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.

Hebrews 7-8 & Covenant Fulfillment

Hebrews 8:10 makes it abundantly clear that the Old Testament case law applies in the New and Better covenant.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[b] I will remember no more.”13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

While it is true that 7:12 teaches the explicit change in the law,

11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

one must ask what exactly the explicit change is given that 8:10 clearly teaches that the OT law remains valid since it is that law which is to be written on the hearts and etched in the minds of the New Covenant people.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

I would contend that given the explicit statement that the new and better covenant includes the OT law put in minds and written in hearts the explicit change that 7:12 is referring to is the explicit change that comes with the fulfillment of the ceremonial law. Such an interpretation does justice to Hebrews since the danger that the author of Hebrews is dealing with is the danger of the Jews, to whom he is writing, going back to the Old Covenant ceremonial system. The danger in Hebrews is not the danger of the recipients of the letter applying the OT moral and case law. That is not what the book of Hebrews is about. In Hebrews the danger is that people are inching towards going back to the ceremonial shadows. And so the writer to the Hebrews tells them that the Levitical Priesthood which officiates those ceremonies and the ceremonial law is past. That is the explicit change in the law that is being spoken of. Indeed the context demands that reading in vs. 10-11.

The context of 7:10-11 is the ceremonial law and the Levitical Priesthood — not the moral or civil law as those aspects of the law will be now written on their hearts and put in their minds of those of us in the New Covenant.

Indeed, to appeal to 7:10-11 as proof that the Old Testament law is done away with actually proves to much for such a sweeping change would have to apply to the Moral law as well so that, if we were to be consistent, would have to say that the Moral law (the Ten Commandments) no longer apply. I know of no Reformed theologians who have ever suggested such a thing.

So the new and better covenant that is promised in Hebrews chapter 8 is a new and better covenant because it is the fulfillment of all that the old and worst covenant anticipated. The old covenant is set aside in the sense that when the reality comes the shadows are no longer present but in as much it is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant it brings to the fore all that the Old Covenant promised. The thing to keep in mind is that they are not two antithetical covenants but a covenant of promise and covenant of fulfillment. Try to think of the relationship between the two covenants like the relationship between a engagement promise and a wedding promise. When the wedding promise comes the engagement promise is fulfilled and set aside and only inasmuch as it is taken up into the new and better wedding promise. The two promises though distinct are clearly related and even though the former engagement promise is put off it is putt off by being incorporated into the wedding promise which it anticipated.

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends II

In part I of this series I introduced you to Mr. Mark Chambers. Mark is one of those rare laymen who, being epistemologically self conscious, continues to seek to be epistemologically self conscious. Mark is one of the sharpest laymen I’ve ever met. Indeed, he is sharper then 95% of the ministerial class I know.

In part II of this series I would like to introduce you to Joshua Butcher. Joshua is 20 something, has a beautiful wife and two young sons and is finishing up his Ph.D. work in Rhetoric somewhere in the Republic of Texas. Joshua, like Mark and myself (and many others) is a presuppositionalist, a theonomist, and as this article reveals, a supralapsarian reconstructionist.

Joshua, in this article, beginning with the counsels of God in eternity, connects the dots in a sweeping overview, between God’s exhaustive decretal sovereignty, Christ’s sufficient and efficient work and our necessary obedience to the Crown rights of King Jesus.

I don’t know if I’ve ever read a better concise overview of the necessary interrelation of God’s eternal decrees with the finished work of Christ with the inevitable and irresistible obedience that the Spirit of Christ calls forth from every member of God’s tribe.

Joshua’s blog can be found at,

http://anotherreadersreview.blogspot.com/

THE END OF A THING DETERMINES ITS BEGINNING

The phrase that heads this current post seems counter-intuitive in our present age. How can something’s end determine its beginning, see as how the beginning precedes it in time? It is such temporally determined thinking that prevents us from considering how it is that God works in the world, how it is that He makes good what is evil, how it is that we must see all things now are, though they have not yet been brought to pass in history.

From all eternity, in order to glorify Himself to the uttermost, God did determine to choose unto Himself an elect people to give unto His Son, with whom the mutual agreement was made to unite this people unto the Son, in an immaculate display of God’s perfection. As God is both merciful and just, as He is both gracious and wrathful, He decided it most pleasing to choose some upon whom His love He would place and some upon whom His wrath He would place, not according to any condition foreseen in these objects, but because of His own desire to magnify Himself did the God of Heaven make unto Himself objects of mercy and objects of wrath. Here is the first decree, the last to be revealed in history–for we do not yet see all who it shall be that God has confirmed as His people, or denied as rebellious.

Given that God did choose to elect unto Himself a people to Love by His grace and mercy and a people to Hate by His justice and wrath, God did determine to apply the benefits of His Son, by the Holy Spirit’s power, upon those who He would make unto Himself in love. The righteousness, holiness, goodness, long-suffering, peacefulness, and all the other communicable attributes of God He did decree to apply to the elect in Christ according to His electing love for them. To those whom He had determined to reprobate God withheld the merits of Christ by union with Him, instead passing them over in their unloved state. Here we see in history the calling out of God’s people through regeneration, whereby they are delivered from the curse of sin and raised unto life, which they now live for God until He shall bring history to its end.

Given that God did decree to apply the benefits of Christ to the elect, and to deny them unto the reprobate, it was necessary to determine how it would come about that Christ’s benefits would be applied to the elect. This salvation was to be according to the Law, which God decreed should be that standard according to which all men should be subject, and according to which they would be reconciled to God through the incarnation, obedient life, substitutionary death, and life-giving resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ. The apparatus of God’s salvation is seen in history in the life and work of Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the elect, prophesied from the earliest ages and revealed at the appointed time.

Given that God did decree to bring about the salvation of the elect through the incarnation and work of the Son in history, it was necessary for Him to determine how it would be that men should come under the penalty of wrath and the need for redemption. Therefore God decreed that all men should fall under the penalty of lawbreaking in their federal representative, Adam. By this Fall the whole of Creation would be separated from the love of God and be subject to the effects of God’s wrath, including the curse upon the earth, and upon the subsequent generations of men propagated by natural generation. The means of bringing all men under the need of redemption was accomplished in history in the disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden, wherein he did take the forbidden fruit to the dishonor of God’s commandment to him.

Given that God did decree to bring about the Fall of men in order that the means of salvation in Christ might be provided, and the merits of Christ be applied to those whom God had chosen to elect in Him for His own glory, God did decree to create the world and all that is it in, including the federal head Adam in whom all humanity consists under the law and according to natural generation. The Creation of the world was the first act of history, and the last intention of God necessary to bring about His utmost glory.

The consistency of logical progression of God’s thought is the perfect reverse reflection of their temporal accomplishment. Understanding the character of God’s thought as such, we are called to consider our own lives and every event in them as determined by the ends for which God is doing all things–His own glory, and the brining to maturation all those elect who are the image of Christ, Who is the image of God, who has manifest His glory in just this way, and no other.

When, therefore, there is evil, let us praise the name of the Lord and work according to His express commands. When, therefore, there is good, let us praise the name of the Lord and work according to His express commands. When, therefore, there is doubt concerning what is our destiny upon this earth, let us praise the name of the Lord and look into His perfect Law and find all that we are in Christ, and all that we shall do in His name and by His power for the restoration of all things to the great glory of our God, Father, Savior, King.

End of part 1

I’m sure a few of you read the previous post, blanched at its abstract character, and pulled away thinking, “but what has such considerations of ‘logical’ order have to do with how I live in the world?”

A perfectly valid question. Consider the fact that if you are one of God’s elect, there is no moment in the history of your life, beginning to end, when God has not considered you in light of His loving purposes. That means that every circumstance, every sin, every success or failure: every single aspect of your existence is characterized by the love of God. Each sin, for example, brings not condemnation, but the opportunity for greater illumination and subsequent obedience. “Are we not then to lament our sins?” May it never be! That all things work to our good does not entail that all things we experience are praiseworthy! The breaking of God’s law is indeed a lamentable offense, yet because the elect have been accepted in Christ from eternity, his standing before God is as a son, and not as an enemy. What father would give a snake when the son asked for an egg? God conditions us by degrees into His very likeness, the express image of God that is Christ Jesus. Thus, every destination has its journey, and every step of that journey is characterized by the direction determined by that destination. God is the governor, guide, and goad–how could we, his sons and daughters, come out otherwise than He desires, if we are indeed His children?

I often hear Christians complaining of how great is their sin, how manifestly difficult it is for them to master, and how wonderful it will be when we are free from sin in heaven. While all of these considerations are true in one sense, they are profoundly misleading in another. Has not our sin been placed upon an even greater Savior? Has not our flesh been crucified, and our life that we now live, lived in the power of God Himself, the Holy Spirit? Has not the power of sin and death been buried with Christ in His death, in order that we may walk unencumbered by the sins that so easily beset us? We children of God, every one of us, struggle in our sin to the extent that we fail to understand our identity–we are not our own individual self, but we are the complex identity of Christ-in-us-and-we-in-Him. The commandments to be of one mind so often given in relation to our brothers and sisters in Christ is because we are first of all made of one mind with Christ Himself. We have the mind of Christ – 1 Cor. 2:16.

A further corollary consideration to our being identified completely with Christ is that we must know what it means to be Christ upon the earth. If Christ is our Head, and we His Body, then the sense of the analogy would indicate that the Head will use the Body to accomplish His will in the earth. But what standard has been given, or what orders been issued, that we may know not only who we are, but what we are to be about? Jesus Christ came to be about the will of His Father, and while we are not privy to the same tasks in every respect (which of us would profess to propitiate the wrath of God for the elect!?!?), we nonetheless are given in Christ a model of our true humanity. Christ fulfilled the Law by following the Law in every respect. Love God. Love your neighbor. Two very simple commands within which are contained the limitless directives for Christians in every age and in every circumstance. Yet there are those who claim that the Bible does not speak to every consideration. God has indeed been silent on a great many truths, but those are expressly concerning Himself and His particular reasons for what He does. What we must choose in each choice is profoundly determined by Scripture in every aspect. Even legitimate matters of Christian liberty are characterized by the requirements of the first word: they must be Christian; they must glorify God as Christ glorified God in every way.

But further, who can be so foolish as to think that the Eternal God of Heaven would leave us groping for direction in those affairs that bear the most direct impact upon what we shall learn and how we shall live!? I am speaking of our decisions about how to educate our children. I am speaking about our decisions about how to use our money. I am speaking about our decisions about how best to use our “free time.” The modern Church has so circumscribed the Law of God, if it has not thrown it out entire, that it cannot be said to be about much of anything concerning the Kingdom of God Almighty. We not only fail in knowing who we are, but in knowing how who we are impacts how we live, and not by some generalized platitudinous clichés tossed from our pulpits and in our parishes (where they still exist!). What use is the “power” of the “Gospel” when we know not what or how such “power” is to be used or what “good news” is to be spoken? What does it mean to “press the Kingdom” into our lives, really? How exactly is it that “seeing and savoring the beauty of Christ,” works itself out, day to day?

The most basic implication is that we must know God’s Law, Christ’s Law, and find out how to apply it where we are now. For example, it is not enough that one should avoid lying to one’s neighbor in order to fulfill the commandment against bearing false witness. One must also do all in one’s power to protect the good name of one’s neighbor. Do you gossip? Do you criticize on the basis of preference rather than principle? Do you not only wish no ill, but also wish the best for those around you? And no, the best doesn’t always entail avoiding confrontation and being polite, for the best is to be free from sin and to honor God. If you see a brother sinning, we are to point him to God’s Word for encouragement to repent, even as we must be prepared, with soft hearts, to accept the rebuke of a brother when confronted upon our sin – Hebrews 3:12-13.

But you will fail if you forsake the fact that your righteousness is not accomplished by your obedience to the Law, but rather, your obedience to the Law is accomplished because Christ’s righteousness has been applied to your account! The end of the thing determines its beginning. You obey because you have been bought, you were not bought because you obey. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “Dogs bark because they are dogs, not because they bark.” It is in the nature of the Christian to grow in obedience, because his life is Christ’s life within, living out God’s particular purpose for that individual life in the grand drama of His glory. If you aren’t doing Christianity well, go think about what it means to be in Christ. Perhaps God will illuminate your mind to the knowledge of His Son, and thereby call you forth as son or daughter of the living God.

The Long & Storied History Of The “American No.”

On September 23, 1779, American Naval Captain, John Paul Jones fought one of the bloodiest engagements in American naval history. Jones struggled against the 44-gun Royal Navy frigate Serapis. As the battle raged and as Jones own Flagship was burning and sinking there came to Jones a demand from the Captain of the English Serapis to surrender. Jones, reading the demand replied and said “no” by uttering the now immortal words, “I have not yet begun to fight.”

More than three hours later, the Serapis surrendered and Jones took command.

During the ratification process of the US Constitution it became clear that the Constitution could not be ratified without a series of amendments that would clearly articulate one no after another no as to what the US Government would not be allowed to do. These amendments, demanded by the anti-Federalists, became known as the “Bill of Rights.” The “Bill of Rights” is a classic American exercise in saying, “no”. As you read the Bill of Rights count how many times the word “no” or “not” or “nor” is penned.

“In late September 1835 the order went out from the President of Mexico, Santa Anna, for the recovery of a canon that had been loaned to the citizens of Gonzales Texas. The Mexican officer charged with collecting the canon was told “no, you cannot have the cannon” by one Joseph Clements of Gonzales. Two women of Gonzalez decided to memorialize regidore Clements’ famous no with a flag sewn from a wedding dress. Sarah Seely and Eveline DeWitt stitched the dress into a white flag which bore a black star, and a cannon, with four words that simplified and embellished Clements’ “no”. Those four words were “COME AND TAKE IT.”

In World War II Germany was down to a last gasp offensive that came to be known as the “Battle of the Bulge.” In the small town of Bastogne the 101st US Airborne, having just arrived to hold a vital cross-roads connected w/ Bastogne that the Germans desperately needed, was soon overwhelmed with superior German numbers. The Americans had few supplies and hardly any tanks or vehicles. If the 101st fell the Germans would achieve breakout w/ the result of second life for the Nazi’s. The German commander demanded that commanding officer General McAuliffe surrender. McAuliffe returned a one word no reply simply saying, Nuts.

America has a long and storied history of saying “no.” Today there is a desperate necessity for key Americans to once again rekindle the patriotic “no”. Today Congress is meeting w/ President Obama to discuss Obama’s Marxist Death Care. Today Republicans need to take up the Mantle of John Paul Jones, the anti-federalists, The citizens of Gonzales, and General Anthony McAuliffe and tell the enemy “no.”

They need not fear being labeled the “Party of no,” for such a intended epitaph is what every rebellious child would hurl at a responsible adult for not allowing the Child to play with what would kill him if the Parent allowed them to have what they want. Instead, Republicans should glory in being called the party of “no.”

Oh that Republican would say today,

“Hell no, we will not allow you to implement socialized medicine. Hell no, we can’t afford this proposed death fiasco. Hell no, we don’t care if you throw a temper tantrum and threaten reconciliation. When it comes to dumb arse Marxist ideas we are proud to embrace the long and storied history of the American no.”

If I were a political consultant right now I would be telling candidates that they need to run in 2010 as being proud members of the coalition of “No.” Run commercials where the Democratic opponent is seen speaking in favor of Marxist Death Care, Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants and the stimulus fund. Then simply run a message that says, “My name is _________ and I said ‘no’ to the decline of America.”

Congressmen … just tell Obama and the Democrats …. “No.”

How to identify a liberal who is on the right side of the left. (i.e. — neo-conservative)

“More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means and that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.”

Congressman Ron Paul
Neo-Conned Speech

There is a great deal of talk these days about conservatives recapturing the Republican party to use it as a vehicle to advance their agenda. This is all well and good. However, what I suspect may very well happen is that the conservatives that end up capturing the Republican party as a vehicle will be the neo-conservatives (actually neo-liberals) that the Republicans have been plagued with since Reagan allowed them to hijack his conservative revolution. These neo-liberals are not conservative in the slightest. Their agenda for big government was clearly on display during the Bush administration where government welfare was expanded through the “no child left behind act,” the prescription drugs legislation for senior citizens, the attempt to force amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants down the throats of Americans, and the unnecessary preemptive war on Iraq. None of this is conservatism and yet many if not most of the major Republican players are certainly neo-libs. Voices in the Republican party such as Dick Cheney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George Will and Glen Beck are all neo-liberals. This means all of these people are on the right side of the left as opposed to being on the left side of the left where people like Barack Obama hang out. The differences between the left side of the left and the right side of the left is merely one of degrees.

Rank and file activist Republicans, as well as activists in the Tea Parties need to do their homework on neo-liberalism. Many of these people profess a deep and abiding love for the constitution and yet if they fail to familiarize themselves with the neo-liberal movement — a movement that is easily identifiable as distinct from classical conservatism — they will end up supporting a candidate that will be merely a George W. Bush retread.

The reason that this is of great import is that it looks like, unless something drastically changes the political landscape between now and November, we are going to have a election cycle that is going to be a massive correction to Barack Obama and the left side of the left. My fear is that, despite the rise of Middle America that we have seen in the past year, what is going to happen is that this rise is going to be betrayed by a Republican party that remains ideologically captive to the neo-liberals. What Middle America does not yet realize (even after 8 years of Bush) is that the Trotsky-liberals are every bit as capable as the Marxist-liberals of constructing a Fascist state.

If Middle-America really desires a return to a two-party system they will flush the neo-liberals out of their party and instead build the party with people who;

1.) Support decentralizing the Federal state and so return power to the states per the 9th and 10th amendments.

2.) Enforce immigration laws and so give time for America to re-establish its historic identity.

3.) Withdraw from areas of the world where we have little or no pressing national interest and so relieve some of the strain upon our massive government debt.

4.) Eliminate the department of education so that education can be returned to states and families.

5.) Creatively restructure the welfare / entitlement state so that contractual obligations come close to being honored and government debt is paid down and personal responsibility restored in the citizenry.

6.) Pursue a fair / free trade policy that would include the dismantling of globalistic trade agreements that work to the end of disintegrating national sovereignty.

7.) Eliminate corporate welfare thus insuring that mega-corporations can’t use government handout and government policy to crush their competition and institutionalize their market hegemony.

8.) Eliminate Federal government involvement with social engineering programs such as quotas thus ending the race pimp industry and allowing all Americans to make their own choices with who they will and will not associate with.

9.) Substantially reduce the oppressive regulation put upon American small business thus freeing the entrepreneur to be once again be the engine of our economy.

10.) End the Federal Reserve return to a hard money that has objective value. Such action would forever break the back of the controlling reach of the money interest.

11.) Simplify and restructure the tax code so that it can not be used as a means of social engineering.

12.) Pass legislation that will make it possible to impeach judges so that judicial over-reach will not be attempted without consequence.

13.) Eliminate abortion and pass legislation, based upon the US Constitution’s requirement for Due Process, that abortion will be outlawed in the 50 states.

If Middle America really wants to return to a two party system, requiring all or any number of these proposals for candidates for office would go a long way towards creating a true second party.

This Is Why There Is No Strength In The “Conservative” Wing Of The Republican Party

http://www.therightscoop.com/ryan-sorba-cpac-and-my-personal-thoughts-on-homosexuality/#disqus_thread

Watch the 70 second video and read some of the comments and notice a general theme. Keep in mind that CPAC is The Conservative wing of the Republican party. Among the Conservative wing of the Republican party a young man, making a natural law argument against homosexuality is booed out of the place.

Here the hero of millions of “conservative” Republican Americans, Bill O’Reilly of FOX news, advocates that the Federal Government has a legal right to seize your weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrwsZwL5vE&feature=player_embedded

And here O’Reilly tries to rescue his position by citing the precedence of Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus but only succeeds in proving that Abraham Lincoln was a unconstitutional tyrant.

http://www.therightscoop.com/oreilly-defends-his-statements-on-gun-confiscation-in-state-of-emergency/

Folks, it is most especially in a state of emergency that citizens need their weapons. What …. Does O’Reilly think think that once law abiding citizens are stripped of their weapons that the criminals will suddenly go away?