Meandering Thoughts On The One and The Many

Diversity absolutized would end in the uniformity of absolute diversity.  In point of fact absolute diversity is impossible since sameness must exist in order to identify diversity. In a world of absolute diversity one could not recognize diversity because in order to measure diversity there has to be a corresponding idea of sameness in order to measure diversity. Hence absolute diversity leads to uniformity. If everything is different than nothing can be different because no continuity would exist between the differentiated things in order to know recognize and identify differentiation. If diversity is absolutized so that uniformity is allegedly eclipsed than the consequence is a absolute uniformity of differentiation where everything is the same because nothing is the same.

In the same way Uniformity absolutized is the end of uniformity. If there is no determinative way or manner in which uniformity can be distinguished from differentiation then how could we possibly know if there is uniformity? Uniformity requires the reality of differentiation in order to be able to identify uniformity. If everything is the same nothing is the same. If everything is Macaroni and Cheese than how can we know what Macaroni and Cheese is if there nothing to differentiate it from anything else?

Uniformity and diversity need each other because without each other neither can exist or find meaning as Uniformity nor as diversity.

Of course the denial of Uniformity and diversity is a denial of the God of the Bible and without the God of the Bible no meaning can be located anywhere. God is the Transcendent One and Many which gives meaning to all the Immanent One and Many’s.

I Corinthians 4:4 … The God of this age (world).

The god of this age (world) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I Corinthians 4:4

When Scripture teaches that “Satan is the God of this world,” what one needs to understand is that Paul is using “world” in a technical fashion. “World” here means “as this world lies in Adam.” It is a truism that as this world lies in Adam Satan is the God of that world. However, what it does not mean is that Satan is over planet earth. To not see that distinction would give us a contradiction with Scripture that teaches that the Lord Christ is in possession of “all authority” in heaven and on earth as well as those passages that teach that the “Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” Obviously St. Paul is not introducing some kind of Manichean dualism by positing two competing Gods … one over things not of this world and one over this world.

St. John quotes Christ as saying, “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” In the work of the Cross Satan was driven out. He has no power except to those who are of their Father the Devil, but even then, just as with Job, Satan is a permission seeking being in terms of his designs and intent. The Devil is merely God’s attack dog on a long leash.

So, dear Christian, there is no room for surrendering anything in the Cosmos to Satan as if he has right of authority because he is “the god of this world.” Satan is the god of the dung heap, of falsity, of fiat non-reality. He has no hold over this world because in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, God has and intends to continue to redeem the whole Cosmos so that it is even more than Eden ever was.

The age to come has come in Christ and is rolling back this present wicked age that has the prince of the power of the air as its Captain. This mopping up exercise is fait accompli. The “God of this age” is a grifter and the only weapons he has are smoke, delusion, and intimidation. Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world.

Satan as “God of this world?” Only in the sense that a rebellious three year old thinks he is the “God of his bedroom,” in defiance of his parents placing him there for discipline.

Thanksgiving Homily 2015

I Thess. 5:18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

Thanksgiving is a Holiday. The idea of the word Holiday literally comes from Holy Day. A Holy Day, is a day set apart and distinct from the days that are common. Actually as Christians we have 52 Holidays every year though we seldom think like that anymore. Those 52 days of course are our Lord’s days.

So, we see in the whole idea of Holidays, Thanksgiving included, the idea of distinction. We distinguish this day from the others and we do so by celebration and festivity with kith and kin. On Thanksgiving when giving thanks  we are thankful for the particulars in our lives. When we give thanks for family we give thanks for our family and the families of those we know and love in our Church and community. When we give thanks for blessings we give thanks for the blessings that God has been pleased to pour upon us. When we are thankful for the Church we have particularly in mind our Church. When we give thanks we thanks to the God of the Bible and not the pagan false deities that festoon our culture. Not only is the day a day of distinction but the Thanks we offer up are for peculiar and particular blessings.

We could pray, “Thank you Father for the Human Race and Thank you for every blessing you’ve given everybody ever” but that would make our giving of thanks brief, and abstractly universal and esoteric. This would be non-incarnated gratitude. Thanking God for the particular is incarnating our gratitude. Thank you Father for this wife, for this family, for these fellow saints. Thank you Father for this food, this table, and this roof over our head. Thank you Father for this Church, these musicians, and these leaders.

I merely note this to reinforce the pleasure we should have in the particular. We live in a culture that is at war with the particular and with distinctions. At this Thanksgiving time we should pause to Thank the Triune God for the distinct and peculiar blessings with which He has blessed us.

Knowing the Triune God is for us we can even particularize our Thanksgiving in terms of our struggles as they have been providentially assigned to us as means to our sanctification. These particulars burdens are to us increased Christlikeness and  our character formation.

Samuel Rutherford could write, in what has become  quote I return to repeatedly,

“Oh, what owe I to the file, to the hammer, to the furnace of my Lord Jesus! who hath now let me see how good the wheat of Christ is, that goeth through His mill, and His oven, to be made bread for His own table. Grace tried is better than grace, and it is more than grace; it is glory in its infancy.”

We can easily be Thankful when the Bank account is full, when there is no sickness, when personal resistance to us in the politics of the workplace are minimal but can we be Thankful when the thorn in the flesh is gouging more than usual? Can we be Thankful when when disappointments becomes a familiar companion?

Another thing we might note here is that Christian Thanks giving is a an act that communicates satisfaction with both the past and present indicating a confidence in the future. The person shriveled with animosity regarding the past will not find it in his soul to give thanks. The person not content with the present will not give thanks. And the person convinced that the future is bleak will hardly be a candidate for the giving of thanks. Christian Thanks giving then is a supremely worshipful act communicating volumes regarding one’s disposition towards the past, the present, and the future.”
I posted this thought online and a non-Calvinist who is a very sharp chap took exception with it saying,

Gratitude and reality can co-exist. We have lost much over the last several decades, we are currently in a struggle to the death with forces that are turning our lives into a sewer in the present, and the future, outside some miracle of God, is indeed likely to be bleak before I die. I am indeed grateful that God has seen me and my family through the events of the years we have lived in, and pray that He will give us the resources to survive what’s ahead. But my gratitude is tempered by sadness and loss.

I don’t believe that what we’re experiencing is necessarily what God has ordained or desires for us.

It is easy to appreciate this insight but we have to keep in mind that this is the exact present that God has ordained for us and if that is true we can be thankful. This is not to say we can not have regrets in regards to our failures in paying heed to God’s will of precept. It is to suggest though that we can be Thankful because what has been past, present, and future is what God ordained for us in keeping with decreed will.

Now we are not pollyannas and we do continue to lean against the Darkness but we do it as a people thankful for the file, the hammer, and the furnace.

But having said all this we note that life is not always file, hammer, and furnace and we are thankful for that as well. We are thankful for when we are led so as to lie down in green pastures. We are thankful when he leads us besides still waters and so restores our souls. We are thankful for the wise Mentors he has placed in our lives and the wisdom of the generations he has kept for us in books seldom read. We are thankful for the generations gone behind who have given us such a rich inheritance and we are thankful for the rising of the generations we are seeing coming behind us. We are thankful for cousins, and Aunts and Uncles and Grandparents. We are thankful for Elders.

And we are thankful that no matter how dark it gets outside there is always light to be found by those who are lovers of Truth.

Christ, Religious Professionals and the Widow’s Mite

Beware of the Scribes

38 And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces 39 and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, 40 who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

The Widow’s Offering

41 And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny.[f] 43 And he called his disciples to him and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.44 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

Background

Here we find the Lord Christ teaching on the Tuesday prior to his Crucifixion. On these last days of public ministry during Holy Week the Lord Christ remains focused on the doctrines and practices of the Religious Professionals of his time. The Lord Christ knows that with His death this whole Temple system, which the Religious Professional serves is coming to an end.

And so the Lord Christ directs our attention to the failure of the Temple system.

1.) Religious Professional have polluted it.

2.) In the next chapter the Lord Christ will note, that this whole Temple system is all going to violently end. In its place the Lord Christ is to be the new Temple to whom all types of men and women will come and will find peace with God.

So, I submit to you what is going on here in Mark 12:38-44 is a series of contrasts.

The contrast in Mark 12 then is not only the contrast between the wicked Religious Professionals and the faithful widow but more importantly the contrast is between the corrupted Old Temple system that injures God’s most vulnerable people as against the Faithful Lord Christ, as the New Temple, who will give is all for God’s people.

The contrast here is a religious system which has become a kind of an essential backdrop for a phony religious piety (Mark 12:38-39) as against the Lord Christ  who  emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, and who humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The contrast is between wicked Religious professionals who love to grandstand at the expense of God’s people and the Lord Christ who is meek and lowly in heart.

The contrast is between those who would become rich at the expense of the poor with the Lord Christ who was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich.

The contrast is between a Widow who surrenders her all to a Temple system that has failed with the Son of God who as God’s new Temple will surrender His all that men might have peace with God.

Now having established that let’s look at the main players in Mark 12,

I.) Scribes

One of the purposes of this narrative is to expose the religious leaders for their hypocrisy. They pray to demonstrate their piety while at the same time they devour widow’s houses.

Of course you remember the Scribes. They were the Religious Professionals. They taught their corrupted version of the Law of God.

Of the Lord Christ,

1.) They complained that he ate with publicans and sinners (Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30, 15:2).

2.) When Jesus said to the one sick of the palsy , “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” (Mark 2:6) the Scribes charged Him with blasphemy.

3.) When he cast out demons they said that He cast them out by “Beelzebub, the prince of the devils” (Mark 3:22).

4.) They would sit and watch Jesus to see if He would heal on the Sabbath day, that they might find an accusation against him (Luke 6:7).

5.) They also were among the Pharisees when they brought to him the woman caught in adultery,“tempting him, that they might have reason to accuse him” (John 8:3, 6).

6.) They were filled with indignation when Jesus performed any miracles (Luke 6:11).

They took counsel with the chief priests as to how they might destroy him (Mark 11:18),

7.) When they contrived to have Jesus brought before Herod , they stood and vehemently accused him (Luke 23:10).

So, we see a running conflict between the Lord Christ and the religious professionals. Oftentimes Mark records the scribes mistrusted the Lord Christ’s various activities (cf. 2:7, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 5; 11:18, 27-28), and in return, the Lord Christ and his disciples questioned the influence of scribal teaching (cf. 9:11; 12:35). At one point, the disciples, without Jesus’ around, argued with scribes over an ailing child (cf. 9:14). As his mission continued, Jesus recognized their antagonism, predicting that they would “reject” him (8:31) and, eventually, “condemn him to death” (10:33).

So, this withering public critique of Scribes, in 12:38-40, fits into the larger pattern of conflict that Mark portrayed.

In verses 38-40 Jesus specifically denounces the scribes. In Mark’s estimation they are self-important, arrogant, and self aggrandizing. This section of Mark’s gospel, since Jesus’ triumphal entry, has been dominated by controversy and antagonistic interaction between Jesus and various groups with leadership responsibilities in first-century Judaism. It is not surprising, then, that we find here a final nail in the coffin, a sweeping condemnation of the scribes.

We should pause here to note that throughout history religious professionals have often been a burden on God’s people. Whether you want to look at the OT record, or the NT record you find that religious professionals are often a group of people one wants to keep at arm’s length. You can find this truth throughout history. When you look at the Reformation, for example, one of the driving factors in the demand for Reformation was the corrupt and scurrilous religious professionals who likewise were preoccupied with building up their illegitimate wealth at the expense of the most vulnerable of God’s people. The indulgence system, which was the occasion for the Reformation, was just such an example. It is no less true today. The sheep, too often, are still being sheered by the Religious carny, con-man, and Religious Professional scheister.

While we esteem faithful shepherds we are reminded of a truth repeated throughout Scripture

Psalm 146:3 — “Put not your trust in rulers, in mortals in whom there is no help.”

II.) Widows

There are about eighty direct references to widows in the Scriptures.

Repeatedly Scripture teaches that God is the kind of God who keeps a careful eye on the widow.

Per Deut 14, 16, Widows were to be especially cared for in the Hebrew community
Per James 1 one aspect of the essence of religion is to visit widows and orphans in distress
Per Acts 6 we see the Church was providing for Widows
Per I Timothy 5 we see that the church understood that it was responsible for God centered widows who had no one to do for them

He is profoundly concerned for her, together with all those who are vulnerable and so easily oppressed. God is righteous and protects widows.

Psalm 68 teaches that God is “a father of the fatherless, a defender of widows . . . in his holy habitation,” (Psalm 68:5).

We see this again in Isaiah 10, Jeremiah 22 and Ezekiel 22 where, in each case, God has noticed the oppression of the Widow by the powers that be and demands that it cease.

The Lord Christ reflects this character of God when he bends low to be the God who provides to the widow of Nain when he restores life to the son of the Widow of Nain.

Jesus reflects this character of God while on the Cross when he provide for his own widowed Mother.

Jesus reflects this character of God here when he denounces the Scribes (Religious Professionals) for enriching themselves at the expense of the least and most vulnerable.

Of course this reveals to us the Character of God. He is especially near to those of His people who are oppressed and vulnerable. He HATES it when the righteous poor in the covenant community are swindled or taken advantage of. He HATES those who, in His name, feather their own bed at the cost of His covenant community poor. The Lord Christ here says that those who act this way will have a greater condemnation.

Reminders

1.) This reminds us then of the danger of being a unfaithful Religious Professional. It is true we might get ahead in this life by doing the equivalent of devouring Widows houses but the Lord Christ tells us here that a time is coming when those who have sewn the wind of ill gotten gain will reap the whirlwind of God’s remembrance.

2.) We are reminded again of our need to look out for “the least of these” among us.  It remains true that “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is  to visit orphans and widows in their affliction …”

III.) We close by considering some issues surrounding this giving of the Widow that may inform us of our own giving,

One of the clear ideas that comes through here is that while the Rich put in large sums that dwarfed the widows giving (vs. 41) the Widow put in all. Of course the call here isn’t that all people must deposit everything they have into the offering plate. However what is accentuated is that there is a difference between giving out of abundance and giving out of want. It’s not the size of the check but the size of the cost that is highlighted.

“The value of a gift is not the amount given, but the cost to the giver.” – J.R. Edwards (Pillar NTC)

Similarly,

God measures the gift by the sacrifice involved (cf. 2Sa 24:24). – A. Black (College Press NIVC)

I’m reminded of someone I once knew who would give nice presents and gifts for certain occasions. I later learned that this person was passing on work related promotional material. So, while the gifts were nice, they cost the person nothing.

I am reminded of the Scripture … “I will not sacrifice to the Lord that which has cost me nothing.”

R. A. Cole reminds us,

“It is well to remember that God measures giving, not by what we give, but by what we keep for ourselves;”

In all this we observe that it is possible that the generosity of the impoverished can be greater than the generosity of the wealthy.

All of this communicates again that even in  our giving God looks at the heart. This can serve as encouragement to those who are frustrated by the fact that they have so little to give. God looks at the heart. He doesn’t count your gift by the number of zeros in your check. He counts your gift according to your heart, and your resources.

Conclusion

By this standard of Giving we see that God gave all in providing Himself, in the 2nd person of the Trinity to be the means by which we can have peace with God.

Christ is the greatest of all who have given all for while we were still enemies the Lord Christ gave His all that we might be reconciled to God through the death of His Son.

Christ emptied Himself and bore our griefs and and carried our sorrows. He is the archetype Widow who gives all of which the Widow here is but an echo.

If we are to have a giving disposition it must be imbued with gratitude that comes from the God who gave all and gives all. We do not give in order to get. We give out of gratitude because we have already been given all by the one who gave all in our stead.


 

A Short Treatise on the Biblical & Historical Foundation For Self-Defense

This morning we turn our attention to an issue that likely won’t be touched upon in one in 10,000 pulpits across the Nation this morning. We are going to spend just a few minutes, in light of the events of the last week, speaking about the Scriptural and Historical background of the obligation of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

We might find such a subject odd but there was a time when such an examination from the pulpit on such a subject was routine. That this is true is testified to by Will Durant, author of several volumes of World History. Will and his wife Ariel were no friends of Christianity and yet they could write,

“In Protestantism the preachers became journals of news and opinion; they told their congregation the events of the week or day; and religion was then so interwoven with life that nearly every occurrence touched the faith or its ministers. They denounced the vices and errors of their parishioners, and instructed the government as to its duties and faults.”

-Will Durant,
The Reformation

And we take up the duties and faults of the Government in its desire to dilute the Christian duty and obligation of individual self defense.

When we turn to Scripture we find in,

Exodus 22:2-3 –“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

This idea of self defense … defense of family, hearth, and home compels us to ask, along with Rev. Samuel West, in a sermon from 1776 if we really believe “that people please God while they sit still and quietly behold their friends and brethren killed by their unmerciful enemies without endeavoring to defend or rescue them.” West asked if the sin of murder, as committed by the pacifist by way of the sin of omission in not pursuing self defense, is any nobler than a sin of commission that finds someone involved in the butcher of unjust wars. West insisted that both sins were “great violations of the law of God.” 

Certainly Exodus 22:2-3 compels us to conclude that a threat to our life is to responded to with appropriate force.  To not respond in such a way would find us guilty to self murder or murder of the judicially innocent who were under assault.

Further the idea of self defense, as found in Exodus 22:3, when combined with the New Testament teaching from Timothy which teaches that a man who neglects to provide for his family has implicitly denied the faith and is worse than an infidel forces to ask, along with Colonial minister Simeon Howard,

“in what way can a man be more justly chargeable with this neglect, than by suffering himself to be deprived of his life, liberty or property, when he might lawfully have preserved them?”

Defense of self and family is the duty of the Christian man and if the Christian man is stripped of this God ordained duty by the State’s attempt to repudiate the Second Amendment than that Christian man is disobeying God by neglecting to provide for his family. We must obey God rather than man.

When we consider Exodus 22:3 further it is clear that self defense looks differently in different situations. Not every situation requires full lethal force. We are to be defenders of our selves and what God has given us headship over and not those who act on vengeance or without mercy. In this passage after “the sun has risen” seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night there is more confusion and more uncertainty about what is going on. There seems, thus, to be more latitude given to the necessity of self defense. During the day time matters are clearer and a higher standards for lethal self defense obtains.

In Proverbs 25:26, we read: “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.”  Should we allow our God given — and therefore non retractable by any government — right to keep and bear arms to be seized from us we are the example of the righteous man who falters before the wicked being like a murky spring and a polluted well.

Certainly it is simple to see why the righteous man who falters before the wicked is so described. It can hardly be considered the essence of civilization for good people to falter before the wicked. No one really believes that it is virtuous to allow the schoolyard bully to have his way. To believe that that righteous should falter before the wicked is to believe in Nietzsche’s little shop of horrors where the ubermensch might makes right.

That this Biblical view as barely highlighted as been the track record of Western Christian civilization can be seen by a quick glimpse of our history.

In the three preceding articles we have taken a short view of the principal absolute rights which appertain to every Englishman. But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property….

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Wm. Blackstone
English Jurist

J.L. De Lolme, an eighteenth century author much read at the time of the American Revolution[3] pointed out:(p.286)

But all those privileges of the People, considered in themselves, are but feeble defences against the real strength of those who govern. All those provisions, all those reciprocal Rights, necessarily suppose that things remain in their legal and settled course: what would then be the recourse of the People, if ever the Prince, suddenly freeing himself from all restraint, and throwing himself as it were out of the Constitution, should no longer respect either the person, or the property of the subject, and either should make no account of his conversation with the Parliament, or attempt to force it implicitly to submit to his will?–It would be resistance … the question has been decided in favour of this doctrine by the Laws of England, and that resistance is looked upon by them as the ultimate and lawful resource against the violences of Power.

To nineteenth century exponents of limited government, the checks and balances that preserved individual liberty were ultimately guaranteed by the right of the people to be armed. Without an armed citizenry Republican mixed Government, with its complex and interlocking checks and balances could not be successful apart from a legitimate means of resistance. The preeminent Whig historian, Thomas Macaulay, labelled this right to keep and bear arms “the security without which every other (security) is insufficient,”

In the Republican system, with its equal parts Monarchy, aristocracy, and Democracy, as  envisioned by our Christian forefathers it was the Sate that had to convince an armed and sovereign citizenry that its ideas were not oppressive. In the system we have now it is the subject citizens that has to convince the Sovereign State that they should be allowed to have their weapons.

It is true that when you look at Western Civilization you can find epoch where gun control was advanced. In 1920 in England for example, in the context of being un-nerved by the Bolshevik threat Parliament debated a bill that sought to restrict arms from the citizenry. In that debate a member of the Commons … one Colonel Kenworthy, stood up and objected to the bill before the House. Colonel Kenworthy pointed out that historically the right to keep and bear arms had been necessary to maintain other existent political rights that the people enjoyed precisely because keeping arms allowed the citizenry to resist an out of control state. A Major Witherington objected to Kenworthy stating that it was just that kind of distrust of the state by just those kinds of people that demanded the Bill be passed.

Conclusion,

How do we turn this all then to the essence of our Christian faith? The essence of our Christian faith is Liberty from sin. This idea of being set free by the finished work of Christ for sinners such as us from the bondage and tyranny of sin in order to be free to serve Christ ended up being translated into every area of life. If a man was free from the bondage and tyranny of sin then that same man was to be free from all other tyrannies and bondage. This included political liberty. The Biblical Christian realizes that the implication of being free from the tyranny and bondage of the Devil means likewise being free of the tyranny and bondage of Usurpers who would work to put a people into the bondage of a law system and Lordship that was contrary to Christ’s Lordship and Law…. a Lordship and Law that is the essence of Liberty.

Those who have been freed from the devil are not inclined to come under the bondage of the Devil’s political henchman.

There have been those throughout history who have understood this point that I’m seeking to establish.  Protestant Christians, being spiritually set free, were not going to come into other unbiblical bondage.

Historian John Patrick Diggins writes that American historians have concentrated on political ideas while underplaying “the religious convictions that often undergird them, especially the Calvinist convictions that Locke himself held: resistance to tyranny….”

One simply can’t understand the insistence by traditional Reformed folk on the issue of the right to self defense without understanding how their macro theology is connected to and drives that visceral desire against being subjugated. Having been loosed from the Devil by the finished work of Christ from their sin they will not become chained to or by anti-Christ magistrates.

Edmund Burke is another chap who could connect the dots between the Macro theology of the Protestant Faith and the micro refusal to be subjugated.

In 1775, the Burke tried to warn the British Parliament that the Americans could not be subjugated:

“the people are Protestants, and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion.” While the Catholic and Anglican Churches were supported by the government, and were inclined to support the state, the American sects were based on “dissenting interests.” They had “sprung up in direct opposition to the ordinary powers of the world, and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim of natural liberty. Their very existence depended on the powerful and unremitted assertion of that claim. All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern colonies is a refinement of the principle of resistance: it is the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the Protestant religion.” 4

The fact that these quote may sound so foreign to our hears is because we have been so denuded of the convictions of our Reformed and Calvinist forefathers…. we have been stripped of their Biblical Christianity. We no longer have the ability to move from the Macro of being set free from our sins to the micro resolve that we will not be put into subjection of those political Masters who serve the ends of the one we have been set free from.  We can no longer see that if one believes where the Spirit of the Lord is there is spiritual Liberty therefore it must also be the case where that Spiritual liberty works itself out in corporeal space and time reality.