Category: Windows Into Worldviews

Sovereignty — Some Meaning & Implications

1.) Sovereignty is totalistic

Absolute sovereignty extends to complete rule. An absolute sovereign means that said sovereign has absolute and total government. God, being absolute sovereign rules so minutely that not even a sparrow can fall without His consent (Mt. 10:29-31). Amos teaches that God’s sovereignty is so totalistic that even if calamity comes to the city that God has done it (Amos 3:6). Isaiah teaches that God creates disaster (Is. 45:7). In Job, Satan must receive approval from God before Satan can touch God’s servant. Acts 17:29 teaches that “we live and move and have our being in God and His government.

We see the State seeking to pick up the prerogatives of Sovereignty when it seeks to create a environment where God’s revealed sovereignty is put into abeyance in favor of the States. The State longs to create a social order where we live and move and have our being in the State.

2.) Sovereignty is characterized by total planning

In the Scripture total planning is called predestination. Isaiah 14:24 teaches, “Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand…” Elsewhere in Isaiah 46:10 we find, “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'” And again, Psalm 33:9, “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. 11The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.…

When God’s Sovereignty is denied, predestination does not go away. Some other agency enters in in order to provide total planning. The more godless a people become the more they will turn to some other agency to provide total planning. Typically that is the State and Obamacare is a perfect example of the State seeking to do total planning. This is a example of humanistic predestination and another demonstration of the State’s attempt to seize God’s sovereignty.

3.) Sovereignty is characterized by Omniscience

Of course total planning can not happen without Omniscience. The idea that one can predestine the beginning from the end without knowing the beginning from the end is just absurd. The Scriptures teach that God is Omniscient.

Psalm 139:4
Before a word is on my tongue you, LORD, know it completely.

Proverbs 5:21
For your ways are in full view of the LORD, and he examines all your paths.

Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

Jeremiah 16:17
My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes.

Hebrews 4:13
And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Of course this overturns all other teaching that suggests that God does not know the future, or that God and man are co-operating in order to create a uncertain future.

When we deny omniscience to God omniscience does not go away, but instead it seeks to find itself seized by whatever immanent god seeks to be god. We are hearing of this all the time today. We are seeing reports about NSA — a Government agency — seeking to collect all kinds of information and data on Americans.

A Congresswoman (Maxine Waters) recently noted that,

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday.

“That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that…. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

Rushdoony noted here,

“When the State claims sovereignty, the logic of its position requires that a like total knowledge be acquired concerning all men and things, and the result is the inquisitive and prying state which aims at knowing all in order to govern all.”

4.) Sovereignty is characterized by claims of ownership

Deuteronomy 10:14
To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

Job 41:11
Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.

Psalm 24:1
The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;

Psalm 50:12
If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.

Psalm 89:11
The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it.

If we belong to God that means we do not believe to ourselves or the State. However, the State does claim the citizenry as property. We are assets to be used and resources to be exploited.

Jonathan R. T. Hughes in his book, “The Government Habit,” offers this,

“It would surprise most American landowners today, as it often does those who cannot meet their property taxes, to learn that the state owns the land outright. Owners in fee simple have possession only of right in real estate: this phenomenon is part of what historians call the English Heritage.”

But it gets worse than that.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated (pledge (money) by law to a specific purpose) all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they
assigned the private property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

So, the idea of ownership inherent in Sovereignty, doesn’t go away when one denies it to the God of the Bible. Instead the idea of ownership is transferred to an immanent god.

5.) Sovereignty is characterized Law

In any social order Law is always reflective of the Law giver. God takes to Himself the authority to establish the boundaries of man’s rule. This includes, of course the issue of taxation (Ex. 30:11-16), (I Sam. 8:7-8). With God as law giver the tax is a tithe. When the State seeks to be sovereign it seeks a far higher percentage rate.

When it comes to the broader idea of the Law, we see that what the State invokes is called Positive Law

“There is no logic to the law in the “traditional” sense: it does not reflect in any meaningful way a constant standard of right or set of moral absolutes. Rather, the “path” of the law is historical in nature, weaving and winding through changing cultural norms and varying political circumstances. Thus judges (and now executives) who alter the law by fiat only hurry along the next stage of progress.” Oliver Wendell Holmes

When you rid yourself of God’s transcendent law you don’t rid yourself of Law. Instead what you get is legal Positivism. The key to legal positivism is in understanding the way positivists answer the fundamental question of jurisprudence: “What is law?” The word “positivism” itself derives from the Latin root positus, which means to posit, postulate, or firmly affix the existence of something. Legal positivism attempts to define law by firmly affixing its meaning to written decisions made by governmental bodies that are endowed with the legal power to regulate particular areas of society and human conduct. If a principle, rule, regulation, decision, judgment, or other law is recognized by a duly authorized governmental body or official, then it will qualify as law, according to legal positivists. Conversely, if a behavioral norm is enunciated by anyone or anything other than a duly authorized governmental body or official, the norm will not qualify as law in the minds of legal positivists, no matter how many people are in the habit of following the norm or how many people take action to legitimize it.

From The Pastor’s Mailbag — Christian Economics?

Dear Pastor,

1.) ‘Why would you have a seminary teach macroeconomics?

2.) What makes Sowell’s theory reflective of a “Reformed Worldview” when he’s not even Reformed, as far as we know?

3.) Why do we even have to frame macroeconomics in those types of terms?

4.) What makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and who gets to decide that?’

Thanks,

Jillian

Dear Jillian,

Thank you for writing. Before turning to your questions, which we will take one at a time, let us consider some macro aspects to this.

First we need to understand that Economics is theology dependent. The ancients had a saying, that yet remains true, that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.” This truism teaches us that all other disciplines are derivative of some prior understanding of Theology. What that means is that Economics, History, Sociology, Psychology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Arts, Politics, Law etc. are all dependent on some Theology, and are what they are as they are informed by some theology. Theology is an inescapable category from which all the humanities are derivative. Because this is true Economics, like all those other disciplines listed, are but the incarnation and manifestation of some Theology into the various theories that comprise the discipline. Because this is true, it is never a case of whether or not we will have an Economics that is driven by theology, but it is only a question of which theology will drive our Economics. Since this is so, Christian have to think about what the implications of our Christian Theology have for Economics because if we don’t think in those terms what will happen is some pagan theology, representative of some false god or god concept, will be what drives our Economics. As such if we will not have Economics as derivative of explicitly Christian theology, we will have Economics as derivative of Humanist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Theology. Theologically speaking, there is no Economics from nowhere. Theologically speaking there is no Economics wherein Economics is not serving as a handmaiden for some God or god concept.

Having opened with that we turn to your questions.

1.) Seminaries might teach a macro Economics course because,

a.) Our abstract Theology also needs to be concrete. There is a necessity to reveal to seminarian students that as all Theology is totalistic in its claims, Christian theology needs to challenge the paradigms of false theologies as they incarnate and manifest themselves in the Public Square via Economic modalities and paradigms.

b.) The Scripture gives us themes for a Christian Economics. For example, Scripture forbids theft, therefore, a Christian Macro-Economics would require us to hold that the holding of property by individuals is a necessary aspect of a Christian Economics. This simple tenant immediately informs us that all Marxist type of Economic arrangements are unbiblical since Marxist theory denies the individual claim to property to the individual. We know that individual property claims are biblical by looking, as just one example, at the account of Naboth’s vineyard in the Scripture (I Kings 21). Other Biblical principles for Economics that we can derive from Scripture is the necessity of the keeping of contract (James 5), the idea of a just wage (Malachi 3:5), the prohibition against oppression of the worker by the Rich (Deut. 24:14-15), and that Government theft is a positive evil (I Samuel 8). Another key Economic theme of Scripture is the reality that God’s people are Stewards of all that God has given them and all that God has given them must be handled, not as absolute owners, but as stewards unto God. After all, I am in body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Any Christian Macro Economic theory must reflect these realities.

These themes alone go a long way towards informing a Christian Macro-economics.

Now, to be sure, the Marxists and the Progressives who call themselves “Christian” will come in and deny these aspects but at that point all we can do is to go to the Law and to the testimony to see if these things are so (Isaiah 8). Also, we need to realize that there are those who will claim that Economics, like all other disciplines are NOT theology dependent. As previously, all that can be done is to appeal to Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit will open people’s eyes to see that there is no Neutrality, no not even in what is called the “common realm.”

c.) In the end Marco-economics is needed for those who would be ministers because they are to speak forth the whole counsel of God. Christianity does not end at the Church doors. Christianity is not merely about Jesus living in my heart. Christianity is not restricted to some zone beyond which it is forbidden to go. As Abraham Kuyper once said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’ That includes Economics Jillian.

2.) Dr. Thomas Sowell is not Reformed. Of that there can be little doubt. However, having said that, his theories, as existing in the context of a Reformed Christian worldview support many of the idea set forth immediately above. Sowell believes in individual property claims. He is against totalistic Economic claims of the God state. He supports individual right of contract. Sowell, of course, is not to be absolutized. Only the Scriptures are absolute. And of course there will be aspects of Sowell’s theory that need to be reinterpreted through a Biblical grid. For example, the Austrian school of Economics, that he is associated with, does have elements in it that are thoroughly unbiblical and would need to be purged from a Christian Economics.

3.) We have to frame Marco-Economics in these types of terms because these types of terms are inescapable concepts that can’t be escaped. Because all of reality is Theologically driven, all that composes reality will likewise be theologically driven. Further, without Macro-Economics being framed in such a way we lose the ability to distinguish some time of Economic activity as “wrong” as compared with other types of Economic activity we would say is “right.” If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say, “Marxist Economics is wrong,” because Marxist Economics presupposes an Economic determinism that doesn’t submit to the reality that God rules. If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say Wall Street Crony Capitalism is wrong because Wall Street Crony Capitalism (Corporatism) absolutizes wealthy in their oppression of the poor and the needy. If we fail to frame Macro-Economics in these type of terms then we are forced to live with whatever oppression the State, as God, determines as our lot.

4.) God and His Word makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and it is the Scriptures that get to decide that since all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I believe that Economics is a good work that the man of God can be equipped for by understanding Scripture.

In the end Jillian, I don’t want to be the one to tell God that Macro-Economics is none of his damn business and he should just butt out of the whole discipline.

Thank you for writing Jillian,

With A Half-Twist

A reductio on an article that ran in a Reformed Denominational magazine. As originally published it found the word “homosexuality,” or “gay” wherever you find the word Necrophilia in my reductio.

by Name withheld

February 21, 2014 — I am a Christian. I was born and raised in a Reformed Church and educated in its schools from kindergarten through college. I am also a Necrophiliac. These two characteristics define my life more than anything else: more than my education, career, marital status, or the number of children I may have.

As a Necrophiliac Christian, I am an oxymoron to many.

I do not easily embrace myself as a necrophiliac man. I’ve only come to do that after many years of wrestling with the Scriptures, with God, with myself. I sought counsel from pastors and Christian therapists, tried ex-necrophiliacs for Jesus ministries and every reparative therapy program I could find. I begged God to change me and in despair attempted suicide. I studied every angle of the questions “How do I become ‘not necrophiliac’?” and “What must I do to love alive people?” In my study of Scripture, I wrestled with the passages interpreted to condemn Necrophiliac behavior, with creation order, the nature of sin, and the process of sanctification. And I prayed. My sexual orientation did not change.

Like every other Necrophiliac person in my Reformed denomination, I am mindful of my church’s understanding of Necrophilia. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a cliché implying that I am sin personified. Tony Campolo has observed that Jesus says the opposite: “Love the sinner and hate your own sin. And after you get rid of the sin in your own life, then you can begin talking about the sin in your brother or sister’s life.” Obviously therefore it is wrong for any sinner to denounce necrophilia as aberrant. I wish the Church would learn that. After all, the Church is full of sinners just like me. Our sins may vary but since we are all sinners no one should be allowed to denounce another person’s “sin.” (Unless of course we are denouncing the sinners who denounce other people’s sins or when we are denouncing Necro-phobia.)

Meanwhile, where have all the necrophiliac sons and daughters of your church gone? Many—I dare say most—have left your churches and your hometowns. Their church home became unsafe when they—like me—learned the pastor’s response to people like us.

It may surprise you that there is a deep spiritual longing within my necrophiliac friends, a longing and a struggle to reconcile “Jesus loves me, this I know” with an attribute that many in the church consider an abomination. My friends grew up loving God—that has not changed. But as a result of being rejected, many have given up on the church, and, tragically, on God.

The culture has is sure to change. Necrophiliac marriage is sure to become legal in Canada and in some states. The U.S. Supreme Court will one day surely strike down any laws forbidding necrophilia. The Boy Scouts of America one day will have special merit badges for sharing a sleeping bag with the dead. I foresee the day when celebrities, athletes, and business leaders will “come out.”

The church seems unprepared to respond to these situations legally and with moral authority. How do congregations pick up the pieces of shattered families after the failure of mixed-orientation marriages of necrophiliac people who enter into a heterosexual marriage, believing that it would make them acceptable to God and the church? How do they welcome necrophiliac couples who attend services or who wish to be married in the church?

My understanding of the Scriptures has changed dramatically over the years. If “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, I was going insane seeking “freedom” from being a necrophiliac. Jesus confronted me with the words “I have come to give life and life abundant” (John 10:10). These words trumped “abomination theology.”

Coming out has not been easy—for me or for my family. But it has brought life.

Isn’t it time for the church to welcome back its necrophiliac sons and daughters, along with their spouses and children? Isn’t it time to encourage everyone to know the love of God for each and every one of his children?

Top Down Structural Control

This post is premised on the idea that much of what happens in our pop culture and in our civil life is handled and controlled by a shadow elite. There are many who find such an idea spurious. If you’re one of those who find such an idea to be spurious you may just laugh in your sleeve and pass on by. Support for such ideas are found in books like Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope,” Anthony Sutton’s various titles, Em Griffin’s “Creature From Jekyll Island,” and others.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years……It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

― David Rockefeller

Four Levels of Controllers.

1.) Useful Idiots

These people cooperate with the control system enforcing their agenda without even realizing that such a organized system exists. They have been saturated with the control system culture and honestly believe that said culture is the best for optimum living. They seldom think outside the ruts provided by the pop culture. These would include many secondary school teachers, many ministers, Shrinks of various stripes and types, local, county and state elected officials, journalists, etc.

2.) Utopian Idealists

These people realize that there is a control system yet they are willing to work within that system because they think that though even though there may be unfortunate excesses in the system from time to time, still overall the control system is benevolent. These would include many College Professors, entry level bureaucrats, elected officials who have been around long enough to know the score.

3.) Compromised Careerists

These folks know their is a control system and have been corrupted by it so that they can not turn against it or leave it without they and their lives being compromised. These folks are the majority of folks who do the dirty work for the higher up controllers. These folks are the hired guns. They are reliable and predictable. These would include folks who have been in the bureaucracies for a very long time. Someone like the recently fired IRS Lois Learner would fall into this category. (If anyone thinks Lois Learner acted on her own initiative without higher officials directing her actions you deserve to remain in the Matrix.)

4.) Planners and Implementers

These are the heavy hitters in the public eye. They are the top policy makers in Hollywood, Washington DC, New York Media conglomerates, Publishing houses, Fashion Industry, etc. These folks would be the ones who take the orders from the shadow elite. This group includes Presidents and Cabinet level positions, Captains of Industry, and Media Moguls. You get the idea.

5.) The Shadow Elite

These are the names that are only whispered. These are those who are barely known by the oi polloi. They control the movement of International finance, of nations, and often of Armies. Names like Rothschild, and Rockefeller come to mind. These are they who are seeking to herd everything into a New World Order.

It is helpful to keep in mind that very little that is accomplished by this system is accomplished by brute force. As the controllers own the media and educational outlets their accomplishments are most often achieved by their constant messaging from the tenderest of years until one has adopted that messaging for their worldview. The controllers achieve their ends by creating consensus and they create consensus by blanketing the information outlets.

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

― David Rockefeller

Curious Words From The New Pope

The blurb opens up with,

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Bret responds,

I’m sure the atheist Richard Dawkins is glad to hear this latest statement by Pope Francis, because now he can be forgiven as he follows his conscience in supporting pedophilia. Dawkins recently said,

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, the renown atheist recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters

    “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

Dawkins said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded:

    “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

    “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”

Dawkins said.

Dawkins went on to say the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called

    “just mild touching up.”

So now, given Pope Francis’ insight, Richard Dawkins can be forgiven when he, and other unbeliever’s like him follow their conscience in “just mildly touching up” little children. Pedophilia never held so much promise.

Pope Francis weighs in

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

Bret responds while scratching his head,

Why would the one who does not believe in God go to a God they don’t believe in, with a sincere and contrite heart? The one we are talking about DOESN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

The article continues,

Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”

Bret responds,

Translated — “In an attempt to convert the world, the world has converted the Papacy and the ‘Church’.”

The article finishes,

In a welcoming response to the letter, Mr Scalfari said the Pope’s comments were “further evidence of his ability and desire to overcome barriers in dialogue with all”.

In July, Francis signaled a more progressive attitude on sexuality, asking: “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”

In fairness to Francis, it was said that when Francis said this he was referring to celibate sodomites. Though, after this piece, I’m having my doubts about that Vatican post comment spin.