Uncategorized – Page 44

Church and Kingdom

When we think of the church in relation to the Kingdom it is best to understand that the Church and Kingdom are not exact synonyms so that when we speak of “The Church” we are suggesting that the Kingdom exists nowhere else but the Church. This is the mistake of many Amillennialists — especially of the R2K variety — in the Reformed world. They make “Church” and “Kingdom” to be exactly synonymous. This is an error as pointed out by Herman Ridderbos in his magnum opus, “The Coming of the Kingdom,”

[We] should point out the concept basileia (Kingdom) nowhere occurs in the sense of this idea of ekklesia (Church). Nor is it used in the sense that the Kingdom of God in its provisional manifestation on earth would be embodied in the form and organization of any church…; by the term kingdom of God we can denote not only the fulfilling and completing action of God in relation to the entire cosmos, but also various facets of this all-embracing process. Thus, e.g., the territory within which this divine action occurs and in which the blessings of the kingdom are enjoyed is called the basileia of God or that of heaven. (cf. Mt. 5:20, 11:11; 23:13).

Geerhardus Vos agrees with the idea that a distinction must be made between kingdom and church;

“The conception of the kingdom is common to all periods of our Lord’s teaching, that of the church emerges only at two special points of His ministry as recorded in Mt. 16:18, and 18:17.”

The Kingdom is a far more expansive reality than just the Church. The Kingdom includes within it, not only the Church but it includes within it all areas of life which have bowed the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. This means families can be part of the Kingdom of God. This means that businesses can be part of the Kingdom of God. This means that the arts can be part of the Kingdom of God. This means that civil-social orders can be part of the Kingdom of God. This means law-orders can be part of the Kingdom of God.

However, having said that, I do believe that the Church as part of the Kingdom of God is the first among equals. I say this because if the Church fails its task within the Kingdom of proclaiming all the Word for all of life then the odds are incredibly high that the Kingdom has a whole goes south. The church is the keeper of the aeterna ignus which serves as the place where those who build all the other Kingdom Institutions learn of Christ. The Church is the Kingdom’s apologetical and evangelistic armory so that if the Church fails the Kingdom totters. The Church is the place where we come to hear how the third use of the law is applied to all areas of life. There in the Church, those members of the Kingdom whose task and calling are other domains within the Kingdom learn that Scripture is the norm that norms all norms — including the norms for their Kingdom Institutions. There in the Church, all of this comes in the context of the preaching of the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for God’s kingdom people who sin daily in word, thought, and deed.

This does not mean the Church runs those other institutions but it does mean that the Church provides the first principles that can then be teased out by those called to other areas of Kingdom work. For example, the Church, can not tell a Christ-loving businessman how to run his business in terms of nuts and bolts but it can lay down the first principles of prohibiting theft in terms of price, and the idea of just wages for a just day’s work.

So, again, the Church is not solely the Kingdom but it is the agency of the Kingdom that is assigned the task of being the repository of truth as it touches every area of life.

The Church exists to proclaim and placard Christ so as to draw God’s elect Kingdom people into its circle so that having come into the family of God the Kingdom people, now being instructed in answering the question, “How then shall we live” go out and handle all their careers and callings for the glory of God and His Kingdom.

So, the Church and Kingdom while distinct from one another and so not synonyms, are interdependent upon one another and can’t exist without each other.

One more word here. As the varying institutions are equals with the Church in the Kingdom, even though the Church may be the first among equals, those other institutions have to realize that they have an interposition role in being a check if and when the church goes rogue and becomes anti-Church in God’s Kingdom. At that point, these other Kingdom Institutions have to step up and bring correction upon the Church so that the Church will not poison the rest of the Kingdom Institutions. This thought demonstrates that all in the Kingdom is not dependent upon the Church and that this is a philosophy where the Church can’t be corrected.

Keeping with the Theme of Less of Moore

“That’s why denominations with “free” in their name (like the Free Methodists, for instance)—along with those who believe in the necessity of personal repentance and faith—have been the most dogged supporters of religious freedom for all.

These groups of people understand that the gospel according to Jesus is not an external affirmation of generic belief, from a heart still untransformed. It is not accepting Christianity as a ticket of admission into society.”

Russell Moore
Christianity Astray Article

I would ask Russell Moore (and Christianity Astray for that matter) why it is superior to have an established Church wherein it is possible for someone to have an “external affirmation of generic belief, from a heart still untransformed,” vis-a-vis having Anabaptist “Religious Freedom” wherein it is possible for someone to not affirm any kind of faith from a heart still untransformed? Why is it superior to have religious pluralism that finds Jews, Muslims, and Atheists with no faith vis-a-vis a legal Christian state that finds false professors in the midst? Why is it better to have in one geographic area wheat fields, oat fields, cornfields, soybean fields, and sorghum fields as opposed to one wheat field that contains tares?

Secondly, why is it so criminal that Christianity might be a ticket of admission into society? Does Moore prefer that non-Christianity be the ticket of admission into society?

Thirdly, all because externalism has been a genuine threat to nations that embraced an Established church that doesn’t mean the answer is to create an environment where externalism isn’t possible because genuine Christians are being persecuted by the state.

Finally, genuine Christianity, while necessarily inward and internal still requires an external affirmation of faith and there is nothing wrong that such an external affirmation of faith be a ticket into a Christian society.

Stick with the Belgic Confession of Faith and start now detesting the error of the Anabaptists and all other seditious people.

More Disassembling of Moore’s CT Article Supporting “Religious Freedom”

“Religious freedom is a restriction on the power of the state to set itself up as a mediator between God and humanity.”

Russel Moore

Christianity Astray Article

Why is it considered a restriction for the state to be in submission to the authority of Jesus Christ?

And consider that Rusell Moore with his precious “religious freedom” has empowered the state to be not merely a mediator between God and mankind but rather to take up the mantle of God Himself as, per Moore’s system, the State is the Institution that monitors how far the gods are allowed to go in the public square. The authority to say what competing religions and gods can and can’t do in the public square has to be located somewhere and for Moore, that location is in the state and as that location is in the state Moore has designated the state to be the god of the gods.

Moore’s position thus is not religious freedom in the least but is a guarantee of religious bondage to the pagan God state.

“Religious freedom does not mean that everyone’s religion is true. All it means is that God judges the heart and that people must really believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord, instead of saying, “Lord, Lord” merely because they are required to do so by law.”

Russel Moore
Christianity Astray Article

First, keep in mind that Moore does not believe in Religious Freedom. He believes that the state must force upon us a religion that puts the State in the position of being the God over the gods. Because of Moore’s forced and regulated state religion, no religion except Moore’s religion can do what Moore’s religion is now doing, and what it is now doing as God walking on the earth is to close the door against the claims of total sovereignty of the God of the Bible. Moore’s political theology disallows the God of the Bible to be anything but one of the competing gods in the public square. Does that sound like religious freedom?

Secondly, Moore invokes the idea that people must be free to say “Lord Lord,” all the while denying Lordship to Jesus Christ over the State — a state that Moore has regulating religion as God walking on the earth. Indeed, Moore’s political theology does not allow the state the freedom to take Jesus Christ as Lord over the magistrate.

Thirdly, keep in mind that this is the same Russell Moore who invoked this same religious freedom as the rationale of Moore’s vigorously supporting the effort to secure construction of a Muslim Mosque being built when Moore was the head of the Southern Baptist ERLC. Apparently, Religious Freedom also means being agents to spread the glad tidings of Islam.

Russell Moore doubtless is sincere in his convictions. Just as I am sincere in saying that this kind of classical Liberalism dressed up as Christianity is anti-Christ.

Russel Moore on “Religious Freedom” … McAtee on Moore’s Sedition

“The question of religious freedom is who should have regulatory power over religion. If you believe religion shouldn’t be regulated by the state, then you believe in religious freedom.”

Russel Moore

Christianity Astray

I do believe that religion should be regulated by the State as the State is in submission to and so regulated by Jesus Christ. If a State is not in submission to Jesus Christ then the State should not regulate religion.

Moore likewise believes that religion should be regulated by the state. The only difference between Moore and me on this subject is that I desire a Christian state to regulate religion in a Christian direction while Moore desires the pagan state to make sure and regulate religion so that Christianity can not have the ascendency. So, while Moore chirps about “freedom of religion” in reality Moore is a thoroughgoing Erastian and Constantinian just as much as I am. The only difference is that Moore wants to make sure that the State regulates religion so that Christianity is not allowed to be ascendant and I want to make sure the State regulates religion so that paganism of whatever stripe is not allowed to be ascendant.

Moore, by taking this position, demonstrates his hatred for Jesus Christ and His Lordship overall. If Jesus Christ is Lord over all then all Governments as well as all men have the need to bow to the authority of Jesus Christ and so craft laws forbidding the extension of false religions in the land. This is the historic Reformed position as seen in our original Reformed documents

Westminster Confession of Faith

3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:a yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.b For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.c

a. 2 Chron 2:8 • b. Isa 49:23 • c. 2 Chron 19:8

Belgic Confession of faithArticle 36: Of Magistrates

We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well.

And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship (see note below); that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commanded in His Word.

Moreover, it is the bounden duty of everyone, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.

Russell Moore reminds us why it is that the Belgic Confession of faith wrote about detesting the Anabaptists and other seditious people. It is the Anabaptist mindset of Moore on this subject wherein the sedition is found. Moore, by his advocacy of pluralism, is advocating insurrection and rebellion (sedition) against the authority of the King of Kings; The Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus and His Mastery of the Seas; Of Chaos and Ontology

^{Mark 4:35}On the same day, when evening had come, He said to them, “Let us cross over to the other side.” ³⁶Now when they had left the multitude, they took Him along in the boat as He was. And other little boats were also with Him. ³⁷And a great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat so that it was already filling. ³⁸But He was in the stern, asleep on a pillow. And they awoke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?”

³⁹Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace,^[g] be still!” And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. ⁴⁰But He said to them, “Why are you so fearful? How^[h] is it that you have no faith?” ⁴¹And they feared exceedingly, and said to one another, “Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey Him!”

Many of the pericopes in the NT are present in order to connect the Old Testament to the New Testament. The Gospel of John especially does this kind of work. The material that John selects is often selected to set forth the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The question in Mark 4:41 is answered in the previous record of God’s Word. The answer to, “Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey him,” is none other Jehovah as seen from the Psalms.

Psalm 93:3

The floods have lifted up, O Lord,

The floods have lifted up their voice;

The floods lift up their waves.

4 The Lord on high is mightier

Then the noise of many waters,

Then the mighty waves of the sea.

Psalm 104:7-8

7 At Your rebuke they fled;

At the voice of Your thunder, they hastened away.

8 [a]They went up over the mountains;

They went down into the valleys,

To the place which You founded for them.

Psalm 107:23-32

23 Those who go down to the sea in ships,

Who do business on great waters,

24 They see the works of the Lord,

And His wonders in the deep.

25 For He commands and raises the stormy wind,

Which lifts up the waves of the sea.

26 They mount up to the heavens,

They go down again to the depths;

Their soul melts because of trouble.

27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man,

And [a]are at their wits’ end.

28 Then they cry out to the Lord in their trouble,

And He brings them out of their distresses.

29 He calms the storm,

So that its waves are still.

30 Then they are glad because they are quiet;

So He guides them to their desired haven.

31 Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness,

And for His wonderful works to the children of men!

32 Let them exalt Him also in the assembly of the people,

And praise Him in the company of the elders.

With the insertion of this pericope by Mark, Mark is declaring the divinity of Jesus Christ. Just as the Psalmist understood that God calmed the seas so Mark records that Jesus calms the seas. In the Hebrew mindset, the sea was often associated with chaos having its own internal power and so were places to be feared. In Genesis 1 we read,

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ²The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Here we see that God is taming the chaos of the waters (The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters) bringing order where formlessness and void had previously existed. When we arrive at Genesis 7:11 we read of “the fountains of the great deep (tehom) bursting forth. The “great deep” in the Genesis 7 flood is the same deep that in Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God is hovering over in order to bring order from chaos. However, in Genesis 7 we see this great deep under God’s control being used as an agency of God’s judgment against His disobedient creation. It is as if God is saying; “From chaos, I have created. To chaos, I return.”

Another example of the sea being an agent of chaos and judgment is the occasion of the Hebrews crossing the Red Sea. God, as He did in Genesis 1, separates the land from the sea and in doing so tames the sea for Israel’s rescue. However, the Egyptians receive the chaos of the sea as God covers them with chaos (Ex. 15:5 — “covered by the deep.”) Once again God is seen as being master of the chaos.

When we turn to the Psalms above we once again see evidence of how the sea was viewed by the ancient fathers.

Now, enter Jesus who in Mark 4 commands the winds and the waves … commands the chaos. Likewise in Matthew 14, Jesus tames the chaos not only by calming it but also by walking upon the great deep. All of this, for those with eyes to see, is the Scripture screaming that “Jesus is God.” Screaming because here in Matthew 14 as read next to Genesis 1:2 we find the great deep as unruly and chaotic being tamed by God hovering over the chaos bringing order out of chaos.

These passages are communicating the ontological nature of Jesus Christ. In generations, previous writers like Oscar Cullman insisted that the preoccupation of the early creeds to set forth the ontological deity of Jesus Christ were misplaced because the early Church fathers were displaying a Greek mindset in worrying about establishing the deity of Jesus. Cullman insisted that the Hebrew mindset was really only concerned with how Jesus was God in a functional sense. However, this passage in Mark gives the error to Cullman’s musings. When the disciples asked;

“Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey Him!”

They were asking what we would call an ontological question about the nature of Jesus Christ and in the record of their worshiping of Jesus we find the testimony that they concluded with the Greek early church Fathers that Jesus was very God of very God. Of course, this is underscored by John 1 when under the inspiration of the Spirit he gives quite the ontological passage as to the nature of Jesus Christ.