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.

Reformation Sunday … Christ Is Lord

“My Kingdom is not of This world.”

Jesus here confesses before Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world. Before we speak to the issue of the nature of the Kingdom of Jesus we will define the idea of “Kingdom,” as the rule of God in the hearts of men.

The whole idea of the Kingdom of God, when reduced to its essence is merely acknowledging that Christ is a Lord who rules over men who occupy some kind of realm. The idea of a rule, apart from a realm where the rule is upheld is difficult to conceive.

The fact that Christ is Lord is seen in passages like Ephesians 1, which also gives us a glimpse into the realm – or Kingdom — over which Christ rules.

(God exerted is power) in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Here we see that Christ is Lord over all and I would submit that we also see that His explicit Kingdom is over all of reality.

There is great agitation and controversy about what Christ’s Kingdom actually means or concretely looks like in the real world. Most Christians will not argue with the abstract fact that Christ’s Kingdom starts with the reality that Christ is King and so should rule our lives and certainly our churches. Most would agree that the ascended Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father over all rule and authority has been given a Kingdom over which He is the ruler, the Lord, and the King. Most would agree that in respect to their morals they should operate as a subject of Christ’s Lordship and as a member of His Kingdom. This would be consistent with the reality that the Scriptures teach that we have been translated from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son whom He loves.

However what has increasingly become a sticky wicket for many today is the question of whether or not the Kingdom that was entrusted to Christ is a Kingdom that in any way extends beyond the doors of the Church. Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend beyond the Church doors? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the Science laboratory? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the way we educate so that our education ends up bringing our students to different conclusions about their subject matter than the conclusion reached by those who don’t affirm the Kingdom of God? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into how we think about and how we do sociology or psychology? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the how we think about and do the arts? Economics? Politics? Philosophy?

In our current climate concrete notions of what Christ’s explicit Lordship looks like not only falls on deaf ears but it is actively resisted by Christians.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom w/ His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Postmillennialism teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age.”

All nations will bow to Jesus and all kings will serve him and his mustard seed kingdom will grow to become the largest plant in the garden with the nation-birds finding rest in its branches. His kingdom is the stone which crushed the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and which is growing to become a mountain-empire which fills the whole earth, until all His enemies are made His footstool.

Because Christ’s Kingdom is victorious on this planet His Kingdom extends beyond the personal private individual realm and so impacts the public square. Another way to say that would be precisely because Christ’s Kingdom continues to be populated by a swarming host of individuals those individuals take that Kingdom that has overcome them and in turn overcome all that they touch with the Kingdom.

Dr. Geehardus Vos was not a postmillennialist but some of the things he taught captures what I am trying to communicate regarding Christ’s Kingdom. Vos wrote,

“The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.” (page 192)

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos

The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

So, what Christ was saying to Pilate when He said “My Kingdom is not of this world” was “My kingdom does not gain it’s authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians don’t today. So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded this civil realm, the family realm, law realm, economics realm, and every other realm you can think of for “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Every aspect of our social order is touched by the kingdom of God.

Now as to how this Kingdom manifests itself and works itself out. Rome said that the Church alone was the Kingdom and so insisted that everything must be brought into and under the Church if it wanted to be part of the Kingdom. Many Pietists and R2Kt types said (and say) that the Church alone was and is the Kingdom and that nothing else was and so insisted that all outside the Church was all outside the Kingdom and was common, but still good in virtue of the fact that it partakes of God’s creational common grace. The Pietists and R2Kt types engage the world but they engage it as a people who insist that the Word does not explicitly speak to the creational common realm. Christ’s rules over the common realm but His explicit Kingdom does not include the common realm. The Anabaptists said the Kingdom was the Christianity community and so insisted that all outside the Christian community was outside the Kingdom and was wicked, and so classical Anabaptist teaching withdraws from the world.

The Magesterial Reformers were against both Rome and the Anabaptists on this issue of the Kingdom. Reformed theology teaches, as we have noted, that there are two Kingdoms in this world in antithesis to one another. Each of these Kingdoms manifests itself consistent w/ it source of authority. Each of these Kingdoms is a body that has distinct organs that are assigned certain tasks to advance their version of the Kingdom. The heart of each antithetical Kingdom is their respective competing Churches. (For example … the church heart of the Humanist Kingdom in these united States are the government schools while the church heart of Christ’s Kingdom in these united States are faithful Christ proclaiming Churches.) However, in these respective Kingdom bodies there are other organs that are distinct and do other work.

So, a church is at the heart of the competing Kingdoms and where the heart is healthy all else will be healthy. The heart of Christ’s body Kingdom is faithful churches and those faithful churches, as part of the Kingdom, have as their source of authority Christ’s Word.
So, in the words of Mark Chambers,

“Both Kingdoms, though manifested spatially, are ideological and systemic. Ergo when Christ said ‘My Kingdom is not of the this world.’ He was not saying “My Kingdom is not on the surface of this planet. Jesus was not using ‘world’ in the sense of here but of what. He was talking type, not place.”

R. J. Rushdoony had some things to say regarding the affirmation that Jesus Kingdom is not of this world means that the Kingdom of God does not impact upon the public square.

“To deny that Christ’s kingdom is in this world is to alter the faith to either a neo-Platonic idealism or a Manichean dualism. In either case, the world and history are rejected and are handed over to the devil. Not surprisingly, such people who hold this view are insistent on seeing Satan as the prince of the physical universe and become implicit Satanists in the powers they ascribe to Satan. From such a perspective, the Church has little to do with history other than to rescue lost souls and then wait for the end.” (Institutes Vol. II)

Now how does this work practically? If we believe that Christ is King and has a Kingdom and if we confess that the Kings must Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way, and if we insist that all men must bow to Christ what standard shall we use in order for men to know that they are indeed bowing to Christ?

And the only answer to that, that I can see is God’s Law-Word. We believe and confess that Christ is King but what is a King without law?

Now, as we have said countless times it is clear that we are not saved by our law keeping but by Jesus Law keeping for us but this does not mean that we therefore are not ruled by every law-word that proceeds from His mouth. The fact that we are saved by grace alone does not mean that we live and move and have our being in our own fiat law-word.

No … as the Heidelberg catechism teaches we are freely and graciously saved to the end that we might do good works according to the law of God (qu. 90-91)

So when we talk about and celebrate Reformation it is just another way of celebrating the advance of God’s Kingdom in space and time History. In the 16th century God was pleased to visit His people with a great extension of His Kingdom.

Coming at just the right time with the advent of technology to advance it (Printing Press) and on the cusp of burgeoning world wide exploration that would find such exploration taking the effects of the Reformation to the new World the Reformation was God’s victory over His enemies.

However we live now in another time that needs Reformation. The Lordship of Christ is clouded for those who confess Christ. There is a need, once again to see Christ’s Lordship over every area of life.

Christ’s Lordship Over History

The first pillar of pagan history that Augustine challenged was the belief that history was a guided by the dialectic of chance and fate. Interestingly enough this dialectical view of history being guided by the dialectic of chance and fate was seen in a contemporary context in the film “Forrest Gump,” where the theme of the movie is how history is controlled by the dialectic of chance and fate. Augustine held instead that all of history was providentially controlled, providentially governed, and guided by the divine will of a extra-mundane personal God. In order to support this contention the Bishop of Hippo appealed to the OT theology where God is constantly portrayed as the Lord of History who held the nations in his hand like so much fine dust.

The second pillar of pagan history that Augustine dismissed was the belief that history could be explained by some kind of cosmic dualism. Augustine had been saved out of ancient Manichean dualism that taught that both evil and good were equally ultimate and that earth’s history is where these equally ultimate principles waged their battle. Augustine countered by teaching that evil is not a positive ultimate principle and did not have existence the same way that goodness does. Augustine believed instead that evil was a negation – a parasitic corruption of the originally good world. Like a tear in a shirt evil was merely a lack of good. It was nothing in and of itself. Augustine affirmed that good and evil stood in opposition to one another but he denied that evil was co-equal or co-eternal with good and taught that at the great assize humans would finally understand how evil found resolution in the context of God’s justice and God’s providence.

Historicism … that History can only be understood in light of itself. No objective reference point.

The third pillar of pagan history that Augustine critiqued was its cyclical view of history. Augustine believed and taught that history is linear and is moving towards the point of God’s ordained end. Augustine appealed to Scripture to overthrow the cyclical view of history that taught endless repetition of meaningless events by pointing to the book of Hebrews that teaches “For once Christ died for our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more.” Augustine also overturned this pagan cyclical view of history by teasing out its nihilistic implications. Augustine contended that if life is to have meaning or hope there must at least be the possibility of progress, noting further that an idea of progress can only exist where there is a sense that history has a set teleology. Without these sense of a history that is linear and has a destination life and history, in the words of Henry Ford, is nothing but “one damn thing after another.”

After Augustine dismantled pagan views of history he then proceeded to give the basic elements of a Biblical view of history.

1.) The God of the Bible is superior to the gods of paganism, nihilism, materialism, etc.
Throughout Augustine’s writings the Saint contrasts the God of the Bible with the pagan gods of Rome, as well as the unknown god of Neo-Platonism. All worldviews have a distinct Ontology and in Augustine’s work we see him insisting on the superiority of a Christian Ontology over the pagan dialectic Ontology where god is so transcendence that he has no contact with his (their) creation while at the same time so immanent he (they) are really nothing but humans said loudly.

2.) Creation Ex Nihilo

Christian views of History are what they are, largely due to the Christian doctrine of Creation. In the Christian view of history we have the teaching that God created the world out of previously non existing materials at a definite point of time in the finite past. This creative event, happening once, forms the temporal basis of all of history’s unique events to which Christianity alone, with its view of linearity, can attach significance and meaning. In a Christian view of history humanity plays a central role and as significance precisely because God set mankind at the center stage of his creation and at the center stage of his outworking of history (seed of the woman vs. seed of the serpent). In pagan views of history man is insignificant and without transcendent meaning since man is but one detail of the naturalistic world that has by both blind fate and random chance come into meaning. If in pagan views of history, history’s meaninglessness is summarized by “one damn thing after another,” in pagan’s views of history man’s meaninglessness is summarized as “man being just another damn existence among a host of damn existences.”

3.) Human Sinfulness

Augustine believed that man’s sinfulness necessarily divided the human race into two communities – The City of God vs. The City of Man. This corresponds nicely to the Reformed antithesis of The seed of the woman vs. The seed of the serpent. This human sinfulness, according to Augustine, divides men because occupants of each city have different aims, motives and principles. Augustine believed that human sinfulness was the most prominent thing that could be discerned in human history. Keep in mind though that this seemingly simple observation is unique to a Christian view of History because non Christian views of history have no transcendent reference point by which to adjudicate sin and no view of history that can define sin except as those things which have occurred which eventually came to be thought of as “bad” because some majority subjectively labeled those things as “bad.” Augustine had a measure by which he could adjudicate sin and righteousness in history.

4.) Redemption By Christ

Humans can escape the city of man and become citizens of the city of God because of the Redemption offered in Christ. The redemptive events in the life of Christ are unique events in history that end up giving significance and meaning to human history. In Christ man lives in the City of God and acts out his citizenship in that city by his involvement in the city of man. The result is that human history is suffused with meaning as men who have been redeemed bring their citizenship in that city to bear on their citizenship in the city of man.

Dialoging With A Arminian On Homosexuality

Reuben wrote,

So I’ve seen a lot of people debating back and forth about homosexuals and whether God loves them or not (Prgrph 4). Some people have said that you can’t be homosexual and be a Christian, (Prgrph 8) others have said that God doesn’t love homosexuals (Prgrph 4) and others go to the other side of the spectrum and say that homosexuality is acceptable as long as you love the person. (Prgrph 8)

Bret Responds,

Scripture clearly informs us that God hates workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5). This hatred of God for workers of iniquity must be read in keeping with the whole of Scripture as meaning that God hates those who are outside of Christ and are opposed to God.

It is true that as Christians we are all sinners, and that we all sin every day in word thought or deed. It is not true that God hates His people because our sin is forgiven in Christ. We are righteous with the righteousness of Jesus.

Now because God loves us He will discipline us when we pursue sin but even that discipline is born of love for His people. However, when God gives good to the wicked He hates, even that good is judgment against reprobate workers of iniquity that are outside of Christ.

These truths must be understood if anything else that follows is to be understood.

Reuben wrote,

I have my own opinion on this, one that I believe to be right. If there is any disagreement, I appreciate and would like to be influenced by the teachings of the Bible in this discussion, not logic. I believe the Bible to be the infallible source of wisdom that it is the road map of life. If you disagree with me on this, please let me know on a separate column. Although I believe this to be a crucial part of the Christian faith, it is not the topic I am stressing now. For myself personally, I believe I can talk with more understanding than a few others, as I have been struggling with homosexuality for the past couple years. It’s a part of me that I am, with God’s help, slowly overcoming. What I say here is probably going to be public suicide, but I believe I need to say this

Bret responds,

We’ve already talked about the contradiction in the request to talk about this apart from logic. Hence, I’ll leave that alone.

At this point Reuben needs to be applauded for his transparency and he needs to be assured of God’s deep and abiding love for him. It takes a real man to make the admission that he has made here.

I agree with Reuben that the Bible is God’s wisdom to man. As such I am hopeful that we can come to some agreement.

Reuben wrote,

“I have stated this before, and for those of you who didn’t read it, I believe there are two types of homosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians etc. The first are the homosexuals that are decidedly homosexual, or, those that have forsaken God and decided to live a life outside of God’s boundaries. These people are not saved, or if they were, have given up on God and turned their back on him. The second groups of people are the one’s that is largely ignored and unfairly given the stereotype of the first group. The second groups are people that are Christians, wanting to glorify God with their actions and with their bodies, but find themselves feeling urges that aren’t of God, but that wedge into their heart. It’s basically a different kind of lust. Nobody wants to have lust, but it creeps into your heart and before you know it, it’s a part of you. These group of people don’t want it in their lives, but stumble and fall just like everyone else. They “Lose [their] way, but they get back up again…it’s never too late, to get back up again. You’re maybe knocked down but not out forever” (TobyMac, Lose Our Way) Sadly though, since they have these feelings, even they don’t want them and fight to defeat them, the world considers them to be like the first group, who are fighting to be free of God.”

Bret Responds,

Reuben has given us a necessary distinction between the two groups of people. However, the mistake Reuben is making is by self identifying as a homosexual. There is no difference between Reuben and any other Christian who has been saved from sin. We all have our besetting sins. However, the Scriptures teach that in Christ we are a new Creation. Scripture teaches that the old has past and the new has come. Because Scripture teaches this it is wrong for any of us to self identify with our previous sins to the point that we refer to ourselves as “Homosexual Christians,” or “Stealing Christians,” or “Angry Christians.” Now it may be the case that we sometimes are those things as we struggle against those besetting sins but to self identify with the sins that we have been set free from is not a wise course of action. We may want to be honest with people about our besetting sins and regarding our struggles but we should not self identify, to ourselves or to others that upon being united to Christ we are what we once were in Adam.

So, I agree with Reuben’s distinction between the two groups that exist. (Though because I believe in the preserving power of God to Keep His people I don’t believe it is possible to lose one’s salvation.) However, I do not agree that God’s people should self identify with their sins.

Reuben wrote,

These are two types of homosexuals. But Does God love them? There have been numerous answers to that questions, with different degrees of opinions. I’m going to use scripture to back up what I say, and I will list the verse before and the verse after so that I will not take the verse out of context, that way, there can be no argument about context. John 3:15-17 starts at the top of the list by saying “that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[b] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Now, God didn’t love the birds or trees of the world so much that he sent his son, but he loved us, the people, his creation, so much that he gave his only begotten son. God loved the WHOLE world, not the whole world minus homosexuals.

Bret Responds,

Reuben makes the mistake with John 3:16 to make it read that God loves each and every individual that has ever lived. This is simply not true. The word “world” in John 3:16 is used in order to reveal that God’s program of redemption was not merely for the Jewish tribe. We know this because John’s Gospel is perhaps the most Calvinistic of all the Gospels. In John’s Gospel we chapters 6, 10, and 17 we find Jesus repeatedly making distinctions between people he came to save and people He didn’t come to save.

6:39″And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Here John, quoting Jesus, clearly makes a distinction between people whom the Father has given to Jesus and people whom the Father has not given to Jesus. Why didn’t the Father give everyone to Jesus? The answer is because the Father does not love everyone.

10:26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

Here the inspired Apostle clearly records Jesus saying that there is a distinction between those who hear His voice and those who don’t and goes on to say that the reason that they do not believe is because those who do not believe are not His sheep.

Why are they not His sheep we might ask? The answer is clearly because the Father does not love them.

Note also here the verse that teaches that those who belong to Jesus can’t not fall away.

17:9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Jesus here prays for His people and decidedly not for those who are not His people. Jesus makes a distinction between those who are His and those who are not His.

Why are some His and some not His? The answer is that the Father does not love all people.

These are only 3 instances from John that overturns Reuben’s reasoning. God does not love everybody. Jesus did not come to die for everybody.

This is because there are a few that are like Esau whom God hates (See Romans 9). These were hated before they were born or did anything good or bad.

Bret continues

Now, one more word on this section. Clearly there are people who have been involved in the sin of homosexuality that God loves. We know this because Christ has saves and continues to save people out of the bondage of that particular sin. But no sinner, regardless of their sin of choice, has any reason to think that God loves them absent of their looking to Jesus Christ for forgiveness. All those who are outside of Christ need to be told that God hates their sin.

This is what we find the inspired Apostle saying in Ephesians 2 when speaking to Christians.

“1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”

Note that the truth about all of us prior to being in Christ is that we are by nature children of wrath. God hates workers of iniquity.

However, as the Apostle goes on to say, God reveals His love by raising us in Christ.

“4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Concluding this subsection what might we say then?

We would say that God’s disposition towards sinners is one of wrath. God, through His Holy Ministers communicates to sinners that God is opposed to sinners every day. The beginning of the Gospel is that God does not tolerate rebellion and rebellion is what all those outside of Christ are in. The word goes out to lost men and women regarding this reality and the prayer is that Rebel sinners will see their peril and cry out, “What must we do to be saved.”

The answer to that question that is given is that they who are labor and are heavy laden with sin may come unto Jesus to find rest for their souls and in order to escape God’s just wrath against them. God provides the solution to His just wrath by commanding all men everywhere to repent.

Reuben wrote,

John 15:12 says that “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.” God was speaking to everyone, not those he loves. Now, the part where people get sidetracked is this part, and I think this is… crucial. God loves all of us (John 3:16) but only the believers are his chosen people, or those that will go to be with Jesus when they die. Ok, so you may be wondering, What about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 where it says that “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” I believe the Bible to be true when it says this. Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. But before you say “Aha! I told you so” let me finish. 1 Corinthians goes on to say in verse 11 that “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” We have all been sanctified through Christ, no matter our sin, and that includes homosexuals. And I am grateful to God that he provides sanctification for homosexuals, because otherwise, millions of others just like me who are fighting temptation would be lost. Where Jesus draws the line is when he sees his child, not his child’s sin. There is an expression called “Love the sinner, hate the sin” and I think this is important. When Jesus died on the cross, he died so that we might be washed white as snow. During His ministry, Jesus associated with Sinners, Tax collectors and prostitutes. People that he was quite fond of were prostitutes (Mary Magdalene) and he loved them very much. Jesus loved these people. Now that isn’t to say that Jesus didn’t love their sin. He didn’t. But God came to save the sinners from their sin, not those already saved (Luke 5:32 “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”)

Bret responds,

First, Reuben is wrong about John 15:12. In this passage Jesus is not speaking to everyone but is speaking to the Church. Christians are to love one another.

Now, I think all of our actions towards people should be born out of love but you have to go elsewhere than John 15:12 to find that.

We’ve already dealt with John 3:16. God does not love all men.

Second, we have not all been sanctified through Jesus Christ. When Paul writes what He writes in I Cor. 6 he is writing to the believing community. The unbelieving have not been washed and sanctified and they remain, by nature, children of God’s wrath.

We should associate with sinners has what Reuben has written implies but out of love for them we must keep putting before them the reality that the Sovereign of all the Universe is their Judge and unless they close with Christ all they can know of this sovereign of the Universe is His dread anger.

“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” (I Cor. 16:22)

This is what we must tell those who are outside of Christ. We must plead with them to repent. We must insist that God will allow them to make peace with Him if they repent. We must weep over them and weep for them before God’s throne. But we must not fail of commanding them to Repent and reminding them that until they Repent and trust Christ and hate their sins, God is their just Judge and because of His Holiness He anger is upon them every day and that they are building up judgment for themselves for the great day of judgment.

God hates both sinners and sin.

Reuben writes,

“Now we know that there are two types of homosexuals and that Jesus really does love homosexuals, but hates the sin they commit, it is also important to ask, how should we respond to homosexuality as Christians? I realize some of you may consider me biased on this next section because of my struggle that I am overcoming with God’s help, but I believe that I can relate from my own thoughts how I think homosexuals should be treated, and how scripture tells us to treat them.

First and foremost, I disapprove of bullying of any kind. There is nothing biblically moral about bullying. This not only pertains to homosexuals, but also everyone else that is being bullied today. Now, some people have been reluctant to denounce suicides because of bullying because they think that they will become affiliated with homosexuals. This is wrong. If we believe in your heart that bullying of any kind is wrong, then why can’t we all stand up for what we believe, regardless of who is being bullied? So, (and I know you English Buffs are screaming at me not to start my sentence with so) if bullying is the Christian way to treat homosexuals, then what is? Well, let’s look at the Bible. When you have any questions, always look to God and the Bible first and foremost. Psalm 145:7-9 says that “7 they will celebrate your abundant goodness and joyfully sing of your righteousness. The LORD is gracious and compassionate; slow to anger and rich in love. 9 The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” The bible says that the Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. While in this context, David is not referring directly to homosexuals, he is describing the character of God. We are told that “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. (1 Peter 2:21) To walk in Christ, and follow in his example of love is something that we should pass on to everyone, including homosexuals.

Bret responds,

Here we must speak about love.

Love for the homosexual can not be reduce to loving them in the way they want to be loved. For the Christian love for the homosexual (or any sinner) is tell them they must repent. Love for any sinner is to tell them that God hates workers of iniquity. Now, we may not be that explicit in the way we say it but we must tell people, as God opens the door, that they are in eternal peril and they must turn from their wicked ways. To show love to sinners we must proclaim that “Now is the appointed time for salvation.”

And in order to do that sinners are not going to be pleased because we will be coming across, to them, as being self righteous prigs. But of course we shouldn’t be surprised at this for Scripture teaches that we are the smell of death to those who are perishing.

Now as to the whole bullying thing.

We can not accept homosexuality in our culture or as a culture for to accept it would be to invite the death of our culture. Neither can we do anything that communicates our approval of the homosexual lifestyle. We must recognize the fact that when a certain behavior is marked out for scorn and ridicule that is one way that a culture’s auto-immune system is fighting that disease that seeks to infect the culture as a whole. This is not to say that we should encourage bullying or mocking or teasing of homosexuals but it is to say that this is one means by which a unsavory element of a healthy culture uses to ward off social disease. The vilification of the behavior works to keep homosexuals in the closet AND to prevent other people from going homosexual for fear being met with scorn.

However there are more subtle ways to ostracize homosexuality then by putting a camera in someone’s dorm room and then streaming their homosexual encounter live over the internet. Also there are more and better ways to discourage homosexuality then by insults that convey brutal behavior towards homosexuals. If Christians would just speak out against it and if they would plead with homosexuals to repent that would be all it would take to vilify the behavior.

However, keep in mind if we even did only that much it would still be considered “bullying.”

We must understand that this anti-bullying campaign is really more about accepting homosexuality in our midst. Anyone who does not accept homosexuality will be accused of bullying.

Reuben wrote,

Can you be homosexual, and a Christian? That is the question of the hour! If you are a person who has accepted Christ and have trusted in His word, and are struggling with overcoming homosexuality, then yes, you can be a Christian I believe. If, you disagree with that, let me put it in another example. Since God all sins are equally punishable by death in God’s eyes, this works perfectly. Can you struggle with pride, or lying, or hypocrisy and still be a Christian? Yes, I believe you can. Anyone who says that you cannot is defying Jesus’ death on the cross. Everyone struggles with areas of sin for their whole life. It is a part of us, it is the reason Jesus sanctified us. We will never be free of our struggle with sin until we get to heaven and Jesus pardons our sins and gives us a white robe of forgiveness (Revelation 21:27 and Revelation 6:11) Therefore, a person’s struggle to overcome homosexuality does not void their relationship and salvation through Christ, the opposite is true. By overcoming what Christ has put on our plate, we are becoming more like Christ. There is a flip side though. If you have embraced homosexuality and are living a lifestyle of homosexuality, then I believe that that you are not a Christian. For example, I do not believe that gay couples are Christians, because they are directly violating what God has explicitly said not to do in the Bible.

Bret responds,

Better to ask …

Can you struggle against the sin of homosexuality and be a Christian?

The answer is clearly … YES YES YES.

Anybody who says anything to the contrary is stupid.

The rest of Reuben’s paragraph here I find quite good.

Reuben wrote,

I know this is a widely debated topic, and I can respect those with a different opinion than I. My purpose is not to argue or make snide comments, but to show biblically, the views on homosexuality. I know that I am going to …get a lot of criticism on this article, and in my life now, as I am a person who is in the process of overcoming homosexuality, but I feel that someone has to stand up for the truth, even if it means being rejected by the world and those I hold dear. Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and if I’m not proud of my Jesus to stand up for what’s right, and to defend the Word of Truth, then I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian. When I meet Christ in heaven, I want to say that I have “have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 2:7) My troubles in this world are but a moment and I, with the help of Jesus Christ and my fellow Christians, will seek to “press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 3:14)

I will leave with this. Britt Nicole’s song “Walk on the Water” has some touching lyrics that applies to all of us. It goes like this: “What are you waiting for? What do you have to lose” Your insecurity, they try to hold to you. But you know you’re made for more, so don’t be afraid to lose.”

Bret responds,

Reuben, if you ever get bullied in your fight to overcome homosexuality you call me. I’ll stand with you and I’m the kind of guy you want on your side.

However, if you give up on putting off the old man and putting on the new I’ll be your worst enemy and best friend out of love for you, for you have been United to Christ in His death and resurrection therefore you, like all of us, must walk in newness of life.

There are some areas in your theology that must be thought through more carefully Reuben and I pray that God will put someone in your life to help you think more carefully about these matters.

Peter and Baptism

Scripture — I Peter 3:21f
Subject — Baptism
Theme — Peter’s explanation of Baptism
Proposition — … will cause us to appreciate the meaning of our Baptism.

Introduction

Re-cap

Main Body

This is a passage that makes most Christians sweat because of the intimate connection that it posits between Baptism and Salvation. It directly says that “Baptism Saves.”

What Peter is doing here by saying that Baptism saves is that he is suggesting that there is analogical relationship — a comparative touchstone — between the salvation of the 8 souls who were saved through water during the time of the Noahaic flood and the salvation of Christians who are saved through the water of Holy Baptism. This analogical relationship between the Nohaic flood and Baptism is the kind of relationship that exists between a person when they are three and a person when they are thirty-three. The former is an earlier and incomplete model of the latter so that by looking back through the latter we can understand the former more completely. Peter says the flood was an anti-type of Baptism. The flood was an incomplete picture of a fuller picture that would come later.

Now as we enter into this we must affirm that it was God who saved Noah and His family, but He did so through water as Peter says. As such it would be accurate for Noah to say He was saved by God or by the flood as long as it was understood that it was God who saved Him by the flood.

The same thing is true of Baptism. If we say we are saved by Baptism we never mean that we are saved by baptism apart from God’s saving work. And yet we can say with Peter that we are saved by Baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Note in both Noah’s salvation and in our salvation it is God who is doing all the saving. In both the OT type and the NT anti-type (fulfillment) the emphasis is on God who is doing the work of saving His people.

Now the reason I spend time to point that out is to articulate again the Reformed and Biblical understanding that Baptism is not about our pledges to God. Baptism, as we see in this passage, is about God’s work of delivering His people.

Most of your Christian friends will not agree with this. Most of your Christian friends will insist that Baptism is about your making a commitment to Christ. That is a unworthy view of Baptism. Baptism is instead about what God is doing, promising and has done and not about what the Baptized person is doing or promising.

In Baptism we have the promise that God will be our God and we shall be His people and the command to repent and believe in light of that promise just as in the flood there was God’s promise to be the God of Noah and His family and the command to build an ark.

When we talk about Baptism we understand that it is a sign and a seal of God’s grace in Jesus Christ that has come to us. It is a sign of God’s promise to do all the saving. It is a seal that indicates we belong to God. The fact that Peter can come right out and say that “Baptism Saves Us” reveals the incredibly close relationship between the sign and what the sign indicates.

Because it is a sign and a seal of God’s gracious intentions towards us we must, in times of doubt, always remember our Baptism for in remembering our Baptism we are at the same time remembering God’s promise that He would be our God and we would be His people.

Now returning to the comparison between the Noahaic flood and Baptism we would say that Noah’s physical salvation through the waters of the flood through the waters of the flood was anticipatory of the fact that our Spiritual salvation is through the waters of Holy Baptism.

Just as Noah went through the destruction of the flood unto renewed life so God’s people are buried with Christ through the waters of Baptism into His death only to be resurrected with Him unto renewed life. (Romans 6:4) Noah and His family, as God’s people, were saved through the flood. The Church as God’s people are saved through Baptism. And it is God who used the flood and who uses Baptism as a means of Grace who does all the saving.

This idea of being saved through water repeats itself through Scripture. Not only is it Noah who is saved through Water but later it is the Children of Israel as they pass through the Red Sea who are saved by God through Water. In both cases the waters are at the same time judgment to God’s enemies and grace to God’s people. With the same waters God both condemns and gives life.

So it is with Baptism. The waters of Baptism are judgment to those who will not submit to a Christian Baptism that proclaims that God does all the saving while at the same time being grace to those who will embrace the promises of God found in Baptism.

Now from his emphasis on Baptism Peter turns to clarify the issue.

Baptism is not about the removal of physical filth from the body. The point here is that Baptism, as a means of Grace, is not about the performance of a misunderstood empty bathing ritual. In Baptism it is not the water itself, apart from Christ, that saves. The means of grace is not found in the water stripped away from the understanding that Baptism is the means of grace whereby we have union with Christ in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:4). In Baptism it is not the filth of the flesh that God removes but the filth of the soul.

It is because God has done all the doing in Baptism that Peter can say that the result of this is the answer of a good conscience towards God. Since God has claimed us through Baptism and has done all the saving we have a good conscience towards God.

The fact that Baptism is only to be understood in light of the work of Jesus Christ is seen by how Peter goes on to say that all of this is through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Baptism we die to sin and self and are resurrected with Christ.

Peter then reminds us that this Christ is not only resurrected but also ascended and ruling. By bringing this forward Peter gives great comfort to Christians that all that comes their way is through the hands of their sovereign King who has delivered them for His glory.
————-

Sundry unrelated observations on Baptism

In Baptistic thinking faith and the sacraments are not presuppositions but attainments. It is as if man were supposed to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Tree of Knowledge and Ethics, before he can eat of the Tree of Life. Rationalistic and evidential apologetics, encourage men to approach faith by way of reason. Faith is not seen as the foundation of thought, but as an attainment. Naturally, the sacraments are seen the same way: men are to make a decision, and then be admitted to baptism (the Baptist view). The Bible, however, indicates that faith is presuppositional. The child is to be taught to believe from the beginning. It is not his initial decision which evidences his faith, but rather his perseverance to the end. He participates in the sacrament, in both its forms, from the beginning. The sacrament of God’s grace is not something he must attain by making a decision, walking an aisle, memorizing a catechism, or going through a rite of confirmation; but rather the sacrament of eating dinner with Jesus at His House is the presupposition of the child’s growth in grace. The difference between these two approaches, let me say it gently but straightforwardly, goes back to the Garden of Eden itself.

James Jordan

Baptists, and unfortunately the majority of Reformed folks, confuse being with doing. Faith is understood to be an act–trusting or believing for example–rather than the condition from which those actions proceed. Actions reflect a persons nature. Actions don’t cause a person’s nature. A proper understanding of God’s covenant promises requires that one give the judgment of charity to the regenerate condition of covenant children.

A Letter To The Editor From PCA Pastor Rev. Tom “Franken” Stein

What do we do with home-schoolers?

http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010010314

(1.)Some oversight seems reasonable compared to cost of lifetime dependency

(2.)Time to offend everyone. How can you write about education, and do otherwise?

(3.)The subject of the week is home-schooling. More and more people in Richmond are doing this — or claiming to do this. One result? Our graduation rate is improving, for when a student leaves the district for home-schooling, the departure does not count against the rate. Does this explain the whole increase? Maybe not. But it sure helps.

(4.) Let’s be real. Something is happening here, and one doubts it is a citywide divine revelation about the glories of home-schooling.

(5.)Are our local administrators quietly encouraging parents of troubled and troublesome kids to sign the form that promises home-schooling?

(6.) Are parents claiming to home-school, so they can dodge the law that now requires kids to be in school until they are 18?

(7.) I don’t know and I don’t know. But we do have a way of finding and using loopholes in laws, and this one is a mile wide.

(8.)Yet behind all that, is this: What do we do with home schools?

(9.)Leave them alone? Regulate them? Ban them?

(10.)I run in circles where home-schooling is often present, and sometimes popular. Home schools are like anything else: Some are good, and some are bad. Some parents are passionate, diligent and competent. Other parents are lukewarm, negligent and unqualified.

(11.)I admire those who do it well. My kids surpassed my home-schooling skills somewhere around first grade.

(12.)So I ask: is it in the interests of the state, to keep an eye on this? I say yes.

(13.) Let’s say the schools do happily say goodbye to frustrating and failing kids through this home-school loophole, and never see them again. Or let’s say exasperated parents do sign the form, then allow their children to enjoy a curriculum of potato chips and ESPN. What is the result? Uneducated, unskilled, unmotivated people who will barely survive in the work force and might eventually drop out altogether. Then, since we are so generous with our social programs, we will have another group of people who take far more than they give.

(14.)Is this what we want? I hope not. Some oversight and regulation seems reasonable. This might include submission of a curriculum, occasional visits and participation in the standardized tests. Yes, this addition to our bureaucracy will cost money, but how does that compare to what we pay for a lifetime of dependency?

(15.)As with many issues these days, we tend to run to the extremes.

(16.) One side might say, “Do not touch my home-schooling!” The other side might say, “Just outlaw it!”

(17.) But can we do better than that? Home-schooling is an excellent path for some. But it is not for everyone — especially those who merely sign a form to evade a law.

(18.)If we believe we need to help people who need help, we need to help them when they are kids, so we do not need to help them when they are adults.

(19.) Let’s not stick our heads in the sand about what is happening or what could happen. We can value freedom and urge responsibility.

(20.)Hello, legislators. Anybody … home?

Tom Stein is senior pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Richmond Indiana
Letter To The Editor

You need to understand that as I write this response I am working on all cylinders to keep the river of rage between the banks of coherency. As such, I’m just going to bullet point my response.

1a.) Children have oversight Dr. T. Franken Stein. That oversight is called parents. You might have bumped into these folks occasionally Tom. God has given them the responsibility of oversight of their children in the realm of the family.

1b.) This lifetime of dependency your concerned about resulting from neglected home schooled children … is that the kind of dependency that currently finds 1 in 7 public school educated Americans on food stamps Tom? Is it the kind of life time dependency that finds millions of government educated adults voting for a party that is committed to creating a dependency under-class? I want to tell you Tom that even if parents of home schooled children assiduously schemed to enstupidfy their children into a life time of dependency they could not, labor as they might, match the enstupidification process that the Government schools have made a science. In short Tom, even if the larger percentage of home schooled children became life time dependents upon the government that percentage could not match the life time of dependents that are created by government schools.

1c.) You speak of the necessity for being reasonable. By what standard are you measuring “reasonable,” Tom? If we are looking to God’s word for the definition of reasonable I see no justification for advocating for the increased oversight by the state over home educators. The Scriptures nowhere allows the State to intrude upon the family realm, where education lies, except in the necessity of interposition. Are you really arguing Tom that things are so bad that there is a need for the State to do interposition into the Family sphere on this issue?

2.) Tom, the chief person you’ve offended is Jesus Christ in heaven above. You have advocated the State to usurp the prerogatives that God has given to the parents in order that the State might play God to the family. Your advocacy for increased State control is an advocacy that leads to the deterioration of the family and the enhancement of the State. A State, I might remind you, which is hostile to Biblical Christianity.

3a.) Who cares if the government schools graduation rate is increasing or decreasing? The government schools produce illiterate mindless slaves. The government schools raise generations to be anti-Christ in their thinking. Who cares anything about what these people do except to care that government education is destroying the citizenry? In terms of the government schools, “let the dead bury the dead.”

3b.) Why should it bother you if home schoolers only “claim” to educate? Why should it bother you since the government schools likewise only claim to educate? What difference does it make if a child is not really educated at home or if they are not really educated at government school? Why do you assume that all because a child attends a government school they are really being educated?

4a.) Yes indeed something doubtless is happening here, and what is happening is that people are increasingly awakening to the fact that they can’t screw up their own children any worse than the government schools are screwing up their children. Good night, even the pagans are realizing that the government schools are making morons out of their children and you write to suggest the morons should have oversight?

5.) I pray to God that school administrators are encouraging parents to home educate their children. Dear Jesus, let that be true please.

6.) Why shouldn’t parents try to dodge stupid laws that require their children to be in government schools until they are 18? Who is the State that it should dictate to parents how long it takes in order for their children to be adequately educated?

7.) Any loophole that can be found in current laws regarding education of our children should be taken full advantage of. The State has no Biblically ordained role to dictate to the family what it does with their God given children.

Remember Tom, this is a pagan State and pagan government schools we are talking about here. These are schools that are thoroughly anti-Christ from top to bottom. Shouldn’t this reality make you want to cheer whenever loopholes are taken advantage of?

8.) You ask, “What do we do with Homeschools.”

First, I wonder who is the “we” to which you make reference in that question. Is the “we” that have to do something with home-schools the “we” of the Christian church, or is the “we” the “we” of a pagan anti-Christ culture? I suspect that the “we” is the latter “we.”

You do realize, of course, that your concern as a Pastor should not be with those anti-Christ pagans who want to regulate the education of home schoolers.

9.) I have an answer to your question though, and my answer is leave them alone. It is none of your damn business as a lackey for the State on how parents raise their children. Keep in mind Tom that children belong to the parents and not the State.

10.) I agree that not all home schools are equally adept at home schooling? So what? A bad Christian home school is better than a “good” pagan government school. You don’t seem to have any comprehension Tom on how bad the government schools are. The government schools are so bad that even if a child were to grow up ignorant in a home schooled setting that child would be better served than attending government schools. You don’t seem to realize Tom that government schools are the engine of socialism in this country. You don’t seem to realize that government schools are not interested in educating but in creating a slave class. You don’t seem to realize that putting hundreds and thousands of adolescents in one setting with minimal adult oversight creates a “Lord of the flies” sub youth culture. You don’t seem to realize that government schools are committed to turning children into moral zombies. You don’t seem to realize that given the emphasis of egalitarianism in the government schools that the result is an even low intelligence that is produced. You don’t seem to realize that the average home school scores on standardized college tests blow the average government school scores out of the water. You don’t seem to realize that the government schools, with their dismissal of the Lordship of Christ in education are raising a generation of anti-Christs. You don’t seem to realize Tom that by sending our children to government schools we are destroying the family. 8 hours of school combined with 8 hours of sleep doesn’t leave much time for family life.

What kind of a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can you be if you are this totally unaware and stupid Tom?

11.) Given this letter I find this statement altogether believable. Still, if you are no smarter than a 6 year old, I might ask, “What in the world are you doing serving as a Pastor? If you are no more bright than your 6 year old, I advise you to turn your congregation over to your child when they turn 7.

12.) The interests of the State? What about the interests of the God you are supposed to be serving Tom? You say it is in the interests of the State to keep an eye on homeschooling. Who, might I ask, in your twisted world, is keeping an eye on the State who is keeping an eye on the homeschoolers? Given the magnificent ability of the State to screw up every thing it touches why would you want to charge the state with keeping an eye on Homeschoolers? This is like asking the Fox to keep an eye on the chicken coop.

Please tell me that you’ve never read a book on this subject Tom. Please tell me that you wrote out of complete and utter ignorance of this subject. Please tell me that you are unaware of the writings of Neil Postmen, or John Taylor Gatto, or Doug Wilson, or Peter Brimelow, or Samuel L Blumenfeld, or Thomas Sowell, or B. K. Eakman, or R. J. Rushdoony, or Gordon Clark, or Cornelius Van Til or Neal McCluskey, or Dorthy Sayers, or any number of other worthies who have written on the banality of our current government schools to whom you want to give oversight power. It boggles the mind that a Christian minister desires to give oversight of Christian children to people who are committed to training those children in the ways of a pagan christ-less covenant.

13.) This paragraph of yours and the question in it are laughable but if one must have an answer to your question concerning the result of a generation of home-schooled children growing up with a curriculum of potato chips and ESPN I would suggest the most likely result of a generation of home schooled children growing up on a curriculum of potato chips and ESPN is that we’ll have more people qualified to fill the pulpits of the PCA.

You’re wasting all the energy on the potential of home schooled children to become scofflaws while ignoring the actuality that millions and millions of those who were government schooled are scofflaws precisely because they were educated into their worthless societal contributions by the government schools they attended. Shouldn’t your effort, Tom, be more fruitful if you were to try and do something about the abysmal state of our government schools? Maybe you should advocate that home-schooler being given the responsibility to keep an eye on the government schools? Maybe home-schoolers should be empowered to regulate the government schools?

14.) You do realize that you are advocating here that those with a Christ hating worldview be in charge over those with a Christ loving worldview? You do realize that no curriculum that honors Christ will be accepted by those who hate Christ don’t you? Let’s say, I, as a home school parent, turn in a curriculum program that has as a class, “The failures of the American educational system,” do you think that such a worthy course would be approved by those you want to bring into the home to do oversight? Have you lost your mind man?

15.) Psst .. Tom … don’t tell anybody but you are the one advocating an extreme.

I would remind you Tom that even if those of us who desire to tell the State to butt out are extreme that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

16.) And one side might rightly say … The pagan State has not been given by God the commission to dictate to Christian parents how they raise and educate their children.

17.) I would contend that a law should be passed that makes it illegal for parents to send their children to government schools Tom. Yes … that is how bad it really is. I would also contend that parents be allowed to escape government schools by any loophole they can find.

18.) The most help you can be Tom is to understand how education is part of a Christian world and life view. You are advocating in your letter for something that is completely contrary to what you confess to believe is true. You are contradicting your confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ by suggesting that the pagan State be in the position of Lord over children.

If we want to help children Tom we will pray God will destroy the government schools that are destroying our children. If we help them as children in this way our task will be less Herculean in helping them when they are adults. Your solution Rev. Stein in giving oversight abilities to the Pagan State serves as the final nails in the coffin of this culture.

19.) Your invoking of freedom and responsibility at the end of your letter is a joke given the reality that if we follow your advice it will lead to slavery and dependency on the State.

Become a Christian Tom and contend for the Crown Rights of King Jesus and not the Crown rights of the State.

Hello … Tom … Rev. Stein … are you listening.

Interested and outraged readers might want to continue exploring commentary on Tom’s idiocy by reading,

A Clueless Pastor Wants More State Control of Education

Render the Home-Schools unto Caesar? A Critique of Pastor Stein’s State-Worship

The Degradation of Women

“…[W]hen the mother shall have found another sphere than her home for her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustings [politics]; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone, it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men. In the hands of such a bastard progeny, without discipline, without homes, without a God, the last remains of social order will speedily perish, and society will be overwhelmed in savage anarchy.…[T]he very traits which fit her to be the angel of a virtuous home unfit her to meet the agitations of political life, even as safely as does the more rugged man. The hot glare of publicity and passion will speedily deflower her delicacy and sweetness. Those temptations, which her Maker did not form her to bear, will debauch her heart, developing a character as much more repulsive than that of the debauched man as the fall has been greater. The politicating woman, unsexed and denaturalized, shorn of the true glory of her femininity, will appear to men as a feeble hybrid manikin dwarf, with all the defects and none of the strength of the male. Instead of being the dear object of his chivalrous affection, she becomes his importunate rival, despised without being feared!”

R. L. Dabney — 19th Century Reformed Theologian
Women’s Rights

From Dabney’s words we see that the Feminist movement, that has so sold itself as the champion of Women and the protector and keeper of all things female, is, in point of fact, a movement that is concerned with destroying women and with putting them in bondage.

There is a great deal that is done today in the name of “respecting women” which is merely a cover for degrading women. Giving just one example women are not esteemed and are only brought low when they people insist that they are equal to men in the sense of being the same as men. Women are not the same as men and any argument that argues of the equality of women that is really arguing for the sameness of women is an argument that degrades women.

Note also the point of the Dabney quote where he suggests that the degradation of women leads inevitably to the degradation of men. Women who are taught that they are the same as men yield men who believe that they are no different from women. At this point sexual identity is completely comprised and the social order perishes.