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.

Ransom … Ransomed

When I was a boy pedaling newspapers in 1973 a crime came to the forefront that found the newspapers for months spilling ink. As my habit was always to read the paper thoroughly before delivering them I followed with interest the kidnapping case of John Paul Getty III, the grandson of Billionaire J. Paul Getty. The kidnappers initially demanded a ransom of $17 million for his release and through twists and turns that included receiving the ear of the 16 y/o grandson in the mail, the Billionaire finally negotiated a 2.2 million dollar ransom price for his grandson. The kidnappers were paid and the boy released. He was ransomed…. that is a ransom price was paid in order the he might be redeemed from those who had imprisoned him and had treated him so cruelly.

The idea of ransom that we read here in Mark 10:45;

“The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

Is found through out the Scripture.

In the OT the concept of redemption and of ransom as the price paid in order to purchase back something that was captured is found in the Hebrew word “Kopher.” This word is often translated as “ransom” and communicates the idea of the price paid to secure the release of something or someone. So this idea of a ransom price paid for release goes way back.

In Ex. 21:30 we read how the law provided for a ransom payment be paid in order to redeem a life.

“If payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying the full amount demanded of him.”

This idea of ransom as the price paid for redemption was a center piece in the the OT sacrificial system as we read in Leviticus 17:11

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”

Here we learn that God’s people were atoned for and so redeemed by means of a sacrifice that served as a ransom price paid. The sins of the people were symbolically covered because the ransom price was paid — a ransom price of sacrificial blood and redemption was secured.

However, this ransom principle was there in the great Hebrew Passover. There we find the Passover lamb being a type of Jesus. When Jesus says that He came to give His life a ransom for many his hearers should have connected in their minds the Passover lamb as the ransom price paid for the release of the Hebrews from their bondage, sin, and misery inflicted upon them by their Egyptian task masters.

Let us briefly collect here what we have learned about the idea of “ransom.”

The ransom price paid in Scripture was the price paid to redeem … to purchase back something or someone who had been captured and was in a onerous situation characterized by hardship and cruelty.

What we see here is that ransom and redemption in the Scripture goes together like peas and carrots. There is no redemption without a ransom price being paid. Without the shedding of blood as the ransom price there is no forgiveness or release from sin.

We have also learned already — though we are going to tease it out further — that this ransom that Jesus talks about giving Himself as in Mark 10:45 is another demonstration of how the Scripture speaks as one organic unit.

When Jesus speaks of being a ransom for many He does so in the context of it having been already said of Him by His cousin that “He was the lamb of God who had come to take aways the sins of the world” (John 1:29).

There at the beginning of His ministry Jesus is spoken of as that OT Passover sacrificial lamb whose mission was to pay the ransom price that would redeem God’s people by removing them from the prison-house of Satan and more importantly from the terrors of God’s just wrath.

From the very beginning of His ministry Jesus is marked out as the lamb who would pay the ransom price and then towards the end of His ministry Jesus says explicitly that He is the one who is going to pay the ransom price that would secure redemption for those who would sue for peace.

This idea of ransom and redemption has thus been building throughout the Scriptures. Like a blizzard that finally arrives with the coming of Jesus Christ the storm of salvation has been building and building throughout the OT. Part of that burgeoning storm that was promissory of Christ being a ransom was the idea of a ransom price that had to be paid in order to secure release from inflicted sin and misery and certain wrath to come that we find in the OT.

We find it explicitly in the OT sacrificial system where even though it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could ever take away sin, still the blood of bulls and goats were types of one who was coming whose blood could pay the ransom price justly required by the Father and so take away sin.

Types… types… the work of Jesus Christ paying the ransom price that was sufficient was the anti-type of those earlier types. That is to say that Jesus as the lamb of God who gave Himself as a ransom for many was the fulfillment of all that was anticipated by pictures and symbols in the OT. In theological language they were the type … the movie trailer …. and Jesus is the anti-type … all that was promised in the movie trailer.

Or to use my earlier language, salvation is a blizzard coming but in the OT we get only the beginning of the falling snow… that falling snow is a promise of the blizzard coming but the blizzard is not yet here but the early snowfall promises its coming. All that blood, sacrifice, dead animals, in the OT were the first falling salvation snow that were predictive of the salvation blizzard coming that found its arrival in Jesus as that lamb who would serve as a ransom for many.

This is of interest to all Christians because it is by Christ’s paying of the ransom price that we are delivered from the dominion of darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son whom He loves. It is by this paying of the ransom price that we are redeemed from God’s just wrath against sin and sinners. Without Christ giving His life as a ransom for many we remained, like John Paul Getty III, held captive to the forces of destruction.

We pause again to emphasize what we have learned here. We have learned that the Scripture provide an organic unity that speaks of a coming salvation… a coming ransom. We have learned that that organic unity often uses the literary technique of type and anti-type. The type is the movie trailer… the anti-type is all that the movie trailer promises. We have learned that the Scriptures are like a coming blizzard of salvation. In the OT we have the first beginning snowfall that is promissory of the blizzard of salvation that will arrive in the coming of Jesus Christ to be the lamb of God who will give His life as a ransom for many.

If we wanted to we could talk about how the idea of ransom was already being hinted after the fall. There God promised a blizzard announcing the coming of a Messiah who would ransom His people by crushing the head of the serpent. There, after the fall, with Adam and Eve being covered by God with animal skins already there is a hint that without the shedding of blood there will be no forgiveness of sin. And that theme is developed as the theme of ransom is developed throughout the OT. The Passover lamb for the Hebrews is the ransom paid for release. Isaiah 53 explicitly talks about how this lamb who would pay the ransom price would be wounded for our transgressions and how by His stripes we would be healed.

What we have considered so far teaches us that apart from some kind of ransom paid there is no release of the penalty of sin that we are under.

Many are those who have come forward who have tried to insist that this idea of a ransom paid in order to being the price paid in order to release us from our sin and misery and God’s just wrath, is not required by Scripture. Yet, Jesus Himself here says that the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give Himself as a ransom for many.

Let’s spend a wee bit of time breaking that down;

First, we speak of Christ’s humiliation in His ransom

When Christ’s speaks of His paying the ransom price He is speaking of the final step downward in His work of humiliation. He was born under the law. He was despised and rejected by men. He was in all ways tempted like we yet without sin. Now, however He reaches the apex of his humiliation. He goes to the Cross to pay the ransom price for our redemption. There on the Cross, as our ransom price securing our redemption, the God man endures the turning away of the Father’s pleasure that those who would come under the Ransom peace might one day be comforted with knowing that the Father is pleased with them for the sake of Christ the ransom.

Second we speak of one particular of Christ’s ransom work

The particular I want to speak briefly of here is to whom is the ransomed paid. Some of the early church Fathers spoke of a theory of ransom and redemption that was called the “Ransom to Satan theory of the atonement.” In that theory this ransom price of Christ’s Cross death is paid to Satan as the one who has imprisoned God’s people in the dominion of Darkness. Christ deceives Satan by dying on the cross, becoming as it were bait that Satan might seize and yet the hook in the cross was the resurrection and Satan, being fooled has been plundered of His creaturely captives.

However, it is better to speak of Christ’s ransom price being paid to the Father because the great danger to those needing to be redeemed .. those needing to be ransomed was not being under Satan’s dominion but was rather being under the Father’s just wrath against Sin.

So, when it comes to the Ransom we do not speak as if that price was paid to Satan for our release from his cruelty though that certainly is one of the chief benefits. No, we speak instead of being ransomed from the Father’s just wrath against Sin. This was our greatest fear… and our greatest danger. But the Son pays the ransom price and by His stripes we are healed and God’s wrath is turned away from the Redeemed because it fell instead on the substitute.

So, this ransom was about glorifying God before it was about releasing man, though there was no glorifying God that did not eventuate in the releasing of His church. John Owen captured some of this in His catechism;

Q. In what does the exercise of his priestly office for us chiefly consist?

A. In offering up himself an acceptable sacrifice on the cross, so satisfying the justice of God for our sins, removing his curse from our persons, and bringing us unto him. — Chapter 13.

John Owen

Note that before Owen speaks about the curse being removed from our persons he notes that Christ satisfied the justice of God for our sins. There it is. Christ died for God. Theocentric thinking on the Cross.

This bring us to speak of Christ’s substitution in His ransom

When Jesus says He is going to give His life as a ransom for many He makes it clear He is going to die in their place … He is going to die for them … He is going to die in their stead. This all speaks of substitution. Christ is our ransom because He was our substitution. Christ for us, the hope of glory. An older word for this was the idea that Christ was our surety – one who acts in the place of another.

Because Jesus was our surety … because He acted in our place by paying the just ransom that we could never pay we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. This is provides one major reason why Christians worship Jesus Christ. They understand that if Jesus had not paid the ransom for them they would continue to be in danger of God’s current and future wrath as well as daily experiencing being under the dominion of Satan w/ all the misery thereof.

But Jesus came to give His life as a ransom for many and the Church is God’s many.

This bring us then to speak of the particularity in Christ’s ransom.

Jesus says here that He came to give His life as a ransom for many. He did not say here that He came to give His life as a ransom for all. This truth squashes the idea of Universalism — that doctrine that teaches that all men who have ever lived will be saved. All men will not be saved because Jesus did not come to die for all men but only for “the many.” Christ came to die for those who would, because of the Spirit’s Work, be convinced of their sin and so be done with themselves as their own god and who would in faith turn from their defiance of God and so know God’s favor.

This particularity of Christ’s ransom … that He gave His life as a ransom for many, and not for all, also puts a stake in the idea of Hypothetical universalism. This is the doctrine that Christ dies as a ransom for everybody without exception yet without everybody being ransomed. Should we believe this perversity that Christ died as a ransom for everybody but everybody is not ransomed we empty the worth of Christ’s ransom. We suggest that it is not really the ransom paid by Christ that rescues us but rather it was our agreement with the ransom that makes the ransom have the quality of ransom-ness. This belief is to empty the ransom of its potency placing that potency in not what Christ has paid for our redemption but in our concurrence with His potential payment.

Now let us turn to speak of one final implication of Christ’s ransom payment;

Christ pays the ransom price to the Father. That ransom price, as we have said, is the shedding of His own blood, because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. The payment of this ransom price delivers God’s particular people from God’s just wrath and from having residence in the dominion of darkness.

That ransom price is paid. The truth of that was echoed in our Lord’s cry, “It is finished.” The ransom price was paid. Now if the ransom price was paid in full this means that those who have come under the covering of the one who paid the ransom price in their place have had their ransom paid in full. The ransom having been paid, God’s just wrath is passed and we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

What this then implies is that the ransom price having been paid there will never be any more yet to pay. This in turn means that once we have looked to Christ for release from the Father’s wrath we will never again be under the Father’s wrath for sins. It means further, that we will not lose what have been gained in our place. It means having been saved, we shall be saved. We will be preserved till the end and we will persevere. Christ having given His life as a ransom for many those many who have had a good work begin in them by Christ Jesus will run the race and finish the course. Having been ransomed … having tasted the goodness of God in the land of the living … having had our sins taken way, and God’s wrath turned away because of the ransomed paid we will never come under God’s judgment again. The ransom has been paid in full. Our sins, past, present, and future have been paid for and we now are the righteousness of God in Christ.

This ransom paying for our redemption as it does and delivering us from our sin and misery, delivering us from the dominion of darkness, and delivering us from God’s just wrath works in the redeemed a magnificent gratitude for this peace w/ God. Having been ransomed we now live the ransomed life. St. Paul ties these ideas together … the idea of having been ransomed and living a new life when he writes to the Corinthians;

20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

The idea is that having been ransomed … bought with a price … the effect of that ransom is walk as one who has ben brought back from the dead. Having been brought back from the dead we live unto and for God as His happy warriors.

Responding to Aaron Renn’s Complaint About Conservatives “Fetishizing Doctrine”

“Doctrine is important. Obviously bad doctrine is bad. But there’s a tendency in conservative circles to improperly fetishize doctrine to the exclusion of other important things. This is the “America is an idea” of conservative Christianity.”

Aaron Renn

1.) Here we see Aaron Renn fetishizing the doctrine that fetishizing the idea that good doctrine is important is bad doctrine.

2.) One presumes that “other important things” are things that have meaning and are to be believed and therefore are doctrinal in nature.

3.) What non-doctrinal realities (other important things) is Renn speaking of that can be enumerated w/o becoming doctrinal matters to be believed? In other words can Renn tell me what these “other important things” are without these “other important things” instantly becoming doctrine – something to be believed and acted upon.

4.) If Renn is talking about “other important things” like acting and/or living in a Christian manner one must ask how one gets to acting and/or living in a Christian manner apart from believing Christian doctrine or apart from believing the doctrine that Christians should act and live as Christians?

5.) Renn then segues from the idea that “doctrine is not the only important thing” to the observation that thinking that doctrine is the most important thing is an example of “America is an idea” conservativism. Presumably, Renn holds the doctrine that “America is an idea” is a bad doctrine that should not be held. If Renn, at this point fetishizing the importance of his doctrine that America is not an idea, or more than an idea doctrine?

Understand, at this point I am not weighing in on the subject of whether of not America is an idea is a good or bad idea. I am weighing in on the subject that whether one concludes that the doctrine that “America is an idea” is bad doctrine or good doctrine it remains doctrine, and clearly a doctrine that Renn seems to be fetishizing about.

6.) What we need from Renn in order to substantiate his claim about fetishizing doctrine — or to even understand his claim about fetishizing doctrine are some examples of things that are important besides doctrine that can be articulated without becoming doctrine.

If he cannot provide those examples his statement is completely self-refuting and he is exposed as a not smart man.

Renn then goes on to say;

“So when the creed says “I believe in the communion of saints” that means agreement on doctrine? When the Bible talks about “the body of Christ” that’s about agreement on doctrine? Again, doctrine is important but doctrinalism is missing important things. Never forget, demons are in agreement with perfect doctrine.”

1.) How can I believe in the communion of saints apart from having a doctrine of what communion of the saints means?

2.) Of course “communion of saints” means “agreement on doctrine.” Does it mean, per Renn, disagreement on doctrine? The Scripture asks, “Can two men walk together unless they be agreed (Amos 3:3)?” Agreed on what? Agreed on doctrine of course. So, “yes,” when the creed says “We believe in the communion of the saints,” a doctrinal belief is being articulated which includes the idea that having communion with the saints means, at least in part, a shared set of convictions and beliefs — doctrine.

3.) How can we know about the “body of Christ” unless we first have a doctrine of “the body of Christ?” So, yes, when the Bible talks about “the body of Christ,” we are talking about a doctrine which then gets fleshed out in our everyday living. If Renn is upset that Christians are not nice enough or that they are inconsistent with their doctrine then let him say that and let him realize that if Christians are inconsistent with their doctrine then it is because what they say they believe as doctrine is trumped by what they are really believing about doctrine. One cannot separate how a man acts from what a man believes.

4.) Ren then reaches for “Even the demons believe and shudder.” However, the demons believe as those who have lost their first estate. Their shuddering is the shuddering of those who, while believing, are damned for not combining their believing with works. Is this what Renn is fetishizing about? Is Renn trying to make the doctrinal point that too many Christians have right doctrine but wrong behavior? Well, the answer then is not to curse doctrine. The answer is connect the dots between unseemly behavior and unseemly doctrine and then to challenge folks on the difference between their stated doctrine and their lived out doctrine.

Renn then ends this anti-doctrinal explosion with;

One example: “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

1.) Ironic that Renn chooses the chapter in the Bible to make his point that elucidates most clearly the doctrine of Christian love.

2.) Of course we are to have love as Christians but does love really stand in opposition to doctrine? What does love look like? How does it respond to need? What does it mean? We cannot even begin to talk about Christian love without having a doctrine of Christian love.

All of life has meaning. Everything means something. All doctrine does is gives us handles in order to understand the meaning and purpose of life… of everything. Nothing exists that isn’t driven by doctrine. This is why Scripture explicitly teaches … “As a man thinketh in his heart (in the core of his being) so he is.”

A Conversation On Christians Sending God’s Covenant Seed To The Schools of Baphomet II

Joshua;

I hear your point about secular. I do not understand it to mean neutral.

Happy to replace secular with anti-Christian. Are antichristian governments incapable of providing something good?

Bret responds,

As we start here would you mind telling me how old you are? Are you a school teacher yourself? Did you (do you) send your children to government schools?

As to your query … Yes, they are capable.

Now, let’s talk about degrees of anti-Christ. What degree of anti-Christ are we currently at in our government schools?

If, we as a people, were only a wee bit removed from Christian education one might argue that one could navigate around the problems. However, if you will do the reading of numerous books I recommended in the last post you would see that it’s not just that we are off a wee bit. The whole agenda is educate in such a way as to create non-thinking clones. It’s all about command and control. If I want children to be free to think as mature adults I will not want them to attend government schools. Indeed, I am of the conviction that to do so is child abuse.

Joshua writes,

This is where your reasoning is taking you. All schools are religious. If they are not Christian they are antichristian. Therefore they do nothing but harm.

Bret responds,

If I threw children in a pond w/ crocodiles some of them might learn how to swim really well. Throwing them all in the pond would therefore not necessarily do “nothing but harm.” But would it be wise therefore to throw them into a pond with crocodiles because some good might possibly come?

You’re argument here is “let us sin that grace may increase.” Because some good might happen let us ignore the 1st commandment and have our children catechized into a false religion.

Joshua writes,

Cue the anabaptists: all governments are antichristian. They can only do harm. Christians should have nothing to do with them.

Bret responds,

Cue the 1st commandment. “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me.” Current secondary education catechizes children into a false religion and makes them servants of false gods. As such Biblical Christian in this climate should have nothing to do with them unless they want to destroy God’s covenant seed.

Do you really think that God would’ve had the Children of Israel attend the schools of Canaan in order to learn the Canaanite ways?

Finally, virtually all Christian do have something to do with government schools. They support them with their taxes.

Joshua writes,

But if antichristian governments are still a legitimate institution of God, then they can provide things of real benefit to everyone, Christians included.

Bret responds,

Yep … just like Stalin and Mao provided things of real benefit to everyone, Christian included.

Joshua writes,

The Church has benefited from inventions of the Cainites, Moses and Israel from the learning of the Egyptians, the apostolic church (at times) from the law and order of the Romans.

Bret responds,

Sure… we should plunder the Egyptians because it is all ours to begin with. But as we are plundering them and taking back what was our to begin with we should not become Egyptians.

However, currently Christians don’t have to attend the Baphomet Elementary school in order to access education. Have you heard of this thing called “the information age?” Never have we lived in a time when schools were more unnecessary.

Joshua writes,

To accurately compare public schools and homeschooling, you have to compare how Christian students do at home and how they do at school. A parent who homeschools is going to instill a value for education in their children. But that value enables the same child to do well in public school.

Bret responds,

But I don’t want a child to do well in Government school since that means they will be lapping up a false religion. If Christian children have to attend government school it is my prayer that they will do really really poorly.

Joshua writes,

Your analysis of schools is misguided if you compare children of highly dedicated homeschooling parents with children of parents who don’t care. A large majority of students in schools have parents who don’t care. Every teacher I’ve talked to says that the number one factor in academic success is parental involvement.

Bret responds,

I don’t want government schooled children to have academic success. I want them to do poorly. I don’t want them to learn to think like pagans.

I am awash in a culture filled with professional people, including “Christians” who did well in government schools. I try to avoid them as much as I can.

Do exceptions exist? Absolutely! But I don’t gamble when I know the house is overwhelmingly against me.

Now, you have repeatedly accused me of being Anabaptist. I can only plead with you to cease being pagan in your thinking.

You might want to look up the Reformed doctrine of the Anti-thesis and consider that subject in light of our conversation.

A Conversation On Christians Sending God’s Covenant Seed To The Schools of Baphomet I

Joshua writes;

I hear this argument a lot: government schools only corrupt and indoctrinate. They do more harm than good. It is a sweeping accusation, but is it true?

Bret responds

Yes it is true, generally speaking;

Look, I’m not going to look up all the stats for you on how bad our secondary education is. Here are just a few;

63% of American 12th graders are rated “basic” or “below basic” in reading achievement, the Education Department revealed.

The Education Department also said the statistic that 37% of 12th graders would not qualify for entry-level college courses is accurate if it refers to a particular National Assessment of Educational Progress (or NAEP) test that the National Assessment Governing Board has said can serve as a proxy for entry-level college work.

While looking up the stats, if you want you can also look up how superior homeschooling numbers are to public school numbers.

Now factor in how bad the education is at the teacher colleges of those who get degrees in “education.”

I think the thing for me to do is to recommend a few books so you can get up to speed on the subject.

“The Messianic Character of American Education — R. J. Rushdoony

“The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” – Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

“The Worm In The Apple” – Peter Brimelow

Anything by John Taylor Gatto

Anything by Samuel L. Blumenfeld.

Look, I’ve been all over this subject over the years. I’ve read tons of the material. I know what I’m talking about when I say public schools almost universally suck. If you can find a Unicorn among them … congratulations.

Joshua writes

Is every public school like this? I know of homeschooled/Christian schooled kids who went to public high school, and were surprised at how much study they had to do to stay afloat. Surprised too, that the school had rules, and would expel kids for breaking them.

Bret responds,

Anecdotes hold no water. Do the reading and get back to me.

Joshua writes,

The rhetoric resembles Dabney’s (courageous and brilliant man) but he was proud of his secular university education and he taught at another one.

Bret writes,

There is no such thing as “secular.”

And the education given at the University in the early 19th century is apples and oranges from where we are now. You’re making category mistakes.

Joshua writes,

Schools are terribly secular but they are still studying general revelation.

Bret responds,

There is no such thing as “secular.” All education without exception is hopelessly religious.

Since man’s reason is fallen general revelation is only as good as the religious presuppositions that fallen man brings to the general revelation. Currently, those presuppositions are thoroughly anti-Christ and as such the general revelation he will read will confirm his anti-Christ presuppositions.

Joshua writes,

It is better for millions of children to be studying that rather than nothing at all.

Bret responds,

As a Pastor I have told people consistently that they would be better served having their children stay at home not being formally educated at all then sending them to government schools where they will be catechized into a false religion and where they will learn to read general revelation in such a way that confirms the false religion.

Shoot… if you want I can link you to a video where the chap teaches that Natural law (a subset of general revelation) teaches that sodomy is perfectly in keeping with Natural Law.

Joshua writes,

Obviously they would get a lot more out of their studies if they also studied special revelation from a Reformed perspective, began and ended each school day with prayer, etc. But you and I are communicating right now in part because of pagans who have studied the book of nature well enough to make advancements in technology.

Bret responds,

You and I are communicating only because fallen man;

1.) Is never consistent with his Christ hating presuppositions
2.) Borrows from the capital of a Christian world and life view in order to get his Christ hating worldview off the ground and running.

Fallen man gets things right not because he reads general revelation aright but he gets things right despite his reading general revelation wrongly.

You and I are not on the same page about education and neither are we on the same page in terms of worldview and epistemology.

Joshua writes,

But not studying general revelation at all is what Satan and Rome would prefer. You remember the medieval mindset: “ignorance is the mother of devotion”. Uneducated people are much easier to manipulate and control. Rome therefore argued that only the clergy and a few others, in the tight grip of the Church, should have an education.

Bret responds,

LOL … we spend tens of millions of dollars on education and we have to be one of the stupidest peoples on the planet. Do the reading of the books cited above.

Secondly, it strikes me that many, if not most, of those who have terminal degrees are the most easily propagandized and manipulated people I come across. Clergy and Professors are the worst of all. I know very very few educated clergy and almost all of those clergy I know have either Masters or Ph.D’s.

“Education” hasn’t delivered people from ignorance. Putative education has merely made people confirmed in their ignorance. Indeed, I’d say that currently we need to flip your proverb and say, “Education is the mother of devotion.” That is tongue in cheek of course.

Joshua wrote,

And it is just not the case that if the government gets out of education, all parents will step up and work harder than ever to make sure their children get educated. In his lectures defending the establishment principle, Thomas Chalmers points out that education is not subject to the law of demand and supply. The less educated people are, and the less access they have to education, the less they desire it. “Men love darkness rather than light”- including the light of general revelation. Especially when their bellies are full.

Bret responds,

I’ll place my bet on parents. I’ve seen and know what Government education looks like. I have known countless secondary school teachers. I’ve yet to come across one that was intelligent. Now, I’ve known a few University types who were sharp but not so many that I have concluded that they are the norm.

That men loved darkness rather than light is true. It explains why they are so comfortable piling up degrees.

Joshua writes,

Christian parents will try to educate their children no matter what, but when they do it themselves, the results are mixed. Homeschooling advocates point to high SAT scores of homeschoolers, but that’s only counting the ones that actually take the SAT. I know of many burnt out homeschooling parents and half-educated children who resent the fact that they are studying well into their 20s, while working a full-time job, to get the education they should have gotten in their teens.

Bret responds,

I’m not interested in your anecdotes. I have anecdotes also that are different then your anecdotes.

Believe me … those home educated children you’re talking about should instead thank their parents that they didn’t send them to a place where the interest is not in education but in reinforcing societal command and control mechanisms. You can’t really believe that the secondary schools have any interest in educating can you?

Read the sources I posted. If you believe that you’re deluded.

Joshua writes,

I want to see a Christian nation as much as you. But to convince others, we have to steer clear of bad arguments. One argument against government schools sounds Anabaptistic:

The government must be secular and have nothing to do with religion (or education)
Therefore the government (schools) will be anti-Christian.
Therefore the Christian should have nothing to do with government (schools).

Bret responds,

You’re first premise is faulty. There is no such thing as secular. That means your 1st conclusion is faulty since unless schools are explicitly Christian they will by default be anti-Christian. There is no such thing as neutrality.

However, per the 1st commandment your conclusion is true.

The anabaptists believed that anything outside of their community (“the world”) was evil. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that what is not Christian is evil to one degree or another and government schools are not Christian … nor are they neutral (secular). They are hopelessly religious and the religion that they advocate and teach is NOT the Christian religion. Our current Christian schools are not the “secular” schools that Dabney would’ve attended. They are the kind of schools that the Marquis de Sade would’ve built.

Can you understand that distinction?

Joshua writes,

But if government, Christian or not, is a divine institution, then it can provide good things. Its secular nature does not mean everything it does will be harmful. This includes education. Texas University Professor Dabney would agree.

Bret responds,

Governments that are not Christian are by definition anti-Christian. Neutrality is a myth. There is no such thing as secular. That is a classical liberal mindset. One that I do not share.

If Dabney were alive today he would agree with me. Read his stuff on Education as can be found in his “Secular Writings.”

Look Joshua, you strike me as a bright chap with a sharp blade but your blade is set at the wrong angle and though sharp, is cutting wrong with every cut.

Thanks for the conversation. I don’t think we are going to make much progress though as we are each beginning at very different starting points.

Cheers

Remarkable Providence #3

I have begun an intermittent series where I am recalling those times where God has visited me in remarkably gracious ways. I do not use the word “miracle” for these events because I believe miracles ended with the close of the New Testament canon. It is my conviction that miracles are defined as those happenings wherein God immediately interrupts nature in order to accomplish that which cannot be explained except for the moving of the finger of God. They have as their purpose to confirm either the presence of God or His mark of approval upon His messengers. Because we know have God’s final word as spoken in Christ as in the Scriptures, miracles, as defined above have ended.

However, there can be no doubt that God still works in ways the Puritans described as “remarkable providences.” In the working of these remarkable providences we avoid a Deistic mindset that teaches that God created the world and then became remote to it, allowing it to run uninterrupted according to the laws of nature and nature’s God. There are times in our lives that God works in such an extraordinary way that we can only refer to it as a “remarkable providence.” I have had several of these in my life, two of which I’ve already chronicled here.

The one I write of now occurred in the summer of 1974. I was about to begin my Freshman year of High School and was daily participating in summer football 2 a day practices. Looking back, playing football was fantasy. At that age I weighed 90 pounds soaking wet. However, great are the dreams of a 14 year old.

We lived in the rural part of Sturgis, Michigan and if we wanted to go into town for just about anything it was a matter of hopping on the bicycle and pedaling into town. Prior to 1974 that really wasn’t a big deal was we were only about 2.5 miles outside of down. However, around this time the city Fathers decided to shut down our direct road into town in order to expand the city airport. That meant a much longer ride into town that included having to ride about .5 mile on a busy two lane highway (US 12 that runs between Sturgis and White Pigeon). These were the days before Jimmy Carter reduced the speed limit to 55 on these two lanes. In 1974 the speed limit on US 12 was 70.

As it turned out on this day I was riding my brother’s brand new 10 speed which he had won in a raffle. My bike was broken and we routinely mixed and matched rides. My brother would never get a chance to ride his raffle winnings. He also would never wear his special bowling shirt again because for some reason I was wearing that short-sleeve bowling shirt that day.

I was returning from football practice that day. I was going to grab a bite to eat at home and turn around and ride back for the next practice. It was a hot summer day and the traffic was zooming by as usual. It was not unusual for a semi to roll past us so closely that the wash of the suction he created would propel us forward with great delight.

I just pedaled past the Harding’s Grocery story. I was about half way to where I would hang a right to be on a comparative back rode that would take me home without much traffic. The last thing I remember was hearing someone laying on the horn. I remember not thinking much about it as drivers were often expressing their disgust with having to navigate around a bicycle — even if we were careful to keep on the burn of the road.

However, this time there was impact after the horn. A young female driver hit the back of my bike and sent me flying. Later I learned that she was traveling between 55-70 miles an hour. I’m pretty sure most people would agree with me that the kid on the bike doesn’t typically walk away from this kind of incident. Here is where the remarkable providence comes in.

I do remember cascading through the air. I remember hitting the ground the first time. After that I remember nothing before regaining consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness I lay perpendicular to the highway. My right arm was outstretched over my head. My left arm was at my side. I went to stand up and suddenly realized that the automobile had stopped on my right hand. As I looked in front of me I saw the back passenger side tire sitting squarely atop my right hand — 18 inches away from my head.

I heard the driver crying hysterically and I began screaming at her to get back in the car and put the vehicle in drive to inch off my hand. I have no idea if she heard me. I have no idea how that vehicle got off my right hand but it quickly did. Naturally, my first response was to stand up and start screaming ruddy murder. Everything is fuzzy after that. They tell me that another person had stopped and immediately sought to control me and get me to sit down. Blood was everywhere. My hand was a mangled mess and there was a substantial cut somewhere in my head that was driving more concern for the medical personnel than my hand. I did not feel that wound at all. I only felt my right hand on fire.

Of course the remarkable providence is that I wasn’t killed that day. Now, some cynic would immediately say something like, “If you’re God works such providences why did He ordain the accident to begin with.” My standard answer to these kind of questions is to quote the prophet who said, “Whom God would heal, He first wounds.” God loves His people and all that enters into their lives is through the hand of a sovereign God who loves them for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, God delivered me from sure death that day. On my calendar it was a remarkable providence. There was several surgeries after that to get my hand working again. There was frequent hospital time. A couple skin grafts and tons of stitches. There was all kinds of occupational therapy. Tons of coco butter applied to the hand to keep my hand supple from the scarring.

That is just one more of those remarkable providences in my life that I look back on and see that God loves me for reason all His own. One more remarkable providence where my Father has told me again that He will never leave me nor forsake me. One more part of my own personal recital theology that I recite when I am again in a situation that looks hopeless.

The God of the Bible has indeed been to me over the decades, “Jehovah Jireh” — the God who provides. As Francis Schaeffer once wrote, I have found to be true experientially, “He Is There, And He Is Not Silent.”

Blessed be the name of the Lord.

Addendum

What I have taken from all these remarkable providences is that I should not be fearful or worrisome in the service of my master. Now, my wife will tell you that I am bad to worry at times but I try at those times to practice my recital theology. The Lord Christ has demonstrated in my 66 years that He is faithful and if it be the case that He be so faithful then it would be shameful to be cowardly in His service. My recital theology gives me courage and is the cure for my disposition to worry. I only wish I was more brave and less of a worry wart.