What Reformed Luminaries Are Saying Regarding What Constitutes The Essence Of Christianity

“Luther understood that the Christian life was a life of suffering. The essence of Christianity is to see one’s rights trampled and not demand them. To stand up and say I demand my rights, as a Christian, is precisely the violation of everything the gospel is about.”

High Profile Reformed Leader
Reputed to be a Pillar in the Church

I must admit that this drives me mad. I become unhinged at these kinds of statements.

1.) The Christian life is indeed characterized by suffering but the suffering arises out of Christians pressing for the crown rights of King Jesus in every area of life. Inasmuch as what we are contending for is consistent with the teaching of Scripture there is nothing evil about Christians demanding to be treated in the ways Scripture says that all men should treat one another.

2.) I am currently dealing with 3 marriages where one spouse is just being horrid to another spouse. Is the counsel I am supposed to give the spouse that is being tyrannized; “You know, Jesus loves it when you gladly accept the tyranny of your spouse. Indeed, The essence of Christianity is to see your rights trampled aby your spouse nd not demand them. You are most like Jesus when you are gladly embracing the tyranny of your spouse.”

3.) By this reasoning all the warriors of the Christian faith from Martel to Don Juan to Sobieski to Cromwell were all acting in a non Christian manner by standing up for their rights.

4.) St. Paul appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen in Acts 22-23.  Are we to believe that Paul missed the essence of Christianity?

5.) Luther himself stood up for his rights when he said “Here I stand. I can do no other.” He stood up for the rights of all Germans/Christians against Rome’s malfeasance. Indeed, the very reason Rome hated Luther, the Reformers, and the Reformation so much is that the Protestants were standing for their rights as revealed in Scripture. It was Rome who would have argued that the very essence of Christianity was to see the rights of the Reformers trampled. It was Rome who argued that the Reformers should just be quiet about their rights as taught by Scripture. It was the Reformers who wanted the right of letting the Bible speak without the Magisterium.

6.) This quote is the language of every tyrant.

7.) This kind of reasoning is the result of both Pietism and Amillennialism. No Postmillennial would ever talk like this. Amillennialism expects defeat in space and time and so they develop their theology so as to guarantee the defeat that their theology demands them to expect. Pietism on the other hand is a retreatist disposition that believes that Christians shouldn’t get involved in worldly things. Saying that Christians shouldn’t insist upon how God insists that they should be treated is consistent with both Amillennialism and Pietism.

8.) With this statement this leader condemns the Dutch resistance against Catholic Spain in the 16th-17th century. With this statement  he condemns action of the English Protestants against King Charles I. With this statement  he condemns Knox’s contretemps with Queen Mary. With this statement he condemns the American war for Independence. Per  our Reformed leader they all missed what the “gospel is all about.”

9.) This is doormat theology. The Christian is most holy when they are most abused. Certainly, Christians suffer. Certainly, Christians see their rights trampled when there is nothing they can do about it and they gladly suffer for Christ and the Kingdom when there is nothing they can do about it. However, to say that expecting that Elders, Magistrates, and Husbands, should never be resisted when they are trampling on the privilege afforded to Christians per God’s Word is just complete and utter bunkum.

And I don’t care the credentials of who says it.

The Impossibility of Tolerance

 

“There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law system as a prelude to a new intolerance… Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law system and to alien religious foundations or else it commits suicide.”

R.J. Rushdoony

If you think about this quote for a moment you often realize that pluralism is a myth. Pluralism is a myth because the total tolerance that is required in pluralism does not include tolerance for those who refused to be tolerant towards tolerance as seen by insisting that the gods in a pluralistic system must bow to the one true God. At the end of the day pluralism is only tolerant for those who tolerate pluralism.

In terms of the idea of tolerance the same goes for relations between physical organisms. You can’t develop a tolerance to a parasite in your system. It’s trying to take over your whole body and kill it, while your body’s defenses spring to kill the parasite. The two are at war.

Edmund Burke In Praise of Prejudice

I Corinthians 6:2  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 
___________

“You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.”

Edmund Burke
Reflections on the Revolution in France — pg. 100

Edmunde Burke Decrying Propositional Nationhood,

“Your literary men and your politicians, and so do the whole clan of the enlightened among us, essentially differ in these points. They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste, because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery. They conceive, very systematically, that all things which give perpetuity are mischievous, and therefore they are at inexpiable war with all establishments. They think that government may vary like modes of dress, and with as little ill effect; that there needs no principle of attachment, except a sense of present convenience, to any constitution of the state. They always speak as if they were of opinion that there is a singular species of compact between them and their magistrates which binds the magistrate, but which has nothing reciprocal in it, but that the majesty of the people has a right to dissolve it without any reason but its will. Their attachment to their country itself is only so far as it agrees with some of their fleeting projects; it begins and ends with that scheme of polity which falls in with their momentary opinion.”

Edmund Burke
Reflections on the Revolution in France — pg. 101

Revolution & Language

[ Otto Scott ] This is the same step. It is not new, not new at all. It is the same step in every revolution. It begins with the misuse of language. It beings with changing terms (and) so disguising the purpose of the revolution and the goal of revolution. In the French Revolution they began with first eliminating the titles of courtesy, monsieur, madam and so forth. Then they eliminated the titles of nobility and they substituted citizen or its equivalent. Finally they eliminated the monarchy and the aristocracy all together and you had accompanying this changes in the French language. Words that became forbidden and words that became mandated.

Pocket college lecture
Truth and Consequences

 

In any attempt at revolution step #1 is bastardizing the language so that it can conceal the ugliness of the Revolution and reveal the vile character of those who oppose the Revolution. “Sodomite,” becomes “Homosexual,” becomes “Gay.” “Christianity,” becomes “Christianism,” becomes “Bigotry.” “Perversion” becomes “Alternate liftestyles.” Theft is called “taxation” and “redistribution of wealth,” indoctrination is called “education and socialization training.” Most recently a Green New Deal is called “The Inflation Reduction Act.” We have gone so far down this rabbit hole that we no longer can even now use language to answer the question; “What is a Woman.”

Language, the original function which was to be that used to reveal the truth becomes a weapon in the service of concealing the truth.
The West is now far down the road of the bastardization of its language and only heaven sent Reformation can reverse the side.