The Higher Law of God?
In this post, I am not sure I adequately conveyed my thoughts so this post adds some clarification. If present-day calamities are God’s judgment against America prompting a call to “return to God,” how would America do so? So, when pastors call for America to “return to God,” how is the following assumption in anywise avoidable? “Do what the church says because we represent God’s authority on earth.” And consequently, if America refuses, calamities will occur. Is this not laying claim to a shadow theocracy? And if that theocracy becomes a reality, why wouldn’t evildoers be done away with to prevent natural calamities? Isn’t it better for one gay guy to die than thousands dying in an earthquake? And what would be considered ill behavior evoking the wrath of God? Here is the real point of the former post: the idea that God punishes countries with natural calamities because the people don’t listen to the church is merely one step from ISIS ideology.
And scarier yet is the idea that “God’s law” is a “higher law” than the American Constitution. And I will give you three wild guesses as to who they think the experts are in regard to God’s “higher law.” That would be the church (give me a break, the church doesn’t even have a proper understanding of justification). So, if the church oversees the higher law of God, and “man’s laws” should not have precedent, you do the math; everything would be good in the world if the church ruled on God’s behalf.
Christians consume everything labeled “Christian” that sounds good and pouring forth from the mouths of all who claim to be God’s anointed because they have been certified by puritanical seminaries. But if they would just read the Bible for themselves and have an original thought, they would see that all moral laws come from God. There is NO “higher law” of God, only more specific revelation, and in both cases, to be interpreted by every man, woman, and child according to their own consciences. Governments are God’s ministers to make sure they have the freedom to do so. As I stated in the other post, God’s kingdom is not presently on earth, and it is not the church’s role to rule here on God’s behalf.
The fact is, the works of God’s law are written on the hearts of every human being born into the world:
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
There is no “man’s law” as opposed to some higher law of God. We are not here to invoke God’s law on mankind via authority, we are here to appeal to the God-given consciences of men. Christians need to facilitate good governing as much as we are able. Good governments reward good and punish evil according to God’s purposes which does not include forced subservience because this is God’s kingdom—God’s kingdom is not here yet.
We are not here to promote a theocracy through the institutional church; we are “ambassadors” from a foreign country presently located in heaven. Our appeal is not an authority enforced by God through natural calamities. That notion is egregiously misguided.
paul
It Takes an Atheist to Ask the Right Question: What is the Spirit’s Two Uses of the Law?
This post was prompted by a challenge I received from Facebook dialogue. I can’t say for sure that the person is actually an atheist, but he seems to be at least anti-Christian. At any rate, his question, though a question in the form of a challenge, is the kind of questions that I wish Christians would ask.
One of the biggest problems we have in Christianity today is the assumption that the Reformers did us all a big favor by organizing the Bible into chapters and verses. It is stunning to realize that Christians read the Scriptures without such divisions until the 14th century. Unfortunately, such indexing enables people to skip context entirely and lay claim to orthodoxy based on a pile of single verses. Church historian John Immel has coined this “Scripture stacking.”
Often, the challenge of contesting chapter/verse indexing is daunting. While one verse can seem to plainly state an orthodox principle, it may take an immense exegesis to properly explain a given verse in context. This is why many isolated verses in the Bible seem to clearly contradict other isolated verses; chapter/verse indexing eliminated an emphasis on context. Without verse indexing, context is the emphasis by default, not isolated verses.
But what is most disturbing follows: Christians never ask leaders to reconcile these contradictions which are in fact contradictions when considered as isolated verses only. While the apparent contradictions demand an explanation, very few Christians, including pastors, are asking. But it is a good thing that atheists are, and I insist that this is why atheism is on the rise; Christians can’t answer the questions. In fact, they don’t even know what the right questions are.
If one does not understand the Holy Spirit’s two uses of the law, the Bible will appear to be fraught with contradictions. As a longtime Christian who was always respected as a Bible teacher wherever I showed up, the Bible was mostly confusing to me. Deep down, I knew I understood little about the Bible. That all changed in 2011 when I did an independent pondering of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. That’s when I learned from the Bible what the key is to understanding most of it: the Spirit’s two uses of the law, and by law, I mean the Bible.
In context of the Spirit’s two uses of the law, words like judgment, condemnation, law, love, fear, sin, forgiveness, salvation, redemption, grace, sanctification, to name a few, must be qualified by context. In particular, the word “salvation” does not always mean salvation; it may be referring to redemption which is not the same thing depending on the context.
The Spirit’s two uses of the law is where home fellowships part with the institutional church. At issue is a proper assessment of the true gospel. The same Bible that saved us is not the same Bible that sanctifies us, but it is the same Bible. In context, that is NOT a contradiction; pastors and Christians have to get this. I have told many pastors this to their faces (and will continue to do so), until you understand the Spirit’s two uses of the law, get out of the ministry because you are wholly unfit and are leading your people in bondage under the law. Why is the church a train wreck? Simple: a single perspective on law. Moreover, single verse indexing makes the selling of this single perspective possible.
But let us now get to the question/challenge:
“Love me.” -God.
“Fear me.” -God.
“There is no fear in love.” -God.
Paradoxical contradiction.
Right, those are all verses in the Bible, and when isolated as verses, plain contradictions. Even if Christians where thoughtful enough to ask their pastors to clarify this contradiction, they either wouldn’t know, or the answer would make you grimace. So, here is the biblical answer according to context.
When God commands us to love him, He is speaking in regard to one of the Spirit’s two uses of the law—in regard to sanctification. The Spirit uses the Bible to sanctify the believer (John 17:17). This use of the law only pertains to believers; they are under grace, and IN a loving relationship with God. To love God as a Christian, you learn the Bible and obey it. This also gives more and more life to the believer (Ephesians 6:1-3 among many examples).
This brings us to a linchpin in the conversation: the Bible calls on unbelievers to fear, and Christians to fear, but these are two totally different fears. Let’s speak of the unbeliever’s fear first: this is fear of eternal condemnation. Now we can also include the fact that “sin” in the Bible doesn’t always speak of the same sin. For the unbeliever, sin is entirely different than sin committed by believers. The unbeliever sins against God’s law of sin and death, and this leads to eternal condemnation. The law of sin and death is the other use of the law by the Spirit; he uses it to condemn the world and warn it of the judgment to come (John 16:8). This is the law of sin and death.
This is why Christ died on the cross: to END the law of sin and death FOR those who believe (Romans 10:4). Hence, unbelievers are under law and not under grace (Romans 6:14). But, under grace does not mean that Christians are under no law, they are under the Spirit’s law of life (Romans 7:6 and 8:2). This means believers can use the Bible to please God and love Him and others. Aside from the fact that unbelievers are indifferent to the Bible, all it can do is condemn them. However, for the believer, there is NO fear (that is, fear of condemnation) in love because fear has to do with judgment (1John 4:16-19). Christians are marked by a love for the Bible, but before conversion they were indifferent to it or outright hostile (2Thess 2:10, Psalm 119).
So why should Christians fear? Because their sin is family sin against the Father, and God chastises those He loves (Hebrews 12:6ff., Proverbs 3:12, Revelation 3:19). God takes family sin seriously, therefore, judgment (here meaning chastisement) begins in the household of God (1Peter 4:17). Christians can get a little flippant about love because they are not under law and its condemnation, and God can correct that attitude in ways that gets people’s attention (Acts 5:1-11 1Thess 4:1-6).
A single perspective on these matters denies the new birth. When a believer is born again, the old person who was under the law of sin and death dies with Christ, and is no longer under the law’s condemnation. That person is no longer under that use of the law by the Spirit: to condemn. The same person is also resurrected with Christ by the Spirit and is now under grace and the Spirit’s law of life. There is now NO condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1). In fact, where there is no law, there is no sin (Romans 3:19, 4:15, 5:13, 7:8). The Christian can now aggressively love without fear of condemnation.
Christian misunderstanding of all of this manifests itself when one protests the idea that Christians are yet “sinners saved by grace.” When you protest, they ask what they think is a rhetorical question: “Did you sin today?” Note the single perspective on law and sin which the Bible would define as, under law; the very definition of a lost person. Furthermore, those who understand the Spirit’s two uses of the law are accused of “perfectionism” as I was by a group of pastors recently. It is indicative of steroidal Bible illiteracy. Nevertheless,
“Love me.” -God…as your Father and under the Spirit’s law of life.
“Fear me.” -God…in regard to eternal condemnation as an unbeliever, or chastisement in regard to being my child.
“There is no fear in love.” -God…for those in my Son who ended the law’s condemnation.
Paradoxical contradiction…nope…not at all.
In the final analysis, the challenge posed by the anti-Christian is commendable relative to the dumbed-down Christianity of our day. If only Christians were thoughtful towards the Scriptures to the degree where these kinds of questions would be manifest. Many should take this question posed by said person to their pastor for analysis.
Good luck with that.
paul
The Present Day Evangelical Theocracy
Did you know that evangelicals presently operate a theocracy in America? That’s right. In fact, according to them, the manifestation of it can be seen more and more in current events; namely, any and all natural and man-made calamities. Yep, whether tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, or terrorist attacks, God is judging America for not obeying His authority on earth, the church. And unless America “repents,” the Chief Shepherd will utterly destroy those who dare snub their noses at God’s anointed. Of course, it is framed in context of a direct insult to God, but who is the judge of that? Think about this: is not the assumption that any given calamity is an act of God’s vengeance utterly presumptuous?
Sure, it’s a theocracy only in their own minds constantly verbalized every time God smites America on their behalf because they are suffering under what many of them call the “satanic system of democracy,” but it is also a stark reminder of how these guys would govern if they were able to get in bed with the government. Let’s face it, 99.999% of all evangelicals think it would be absolutely wonderful if America was run by Christians as in the good ole’ days of colonial Puritanism. This displays a stunning ignorance of American history and biblical metaphysics.
And the beat goes on: they invoke the Bible, but in fact, the Bible states that “judgment begins in the house of God.” Sooooo, at what point in history did God judge the church? These guys never fail to make me think about jumping off of a bridge; if some guy goes into a church and shoots the place up, or if a church gets burned down, that’s “persecution,” or the devil’s work. But if the same happens to the world at large, it’s God’s judgment. Calgon take me away! We have a large evangelical church here in Xenia, Ohio that was recently flattened by a tornado and unfortunately rebuilt (as if we need yet another functioning Western style Hindu temple littering the landscape). What do you want to bet that not one soul in that place would disagree that terrorism is God’s judgment on America?
I will close this post with a thought. This thinking comes from the Reformation idea that God’s kingdom is on earth. If Christians would just thoughtfully read their own Bibles for themselves, they would undoubtedly be shocked to find out that God’s kingdom is not presently on earth. And this bad idea, actually false idea, is why evangelical leadership wants us to invest so much in the institutionalization of Christianity.
But it is all totally wrong-headed.
paul
What’s Really Behind Gun Control?
“Anti-gun liberals are not left-wing liberal loons by any stretch of the imagination; they are merely among the metaphysical mainstream of world history.”
Probably one of the most life changing experiences I have ever had was listening to John Immel during our first TANC conference. In one of his usual observations that give dignity to life and practical hope, he noted that people always do what they do for a reason—primarily their logic. Writing people off as “stupid” or mentally ill is lazy thinking; it’s a shortcut. Sure, we have all been driven nuts by the clamoring of liberals to do away with guns in the face of what would seem abundantly obvious: terrorism thrives on the concept of shooting fish in a barrel. And obviously, crime doesn’t pay if you don’t know who is packing and who isn’t. And as far as being invaded by another country, if the public is well armed, that’s just a huge problem for the invaders. “But they will just nuke us.” Probably not because invaders want your country’s stuff, and the stuff is no good if it’s burned up.
So what’s up with these annoying anti-gun nutballs? Once again, I must refer you to Immelism: it’s their presuppositions concerning mankind. In it’s most common denominator, it’s the total depravity of man. That’s just as much a secular concept as it is a religious concept. On this wise, the Socialist and the Protestant kiss. It’s the same old social caste song and dance that began in the cradle of civilization. In the beginning there was Socialism, and it has for the most part ruled the ages. In fact, after enough misery, mankind did not finally say “no” until the 17th century, and finally made the point with muskets in the 18th century resulting in a thing called “America.”
How does the secular/religious doctrine of total depravity work? A. The masses are unable to know reality; B. Some sort of higher power preordains mediators with special knowledge to rule over the masses in the material realm on behalf of the higher power; C. The mediators, who may in some religions actually be visiting avatars who work with additional human mediators, oversee an enforcement class of people who compel the masses to obey the mediators, usually by force. This can manifest itself in a number of different tri-fold applications with the application of government easily discerned in the mix. For examples, simply see “World History.” In regard to the often-heard reasonable concern by liberals that only the “qualified” should have guns for fear that the totally depraved will be constantly shooting themselves in the foot; yes, that would be the desire to see only the enforcer class having guns because they enforce the bidding of the seers.
Simply stated, you either have a government by the government that owns mankind on behalf of the higher powers, or a government by the people and for the people who own themselves, and are directly culpable to a higher power determined by themselves. Whatever that higher power may be, it is generally agreed that the freedom of man is self evident according to natural revelation, and subsequently, it can be said that man owns man, not the government. Why do many who obeyed governments find themselves on the long end of a short rope? Because of natural laws that are self evident to all men. See “America.”
Anti-gun liberals are not left-wing liberal loons by any stretch of the imagination; they are merely among the metaphysical mainstream of world history. Government cannot own mankind if mankind is well armed. The first step to government owning man, of course, for his own good (sarcasm), is disarming mankind by any means possible. Set against this first step is the universal angst among the tyranny of seers: “If only everybody would obey us, and by force if necessary, the world would be at peace!” Only problem is, the tyrants don’t always agree because they have different higher powers. See “The History of Warfare.”
Liberal commentators don’t think you are stupid like you think they are stupid, they just think you can’t understand reality. What is self evident isn’t reality, they have the higher knowledge. If only you would humble yourself and not rely on your own understanding, utopia could be realized. And they don’t want to destroy America by any means, they want her resources so they can destroy the other mediators who worship the wrong powers of their own imaginations.
And of course, they know best, so that’s when you have the right to bear arms—to do their murderous bidding.
paul
John MacArthur’s Utterly Delusional Assessment of Roman Catholicism, Part 3
The Protestant Pot Calling the Catholic Kettle Black
Friday night fun with Paul and Susan @ 6pm live (12/4/2015). call in and talk to the hosts: 347-855-8317. The live link follows:
Tonight @ 6pm: The Protestant Pot Calling the Catholic Kettle Black
Paul and Susan have been evaluating a sermon preached by John MacArthur Jr. in 2005 against Roman Catholicism. However, tonight they will use a different article to aid in further evaluation. The link follows:
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment