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.

Reading Between The Lines Of Obama’s Post Election 2010 Press Conference

Doing a brief analysis of Obama’s post midterm election 2010 press conference it becomes painfully obvious that Obama is doing a couple things. First, in that press conference he sought to put on his “humble face.” However, it is almost impossible for narcissist of the caliber of Obama to be humble. His words belied his mien. Second, people need to realize that as Obama is a Marxist that any concession that is offered or that appears to be offered is a dialectical concession. B. Hussein Obama thinks dialectically. Try to imagine a hammer driving in a nail. When the hammer is lifted from the nail after the first blow the nail might possible think …“Ahh … I see my resistance has discouraged the hammer and so the hammer is retreating.” Of course the hammer’s retreat is a tactical move with the intent of delivering another blow to the nail. Obama’s press conference revealed that Obama is the hammer and the American public is the nail that the Marxist hammer intends to drive into submission. Obama was not retreating in the press conference as a close look at his words reveal. Obama is merely preparing himself for another strike.

The American people have to learn that Marxists do not retreat. Never. They maneuver dialectically … which is to say that any appearance of retreat is only for the purpose of being better able to strike to their advantage in the future.

With that in mind we turn to the B. Hussein Obama press conference.

B. Hussein Obama,

“What yesterday also told us is that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here, that we must find common ground in order to set — in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges.”

Obama is being duplicitous here. What election day told us is that the electorate did not desire the Marxist-Democratic party to be the party that arrogantly dictates where the nation goes. It is only on the day after election that we have to live with the fact that no one election can completely turn out the pukes that we want silenced. Because of that reality no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here.

Second, this theme of “finding common ground” is one that Obama kept returning to and banging away at during his press conference. However, this is a lie. The voters yesterday were not saying that they desire common ground to be found. The voters were screaming …

STOP THE MARXIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Really, there is very little common ground to be found with these people. For example, even if both parties desire to balance the budge the Marxists want to balance it by tax increases while the Constitutionalists want to balance it by cutting the budget. Each side will be opposed to the other sides idea, and as such there is no place for common ground.

B. Hussein Obama

“And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.”

This is clever. Obama cloaks his defiance in a call for unity. By saying that we ought not to re-fight the political battles of the last two years Obama is seeking to undermine the very reason why the voters voted the way they did. As the mid-term election was nationalized over the policy of the Obama administration of the last two years it is clearly the case that what the voters exactly desire is a re-fighting of the political battles of the last two years. This statement is proof that Obama remains defiant and intent on pushing his agenda.

Through the press conference Obama made it clear that health care legislation was not a mistake in policy and that he had no intent to reverse course on his signature legislation.

B. Hussein Obama,

“I think that there are some areas where it’s going to be very difficult for us to agree on, but I think there are going to be a whole bunch of areas where we can agree on. I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to; that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence. And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about, whether it’s natural gas or energy efficiency or how we can build electric cars in this country, how do we move forward on that agenda.

I think everybody in this country thinks that we’ve got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, their math backgrounds, to compete in this new global economy. And that’s going to be an area where I think there’s potential common ground.”

The common ground that Republicans are being called to here is common ground staked out by the Marxists. Both of these (energy and education) are Democratic Trojan horses in order to advance a Marxist control agenda.

B. Hussein Obama,

“I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.

But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious — a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies — I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.”

Note, Obama insists that his policy decisions were right. This assertion comes in the face that the voters told him Tuesday that his policy decisions were wrong.

Second, the whole crap about us “falling into a second Great Depression” is merely an assertion. There is no one who knows for a fact that this is true. This is just more hyperbole in order to justify his reckless Marxist policy.

Third, Obama is pinning the problem of the election results on the stupidity of the American people. The government was doing the right thing but the public felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.” The implication here is that the government, according to Obama, wasn’t really getting much more intrusive but it merely felt that way to the stupid American public.

“Q Would you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Savannah, I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices.”

Here Obama suggests that nobody would have objected to his socialist policies if unemployment hadn’t been so high. This bodes for a future Obama who continues to pursue his Marxist policy.

Elsewhere in the press conference what we saw is that Obama won’t move on the principle behind cap and tax (trade), and does not rule out the possibility of implementing cap and tax through the EPA bureaucracy. Further Obama, hasn’t moved on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Clearly, what we got from this press conference is a belligerent Obama wrapped in a humble facade.

The next two years ought to be interesting.

Election 2010

In undergraduate school I learned that there are three ways of turning out the party in power. Those three ways are, an economic downturn, a major foreign policy blunder, or monumental corruption. Last night’s election returns are primarily the result of our current economic downturn.

Clearly, Americans are looking to the Republicans to right the economic ship of state. In the election last night the Democrats were repudiated at Federal level, the State level, and the local level. Not only did the US House of Representative change hands but Republicans also picked up to 10 Gubernatorial seats as well taking control of at least 18 state chambers from Democrats. Republicans now control 54 state legislative chambers seeing a net gain of at least 680 seats in state legislatures. Last night confirmed the perception that America is a center-right country.

Or maybe we should say that the Center of the country is perceived as a center-right right country. One aspect of the election that is fascinating is that the Country looks like a sandwich with blue bread covering the red filling. The Democrats own the West and East Coast as well as major metropolitan areas in between while the Republicans own the larger part of flyover country. Any inroads the Democrats made into flyover country between 2006-2010 were almost completely wiped out last night. America is a divided country with fewer and fewer issues over which to find common ground.

Part of this division is augmented by the reality that Red Americans are divided with themselves. While Blue American true believers have no doubt about their progressive nature, Red Americans are a self-divided people. On one hand Red Americans desire want all the advantages of big government while on the other hand they say they want their individual liberty. On one hand Red Americans want all the perks of the welfare state while on the other hand they are angered at being taxed at the level it takes to run a welfare state. Americans are schizophrenic. I offer proof of this in the observation that the same voters who voted Republican in order to reign in spending are people who would instantly put Democrats back in office if Republicans actually began cutting entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, Government Schools, Educational grants, and other like programs. If one desires to balance the budget, it simply is the case that this is where one must go to cut.

Unfortunately, for America, turning the Democrats out of power and placing power in the hands of Republicans is like taking the keys from someone who was convicted for driving while intoxicated and giving them to someone recently convicted of hit and run. Republicans have never shown the will power to do what American have said, by their vote, that they want accomplished. Republicans, like those who voted them into office, are schizophrenic. On one hand they talk about fiscal responsibility but on the other hand they pass things like the prescription drug law for seniors as they did during the Bush administration.

All of this is part of the reason why I can say that the country is perceived as center-right. If the country was really center right it would demand the end to not only the new health care law but also the end to programs like Social Security, Medicare, Corporate Welfare, and government schools. If the country was really center-right it would demand the end to the Federal Reserve.

As such, I expect that Republican hegemony will be short lived as voters become frustrated with both their inability to turn the economy around as well as being aggravated at any genuine attempt to turn the economy around.

Pivoting slightly, another interesting result of the 2010 election is the increasing racial dynamic that is making up electoral politics. The 2010 election revealed white flight to the Republican party. This is significant given the fact that the Democratic party has long received the lion’s share of the Black and Latino vote. The harsh truth is that this also breaks down between the producers (largely, though not exclusively whites) increasingly coalescing in one party (Republican) while the profiteers of the American welfare redistribution system (largely, though not exclusively minorities) remain coalesced in the Democratic party. If this dynamic hardens it could make for some interesting political governance and campaigns in the near future.

For more details on this theme see,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/03/exit_polls_unprecedented_white_flight_from_democrats__107824.html

One more thing that needs to be said before we close. As long as Ben Shalom Bernanke can massively inflate the money supply as he has done we see revealed why elections don’t matter and why the FED must be ended. As long as this kind of thing can be done, quite apart from legislative oversight, elections are largely a dog and pony show. If the FED can not be shut down then it really is not possible to correct the American economic affairs.

Educating Hart

http://oldlife.org/2010/10/30/freedom-for-home-schoolers-tyranny-for-infidels/

What I call attention to though is the contradiction between these pastors’ call for limited government regarding the family and their frequent requests for the state to uphold and defend the true religion. To put this matter graphically, would Bret and Tim be so willing to see a Wiccan family conduct home schooling? Maybe they would given their opposition to big government.

But how big a government would you have if the Westminster Assembly was right about the powers of the civil magistrate and Hilary Clinton as the next president of the United States had the power and duty to call and preside over the PCA General Assembly or the CRC Synod? At this point I believe Bret and Tim might finally come around to a 2k outlook (mind you, I no longer speak of worldviews).

Sigh … Dr. Hart should quit calling me “Rabbi,” and start calling me “Catnip,” for that is what I am to him. Our Hillsdale Scholar just can’t resist me.

First, we should note again, for Dr. Hart, that every government is in the business of upholding and defending a religion that they count as the “true one.” As there is no government from nowhere (i.e. — no government that isn’t animated by some religion) all governments always uphold and defend the religion that birthed them. Our current State upholds and defends the true religion of religious secularism. One wonders if Dr. Hart will get as exercised over the reality of our current government upholding and defending a pagan religion as he is over the currently remote possibility that some future government might defend and uphold the one true religion?

Second, with Darryl’s complaint about my call for Government officials to “Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way, by upholding and defending the one true catholic faith, he shows that it is his desire that Government officials not “Kiss the Son thus revealing a real lack of concern over the reality that government officials who will not kiss the Son will perish in the way.” Now, for a man who is both a Doctor and a Christian that is not very compassionate on his part.

Third, whether or not I would approve of a Wicca family homeschooling would depend upon whether or not they taught the finer arts of live human sacrifice (complete with a lab demonstration) in their curriculum. If they stay away from human sacrifice I’m sure Wiccans, with their solid family structures, should be allowed to home-school.

Fourth, Dr. Darryl reveals his worldview by insisting that he no longer speaks in terms of worldviews.

Fifth, what difference would it make if Hillary called and Presided over a Reformed Church general Synod? Much, if not most, of the Reformed institutional Church, as seen by Rev. Stein and Dr. Hart are simpatico, to one degree or another, with Hillary Clinton. Still, to answer Dr. Hart query I would say that if a pagan calls a convocation with the intent to violate the true religion it would be the responsibility of the Church to resist.

Dr. Hart’s profound insights was then followed up by a equally profound comment by another shining example of Christian intellectual depth,

Jolene Z. Commented,

I am shocked at the depth of “rage” (his words) and the tone of language used by “Rabbi Bret.” One thing missed in all his raging about the Pagan State intruding into families and education: the whole system of required education, with goals of universal literacy, educated citizens and community, is all a matter of law. Why not come out with a call to repeal mandatory education laws?

The key verb operating in Bret’s screed: “control” – He’s not interested in liberty but in control. If you can wrap schooling and education under ministerial/ecclesiastic control, so much the better for control-oriented ministers.

Jolene, obviously has never read much of Iron Ink because I do call for the repeal of mandatory education laws.

And certainly this lady must be kidding about the government schools providing universal literacy, educated citizens, and community or even having goals to that end? What planet does this lady live on?

The fact that Miss Jolene probably wrote her comment while smoking peyote can be seen in her accusation that I’m all about control. “Psst … Jolene … I am the one who wants parents to have the opportunity, apart from statist management, to educate their children.” Further Jolene, honey, whenever children are educated they are under the control of some ministerial control even if that ministerial control is the ministerial control of the parents in the home.

Maybe it is good that Darryl, is calling me Rabbit Bret now because whenever I read his blog I sense that I’ve fallen down Alice’s “Rabbit Hole.

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.