made by Stephen. He compared Joseph’s rejection and the rejection of Moses to Christ’s rejection. He called the Tabernacle of God the “Tabernacle of Moloch” and implied that the same was true with the temple.
Matthew shows that Christ is the true Israelite when he seems to quote Hosea out of context. “I called my Son out of Egypt.” Hosea was not referring to Christ, he was referring to the nation of Israel. But Matthew is showing us that Israel is a type of Christ. He quotes Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin conceiving and bearing a son, and applies that to Christ. Isaiah was talking about his own son as a sign to King Ahaz. How did he make that connection? It was by way of analogy. When Jesus was taken to Nazareth, Matthew says the prophet said, “He shall be a Nazarite.” Where is that found? This was said to Samson. Evidently Matthew (actually the Holy Spirit) saw Samson as a type of Christ in the same way that Jesus said, “There is one greater than Solomon here. There is one greater than Jonah here. There is one greater than the temple here.” The same logic would make Jesus the greater David, the greater Moses, the greater Joseph, etc.
Where did the apostles get this authority to interpret Scripture this way? “As the Father has sent Me, so send I you.” “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”
The first church council in Acts 15 decided on circumcision. Evidently some of the believers in Jerusalem could not make the analogy that this was a type of baptism. We still have that problem with many believers today. Paul tells us that these things were written as types (Gr tupos). Since Jesus was circumcised, and believers are baptized into the body of Christ, that must mean that believers are also circumcised. They are circumcised by means of being baptized into Christ.
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2:11-12 NIV).
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ (Col 2:16-17 NKJV).
Using this method, Paul saw the Old Testament history and ceremonial law as types of things that were fulfilled in Christ. The unclean foods were gentiles (Acts 10). Hebrews shows us that Christ is our high priest. He is our temple (Rev 21). He is our Passover Lamb, etc.
The prophets, Peter tells us, did not always understand what they were prophesying (1 Peter 1:10-11). The reason they did not was because the Holy Spirit inspired them. The Spirit simply spoke through them and bypassed some of their understanding. Even the High Priest did realize he was prophesying when he said that someone must die for the nation. On the Day of Pentecost the disciples prophesied in unknown tongues (unknown to the speakers). The people gathered from the nations, however, did understand them speaking in their languages in psalms and prophecies. In referring to the gift of tongues, Paul said, “I will pray with the spirit and also with the understanding.” This shows how the Holy Spirit can speak through men while bypassing the understanding. The fact that Isaiah, for example, did not understand that the Spirit was not only referring to Isaiah’s wife bearing a son (Isa 7:14), but was at the same time referring to Christ, also illustrates this. How did Matthew know this? He had been taught by Jesus this method of types, the “already/not yet” motif of prophecy, and was also inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Peter Enns asks, “Should we handle the Old Testament the way the apostles did?” Well, if we do not, we certainly will not understand it the way it should be understood. We are their heirs. We should honor our parents. We are told to not be like the mule that needs a bridle; but to understand the ways of the Lord. If we do not understand the apostolic method of interpretation, we certainly will not understand the Lord and His word. It is obvious that Peter Enns’ Enlightenment rationalism was not the apostolic method of interpretation.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Prophecies Of John Knox
The
Fulfilled
Prophecies
Of
John Knox
By Ron Smith
Churchofthekingmcallen.org
John Knox was the great Reformer and apostle of the reformation in Scotland during the 16th century. He prayed, "God give me Scotland or I die!" God answered that prayer with the greatest reformation of any country.
Modern day Reformers, being influenced by the Enlightenment, would not be comfortable with such a charismatic prophet today. They would say that these gifts passed away when the New Testament was completed. Let us observe with an open mind what the witnesses of that day recorded. May God give us another to come in the spirit and power of Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord.
In 1572 Charles IX of France had the godly Admiral of France murdered. This was followed up with the general massacre of the Protestants throughout France. Seventy thousand were murdered. "For several days the streets of Paris literally ran with blood. The savage monarch, standing at the windows of the palace, with his courtiers, glutted his eyes with the inhuman spectacle, and amused himself with firing upon the miserable fugitives who sought shelter at his merciless gates." "Hired cut-throats, and fanatical cannibals marched from city to city, paraded the streets, and entered into the houses of those that were marked out for destruction. No reverence was shown to the hoary head, no respect to rank or talents, no pity to tender age or sex. Aged matrons, women upon the point of their delivery, and children, were trodden under the feet of the assassins, or dragged with hooks into the rivers; others, after being thrown into prison, were instantly brought out, and butchered in cold blood."
"The intelligence of this massacre (for which a solemn thanksgiving was offered up at Rome by order of the Pope) produced the same horror and consternation in Scotland as in every other Protestant country. It inflicted a deep wound on the exhausted spirit of Knox. Besides the blow struck at the whole Reformed body, he had to lament the loss of many individuals eminent for piety, learning, and rank, whom he numbered among his acquaintances. Being conveyed to the pulpit [in his old age], and summoning up the remainder of his strength, he thundered the vengeance of Heaven against that cruel murderer and false traitor, the King of France, and desired Le Croc, the French ambassador, to tell his master, that sentence was pronounced against him in Scotland, that the divine vengeance would never depart from him, nor from his house, if repentance did not ensue; but his name would remain an execration to posterity, and none proceeding from his loins would enjoy that kingdom in peace. The ambassador complained of the indignity offered to his master, and required the Regent to silence the preacher; but this was refused, upon which he left Scotland." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
This prophecy was fulfilled less than two years later when Charles IX died at the age of 24 and left no heir to the throne.
The Prophecy Concerning Thomas Maitland
Shortly after a godly friend of Knox had been murdered, Knox entered the pulpit and found a note. Thinking it was probably a prayer request he silently read it. It was a slanderous note referring to the murdered friend. Not knowing who had written it, Knox said, concerning the author of the note, "That wicked man, whosoever he be, shall not go unpunished, and shall die where there shall be none to lament him." The man who had written it went home and told his sister "that the preacher was raving, when he spoke in such a manner of a person who was unknown to him; but she understanding that her brother had written the line, reproved him, saying with tears, that none of that man's denunciations were wont to prove idle." That man (Thomas Maitland) later died in Italy, "having no known person to attend him." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
The Queen's Testimony
"John Knox was an eminent wrestler with God in prayer, and like a prince prevailed. The Queen Regent herself had given him this testimony, when upon a particular occasion she said that she was more afraid of his prayers than of an army of ten thousand men. He was likewise warm and pathetic in his preaching, in which such prophetical expressions as dropped from him had the most remarkable accomplishment. As an instance of this, when he was confined in the castle of St Andrews, he foretold both the manner of their surrender, and their deliverance from the French galleys; and when the Lords of the Congregation were twice discomfited by the French army, he assured them that the Lord would ultimately prosper the work of Reformation." (THE SCOTS WORTHIES, by John Howie)
When Queen Mary refused to attend Knox's preaching, he sent word that she would yet be obliged to hear the Word of God whether she like it or not. This was fulfilled when she was arraigned in England.
On another occasion, Knox told the queen's husband, "Have you, for the pleasure of that dainty dame, cast the psalm-book into the fire? The Lord shall strike both head and tail." Both King and queen died violent deaths. (THE SCOTS WORTHIES, by John Howie)
The Prophecy Concerning William Kircaldy of Grange
"He likewise said, when the Castle of Edinburgh held out for the Queen against the Regent, that 'the Castle should spue out the captain (meaning Sir William Kircaldy of Grange) with shame, that he should not come out at the gate, but over the wall, and that the tower called Davis Tower, should run like a sand-glass [an hour glass]; which was fulfilled a few years after - Kircaldy being obliged to come over the wall on a ladder, with a staff in his hand, and the said fore-work [front] of the Castle running down like a sand-brae [sandy hill]." ." (THE SCOTS WORTHIES, by John Howie)
Knox's Defense of His Predictions
Thomas M'Crie tells us that John Knox has been "accused of setting [himself up as] a prophet, presuming to intrude into the secret counsel of God, and of enthusiastically confounding the suggestions of his own imagination, and the effusions of his own spirit, with the dictates of inspiration, and immediate communications from heaven. Let us examine the grounds of this accusation a little. It is proper to hear his own statement of the [basis] upon which he proceeded in many of those warnings which have been [called] predictions. Having in one of his treatises, denounced the judgments to which the inhabitants of England exposed themselves, by renouncing the gospel and returning to idolatry, he gives the following explanation of the [basis] which he had for his threats. He told them if they wanted to know the grounds of his assurance, he hoped they would understand and believe. He said, 'My assurances are not the marvels of Merlin, nor yet the dark sentences of profane prophecies; but the plain truth of God's Word, the invincible justice of the everlasting God, and the ordinary course of His punishments and plagues from the beginning are my assurance and grounds. God's Word threatens destruction to all the disobedient; his immutable justice must require the same; the ordinary punishments and plagues show examples. What man then can cease to prophesy?' We find him expressing himself in a similar way in his defenses of the threats, which he uttered against those who had been guilty of the murder of King Henry, and the Regent Moray. He denies that he had spoken 'as one that entered into the secret counsel of God.' And insists that he had merely declared the judgment which was pronounced in the divine law. In so far then his threatenings, or predictions (for so he repeatedly calls them) do not stand in need of an apology." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
"There are, however, several of his sayings which cannot be vindicated upon these principles, and which he himself rested upon different grounds. Of this kind were, the assurance which he expressed, from the beginning of the Scottish troubles, that the cause of the Congregation would ultimately prevail; his confident hope of again preaching in his native country [when he was a galley slave], and at St Andrews, avowed by him during his imprisonment on board the French galleys, and frequently repeated during his exile; with the intimations [predictions] he gave respecting the death of Thomas Maitland, and Kircaldy of Grange. It cannot be denied that his contemporaries considered these as proceeding from a prophetic spirit, and have attested that they received an exact [fulfillment]. The most easy way of getting rid of this delicate question is, by dismissing it at once, and summarily pronouncing that all pretensions to extraordinary premonitions, since the completing of the canon [the Bible], are unwarranted, that they ought, without examination, to be discarded and treated as fanciful and visionary. Nor would this fix any peculiar imputation on the character or talents of our Reformer [Knox], when it is considered that the most learned persons of that age were under the influence of a still greater weakness, and strongly addicted to the belief of judicial astrology. But I doubt much if this method of determining the question would be consistent with doing justice to the subject. I cannot propose to enter into it in this place, and must confine myself to a few general observations. On the one hand, the disposition which mankind discover to pry into the secrets of futurity, has been always accompanied with much credulity, and superstition; and it cannot be denied, that the age in which our Reformer lived was prone to credit the marvelous, especially as to the infliction of divine judgments upon individuals. On the other had, there is great danger of running into skepticism, and of laying down general principles which may lead us obstinately to contest the truth of the best authenticated facts, and even to limit the Spirit of God, and the operation of providence. This is an extreme to which the present age inclines. That there have been instances of persons having presentiments and premonitions as to events that happened to themselves and others, there is, I think, the best reason to believe. The strong spirits, who laugh at vulgar credulity, and exert their ingenuity in accounting for such phenomena upon ordinary principles, have been exceedingly puzzled with theses, a great deal more puzzled than they have confessed; and the solution which they have given are, in some instances, as mysterious as any thing included in the intervention of superior spirits, or divine intimations. The canon of our faith is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; we must not look to impressions or new revelations as the rule of our duty; but that God may, on particular occasions, forewarn persons of some things which shall happen, to testify His approbation of them, to encourage them to confide in Him in peculiar circumstances, or for other useful purposes, is not, I think, inconsistent with the principles of either natural or revealed religion. If this is enthusiasm, it is an enthusiasm into which some of the most enlightened and sober men, in modern as well as ancient times, have fallen. Some of the Reformers were men of singular piety; they 'walked with God'; they were 'instant in prayer'; they were exposed to uncommon opposition, and had uncommon services to perform; they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and, I am inclined to believe, were occasionally favored with extraordinary premonitions, with respect to certain events which concerned themselves, other individuals, or the Church in general. But whatever intimations of this kind they enjoyed, they did not rest the authority of their mission upon them, nor appeal to them as constituting any part of the evidence of those doctrines which they preached to the world." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
Fulfilled
Prophecies
Of
John Knox
By Ron Smith
Churchofthekingmcallen.org
John Knox was the great Reformer and apostle of the reformation in Scotland during the 16th century. He prayed, "God give me Scotland or I die!" God answered that prayer with the greatest reformation of any country.
Modern day Reformers, being influenced by the Enlightenment, would not be comfortable with such a charismatic prophet today. They would say that these gifts passed away when the New Testament was completed. Let us observe with an open mind what the witnesses of that day recorded. May God give us another to come in the spirit and power of Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord.
In 1572 Charles IX of France had the godly Admiral of France murdered. This was followed up with the general massacre of the Protestants throughout France. Seventy thousand were murdered. "For several days the streets of Paris literally ran with blood. The savage monarch, standing at the windows of the palace, with his courtiers, glutted his eyes with the inhuman spectacle, and amused himself with firing upon the miserable fugitives who sought shelter at his merciless gates." "Hired cut-throats, and fanatical cannibals marched from city to city, paraded the streets, and entered into the houses of those that were marked out for destruction. No reverence was shown to the hoary head, no respect to rank or talents, no pity to tender age or sex. Aged matrons, women upon the point of their delivery, and children, were trodden under the feet of the assassins, or dragged with hooks into the rivers; others, after being thrown into prison, were instantly brought out, and butchered in cold blood."
"The intelligence of this massacre (for which a solemn thanksgiving was offered up at Rome by order of the Pope) produced the same horror and consternation in Scotland as in every other Protestant country. It inflicted a deep wound on the exhausted spirit of Knox. Besides the blow struck at the whole Reformed body, he had to lament the loss of many individuals eminent for piety, learning, and rank, whom he numbered among his acquaintances. Being conveyed to the pulpit [in his old age], and summoning up the remainder of his strength, he thundered the vengeance of Heaven against that cruel murderer and false traitor, the King of France, and desired Le Croc, the French ambassador, to tell his master, that sentence was pronounced against him in Scotland, that the divine vengeance would never depart from him, nor from his house, if repentance did not ensue; but his name would remain an execration to posterity, and none proceeding from his loins would enjoy that kingdom in peace. The ambassador complained of the indignity offered to his master, and required the Regent to silence the preacher; but this was refused, upon which he left Scotland." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
This prophecy was fulfilled less than two years later when Charles IX died at the age of 24 and left no heir to the throne.
The Prophecy Concerning Thomas Maitland
Shortly after a godly friend of Knox had been murdered, Knox entered the pulpit and found a note. Thinking it was probably a prayer request he silently read it. It was a slanderous note referring to the murdered friend. Not knowing who had written it, Knox said, concerning the author of the note, "That wicked man, whosoever he be, shall not go unpunished, and shall die where there shall be none to lament him." The man who had written it went home and told his sister "that the preacher was raving, when he spoke in such a manner of a person who was unknown to him; but she understanding that her brother had written the line, reproved him, saying with tears, that none of that man's denunciations were wont to prove idle." That man (Thomas Maitland) later died in Italy, "having no known person to attend him." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
The Queen's Testimony
"John Knox was an eminent wrestler with God in prayer, and like a prince prevailed. The Queen Regent herself had given him this testimony, when upon a particular occasion she said that she was more afraid of his prayers than of an army of ten thousand men. He was likewise warm and pathetic in his preaching, in which such prophetical expressions as dropped from him had the most remarkable accomplishment. As an instance of this, when he was confined in the castle of St Andrews, he foretold both the manner of their surrender, and their deliverance from the French galleys; and when the Lords of the Congregation were twice discomfited by the French army, he assured them that the Lord would ultimately prosper the work of Reformation." (THE SCOTS WORTHIES, by John Howie)
When Queen Mary refused to attend Knox's preaching, he sent word that she would yet be obliged to hear the Word of God whether she like it or not. This was fulfilled when she was arraigned in England.
On another occasion, Knox told the queen's husband, "Have you, for the pleasure of that dainty dame, cast the psalm-book into the fire? The Lord shall strike both head and tail." Both King and queen died violent deaths. (THE SCOTS WORTHIES, by John Howie)
The Prophecy Concerning William Kircaldy of Grange
"He likewise said, when the Castle of Edinburgh held out for the Queen against the Regent, that 'the Castle should spue out the captain (meaning Sir William Kircaldy of Grange) with shame, that he should not come out at the gate, but over the wall, and that the tower called Davis Tower, should run like a sand-glass [an hour glass]; which was fulfilled a few years after - Kircaldy being obliged to come over the wall on a ladder, with a staff in his hand, and the said fore-work [front] of the Castle running down like a sand-brae [sandy hill]." ." (THE SCOTS WORTHIES, by John Howie)
Knox's Defense of His Predictions
Thomas M'Crie tells us that John Knox has been "accused of setting [himself up as] a prophet, presuming to intrude into the secret counsel of God, and of enthusiastically confounding the suggestions of his own imagination, and the effusions of his own spirit, with the dictates of inspiration, and immediate communications from heaven. Let us examine the grounds of this accusation a little. It is proper to hear his own statement of the [basis] upon which he proceeded in many of those warnings which have been [called] predictions. Having in one of his treatises, denounced the judgments to which the inhabitants of England exposed themselves, by renouncing the gospel and returning to idolatry, he gives the following explanation of the [basis] which he had for his threats. He told them if they wanted to know the grounds of his assurance, he hoped they would understand and believe. He said, 'My assurances are not the marvels of Merlin, nor yet the dark sentences of profane prophecies; but the plain truth of God's Word, the invincible justice of the everlasting God, and the ordinary course of His punishments and plagues from the beginning are my assurance and grounds. God's Word threatens destruction to all the disobedient; his immutable justice must require the same; the ordinary punishments and plagues show examples. What man then can cease to prophesy?' We find him expressing himself in a similar way in his defenses of the threats, which he uttered against those who had been guilty of the murder of King Henry, and the Regent Moray. He denies that he had spoken 'as one that entered into the secret counsel of God.' And insists that he had merely declared the judgment which was pronounced in the divine law. In so far then his threatenings, or predictions (for so he repeatedly calls them) do not stand in need of an apology." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
"There are, however, several of his sayings which cannot be vindicated upon these principles, and which he himself rested upon different grounds. Of this kind were, the assurance which he expressed, from the beginning of the Scottish troubles, that the cause of the Congregation would ultimately prevail; his confident hope of again preaching in his native country [when he was a galley slave], and at St Andrews, avowed by him during his imprisonment on board the French galleys, and frequently repeated during his exile; with the intimations [predictions] he gave respecting the death of Thomas Maitland, and Kircaldy of Grange. It cannot be denied that his contemporaries considered these as proceeding from a prophetic spirit, and have attested that they received an exact [fulfillment]. The most easy way of getting rid of this delicate question is, by dismissing it at once, and summarily pronouncing that all pretensions to extraordinary premonitions, since the completing of the canon [the Bible], are unwarranted, that they ought, without examination, to be discarded and treated as fanciful and visionary. Nor would this fix any peculiar imputation on the character or talents of our Reformer [Knox], when it is considered that the most learned persons of that age were under the influence of a still greater weakness, and strongly addicted to the belief of judicial astrology. But I doubt much if this method of determining the question would be consistent with doing justice to the subject. I cannot propose to enter into it in this place, and must confine myself to a few general observations. On the one hand, the disposition which mankind discover to pry into the secrets of futurity, has been always accompanied with much credulity, and superstition; and it cannot be denied, that the age in which our Reformer lived was prone to credit the marvelous, especially as to the infliction of divine judgments upon individuals. On the other had, there is great danger of running into skepticism, and of laying down general principles which may lead us obstinately to contest the truth of the best authenticated facts, and even to limit the Spirit of God, and the operation of providence. This is an extreme to which the present age inclines. That there have been instances of persons having presentiments and premonitions as to events that happened to themselves and others, there is, I think, the best reason to believe. The strong spirits, who laugh at vulgar credulity, and exert their ingenuity in accounting for such phenomena upon ordinary principles, have been exceedingly puzzled with theses, a great deal more puzzled than they have confessed; and the solution which they have given are, in some instances, as mysterious as any thing included in the intervention of superior spirits, or divine intimations. The canon of our faith is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; we must not look to impressions or new revelations as the rule of our duty; but that God may, on particular occasions, forewarn persons of some things which shall happen, to testify His approbation of them, to encourage them to confide in Him in peculiar circumstances, or for other useful purposes, is not, I think, inconsistent with the principles of either natural or revealed religion. If this is enthusiasm, it is an enthusiasm into which some of the most enlightened and sober men, in modern as well as ancient times, have fallen. Some of the Reformers were men of singular piety; they 'walked with God'; they were 'instant in prayer'; they were exposed to uncommon opposition, and had uncommon services to perform; they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and, I am inclined to believe, were occasionally favored with extraordinary premonitions, with respect to certain events which concerned themselves, other individuals, or the Church in general. But whatever intimations of this kind they enjoyed, they did not rest the authority of their mission upon them, nor appeal to them as constituting any part of the evidence of those doctrines which they preached to the world." (THE LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, by Thomas M'Crie)
Friday, January 21, 2011
Are Miraclulous Gifts For Today?
Are
Miraculous Gifts For Today?
By Ron Smith
Wayne Grudem edited a book titled, “Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?” He shows that among Christian scholars there are five views on the subject. They are (1) the cessationist view, (2) the open but cautious view, (3) the Third Wave view, (4) the Pentecostal view, and (5) the charismatic view.
Grudem gathered scholars from each of the positions and they all wrote and defended each of their stands on the issue. The Pentecostals believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is subsequent to salvation and is accompanied by speaking in tongues. The Charismatics do not all agree on “whether baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to conversion and whether speaking in tongues is a sign of the baptism in the Spirit. The Third Wave people, like Peter Wagner at Fuller Seminary, “teach, however, that baptism in the Holy Spirit happens to all Christians at conversion and that subsequent experiences are better called ‘fillings.’”
The open but cautious people “are open to the possibility of miraculous gifts today, but they are concerned about the possibility of abuses that they have seen in groups that practice these gifts…. They think churches should emphasize evangelism, Bible study, and faithful obedience as keys to personal and church growth, rather than miraculous gifts. Yet they appreciate some of the benefits that Pentecostal, charismatic, and Third Wave churches have brought to the evangelical world, especially a refreshing contemporary tone in worship and a challenge to a renewal in faith and prayer.”
Signs and wonders have always been one of God’s tools, “God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb 2:4 NKJV). To say that signs and wonders passed away when the Canon was completed is to insert into the text something not found there.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away (1 Cor 13:8-10 NKJV).
Did knowledge pass away when the Bible was completed? Do we know even as we are known now? Obviously, that which is perfect is the resurrection. Then, and then only will knowledge, tongues, and prophecies pass away because perfection shall have arrived. To say otherwise is to deny the miracles of Columba and many other saints of history. How about the prophesies of John Knox? (This, however, is no endorsement of the “Elmer Gantry” approach of many “Charismatics” today.)
Some Cessationists say, “If prophecy has not ceased, why not add your prophesies to the Bible?” The answer to this question is because:
1. Many prophecies were made in Bible days that never made it in the Bible or were never written down. Saul met a band of prophets who were prophesying and the Spirit of God came on him and he also did it. Phillip had four daughters that prophesied, but not one of their prophecies is found in Scripture. These are just a couple examples out of thousands of possible instances.
2. The way one can tell a false prophet is if his words contradict the other prophets (Scripture).
3. Many times God reveals things to come that are current. Savonarola prophesied the fall of the Medici power in Florence, the invasion of France, and other events that he promised would happen soon; and they all did. John Knox made many prophecies. John Welch (Knox’s son-in-law) said, “Observe what God is going to do to this young man” (a Catholic guard who was mocking his words with facial expressions). The young man immediately dropped dead. Columba's life by Adamnán records about 100 miracles and visions.
Don Richardson, in his book, Eternity In Their Hearts, tells about the ancient prophecy in the tradition of the Karen tribe of Burma. The oracle went something like this: they had left God and lost His book; but one day a white man would bring God’s book back to them and God would receive them again. One day one of their “prophets” told two men to saddle a pony and follow it wherever it led them; he said it would take them to the white man with God’s book. They followed the pony for 200 miles through jungle and mountains until it walked through the gates of a mission compound. It walked up to the well where they found a white missionary digging below. They asked, “Do you have the book?” 75,000 tribesmen were soon baptized by Baptists. Ten different tribes in the same area had the same tradition.
Bruce Olson tells a similar story about the Motilone Indians. They had an ancient tradition of a prophecy that said a white man would come and God would come out of a banana leaf. Olsen asked, “A banana leaf?” Then one of the Indians cut a banana leaf and it unfolded like the pages of a book. He then pulled his Bible out of his back pocket and began to preach the gospel. The entire tribe was converted. God has not left Himself without a witness.
If the gift of prophecy did not pass away with the completion of the Canon, should not those prophecies be included in the Bible? Of course not. Should the ancient prophecies of the Karen tribe be included in the Bible? Should the prophecies of Columba, St. Francis, St. Benedict, Antony of the Desert, and countless others be included in the Bible? When God infuses light saving conversion, should his revelation be included in the Bible. The answer is obvious.
Those who say the day of miracles is gone or that God does not work through the gifts of the Spirit must deny the miracles of Columba, St. Benedict, Francis of Assisi, the record of the Venerable Bede, and others. On what basis is this denial made? Is it on the basis of one passage in 1 Corinthians 13 that is of debatable interpretation? Is it on the basis of contradictory witnesses? Who were they? On that basis we could deny that Christ arose. Or is it really on the basis of enlightenment thinking? Let us be honest. This is the real reason: humanist presuppositions. The enlightenment has influenced moderns more than we know. It permeates the air. But “Love believes all things” (1 Cor 13).
Why is it that the Scottish Presbyterians before 1700 believed in miracles and after 1800 some say the gifts ceased? Could it be that the humanist Enlightenment had an effect? Are moderns really smarter and more enlightened than the ancients?
On the other hand, there are carloads of charismatic charlatans and plenty of suckers to follow them. Would someone like Columba, Francis of Asisi, or Jesus go on television and merchandise the gifts of God? Unthinkable! Jesus said they should “tell no one.” Let them do like the prophets of the Middle Ages such as Antony of the Desert and Francis of Assisi and take vows of poverty. The modern charlatons, too, are influenced by the Enlightenment.
Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it (Mark 7:36 NIV).
A good example of a modern day prophet with medieval values was Padre Pio of Italy (1887-1968). When he was a young man he fell into a trance and saw a mysterious man hanging on a cross. It frightened him. When he awoke, his hands, feet, and side were bleeding profusely and he suffered with this for fifty years. He cried out to God to take away the embarrassment, but not the pain.
The Catholic Church tested him to make sure this was not of the devil. He was not allowed to minister for ten years. Then they hid him away in a remote Italian village where he stayed the rest of his life. (This is how real integrity responds as opposed to the merchandising arrogance of today's T.V. celebrities. How ironic that so called Protestants should be put to shame by the Roman Church that was so famous for its corruptions in the days of Luther!)
There were many miracles done through Padre Pio’s prayers including multiple healings, exorcisms, and other manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit. A little girl with no pupils in her eyes was instantly made to see. Though he only knew Italian and Latin, he carried on a conversation with an American in fluent English. Once one confessed his sins and Padre Pio asked, “Is that all?' The man said, “Yes, father.” Padre Pio said there was more; “Remember that time under the tree in London in 1942 with that girl?” It scared the man so badly he got converted right then.
Are we to simply dismiss this because the man was a Catholic and believed false doctrines? What man is there that has 100% of his thinking correct? Prophets were never infallible. They had the treasure in earthen vessels (clay bodies). Only the word of God spoken through them is infallible.
Padre Pio was a contemporary of some of those who wanted to “demythologize” the miracles of the Bible; men like Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tilllich, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Albert Schweitzer, and Karl Barth.
How different was Padre Pio – in style and in results. Without publishing a book or delivering a single lecture in a university, he convinced thousands, even in the age of “historical criticism” of the Bible and the “Death of God” theologians, that miracles are not mythology but reality. Through his life and ministry, thousands came to accept the Bible and all the historical doctrines of Christianity as true.
Through the ministry of Padre Pio (and the Bible) we learn that, contrary to Pentecostal teaching, it is not always God's will to heal. Directions must come from God in each case. Sometimes Padre Pio would heal people miraculously and other times he would tell them only their souls could be healed. In some cases he told them they could be healed through an operation.
The fact remains that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The supernatural methods God used in the past will be used in the future. Padre Pio was born poor and died poor. He suffered with much pain his whole life. These are the ideals of Scripture as opposed to the “hot shot” demonstrations of today's charlatans.
Don Codling presented a thesis for Master of Theology to Westminster Theological seminary arguing against the cessation of the spiritual gifts. He says, “Prior to Hume [i.e. prior to the Enlightenment] it was generally held that miracles and other revelatory gifts were evidence showing that a messenger was from God.” This demonstrates that the real reason for denying the gifts is that Hume’s humanism has unconsciously infected modern Christians and their seminaries.
Churchofthekingmcallen.com
Miraculous Gifts For Today?
By Ron Smith
Wayne Grudem edited a book titled, “Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?” He shows that among Christian scholars there are five views on the subject. They are (1) the cessationist view, (2) the open but cautious view, (3) the Third Wave view, (4) the Pentecostal view, and (5) the charismatic view.
Grudem gathered scholars from each of the positions and they all wrote and defended each of their stands on the issue. The Pentecostals believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is subsequent to salvation and is accompanied by speaking in tongues. The Charismatics do not all agree on “whether baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to conversion and whether speaking in tongues is a sign of the baptism in the Spirit. The Third Wave people, like Peter Wagner at Fuller Seminary, “teach, however, that baptism in the Holy Spirit happens to all Christians at conversion and that subsequent experiences are better called ‘fillings.’”
The open but cautious people “are open to the possibility of miraculous gifts today, but they are concerned about the possibility of abuses that they have seen in groups that practice these gifts…. They think churches should emphasize evangelism, Bible study, and faithful obedience as keys to personal and church growth, rather than miraculous gifts. Yet they appreciate some of the benefits that Pentecostal, charismatic, and Third Wave churches have brought to the evangelical world, especially a refreshing contemporary tone in worship and a challenge to a renewal in faith and prayer.”
Signs and wonders have always been one of God’s tools, “God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Heb 2:4 NKJV). To say that signs and wonders passed away when the Canon was completed is to insert into the text something not found there.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away (1 Cor 13:8-10 NKJV).
Did knowledge pass away when the Bible was completed? Do we know even as we are known now? Obviously, that which is perfect is the resurrection. Then, and then only will knowledge, tongues, and prophecies pass away because perfection shall have arrived. To say otherwise is to deny the miracles of Columba and many other saints of history. How about the prophesies of John Knox? (This, however, is no endorsement of the “Elmer Gantry” approach of many “Charismatics” today.)
Some Cessationists say, “If prophecy has not ceased, why not add your prophesies to the Bible?” The answer to this question is because:
1. Many prophecies were made in Bible days that never made it in the Bible or were never written down. Saul met a band of prophets who were prophesying and the Spirit of God came on him and he also did it. Phillip had four daughters that prophesied, but not one of their prophecies is found in Scripture. These are just a couple examples out of thousands of possible instances.
2. The way one can tell a false prophet is if his words contradict the other prophets (Scripture).
3. Many times God reveals things to come that are current. Savonarola prophesied the fall of the Medici power in Florence, the invasion of France, and other events that he promised would happen soon; and they all did. John Knox made many prophecies. John Welch (Knox’s son-in-law) said, “Observe what God is going to do to this young man” (a Catholic guard who was mocking his words with facial expressions). The young man immediately dropped dead. Columba's life by Adamnán records about 100 miracles and visions.
Don Richardson, in his book, Eternity In Their Hearts, tells about the ancient prophecy in the tradition of the Karen tribe of Burma. The oracle went something like this: they had left God and lost His book; but one day a white man would bring God’s book back to them and God would receive them again. One day one of their “prophets” told two men to saddle a pony and follow it wherever it led them; he said it would take them to the white man with God’s book. They followed the pony for 200 miles through jungle and mountains until it walked through the gates of a mission compound. It walked up to the well where they found a white missionary digging below. They asked, “Do you have the book?” 75,000 tribesmen were soon baptized by Baptists. Ten different tribes in the same area had the same tradition.
Bruce Olson tells a similar story about the Motilone Indians. They had an ancient tradition of a prophecy that said a white man would come and God would come out of a banana leaf. Olsen asked, “A banana leaf?” Then one of the Indians cut a banana leaf and it unfolded like the pages of a book. He then pulled his Bible out of his back pocket and began to preach the gospel. The entire tribe was converted. God has not left Himself without a witness.
If the gift of prophecy did not pass away with the completion of the Canon, should not those prophecies be included in the Bible? Of course not. Should the ancient prophecies of the Karen tribe be included in the Bible? Should the prophecies of Columba, St. Francis, St. Benedict, Antony of the Desert, and countless others be included in the Bible? When God infuses light saving conversion, should his revelation be included in the Bible. The answer is obvious.
Those who say the day of miracles is gone or that God does not work through the gifts of the Spirit must deny the miracles of Columba, St. Benedict, Francis of Assisi, the record of the Venerable Bede, and others. On what basis is this denial made? Is it on the basis of one passage in 1 Corinthians 13 that is of debatable interpretation? Is it on the basis of contradictory witnesses? Who were they? On that basis we could deny that Christ arose. Or is it really on the basis of enlightenment thinking? Let us be honest. This is the real reason: humanist presuppositions. The enlightenment has influenced moderns more than we know. It permeates the air. But “Love believes all things” (1 Cor 13).
Why is it that the Scottish Presbyterians before 1700 believed in miracles and after 1800 some say the gifts ceased? Could it be that the humanist Enlightenment had an effect? Are moderns really smarter and more enlightened than the ancients?
On the other hand, there are carloads of charismatic charlatans and plenty of suckers to follow them. Would someone like Columba, Francis of Asisi, or Jesus go on television and merchandise the gifts of God? Unthinkable! Jesus said they should “tell no one.” Let them do like the prophets of the Middle Ages such as Antony of the Desert and Francis of Assisi and take vows of poverty. The modern charlatons, too, are influenced by the Enlightenment.
Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it (Mark 7:36 NIV).
A good example of a modern day prophet with medieval values was Padre Pio of Italy (1887-1968). When he was a young man he fell into a trance and saw a mysterious man hanging on a cross. It frightened him. When he awoke, his hands, feet, and side were bleeding profusely and he suffered with this for fifty years. He cried out to God to take away the embarrassment, but not the pain.
The Catholic Church tested him to make sure this was not of the devil. He was not allowed to minister for ten years. Then they hid him away in a remote Italian village where he stayed the rest of his life. (This is how real integrity responds as opposed to the merchandising arrogance of today's T.V. celebrities. How ironic that so called Protestants should be put to shame by the Roman Church that was so famous for its corruptions in the days of Luther!)
There were many miracles done through Padre Pio’s prayers including multiple healings, exorcisms, and other manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit. A little girl with no pupils in her eyes was instantly made to see. Though he only knew Italian and Latin, he carried on a conversation with an American in fluent English. Once one confessed his sins and Padre Pio asked, “Is that all?' The man said, “Yes, father.” Padre Pio said there was more; “Remember that time under the tree in London in 1942 with that girl?” It scared the man so badly he got converted right then.
Are we to simply dismiss this because the man was a Catholic and believed false doctrines? What man is there that has 100% of his thinking correct? Prophets were never infallible. They had the treasure in earthen vessels (clay bodies). Only the word of God spoken through them is infallible.
Padre Pio was a contemporary of some of those who wanted to “demythologize” the miracles of the Bible; men like Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tilllich, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Albert Schweitzer, and Karl Barth.
How different was Padre Pio – in style and in results. Without publishing a book or delivering a single lecture in a university, he convinced thousands, even in the age of “historical criticism” of the Bible and the “Death of God” theologians, that miracles are not mythology but reality. Through his life and ministry, thousands came to accept the Bible and all the historical doctrines of Christianity as true.
Through the ministry of Padre Pio (and the Bible) we learn that, contrary to Pentecostal teaching, it is not always God's will to heal. Directions must come from God in each case. Sometimes Padre Pio would heal people miraculously and other times he would tell them only their souls could be healed. In some cases he told them they could be healed through an operation.
The fact remains that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The supernatural methods God used in the past will be used in the future. Padre Pio was born poor and died poor. He suffered with much pain his whole life. These are the ideals of Scripture as opposed to the “hot shot” demonstrations of today's charlatans.
Don Codling presented a thesis for Master of Theology to Westminster Theological seminary arguing against the cessation of the spiritual gifts. He says, “Prior to Hume [i.e. prior to the Enlightenment] it was generally held that miracles and other revelatory gifts were evidence showing that a messenger was from God.” This demonstrates that the real reason for denying the gifts is that Hume’s humanism has unconsciously infected modern Christians and their seminaries.
Churchofthekingmcallen.com
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Government Spending
John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual economist whose tax and spend policies Washington is following today. Spending more than we make is the dishonest policy of thieves. Keynesians insist that our condition is so scary that we must give up whatever moral values stand in the way. They believe the wages of sin is life and what a man sows he will not reap. Keynes admitted these policies that oppress the poor cause inflation and a debt that can never be repaid, but said, “We all die in the end, anyway.” Never mind the curse it imposes on our children. Borrowing money you never plan to repay is called stealing. National health care is one such policy that must be defunded. The prophet Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Idol Of Humanism
The Idol Of Humanism
Resentiment (not resentment) is a French word used because there is no English equivalent. Resentiment begins with perceived injury that may have a basis in fact, but more often is occasioned by envy. The result is a persistent mental condition of hatred and the impulse to spite with vengeance. It seeks outlet in doing harm to its object. “Any perceived difference is enough to set the pathology in motion. Resentiment ‘whispers continually: “I can forgive everything, but not that you are – that you are what you are – that I am not what you are – indeed that I am not you.”’ The other’s very existence is a reproach.
President Obama and his ilk are consumed by resentiment. He hates America for existing. He can forgive everything except that America is – that it is what it is – that he is not what it is – indeed that he is not America. America’s very existence is a reproach to him.
In his so-called “social justice” idea A is “played off” against B. The support of the so-called downtrodden is really a disguised attack on the prosperous. The downtrodden is A and the prosperous is B. His “social justice” has its source in this poisonous brew. His “social justice” glories in the praise of the weak and base, if that will also debase the strong and good. American pioneers were once the downtrodden. But once the “downtrodden” become prosperous, they are now the enemy. His goal is therefore not to raise the downtrodden. The goal is to level the playing field by bringing the prosperous down to the level of the downtrodden. In his view, if all Americans were as downtrodden as third world countries, we would all be heroes. He does not understand that all men being created equal guarantees there will not be equal results.
Of course, he and his ilk (the ruling class) exempt themselves. Some are more equal than others. He and his family will not hesitate to live in pompous monarchical opulence. What a contrast with Harry Truman. When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year. After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
Mr. Obama and his ilk resent the fact that God should prosper anyone, except you know who. “Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do” (Deuteronomy 29:9). But beware. You will be a target of resentiment.
The ideas in this article are from Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For Destruction, p. 52-55
Resentiment (not resentment) is a French word used because there is no English equivalent. Resentiment begins with perceived injury that may have a basis in fact, but more often is occasioned by envy. The result is a persistent mental condition of hatred and the impulse to spite with vengeance. It seeks outlet in doing harm to its object. “Any perceived difference is enough to set the pathology in motion. Resentiment ‘whispers continually: “I can forgive everything, but not that you are – that you are what you are – that I am not what you are – indeed that I am not you.”’ The other’s very existence is a reproach.
President Obama and his ilk are consumed by resentiment. He hates America for existing. He can forgive everything except that America is – that it is what it is – that he is not what it is – indeed that he is not America. America’s very existence is a reproach to him.
In his so-called “social justice” idea A is “played off” against B. The support of the so-called downtrodden is really a disguised attack on the prosperous. The downtrodden is A and the prosperous is B. His “social justice” has its source in this poisonous brew. His “social justice” glories in the praise of the weak and base, if that will also debase the strong and good. American pioneers were once the downtrodden. But once the “downtrodden” become prosperous, they are now the enemy. His goal is therefore not to raise the downtrodden. The goal is to level the playing field by bringing the prosperous down to the level of the downtrodden. In his view, if all Americans were as downtrodden as third world countries, we would all be heroes. He does not understand that all men being created equal guarantees there will not be equal results.
Of course, he and his ilk (the ruling class) exempt themselves. Some are more equal than others. He and his family will not hesitate to live in pompous monarchical opulence. What a contrast with Harry Truman. When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year. After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
Mr. Obama and his ilk resent the fact that God should prosper anyone, except you know who. “Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do” (Deuteronomy 29:9). But beware. You will be a target of resentiment.
The ideas in this article are from Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For Destruction, p. 52-55
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Gates Of Hell
…and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies (Genesis 22:17).
God promised that Abraham’s descendants would possess the gate of their enemies. The gate of ancient cities was the place where commerce and government took place. To possess the gate of a city was to possess the political economy of the place. To possess the gate was to possess the city. Who are the enemies of Abraham’s descendents?
To answer that we need to remember that God had rejected all the nations at the tower of Babel because they had chosen to make a name for themselves and to provide their own salvation (social security) instead of trusting God. This insulted God so much that he destroyed their city and confused their languages with the curse of nationalism in order to limit their power and to keep them from uniting in a one-world City of Man. The enemies of God and Abraham’s descendents are the nations of unbelievers.
But God so loved the world that He chose to make a new nation of His friend Abraham and to save the world by giving His only begotten Son that whosoever of any nation that would believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. This is God’s alternative to the salvation of the City of Man.
The first “city builder” in history was a bad guy named Cain. “And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch” (Gen 4:17b). After the flood, the second city builder was another bad guy (Nimrod) who built Babel and seven other cities. The purpose of these cities was to provide salvation (social security). Men thought they could save themselves without regard to God’s covenant. All they needed was a “mighty one” like Nimrod. “Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth” (1Chronicles 1:10). When he built Babel God said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.” What men “began” to do was just that; just the beginning. Men are still doing it in bigger and bigger ways. The City of Man is the alternative to the City of God. Augustus Caesar said, “There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” But instead of the City of Man being the gate to heaven, it was in reality the gate to hell.
All of the early empires in history started from a city. The Assyrian empire started with Nineveh, the Babylonian empire started with Babylon, and the Roman Empire started with Rome. They all started out as city-states. (The word “city” in Greek is polis. We get the word politic from the Greek word for city. The city was the state (i.e. the government).
The promise that Abraham’s descendents would possess the gate of their enemies “began” to be fulfilled when Joseph became the “savior” of Egypt. This pattern continues with Moses plaguing Egypt, Joshua conquering Canaan, David’s kingdom, Daniel in Babylon’s government, and Esther as queen. Then Christ came and now “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ” (Rev 11:15). It was said of the apostles, that “these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king--Jesus” (Acts 17:7). Daniel says, “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). Paul said Abraham’s descendents are heirs of the world (Rom 4:13). He said the world is ours (1 Cor 3:21-22).
Jesus promised that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mat 16:18). Then He said He was going to Jerusalem to be killed (Mat 16:21). Jerusalem was the gate of hades (death) for Jesus. He was safe until He went there. “How the faithful city has become a harlot! It was full of justice; Righteousness lodged in it, But now murderers” (Isa 1:21). Jerusalem had become like the other cities… even worse. No other city up to that time had been guilty of killing God’s prophets and even His own Son!
When Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, He was picturing the church as assailing the City of Man, the very gate of death. Jesus assailed Jerusalem and destroyed it when He came with the Roman armies in fulfillment of Stephen’s teaching. His accusers testified that they “heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:14).
Why are the governments of men called the gate of death? It is because of man’s fallen nature. Man’s effort to save himself and provide social security seems on the surface to be noble, but it is the antithesis to God’s City. It always ends up with an attempt to replace God and goes about to establish its own righteousness. Every religion in the world except Biblical religion ends up worshipping the state as the highest authority and as the source of salvation. The state becomes a god by saying, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves…” (Gen 11:4). Instead of making a name for God, men replace God with their own “political correctness” whose “top is in the heavens,” so to speak. To build bigger and bigger government power is called “statism.” It is the “nanny-state.” It is “Big Brother.”
Does this mean there should be no government? No. The Declaration of Independence agrees with Romans 13 when it says, “Governments are instituted among men.” Romans 13:1 says, “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Edmond Burke said, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
America’s founding fathers clearly understood that government must be limited. Because they understood that the “beastly” 800-pound gorilla could not be trusted, they replaced it with a chimp. But because of man’s corruption the little monkey established by our founders has grown into a monster twice as big as the 800-pounder.
Jesus not only prevailed against Jerusalem, but, after three hundred years conquered Rome by converting Constantine. He also conquered Armenia and Georgia, the first two Christian nation states around 300 A.D. Then He prevailed against the Francs by converting Clovis their king. Charles Martel saved Europe from becoming Moslem in 732 at the Battle of Tours. Then he used Charlemagne to conquer and convert several attacking barbarian nations. Alfred the Great (850 A.D.) of England also established an explicitly Christian nation with Biblical laws that even the king could not break. All of Europe became Christian in government.
Why is it important that governments establish Biblical laws? It is for our children. If the culture is pagan it will influence the children to be sucked in by non-Christian values. This in turn will turn them from Christ because the Law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. If the culture convinces children that fornication is okay, they will be demonized. The whole design of Satan is to abolish God’s standard. No one will come to Christ until the Holy Spirit uses the Law to convince him of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come. The design of Satan is to sear their consciences with godlessness. It is the duty of the government to be “God’s minister to you for good” (Rom 13:4). And “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
The Bible pictures “statist” empires in visions as beastly monsters rising from a sea of mankind. The angel told John that the sea represented mankind (Rev 17:15). They are called “beasts” because they are predatory. They devour other nations and peoples. They exist off the production of others. They do this through taxation and they understand instinctively that God’s Law is an obstacle to their goals. Therefore they must establish their own rules and rage against God’s “bonds” and “cords.” “Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us’” (Psalm 2:1-3). It is “the nature of the beast” to do this. It is the very nature of statism to say, “We have no king but Caesar.”
Nero was the last Caesar of Julius Caesar’s dynasty. Nero was the beast of Rome in the flesh. The letters of his name in Hebrew add up to 666. He did not prevail against the Church even though he made war against the saints and overcame them for a time. His doom was sealed by the word of God.
But even though Nero was the last of the dynasty, others assumed the name “Caesar” as a model of statism. Russia called its kings “Czars” (Russian for Caesar), and Germans called their leaders “Kaisar” (German for Caesar). Men still have this primordial passion to build a city that reaches to the heavens and to make a name for themselves with their various “czars.” ‘“Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’” (John 19:15). This is the alternative: either Christ or Caesar. There is no neutrality. Christ demands that the state submits to Him unconditionally.
If the kingdoms of this world have been replaced by our Lord and His Christ and given into the hands of the people, the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:27), then is it the duty of God’s people to preach against ungodly government? Can you name one prophet in Scripture that did not address politics? Moses was the Lawgiver, Joshua took his place, the elders of Israel were filled with the Holy Spirit, the Judges of Israel were inspired to fight for justice, Samuel anointed kings, Nathan counseled David, David was a prophet/king, Elijah preached to Ahab, and Elisha sat in the house with the rulers of Israel. We could give example after example. The whole thrust of Scripture is aimed at the gates of hell. The Acts ends with Paul headed for Caesar’s household.
The English called the American War of Independence the “Scots-Irish Presbyterian Revolt” because the preachers preached politics from their pulpits. The book, “They Preached Liberty,” documents how they did it. D. James Kennedy wrote the opening introduction to it. Ben Franklin said, “Man will ultimately be ruled by God or by tyrants.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer preached against national socialism and Hitler hung him for it. Socialism is big government statism. It is the gate of hell that the church must assail because it destroys the souls of men. Limited government must control and limit man’s fallen nature that wants to save itself with its “tower of power” and socialist statism.
Socialists call themselves progressives. President Obama has openly admitted that the U.S. Constitution is an obstacle to his statist goals. These “czars” are lawless. They lie when they swear to uphold the Constitution. Their real goal is to “progressively” dismantle it and build a “city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens” where they can rule and save men as if they were gods.
Frederic Bastiat proves in THE LAW that the law of nature (God’s law) has one sole function. Its only purpose is to protect citizens from the plunder of life, liberty, and property. The law cannot save people any other way. When the state (the gate of hell) attempts to save some by plundering others of life, liberty, and property, it has broken the law. When the state is partial to some by plundering others, it is lawless and unjust. True social justice cannot tax some at a higher rate than others. God’s written law says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15). Nowhere does God’s Law of Moses direct the government to give handouts by taxing some in order to favor others. God’s Law commands men to give to the poor out of their own pockets voluntarily and not out of another’s pocket. God’s Law says, “Thou shalt not steal.” It is a documented fact that conservatives give much more to charity than progressives do. Socialists are very anxious to give other people’s money but not their own. Vice President Biden gave less than $1000 to charity from an income of more than $300,000. This is shameless hypocrasy! These people who go about to establish their own righteousness in the name of social justice are the opposite of what they purport to be. Ever since Lyndon Johnson’s hypocritical war on poverty, the poor have been made worse slaves to “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” It is a proven fact that welfare has weakened the poor by making them trust in a god (the state) that cannot deliver. Only our God can supply all our needs according His riches in glory. Which one will you take? There is no neutrality… either trust God or trust Caesar.
And I said: “Hear now, O heads of Jacob, And you rulers of the house of Israel: Is it not for you to know justice” (Mic 3:1)? Who are the “heads of Jacob” and “rulers of the house of Israel?” Are they not the pastors? Why is it that some pastors have no understanding of political economy and cannot see that they have a duty to assail the gate of unrighteous statism? If they did understand they could not possibly say they should not be involved in politics. If they do not preach social justice they are guilty of being “dogs that can’t bark.” “His watchmen are blind, They are all ignorant; They are all dumb dogs, They cannot bark; Sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (Isa 56:10).
These blind watchmen seem to think there is a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. They believe in “two kingdom” dualism. They seem to have a Gnostic notion that separates the material from the spiritual. Abraham Kuyper, the former prime minister of Holland, said, “There is not one square inch of creation of which Christ does not say, ‘Mine.” Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” The battle is raging at the gate of hell, the statist city of man. Join the battle for the souls of men and true social justice.
For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: afflicting the just and taking bribes; diverting the poor from justice at the gate (Amos 5:12).
Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph (Am 5:15).
God promised that Abraham’s descendants would possess the gate of their enemies. The gate of ancient cities was the place where commerce and government took place. To possess the gate of a city was to possess the political economy of the place. To possess the gate was to possess the city. Who are the enemies of Abraham’s descendents?
To answer that we need to remember that God had rejected all the nations at the tower of Babel because they had chosen to make a name for themselves and to provide their own salvation (social security) instead of trusting God. This insulted God so much that he destroyed their city and confused their languages with the curse of nationalism in order to limit their power and to keep them from uniting in a one-world City of Man. The enemies of God and Abraham’s descendents are the nations of unbelievers.
But God so loved the world that He chose to make a new nation of His friend Abraham and to save the world by giving His only begotten Son that whosoever of any nation that would believe in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. This is God’s alternative to the salvation of the City of Man.
The first “city builder” in history was a bad guy named Cain. “And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch” (Gen 4:17b). After the flood, the second city builder was another bad guy (Nimrod) who built Babel and seven other cities. The purpose of these cities was to provide salvation (social security). Men thought they could save themselves without regard to God’s covenant. All they needed was a “mighty one” like Nimrod. “Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth” (1Chronicles 1:10). When he built Babel God said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.” What men “began” to do was just that; just the beginning. Men are still doing it in bigger and bigger ways. The City of Man is the alternative to the City of God. Augustus Caesar said, “There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” But instead of the City of Man being the gate to heaven, it was in reality the gate to hell.
All of the early empires in history started from a city. The Assyrian empire started with Nineveh, the Babylonian empire started with Babylon, and the Roman Empire started with Rome. They all started out as city-states. (The word “city” in Greek is polis. We get the word politic from the Greek word for city. The city was the state (i.e. the government).
The promise that Abraham’s descendents would possess the gate of their enemies “began” to be fulfilled when Joseph became the “savior” of Egypt. This pattern continues with Moses plaguing Egypt, Joshua conquering Canaan, David’s kingdom, Daniel in Babylon’s government, and Esther as queen. Then Christ came and now “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ” (Rev 11:15). It was said of the apostles, that “these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king--Jesus” (Acts 17:7). Daniel says, “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). Paul said Abraham’s descendents are heirs of the world (Rom 4:13). He said the world is ours (1 Cor 3:21-22).
Jesus promised that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mat 16:18). Then He said He was going to Jerusalem to be killed (Mat 16:21). Jerusalem was the gate of hades (death) for Jesus. He was safe until He went there. “How the faithful city has become a harlot! It was full of justice; Righteousness lodged in it, But now murderers” (Isa 1:21). Jerusalem had become like the other cities… even worse. No other city up to that time had been guilty of killing God’s prophets and even His own Son!
When Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, He was picturing the church as assailing the City of Man, the very gate of death. Jesus assailed Jerusalem and destroyed it when He came with the Roman armies in fulfillment of Stephen’s teaching. His accusers testified that they “heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:14).
Why are the governments of men called the gate of death? It is because of man’s fallen nature. Man’s effort to save himself and provide social security seems on the surface to be noble, but it is the antithesis to God’s City. It always ends up with an attempt to replace God and goes about to establish its own righteousness. Every religion in the world except Biblical religion ends up worshipping the state as the highest authority and as the source of salvation. The state becomes a god by saying, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves…” (Gen 11:4). Instead of making a name for God, men replace God with their own “political correctness” whose “top is in the heavens,” so to speak. To build bigger and bigger government power is called “statism.” It is the “nanny-state.” It is “Big Brother.”
Does this mean there should be no government? No. The Declaration of Independence agrees with Romans 13 when it says, “Governments are instituted among men.” Romans 13:1 says, “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Edmond Burke said, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
America’s founding fathers clearly understood that government must be limited. Because they understood that the “beastly” 800-pound gorilla could not be trusted, they replaced it with a chimp. But because of man’s corruption the little monkey established by our founders has grown into a monster twice as big as the 800-pounder.
Jesus not only prevailed against Jerusalem, but, after three hundred years conquered Rome by converting Constantine. He also conquered Armenia and Georgia, the first two Christian nation states around 300 A.D. Then He prevailed against the Francs by converting Clovis their king. Charles Martel saved Europe from becoming Moslem in 732 at the Battle of Tours. Then he used Charlemagne to conquer and convert several attacking barbarian nations. Alfred the Great (850 A.D.) of England also established an explicitly Christian nation with Biblical laws that even the king could not break. All of Europe became Christian in government.
Why is it important that governments establish Biblical laws? It is for our children. If the culture is pagan it will influence the children to be sucked in by non-Christian values. This in turn will turn them from Christ because the Law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. If the culture convinces children that fornication is okay, they will be demonized. The whole design of Satan is to abolish God’s standard. No one will come to Christ until the Holy Spirit uses the Law to convince him of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come. The design of Satan is to sear their consciences with godlessness. It is the duty of the government to be “God’s minister to you for good” (Rom 13:4). And “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
The Bible pictures “statist” empires in visions as beastly monsters rising from a sea of mankind. The angel told John that the sea represented mankind (Rev 17:15). They are called “beasts” because they are predatory. They devour other nations and peoples. They exist off the production of others. They do this through taxation and they understand instinctively that God’s Law is an obstacle to their goals. Therefore they must establish their own rules and rage against God’s “bonds” and “cords.” “Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us’” (Psalm 2:1-3). It is “the nature of the beast” to do this. It is the very nature of statism to say, “We have no king but Caesar.”
Nero was the last Caesar of Julius Caesar’s dynasty. Nero was the beast of Rome in the flesh. The letters of his name in Hebrew add up to 666. He did not prevail against the Church even though he made war against the saints and overcame them for a time. His doom was sealed by the word of God.
But even though Nero was the last of the dynasty, others assumed the name “Caesar” as a model of statism. Russia called its kings “Czars” (Russian for Caesar), and Germans called their leaders “Kaisar” (German for Caesar). Men still have this primordial passion to build a city that reaches to the heavens and to make a name for themselves with their various “czars.” ‘“Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’” (John 19:15). This is the alternative: either Christ or Caesar. There is no neutrality. Christ demands that the state submits to Him unconditionally.
If the kingdoms of this world have been replaced by our Lord and His Christ and given into the hands of the people, the saints of the Most High (Dan 7:27), then is it the duty of God’s people to preach against ungodly government? Can you name one prophet in Scripture that did not address politics? Moses was the Lawgiver, Joshua took his place, the elders of Israel were filled with the Holy Spirit, the Judges of Israel were inspired to fight for justice, Samuel anointed kings, Nathan counseled David, David was a prophet/king, Elijah preached to Ahab, and Elisha sat in the house with the rulers of Israel. We could give example after example. The whole thrust of Scripture is aimed at the gates of hell. The Acts ends with Paul headed for Caesar’s household.
The English called the American War of Independence the “Scots-Irish Presbyterian Revolt” because the preachers preached politics from their pulpits. The book, “They Preached Liberty,” documents how they did it. D. James Kennedy wrote the opening introduction to it. Ben Franklin said, “Man will ultimately be ruled by God or by tyrants.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer preached against national socialism and Hitler hung him for it. Socialism is big government statism. It is the gate of hell that the church must assail because it destroys the souls of men. Limited government must control and limit man’s fallen nature that wants to save itself with its “tower of power” and socialist statism.
Socialists call themselves progressives. President Obama has openly admitted that the U.S. Constitution is an obstacle to his statist goals. These “czars” are lawless. They lie when they swear to uphold the Constitution. Their real goal is to “progressively” dismantle it and build a “city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens” where they can rule and save men as if they were gods.
Frederic Bastiat proves in THE LAW that the law of nature (God’s law) has one sole function. Its only purpose is to protect citizens from the plunder of life, liberty, and property. The law cannot save people any other way. When the state (the gate of hell) attempts to save some by plundering others of life, liberty, and property, it has broken the law. When the state is partial to some by plundering others, it is lawless and unjust. True social justice cannot tax some at a higher rate than others. God’s written law says, “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15). Nowhere does God’s Law of Moses direct the government to give handouts by taxing some in order to favor others. God’s Law commands men to give to the poor out of their own pockets voluntarily and not out of another’s pocket. God’s Law says, “Thou shalt not steal.” It is a documented fact that conservatives give much more to charity than progressives do. Socialists are very anxious to give other people’s money but not their own. Vice President Biden gave less than $1000 to charity from an income of more than $300,000. This is shameless hypocrasy! These people who go about to establish their own righteousness in the name of social justice are the opposite of what they purport to be. Ever since Lyndon Johnson’s hypocritical war on poverty, the poor have been made worse slaves to “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.” It is a proven fact that welfare has weakened the poor by making them trust in a god (the state) that cannot deliver. Only our God can supply all our needs according His riches in glory. Which one will you take? There is no neutrality… either trust God or trust Caesar.
And I said: “Hear now, O heads of Jacob, And you rulers of the house of Israel: Is it not for you to know justice” (Mic 3:1)? Who are the “heads of Jacob” and “rulers of the house of Israel?” Are they not the pastors? Why is it that some pastors have no understanding of political economy and cannot see that they have a duty to assail the gate of unrighteous statism? If they did understand they could not possibly say they should not be involved in politics. If they do not preach social justice they are guilty of being “dogs that can’t bark.” “His watchmen are blind, They are all ignorant; They are all dumb dogs, They cannot bark; Sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (Isa 56:10).
These blind watchmen seem to think there is a dichotomy between the sacred and the secular. They believe in “two kingdom” dualism. They seem to have a Gnostic notion that separates the material from the spiritual. Abraham Kuyper, the former prime minister of Holland, said, “There is not one square inch of creation of which Christ does not say, ‘Mine.” Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, then I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” The battle is raging at the gate of hell, the statist city of man. Join the battle for the souls of men and true social justice.
For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: afflicting the just and taking bribes; diverting the poor from justice at the gate (Amos 5:12).
Hate evil, love good; establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph (Am 5:15).
Friday, October 9, 2009
Today’s Uncle Toms
In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Uncle Tom was the obedient and trustworthy slave of kind slaveholders in Kentucky. He was trusted to keep his word because he had surrendered his life to Christ Jesus. But because his master was in debt, he was forced to sell Tom. Tom was carried away to New Orleans and sold to the evil Simon Legree. Simon Legree hated Tom because he was a meek and obedient Christian. When two female slaves escaped, Tom refused to tell where they were. His cruel master told him he would have his two slaves beat him to death if he would not tell. They beat and beat him until he died. He knew he would die, but he was willing to lay down his life for his slave friends.
How does this apply to today’s situation? Are we able to make the analogy? Star Parker had a radio talk show in Los Angeles in which she would speak against “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” because it was enslaving the poor with welfare programs. She would get daily calls from her fellow blacks who would verbally “beat her to death” for being an “Uncle Tom.” If blacks like Star Parker are Uncle Toms, who is Simon Legree today? Who are his slaves that beat up the today’s “Uncle Tom’s?” To speak pajoritively of Uncle Tom is to speak against Christ. “And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me’” (Mat 25:40).
How does this apply to today’s situation? Are we able to make the analogy? Star Parker had a radio talk show in Los Angeles in which she would speak against “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” because it was enslaving the poor with welfare programs. She would get daily calls from her fellow blacks who would verbally “beat her to death” for being an “Uncle Tom.” If blacks like Star Parker are Uncle Toms, who is Simon Legree today? Who are his slaves that beat up the today’s “Uncle Tom’s?” To speak pajoritively of Uncle Tom is to speak against Christ. “And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me’” (Mat 25:40).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)