"So He said to him, "bring Me a three year old heifer, a three year old female goat, a three year old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other." -Genesis 15:9-10a
"And I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts of it...I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life. Their dead bodies shall be for meat for the birds of the heaven and the beasts of the earth." - Jeremiah 34:18 & 20
A blood covenant was one of the types of covenants made in the Old Testament in which animals were cut in half & the halves were laid across from each other. Both parties involved in making the covenant walked through these animal halves thus signifying "if I break this covenant that I have made, may it be done to me as is done to these animals." God's covenant with Abraham was unique in that he took the responsibility of the both parties upon his shoulders, but for most other covenant's each party was held responsible for their actions before God.
While I do not contend that America is God's country, that we are *the* Christian land, we were founded on Christian principles and Christian influences. Our constitution was written after much blood was spilt in our war for Independence from the illegitimate rule of the British parliament. There was not cutting of animals in half, but I would say there is a case to be made that it was a blood covenant.
The constitution was set forth as a document of negative powers, its intent was to limit the powers of all, but specifically the federal government "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Yet this has not seemed to stop the federal government from greedily grabbing up ever more and more power unto itself. These are real people behind the ominous mask of civil government, blatantly shaking off the fetters of the constitution to do what they please, how they please, when they please.
One has only to look back over just this past year to see how our Constitution, the covenant of the American people, have been violated. NDDA, which allows the indefinite detainment of a US citizen without a trial, the implementation of Obamacare, garnering funds for which there is no constitutional right that the federal government should take such action; the president calling for restriction of firearms; the fourth amendment has been positively BLOWN out of the water. And that is but the tip of the iceberg.
In these times we find ourselves staring at our leaders, (and the true powers-that-be that stand behind them) with tattered pieces of the constitutional covenant dripping from their hands, when will the guilty party(ies) pay?
Oath Keepers have come
for the Covenant Breakers,
the constitution ignoring,
have shown their rule void.
The pages of the treaty
set forth in times past
ripped in two pieces,
animals cut in half
There's a price to be paid
in blood money given
when one party strays
from its promises made.
Rise up! Oh you righteous,
and see your betrayers,
fulfill the punishment
prescribed from of old.
Your obedience is forfeit,
shattered like the covenant.
Revolt in disobedience;
and keep your solemn oath given.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Death of Western Civilization
If you say that the West is dying many people will call you a conspiracy nut. They will tell you that we are progressing, if we could only have a little more immigration, a little more tolerance, and a little more education, we could solve any crime or cultural clash problems we are having.
I'm telling you they're wrong.
The west is dying, and no amount of immigration, tolerance, or education is going to save it. It's dying because we have forgotten her roots in Christianity. What I have to say here is not anything that has not been said better somewhere else, but it's still true, and you can never have the truth in too many places.
When I say "West" I'm not simply referring to America, Europe is a mess too. America is the last in a long chain of dominoes, and I'm not informed enough to say which country fell first.
The Stockholm riots have been in the news lately, just take a glance at this article to understand how well immigration is working out for Sweden, and for insight as to how giving people an education and a leg up is not the answer to solving the race problem. A multicultural utopia is a Marxist ideal, and it's bound to fail. However, in Germany, they are so committed to the this utopia that some are calling the genocide of the German race, as you can see in the pictures in this blogpost. Apparently they are so committed to multiculturalism they want to destroy their own country in favor of it, ironically they call for the destruction of Germany, nationalism, and the forming of a nation with no borders using the German language, I guess they have at least little use for their heritage that they claim to despise, but they don't seem to make the connection that if they got what they wanted their signs in German would be useless, as really a sign in any language would be. Here's a great article on generational warfare, read the first half to understand how immigration is being used in terms of warfare tactics.
In France you can see the nation fighting homosexual marriage (as we are here in the states) which is a death sentence for any culture. Sodomy is a death sentence by it's very nature, it is the fulfilling of sexual lusts in a way that does not pro-create, and is more likely to spread disease. Not only that, but it is a succumbing to sexual deviancy in a far different, and more serious, manner then heterosexual adultery. In heterosexual adultery you see man denigrating the marriage bed, and this is a problem. But Sodomy is forsaking the natural use of the body and engaging in unnatural acts, and once we have given the head-nod to that we are asking for a land slide of moral death and decay.
Of course France is dealing with other problems as well. A group that started out (supposedly) as a Ukrainian group of woman protesting against the rape has now turned into a hoard of out-of-control woman running around topless, with slogans painted on their naked breasts, screaming like banshees and fighting against the church (or at least Catholicism) any idea of male headship or female submission, calling for Muslim women to strip naked (NOT that I agree with the Muslim version of male headship) and contending for the right of Sodomy. In another article (warning, explicit content) one of the leaders for la femme, or femen, claims that because men think they have the right to talk to her that France is as sexist as any other country. "When I suggested that at least there was less sexism in France than in her homeland, she disagreed. "In France, as in Ukraine, men make comments when I walk by, they try to touch me, they think they have the right to talk to me."" Naturally I don't condone inappropriate behavior, but these women obviously have lost the idea that woman was made for man, and vice versa, and seems to think that as long as a man finds her sexually attractive she can never be free.
I'm telling you they're wrong.
The west is dying, and no amount of immigration, tolerance, or education is going to save it. It's dying because we have forgotten her roots in Christianity. What I have to say here is not anything that has not been said better somewhere else, but it's still true, and you can never have the truth in too many places.
When I say "West" I'm not simply referring to America, Europe is a mess too. America is the last in a long chain of dominoes, and I'm not informed enough to say which country fell first.
The Stockholm riots have been in the news lately, just take a glance at this article to understand how well immigration is working out for Sweden, and for insight as to how giving people an education and a leg up is not the answer to solving the race problem. A multicultural utopia is a Marxist ideal, and it's bound to fail. However, in Germany, they are so committed to the this utopia that some are calling the genocide of the German race, as you can see in the pictures in this blogpost. Apparently they are so committed to multiculturalism they want to destroy their own country in favor of it, ironically they call for the destruction of Germany, nationalism, and the forming of a nation with no borders using the German language, I guess they have at least little use for their heritage that they claim to despise, but they don't seem to make the connection that if they got what they wanted their signs in German would be useless, as really a sign in any language would be. Here's a great article on generational warfare, read the first half to understand how immigration is being used in terms of warfare tactics.
In France you can see the nation fighting homosexual marriage (as we are here in the states) which is a death sentence for any culture. Sodomy is a death sentence by it's very nature, it is the fulfilling of sexual lusts in a way that does not pro-create, and is more likely to spread disease. Not only that, but it is a succumbing to sexual deviancy in a far different, and more serious, manner then heterosexual adultery. In heterosexual adultery you see man denigrating the marriage bed, and this is a problem. But Sodomy is forsaking the natural use of the body and engaging in unnatural acts, and once we have given the head-nod to that we are asking for a land slide of moral death and decay.
Of course France is dealing with other problems as well. A group that started out (supposedly) as a Ukrainian group of woman protesting against the rape has now turned into a hoard of out-of-control woman running around topless, with slogans painted on their naked breasts, screaming like banshees and fighting against the church (or at least Catholicism) any idea of male headship or female submission, calling for Muslim women to strip naked (NOT that I agree with the Muslim version of male headship) and contending for the right of Sodomy. In another article (warning, explicit content) one of the leaders for la femme, or femen, claims that because men think they have the right to talk to her that France is as sexist as any other country. "When I suggested that at least there was less sexism in France than in her homeland, she disagreed. "In France, as in Ukraine, men make comments when I walk by, they try to touch me, they think they have the right to talk to me."" Naturally I don't condone inappropriate behavior, but these women obviously have lost the idea that woman was made for man, and vice versa, and seems to think that as long as a man finds her sexually attractive she can never be free.
Meanwhile in to England we see multiculturalism take its ultimate toll as a man (a English soldier in civvies) was murdered on the streets while his killers stuck around for an interview, not caring to be caught as long as their dastardly deed received publicity. Remember, England has extremely restrictive gun laws so although some brave women tried to protect the body of the already dead and mutilated man, there was no one around to deal properly with the murders until the police arrived twenty minutes later...good thing these men seemed more intent on making a point then going on a killing spree.
Canada's hate crime laws try to make people tolerant by force, makes sense...right? Here the death of Christianity is seen clearly. As Rushdoony says, law is a moral code. You cannot make a law that is not enforcing some sort of morality, and right now it's obviously not Christian Biblical law in place, and we all are suffering for it.
In Spain we see almost what we could call a civil war as firefighters and police clash against each other as Spain can no longer economically continue to sink itself into ungodly debt and the unioned firefighters protest government cuts of their government jobs.
Not to be left behind in this muck race is our own dear country. America the beautiful succumbed to taking a bite of the forbidden fruit a long time ago, and is now trying to open her cavernous mouth wide enough to devour the whole tree. Abortion, Sodomy, government subsidized, poisonous (for insects and humans) food supply in the form of GMOs are just a few things we have freely allowed to trample our Christian beliefs. One has only to look at our trillion dollar deficit, at how Washington D.C. engages in word games in order to cover up lies (think Benghazi, Fast & Furious) and intentionally allows the murder of its own people, to see that we are no longer a nation under God.
The west it dying, not with laments, weeping, or wailing, but with shouts of acclamation and cheers of approbation.
Canada's hate crime laws try to make people tolerant by force, makes sense...right? Here the death of Christianity is seen clearly. As Rushdoony says, law is a moral code. You cannot make a law that is not enforcing some sort of morality, and right now it's obviously not Christian Biblical law in place, and we all are suffering for it.
In Spain we see almost what we could call a civil war as firefighters and police clash against each other as Spain can no longer economically continue to sink itself into ungodly debt and the unioned firefighters protest government cuts of their government jobs.
Not to be left behind in this muck race is our own dear country. America the beautiful succumbed to taking a bite of the forbidden fruit a long time ago, and is now trying to open her cavernous mouth wide enough to devour the whole tree. Abortion, Sodomy, government subsidized, poisonous (for insects and humans) food supply in the form of GMOs are just a few things we have freely allowed to trample our Christian beliefs. One has only to look at our trillion dollar deficit, at how Washington D.C. engages in word games in order to cover up lies (think Benghazi, Fast & Furious) and intentionally allows the murder of its own people, to see that we are no longer a nation under God.
The west it dying, not with laments, weeping, or wailing, but with shouts of acclamation and cheers of approbation.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Providential care
Makes one a little more reflective of how providence works.
I thought God had blessed me with that car because I had worked hard in order to buy it without debt (following His word), or because it came at a time when I really needed it (I was working two jobs and going to college) He was faithfully providing for my every need. Not that those aren't true, but there's also the fact that the purpose He gave me that car is because He knew I'd be getting in that accident, and He knew He was going to protect me, and He knew that that car would be the means to the end, that it would be big enough to take the impact. Of course, it's still remarkable I came away from the crash, despite what the size of the car is, but that doesn't mean these things weren't in His purpose when He provided for me.
I'll be the first person to tell you that I expect God to change my plans, because He does it so often. No sooner do I think I've found my life course then *BOOM*, I'm walking down a different road. It's funny, because this time I thought I finally had it, that I was doing what I was supposed to be doing . Not that I'm not, but I'm very expectant right now as to how God is going to provide for me through this, in a sort of excited and anticipatory sitting-on-the edge-of-your-seat way. I thought that everything was in line and provided for me in terms of midwifery, I had a car, I had an apprenticeship, I had a little bit of money saved up to live off of since I wouldn't be able to hold a steady job as a midwife, buuuut...
If I look at in a different angle I see, maybe God allowed me to save this money up so that I would have what I needed in order to buy a car after the accident, and trust Him to provide in the years I'm doing an apprenticeship. Maybe the way I thought I was going to do an apprenticeship (three years full-time and then done) was not what He had planned. Maybe He wants me to continue my education as I begun it, working, and then school, working, school. etc. Maybe He's going to provide for me in a way that I won't have to, that I'll have enough money after I buy a car to live off of while I'm apprenticing. But just the fact that I do have money enough to buy another car after this accident, is an example of God's forethought and provision.
All this to say, I know that it's impossible to know the mind of God in its entirety: "8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord". But I also know "that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." And its interesting for me to see, because of the accident, how God provides in such a manifold way. Yes, He provided for me with that car, with the places it got me too, with the money I was able to earn/save with it, and yet on the other hand He is providing for me in another way by taking it away. Its hard for my mind to fathom how God can faithfully provide in so many areas by what seems like one simple provision to begin with. Though I can't quite grasp it, at the edge of my mind I catch a glimmering of how vast, how complex, His plans are. I can't explain it well, but I can see it out of the corner of my eye. I can't do much more than that because its too big for me to wrap my mind around it.
Then there's the "Why me?" question. Not that I regret being alive, but, and I say this without any melodrama, I did have a near-death experience. Not that I nearly died in the sense of I was standing at heavens gates because of a terminal illness, and then I had a remarkable recover, no not that sensational. In the realm of physics, I should be dead, I should not of come away from that accident, I should of been crushed. So what was it that God saved me for, "why me?" (It's almost a scary question, it makes me feel as if I'm responsible to DO something with my life.) Yes, I already knew Christ died that I might live, I know that He already saved my soul from death, but this accident brings the realization home in a way that being a Christian already should of. I took it for granted that I was saved, not that I thought I had done anything, I just took it for granted that Christ saved me, it seemed quite a natural state for me. However we as Christians should all realize that salvation is a very unnatural state for fallen man, and be asking that question "why me?" in gratitude and awe.
Although ultimately the answer comes down to the fact that it was because of God's good pleasure, I think having asked that question, and having it prominent in our mind, it will help us to live with a very concise purpose, it should help us to orient our lives in such a manner that our they reflect our gratitude for being saved, and work to bring glory to Christ for the joy of our salvation by witnessing, by bearing the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. To be brought so close to death, and then snatched back up into life is a very real-world scenario of how Christ plucks us from the hoards of the lost, and brings us to Himself, except for the fact that Spirituality speaking we are not "nearly dead" but "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,"
Let us praise Him.
"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
Sunday, March 24, 2013
The Evolution of Customer Service and Employee-Employer relationships
Part of my past work history includes working in a coffee shop for about a year and a half. Recently I've taken a temporary job running a small country store, it's a legitimate *country* store (think, the store fits into a two car garage). It's lambing season right now and the owners are kind of busy. While working there on Saturday I couldn't help but reflect on the difference between working at the coffee shop, a more commercialized industry, and working at the country store.
At the coffee shop customer service means getting the customer in and out as fast as you possibly can, yet capitalizing those few minutes that the customer is in there by making them feel welcome and as if they have a relationship with you by rushed and hurried chit-chat. Not only that, but each mistake was closely monitored and lectures were delivered if too many mistakes were made. Also, if a mistake were made on the drink we were not allowed to offer it to the customer, but had to dump the drink down the drain.
In comparison at the country store, when the owners are there, they take as long as necessary with each customer, chit-chatting about the weather, kids, farming things, answering questions about the store, and so on. The people who are waiting their turn wait patiently, or engage in the conversation themselves. They know that their turn is coming and that the owners will take just as much painstaking care with them. Also, the owners are frequently giving away stuff. Is this good advertising? Undoubtedly, but I know these people; they are good, generous people. They give because they can, because they want to, not simply because it's good business.
Back when I was a barista we were allowed one "specialty" drink per shift. These were also closely monitored. Putting whip on a non-whip drink was discouraged, or adding syrup to brewed coffee (which was unlimited and free for employees) was considered a shift drink. My pay was at minimum wage, (plus a tip jar) when I had worked there for a year I received a nickel raise. When there was down time we were encouraged to constantly stay busy...or at least look busy. There was much unnecessary "busywork" that was done (aside from a legitimate chore/cleaning chart) simply to look busy. Our boss had camera's installed with which she could watch us from home.
Skip forward to working in a country store. The owners are as generous to their employees' as they are to their customers. If I am hungry I'm encouraged to eat or drink some of the product from the cooler. My starting wage is far above what's necessary for tending such a low-maintenance shop. The owners encourage me to bring a book or something to keep my hands busy when I'm slow. Do they have stuff that they'd like me to do? Yes. But it's stuff that actually needs being done, and isn't just silly work so that they feel I'm earning my keep.
What's the outcome?
Well, as an employee I *want* to work hard for them. I find things to do that I'm not told to. I serve with a joyful spirit, and do everything I can not to take advantage of their generosity. Did I do the same at my old place of employment? Yes, as a Christian I felt it was my duty to glorify God through hard work. But I always had a sense of dread hanging over me for any mistakes I might make.
My question is this - How did customer service go from being an intentional time of devotion to the customer in order to make sure they got what they really wanted, seeing that they were treated as a member of community that you were well acquainted with, and treating them to generosity; to getting someone in and out of the store as fast as possible, with as much stuff as you could force/suggest them to buy, while making small talk to make sure they enjoyed their "experience"?
How did we go from a mutual appreciation in the relationship between the employer-employee to a relationship where they both try to take advantage of each other however they possibly could?
Was it the development of transportation, and hence a loss of community? Was it the coming of mass production and huge corporations? Was it the growing commercialization of the West in general? Was it the dying of Christian principles and a loss of understanding in what it meant to love God and one another?
I believe the answer to all the questions about is "yes."
In abandoning Christ we have lost much. Do I believe cars, trains, and buses are wrong? No. But it certainly allows for a great deal more of unaccountably, it allows for a thief to rob their master and skip town fast. It allows for people to run away from their small town (and church) where everyone knows everything about them.
Mass production has taken from us an appreciation of how much work is put into producing something. Huge companies have taken the humanity out of employee-employer relationship. Commercialization and the advertisement emphasis has made us look to how much money we can make in order to buy what we don't need.
The Christian principles, laws that involve not going into a debt filled lifestyle, not extorting, not stealing, are in their death throws here in the West. Money is the sole focus, debt is a necessary evil (if viewed as an evil at all) and "loving your neighbor" is considered a sappy sentimental way of life that Jesus suggested, not a command to follow the law when dealing in all things. Romans 13:8-10 addresses all of these categories nicely.
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "you shall not commit adultery," "you shall not murder," "you shall not steal," "you shall not bear false witness," "you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment , are all summed up in this saying, namely, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
At the coffee shop customer service means getting the customer in and out as fast as you possibly can, yet capitalizing those few minutes that the customer is in there by making them feel welcome and as if they have a relationship with you by rushed and hurried chit-chat. Not only that, but each mistake was closely monitored and lectures were delivered if too many mistakes were made. Also, if a mistake were made on the drink we were not allowed to offer it to the customer, but had to dump the drink down the drain.
In comparison at the country store, when the owners are there, they take as long as necessary with each customer, chit-chatting about the weather, kids, farming things, answering questions about the store, and so on. The people who are waiting their turn wait patiently, or engage in the conversation themselves. They know that their turn is coming and that the owners will take just as much painstaking care with them. Also, the owners are frequently giving away stuff. Is this good advertising? Undoubtedly, but I know these people; they are good, generous people. They give because they can, because they want to, not simply because it's good business.
Back when I was a barista we were allowed one "specialty" drink per shift. These were also closely monitored. Putting whip on a non-whip drink was discouraged, or adding syrup to brewed coffee (which was unlimited and free for employees) was considered a shift drink. My pay was at minimum wage, (plus a tip jar) when I had worked there for a year I received a nickel raise. When there was down time we were encouraged to constantly stay busy...or at least look busy. There was much unnecessary "busywork" that was done (aside from a legitimate chore/cleaning chart) simply to look busy. Our boss had camera's installed with which she could watch us from home.
Skip forward to working in a country store. The owners are as generous to their employees' as they are to their customers. If I am hungry I'm encouraged to eat or drink some of the product from the cooler. My starting wage is far above what's necessary for tending such a low-maintenance shop. The owners encourage me to bring a book or something to keep my hands busy when I'm slow. Do they have stuff that they'd like me to do? Yes. But it's stuff that actually needs being done, and isn't just silly work so that they feel I'm earning my keep.
What's the outcome?
Well, as an employee I *want* to work hard for them. I find things to do that I'm not told to. I serve with a joyful spirit, and do everything I can not to take advantage of their generosity. Did I do the same at my old place of employment? Yes, as a Christian I felt it was my duty to glorify God through hard work. But I always had a sense of dread hanging over me for any mistakes I might make.
My question is this - How did customer service go from being an intentional time of devotion to the customer in order to make sure they got what they really wanted, seeing that they were treated as a member of community that you were well acquainted with, and treating them to generosity; to getting someone in and out of the store as fast as possible, with as much stuff as you could force/suggest them to buy, while making small talk to make sure they enjoyed their "experience"?
How did we go from a mutual appreciation in the relationship between the employer-employee to a relationship where they both try to take advantage of each other however they possibly could?
Was it the development of transportation, and hence a loss of community? Was it the coming of mass production and huge corporations? Was it the growing commercialization of the West in general? Was it the dying of Christian principles and a loss of understanding in what it meant to love God and one another?
I believe the answer to all the questions about is "yes."
In abandoning Christ we have lost much. Do I believe cars, trains, and buses are wrong? No. But it certainly allows for a great deal more of unaccountably, it allows for a thief to rob their master and skip town fast. It allows for people to run away from their small town (and church) where everyone knows everything about them.
Mass production has taken from us an appreciation of how much work is put into producing something. Huge companies have taken the humanity out of employee-employer relationship. Commercialization and the advertisement emphasis has made us look to how much money we can make in order to buy what we don't need.
The Christian principles, laws that involve not going into a debt filled lifestyle, not extorting, not stealing, are in their death throws here in the West. Money is the sole focus, debt is a necessary evil (if viewed as an evil at all) and "loving your neighbor" is considered a sappy sentimental way of life that Jesus suggested, not a command to follow the law when dealing in all things. Romans 13:8-10 addresses all of these categories nicely.
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "you shall not commit adultery," "you shall not murder," "you shall not steal," "you shall not bear false witness," "you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment , are all summed up in this saying, namely, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Political Dabbling
Some of you may have heard of something that went down in the south involving the CPAC (conservative political action conference) and a man names Scott Terry. I've read several different articles, that I'm not linking here about this incident. It seems that things are being contributed to this man, such as that he was advocating for slavery, which he never said and explains that here.
Just in case someone wants to read an accurate report, here's a link that takes the time to quote Terry correctly. And here is a website explaining the morality behind what Terry said. Last of all here's an overview of the event at large.
From what I've heard (that's TRUE) of the incident, and having the southern roots that I do, I appreciate that someone was taking a stand instead of letting the old south get demonized. I also appreciate them making the case that whites are getting disenfranchised. I wish the mainstream media wouldn't lie and defame people who have the guts to speak the truth.
Just in case someone wants to read an accurate report, here's a link that takes the time to quote Terry correctly. And here is a website explaining the morality behind what Terry said. Last of all here's an overview of the event at large.
From what I've heard (that's TRUE) of the incident, and having the southern roots that I do, I appreciate that someone was taking a stand instead of letting the old south get demonized. I also appreciate them making the case that whites are getting disenfranchised. I wish the mainstream media wouldn't lie and defame people who have the guts to speak the truth.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Old and New Testament God, or Gods?
I don't know about you but I often converse with people who imply, if not outright claim, that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament were two different Gods. Or at least a God with two different dispositions, so vastly different that He appears to be bipolar. In the New Testament He is a loving cushy God, a Father who can be driven to tears about the actions of His children, which he cannot control. In the Old Testament He is a grumpy old School master that wants to kill everybody and is always finding fault with His charges.
For this reason, and because people don't like how "unloving" the Old Testament God is, the Old Testament is frequently discounted and laid aside. Everything but the Ten Commandments of course, but only a very narrow of interpretation of these are allowed.
I've put in a fair amount of driving time and my father has been kind enough to provide me with listening material. This week the point that grabbed my attention had to do with the above mentioned issue. The verse below was the text used to deal with it. Although there are plenty of more direct ways of dealing with this topic, good ways, this method was what was recently presented to me and one I had never heard before. It's always exciting for me to make new connections regarding the scriptures.
Acts 17:11-12
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."
The speaker pointed out that those who were being addressed only had the Old Testament to search, and that they were able to find out that Paul was speaking the truth by searching it alone. This simple fact proves three points
1.) That the Old Testament is not obsolete. It was used to test the veracity of New Testament preaching, and is still valid for teaching today.
2.) The God described in the Old Testament is in actuality enough alike to the God of the New Testament for the people being preached to recognize them as the same. We can see here that obviously there must be a clear continuity between the Old and New Testament material, and the God of both.
3.) If the gospel being preached from today's pulpits cannot be compared with the Old Testament teachings then it is likely not the gospel being preached.
Finally, the God of the Old Testament did not scare these people away "therefore many of them believed."
Today it seems we are so concerned with making God seeming loving and nice that we stop preaching the God of scriptures. We forget that it is only the God of scriptures Who can bring salvation, and He is mighty to save. Yes, He is a God of righteous holiness, justice, and wrath, but this makes His gift of grace and mercy, Christ on the cross, all the more unbelievable.
Furthermore we can never keep the message of Christ on the cross in the proper perspective unless we recognize God's concern for His holiness, which is set forth clearly in the Old Testament. Did Christ die on the cross because of love for us? Yes. But the primary reason in His mind was His Father's glory, as it always should be for Christians as well.
God had promised the death of the sinner at the fall "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16-17 Now, it is true that on the day that Adam and Eve ate of the tree they began to die, but they did not immediately physically die. Also, God made it clear that they would have children, and as long as any one of their descendants lived on then Adam and Eve lived on as great, great, great, etc. grandparents and thus were not entirely "dead" in the sense that all they were would cease to exist.
God's infallible word was in question. He had said they would die, and yet they had not. Does God not keep His word? No, because of His mercy God delayed the death sentence for Adam and Eve. Yet He still had to fulfill what He swore to them, or be called a liar. We can see a hint of God's plan for redemption in verse fifteen of Genesis two when God tells the Serpent that the Seed of Eve would bruise (crush) his head.
Jesus came along of the Davidic line, of the Noahic line, of Seth's line, and finally of Adam's lineage. He was to die the physical death that had been promised to Adam. He was to take the old man of Adam's nature and upon Himself (not that He was sinful but He took our sin upon Himself) and at the cross fulfill God's promise of death to Adam. He died a complete physical death due to our sin, if we had not sinned, or if God had not chosen to have mercy upon us, Christ would never have needed to die. Who made the promise of a redeemer? Who had mercy on Adam delaying his death sentence until one who could fulfill God's oath and die in Adam's place came along, and yet give eternal life to Adam's seed? It was the God of the Old Testament that so many accuse of being unloving.
For this reason, and because people don't like how "unloving" the Old Testament God is, the Old Testament is frequently discounted and laid aside. Everything but the Ten Commandments of course, but only a very narrow of interpretation of these are allowed.
I've put in a fair amount of driving time and my father has been kind enough to provide me with listening material. This week the point that grabbed my attention had to do with the above mentioned issue. The verse below was the text used to deal with it. Although there are plenty of more direct ways of dealing with this topic, good ways, this method was what was recently presented to me and one I had never heard before. It's always exciting for me to make new connections regarding the scriptures.
Acts 17:11-12
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."
The speaker pointed out that those who were being addressed only had the Old Testament to search, and that they were able to find out that Paul was speaking the truth by searching it alone. This simple fact proves three points
1.) That the Old Testament is not obsolete. It was used to test the veracity of New Testament preaching, and is still valid for teaching today.
2.) The God described in the Old Testament is in actuality enough alike to the God of the New Testament for the people being preached to recognize them as the same. We can see here that obviously there must be a clear continuity between the Old and New Testament material, and the God of both.
3.) If the gospel being preached from today's pulpits cannot be compared with the Old Testament teachings then it is likely not the gospel being preached.
Finally, the God of the Old Testament did not scare these people away "therefore many of them believed."
Today it seems we are so concerned with making God seeming loving and nice that we stop preaching the God of scriptures. We forget that it is only the God of scriptures Who can bring salvation, and He is mighty to save. Yes, He is a God of righteous holiness, justice, and wrath, but this makes His gift of grace and mercy, Christ on the cross, all the more unbelievable.
Furthermore we can never keep the message of Christ on the cross in the proper perspective unless we recognize God's concern for His holiness, which is set forth clearly in the Old Testament. Did Christ die on the cross because of love for us? Yes. But the primary reason in His mind was His Father's glory, as it always should be for Christians as well.
God had promised the death of the sinner at the fall "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16-17 Now, it is true that on the day that Adam and Eve ate of the tree they began to die, but they did not immediately physically die. Also, God made it clear that they would have children, and as long as any one of their descendants lived on then Adam and Eve lived on as great, great, great, etc. grandparents and thus were not entirely "dead" in the sense that all they were would cease to exist.
God's infallible word was in question. He had said they would die, and yet they had not. Does God not keep His word? No, because of His mercy God delayed the death sentence for Adam and Eve. Yet He still had to fulfill what He swore to them, or be called a liar. We can see a hint of God's plan for redemption in verse fifteen of Genesis two when God tells the Serpent that the Seed of Eve would bruise (crush) his head.
Jesus came along of the Davidic line, of the Noahic line, of Seth's line, and finally of Adam's lineage. He was to die the physical death that had been promised to Adam. He was to take the old man of Adam's nature and upon Himself (not that He was sinful but He took our sin upon Himself) and at the cross fulfill God's promise of death to Adam. He died a complete physical death due to our sin, if we had not sinned, or if God had not chosen to have mercy upon us, Christ would never have needed to die. Who made the promise of a redeemer? Who had mercy on Adam delaying his death sentence until one who could fulfill God's oath and die in Adam's place came along, and yet give eternal life to Adam's seed? It was the God of the Old Testament that so many accuse of being unloving.
God promised Adam would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Christ came to fulfill that promise; first of all so that God's name would not be impugned, but secondly so that we ourselves would not have to die. God could have chosen that Adam die immediately and thus have cleared His name without sacrificing His own Son. This would have shown that He was indeed a just God, yet it would have called the mercy of His character into question. So in order to preserve both the justice of His name and prove the mercy of His character God chose that His glory should be made known and His mercy shown in allowing us to live and sending a propitiatory lamb in our place.
Thus we can see God's character of mercy, justice, and love displayed in the Old Testament and the fulfillment of it in the New Testament. Not two different God's at all.
Thus we can see God's character of mercy, justice, and love displayed in the Old Testament and the fulfillment of it in the New Testament. Not two different God's at all.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Romans 13, a Different Perspective.
"Now there are many who
would say that we should be obedient to
state laws. Romans thirteen is thrown at me so many times that I just expect it
automatically and now I come up with it in the course of a talk. In fact one
person told me I had no right to criticize the federal reserve system, this was a
minister, turned out that his uncle was a member of the federal reserve
board. Or that we have no right to criticize
politicians, well I hardly see that; and it’s wrong for us to resist. Well that
always leads me to ask in return “well what was saint Paul doing in prison so
many times?”
Now what Romans thirteen tells us is that the powers that be are ordained of God indeed. But it also tells us they are to be ministers of God. That God has ordained on the one hand a ministry of grace, and then a ministry of justice. Now do you mean if I’m sitting in a church where the ministry of grace is being turned into a ministry of abomination by a modernist preacher I’m to say nothing? I’m to protest. And if I’m in a state where the ministry of justice is turned into a ministry of injustice I’m to use every Godly means to protest that… So we cannot use Romans thirteen to silence Christians, that’s an excuse to evade Christian responsibility"
~Rousas John Rushdoony
I came across this in my transcribing this week (which, by the way I set a new record of 38,707 words this week) and thought it was excellent, as much of Rushdoony's work is.
When I was attending a church out in Idaho I actually had a preacher use the West Minister Catechism to preach on how we need to submit to the government and that we could not criticize politicians or speak ill of them.
This is where I believe the problem lies. Rushdoony uses the example of protesting when the ministry of grace is being perverted abominably. Well maybe back in 1965ish when he was talking somebody might have protested, but not anymore. The churches are as guilty of perverting their God given duties as the Civil Government is, hence why we have people believing the common Roman's 13 interpretation of "lay down and let the government destroy all that is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report, because that is
your Biblical duty" (Philippians 4:8 reference). If we will not stand up for what is right in the church, how can we expect anyone to stand up for what is right in the civil government?
“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.” - Thomas Jefferson
Obviously our forefathers did not have the same view of Romans 13 as we do. Granted, Thomas Jefferson is not a good example of Christianity (he was a deist who didn't believe in miracles, just Google the "Jefferson Bible") however it was a largely Puritan nation that went to war against the injustices of parliament. Ministers during the Revolutionary war were known as the "Black Robed Regiment" by the British due to the powerful sermons they would preach (while wearing the traditional black robes of ministers) against the injustices of England's rule and the necessity for liberty in Christ that would stir their congregations into resisting the tyranny of the Brits.
Thus we can see that the current popular interpretation of Roman's thirteen is not only Unbiblical but spits in the face of out heritage, the very ideals that this country was founded on. You'd think that we would have thought this through a little more before adopting a communistic Statist interpretation of the Bible.
Now what Romans thirteen tells us is that the powers that be are ordained of God indeed. But it also tells us they are to be ministers of God. That God has ordained on the one hand a ministry of grace, and then a ministry of justice. Now do you mean if I’m sitting in a church where the ministry of grace is being turned into a ministry of abomination by a modernist preacher I’m to say nothing? I’m to protest. And if I’m in a state where the ministry of justice is turned into a ministry of injustice I’m to use every Godly means to protest that… So we cannot use Romans thirteen to silence Christians, that’s an excuse to evade Christian responsibility"
~Rousas John Rushdoony
I came across this in my transcribing this week (which, by the way I set a new record of 38,707 words this week) and thought it was excellent, as much of Rushdoony's work is.
When I was attending a church out in Idaho I actually had a preacher use the West Minister Catechism to preach on how we need to submit to the government and that we could not criticize politicians or speak ill of them.
This is where I believe the problem lies. Rushdoony uses the example of protesting when the ministry of grace is being perverted abominably. Well maybe back in 1965ish when he was talking somebody might have protested, but not anymore. The churches are as guilty of perverting their God given duties as the Civil Government is, hence why we have people believing the common Roman's 13 interpretation of "lay down and let the government destroy all that is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report, because that is
your Biblical duty" (Philippians 4:8 reference). If we will not stand up for what is right in the church, how can we expect anyone to stand up for what is right in the civil government?
“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.” - Thomas Jefferson
Obviously our forefathers did not have the same view of Romans 13 as we do. Granted, Thomas Jefferson is not a good example of Christianity (he was a deist who didn't believe in miracles, just Google the "Jefferson Bible") however it was a largely Puritan nation that went to war against the injustices of parliament. Ministers during the Revolutionary war were known as the "Black Robed Regiment" by the British due to the powerful sermons they would preach (while wearing the traditional black robes of ministers) against the injustices of England's rule and the necessity for liberty in Christ that would stir their congregations into resisting the tyranny of the Brits.
Thus we can see that the current popular interpretation of Roman's thirteen is not only Unbiblical but spits in the face of out heritage, the very ideals that this country was founded on. You'd think that we would have thought this through a little more before adopting a communistic Statist interpretation of the Bible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)