Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Prominent Communist On Communism And Christianity

“We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love for our neighbor! What we want is hate…. Only then can we conquer the universe.”

Anatole Lunarcharsky — 1875 – 1933
Russia Commissar of Education

There is a great deal of hate for Christians and Christianity swirling around and a great deal of that hate is coming from thinly disguised Marxists.

Characteristics Of A Collectivist Order

You can identify a move towards a collectivist order by seeing the surge towards

1.) Uniformity

Everything must be the same. Remember the Collectivist State is like a Machine and in order for Machines to work they have to be standardized. Standardization in the social order is just another word for Uniformity. The cogs may differ slightly in what the cog’s role is in the machine but all cogs have the same value and worth. (Except of course the Elite running the machine.)

2.) Amalgamation

Everything for the State … nothing outside of the State.

Amalgamation, also serves the end of uniformity. Amalgamation is the process by which uniformity is arrived at. Like a mulligan stew all distinctions among the leftovers must be eliminated by being thrown into the same stew. Amalgamation is arrived at by everything moving down to the least common denominator. This amalgamation process is what Van Til referred to as “integration downward into the void.” Amalgamation explains our current preoccupation with denying gender roles and now even gender distinctions. Amalgamation is typically pursued in the name of “fairness.” Another example of amalgamation in our culture is the “no student left behind program,” in our Government Schools. The program amalgamated the superior students downward to the level of the inferior students as the superior students were not allowed to press ahead at their speed so that they may be yoked to help those slower students. The results has been that no student has been left behind because all students were amalgamated into the left behind status.

3.) Bureaucratization

Since the Collective runs everything there must be a bureaucracy to do the running and then a bureaucracy to make sure the bureaucracy, that is responsible for the machinery, is indeed running the machinery. Then of course there is the bureaucracy to keep an eye on all the cogs to make sure they are not being un-cog like. The collectivist state because of uniformity and amalgamation must have Bureaucrats whose role it is to ensure that everyone is remaining Uniform and that everyone is being amalgamated.

4.) Militarization

It is a police state and so someone has to make sure that everyone stays in line. Keep an eye out for how the local police and County Sheriff become increasingly militarized in their approach to the citizenry. Means of resistance of the citizenry are eliminated.

5.) Centralization

Orders come from on high. Jurisdictional spheres are eliminated. Planning is done by the State and not by the individual. Prices and wages are set. A Borg like existence begins to predominate as the society is identified with and as the State. Formerly mediating institutions are subsumed into the state.

6.) Proliferation of Law

The collectivist state proliferates law so that its citizenry can’t possible know what is legal and illegal. This allows the collectivist state to instantly negate any citizen who isn’t uniform and doesn’t amalgamate. The collectivist State simply arrests said citizen and charges them with any number of laws that are on the books. This allows the State to become the complete arbiter of law. Every citizen is guilty of something whenever the State desires for them to be guilty.

Dominion As Functional Image

Typically when the discussion regarding man as the Image of God begins the emphasis almost immediately falls on ontological categories. The Westminster Larger Catechism, when speaking about the Image of God begins with the ontological categories,

Question 17: How did God create man?

Answer: After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness,and holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall.

However we want to note here that the WLC not only lists the ontological realities of man as the Image of God, but it also lists one of the functional realities. Man revealed himself as God’s Image by what he did. Man revealed himself as God’s Image bearer by having dominion over the Creatures.

The Scripture teases out this functional dynamic of man as Image bearer by saying,

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The emphasis here, regarding man as the bearer of God’s Image, falls on functionality more then ontological correspondence. This is not to say that the ontological aspects of man as the Image bearer of God are not true. It is merely to say that the emphasis in Scripture (as we shall see) is on the functional aspects.

Adam and Eve were charged with reflecting God’s Image by “ruling” over the creation. In doing so they would be imaging God as the Sovereign Ruler over all. The rule of Adam and Eve, there in the Garden, was to be an ectypal shadow of which God’s rule was the archetypal reality. Just as God, in creation, subdued the chaos, exercised regency, and filled the earth, so Adam and Eve were to Image God, upon God’s command, by subduing, ruling, and filling the earth by being fruitful and multiplying.

Genesis 2:15 hits this theme again,

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

The idea of dressing and keeping the garden would include the idea of serving and protecting it. The Garden thus becomes a kind of Temple Sanctuary in which Adam as a High Priest and Eve, as his help-meet, were placed in order to Image God in the pleasurable duties that were laid upon them as Image Bearers. That the Garden is a Temple Sanctuary is seen by God presence in the Garden and His communion with Adam and Eve.

Though not explicitly stated in the text, Adam’s failure as High Priest over God’s Temple Garden is seen in his failure to serve and protect the Temple Garden. With Adam’s failure to keep the serpent out of the Garden Sanctuary Adam’s is unfaithful to the assignment to serve and protect the Temple Garden. The immediate consequence of Adam’s failure to Image God was the loss of the woman, who was given to Adam to Image Adam. Adam’s failure in Imaging God led to the failure of the Woman to Image Adam. The Serpent, having eluded God’s covenantal ordering by eluding Adam’s serving and protecting role, seeks to continue to upset God’s covenantal ordering, circumventing Adam’s authority by eliciting Eve into joining him in creating a New World Order. Adam has failed in the Imaging task of Dominion to which he was called and in his failure he Images the Serpent. (The Serpent gained traction by way of deception and soon enough Adam is practicing deception by hiding from God and by blaming the Woman God had given him.)

Adam, as God’s functional Image bearer, has failed with his attempt to seize God’s place. Subsequently, Adam will reap what he has sown as seen in Eve’s curse to be always grasping for Adam’s position instead of being content as Adam’s Image bearer. (“Your desire shall be for your husband [i.e. — for his position] and he shall rule over you.”) Because of this dominion, filling the earth by being fruitful and multiplying, and a reversal of the Serpent’s hold will have to be restored by another Adam who always is content to be the express image of His person.

Before pushing on here, let us note that this functional Image bearing of Adam was not divorced from his ontological Image bearing. Obviously Adam could not serve and protect the Temple Sanctuary, could not bear hegemony as God’s Steward King, could not be fruitful and multiply apart from true knowledge, righteousness and holiness, which characterized the ontological correspondence between Adam as the creature Image bearer and God as the uncreated Regent. Man cannot do (functionality) what he is not.

However, before the successful eschatological Adam arrives (that is, the Adam who is all that the failed 1st Adam was commanded to be) other Adam models arise and fail at being faithful functional Image bearers of God.

Observations

1.) Man is a Imaging being. Imaging is an inescapable concept. Man will either Image the God of the Bible and His Christ or he will Image some other false God (Idol). There is no neutrality.

2.) Failure in Adam’s Imaging God meant failure in Adam’s created Image (Eve) imaging Adam. Failure in the creature Creator relationship always means failure in the creature creature relationship.

3.) Lex Talionis (the punishment fits the crime).

Adam reaps with Eve (her constant desire for his position) what he sowed with God (a desire for His position).

Next Entry — Other failed Adam Image bearer models and the failure of Corporate Israel to be reflect God’s Image

R2K’er Advocates For Allowing Civil Rights Of Marriage To LGBT

After documenting how Europeans (particularly the French) can be pro on legalizing sodomite and lesbian approximation of marriage while at the same time opposing sodomite and lesbian couples raising children one young R2K’er offers this gem,

“Do the French point the way to a potential compromise? Increasingly most Americans are loath to restrict gays and lesbians from exercising the same rights associated with their relationships that married couples have. Yet the most persuasive public arguments against gay marriage continue to revolve around the interests of children. The evidence is solid (though minimized, due to the politicization of the debate) that children do best when raised by two biological parents – both the father and the mother. Of course, as far as adoption is concerned such an ideal is unattainable. Nevertheless, as much as possible it can be approximated.”

1.) Apart from presupposing the God of the Bible and His special revelation by what standard do we adjudicate “best” as in, “that children do best when raised by two biological parents.”

2.) Apart from presupposing the God of the Bible and His special revelation why should anyone care about children at all? Apart from the God of the Bible and His special revelation why even think that a family consists of a Dad, Mom and children? Why not three Moms, two Dads and children? Why not five Moms and one Dad and children?

3.) Here is a article that contends that studies reveal that children who grow up with sodomite and lesbian parents do not suffer, in the least, when compared to children who grow up with heterosexually normal parents. I choose to believe this study over the R2K’er studies. How is his appeal to Natural law going to defeat my appeal to Natural law?

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

4.) Is this R2K’er suggesting that people have rights to sin? Is this R2K’ers saying that God’s Natural Law teaches that sodomites and lesbians have the same rights to the civil rights of marriage as a heterosexual man and woman? Where do these rights for sodomite and lesbian civil rights marriage come from for this R2K’er? If God’s Natural law and His revealed law both teach the same thing, where does this R2K’er get off suggesting that sodomites and lesbians have a right to civil rights marriage as long as they don’t corrupt (in his opinion) children?

R2K’er

“The issue here is not a matter of religious morality. Christian teaching, like that of other major religions, is as condemning of heterosexual immorality (i.e., sex outside of marriage, unnecessary divorce) as it is of homosexuality. But the French remind us that this is not really what the political debate should be about. It should be about children and the vital social role of the family.”

1.) So, children and the vital social role of the family is not about religious morality? If this isn’t about religious morality then who cares about children and vital social role of the family? Is our R2K’er saying that the matter of children and the vital social role of the family is not a religiously moral issue? I presume that our R2K’er is saying that protecting children and the vital social role of the family is a good thing. How can we know what a good thing is apart from religious morality. Or maybe he is saying that it is a good thing that protecting children and the vital social role of the family isn’t determined by religious morality? But how would we know that that it is a good thing that protecting children and the vital social role of the family isn’t determined by religious morality without some religious morality?

2.) This R2K’er commits the common R2K fallacy that somehow political debates are not at their core religious or theological debates. Notice how he assumes that we don’t have to deal with religious morality when we are in a political realm that is cordoned and sequestered from the theological or religious realm.

R2K’er

“The fact is, if America is ever to become serious about rebuilding the social fabric of marriage and the family, government and the various institutions of civil society will have to be much more proactive in reestablishing the link between marriage and the procreation and raising of children. Yet there is no reason why this has to require the restriction of the legal or civil rights of gays and lesbians, let alone a focus on matters pertaining to homosexuality. In reality, rebuilding a culture of marriage and fidelity would step on the toes of far more heterosexuals than of gays and lesbians. The question is, are we willing to place the interests of children back at the center of our public discussions of sexuality, marriage, and the family?

Perhaps the heirs of the French Revolution have something to teach us after all.”

1.) Again … where does Natural Law teach that sodomites and lesbian have a right to normalize and legalize their sin?

2.) Some studies are being released that suggest that children being intimate with adults is a healthy thing. Why not promote the interests of the children is this way?

A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are “nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes”.

Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion “disturbing”, he was forced to recognise that “persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist”.

Obviously our R2K’er is allowing his religious bias to color his interpretation of Natural law.

Recapitulation In Matthew & Baptism Insights

The Gospel of Matthew gives us a great deal of recapitulation of the OT wherein Jesus is the Faithful Israel that answers to unfaithful OT Israel. One such example is the Baptism of our Lord Christ.

Just as Israel was led by Moses and had to go through the water at the Exodus to enter the the promised land, and just as the second generation had to do the same thing at the Jordan River under Joshua’s leadership, as a miniature second exodus, so again, now that Israel’s restoration is imminent, as led by one who is greater than both Moses and Joshua, true Israelites must again identify with the water and their anti-type prophetic leader in order to begin to experience true restoration and entry into the new creation.

And so, like Moses and Joshua, Jesus and His people are Baptized as on the cusp of entry into a new Kingdom.

Of course this has implications for the Church. Clearly Moses and Joshua and God’s people with them, were not immersed in their Baptism but rather they went through the water without going under the water. This would give strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus Himself was not immersed but as a true Israel passing through the Red Sea and later the Jordan was sprinkled. If this continuity holds this means that immersion is not Biblical as a mode of Baptism.

Another implication, if this observation about recapitulation is true, would be that Adult only Baptism (as practiced by Anabaptists) is also not Biblical. As infants and children were participants in those OT Baptisms of Moses and Joshua, together with all of God’s people, so this would mean that infants and children today should be identified with the Baptism of Christ just by virtue of belonging to covenant member parents.