Iron Ink

I Corinthians 4:4 … The God of this age (world).

The god of this age (world) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I Corinthians 4:4

When Scripture teaches that “Satan is the God of this world,” what one needs to understand is that Paul is using “world” in a technical fashion. “World” here means “as this world lies in Adam.” It is a truism that as this world lies in Adam Satan is the God of that world. However, what it does not mean is that Satan is over planet earth. To not see that distinction would give us a contradiction with Scripture that teaches that the Lord Christ is in possession of “all authority” in heaven and on earth as well as those passages that teach that the “Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” Obviously St. Paul is not introducing some kind of Manichean dualism by positing two competing Gods … one over things not of this world and one over this world.

Another example of this kind of language is used by John,

I John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

What world is John speaking of when he writes that the ‘whole world is under the power of the evil one?”

Well, he is speaking of the world as it lies in Adam and opposed to God. He is speaking of the unregenerate world. We know that the world John is speaking of is not inclusive of Christians who live in the world because John writes that ‘we are of God.’

Neither Paul nor John, are saying that planet earth belongs to Satan. That would contradict passages which speak of Christ as the ruler,

^{Eph. 1:21 (Christ is)}far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. ²²And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church…

Colossians 2: He (Christ) is the head over every power and authority.

So, if this is true of Christ then it cannot also be true that Satan is the God of this age, or the God of this World in the sense that Satan has some controlling ability in this world that rises above God.

So we have before us an example of the necessity of reading and interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture. It is not proper to locate one verse and then say, ‘see, this proves that Satan is God over planet earth,’ or to say that God rules spiritually but Satan rules non-spiritually.’ We must compare Scripture with Scripture.

What shall we conclude about this. Well, Scripture forces us to say that Satan has been delegated certain authority so it can be fairly said of him that He is God over the people who refuse to bow the knee to Christ and His Lordship.

St. Paul begins to get at this when he writes,

¹³For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

You see… formerly they were in the dominion of darkness where the God of this world rules but now they have been rescued by the God who is over the God of this world and are delivered into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. Notice though, if Satan were the absolute ruler as God of this world or age then God could never have rescued His people from Satan. We see then that the God of this world or age is not to attribute to Satan absolute power over any territory. It merely is to teach that those who are of their Father the devil have Satan as their God.

As an aside, this demonstrates again that there is no neutrality. Either one belongs to the God of this age or one belongs to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. One either belongs to the God of this age or one belongs to the God of the age to come.

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

Another passage that supports what I am getting at is John 12:31. St. John quotes Christ as saying,

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” And again,

John 14:30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,

John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

In the work of the Cross Satan was driven out. He has no power except to those who are of their Father the Devil, but even then, just as with Job, Satan is a permission seeking being in terms of his designs and intent. The Devil is merely God’s attack dog on a long leash.

The Devil does God’s bidding. The Devil may be the God of this Age but he does the work assigned to Him by God. Scripture is replete with examples regarding this. And it is to those examples we turn.

Book of Job

Judges 9:23

God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem and caused them to treat Abimelech deceitfully,

1 Samuel 16:14

After the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, a spirit of distress from the LORD began to torment him.

1 Samuel 18:10

The next day a spirit of distress sent from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied inside the house while David played the harp as usual. Now Saul was holding a spear,

1 Samuel 19:9

But as Saul was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand, a spirit of distress from the LORD came upon him. While David was playing the harp,

1 Kings 22:21

Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD.

So, we see the Devil, evil spirits, do not operate independently of God’s boundaries. The Devil is God’s Devil.

Then there are other passages that says God Himself deceives those who hate him. This passage from Isaiah is quoted frequently in the NT

9And He replied, “Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.…

Romans 11:8

as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”

Deuteronomy 29:4

Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.

Romans

God Turned them over …. (3x)

Thes. 2:11 For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie,…

So, we see from all this that Satan is not an independent agent. We who are in Christ have no need to fear him or be preoccupied with Him. He is a very real enemy but He is an enemy who has been vanquished. Further, we see that Scripture cannot be appealed to in order to make the Devil out as someone who has a dominion that is outside of God’s dominion. The Devil is God’s Devil and his dominion is held at God’s leisure.

So, dear Christian, as Satan is not literally in charge of planet earth as belonging to him there is no room for surrendering anything in the Cosmos to Satan as if he has right of authority because he is “the god of this world.” Satan is the god of the dung heap, of falsity, of fiat non-reality. He has no hold over this world because in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, God has and intends to continue to redeem the whole Cosmos so that it is even more than Eden ever was.

The age to come has come in Christ and is rolling back this present wicked age that has the prince of the power of the air as its Captain. This mopping up exercise is fait accompli. The “God of this age” is a grifter and the only weapons he has are smoke, delusion, and intimidation. Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world.

Satan as “God of this world?” Only in the sense that a rebellious three year old thinks he is the “God of his bedroom,” in defiance of his parents placing him there for discipline.

Implications

1.) If we belong to God and are members of Christ’s Kingdom Lucifer is not a being we should be over consumed with. Yes, he exists, as do his lieutenants. Yes, they hate God and the Saints. But greater is He who is within us than He who is in the world as it lies in Adam.

2.) Because of this, there should be a growing confidence that is characteristic of us as God’s people. Do we really believe that as we belong to the Sovereign of the universe that anything can do us harm? The truth here should push us to attempt great things for God… to ask great things from God so that His name might be better known. We are more than conqueror because if God be for us (and He is) then truly opposition is insignificant.

3.) We should be extraordinarily wary of any theology that is consumed with the power of demons, evil spirits, or Satan. On the other hand we should be equally wary of any theology that ignores their reality upon those who belong to the God of this world.

4.) Because of all this we should be a people who fear God so much that we would do anything so as not to be deceived. We should be those who cry out for wisdom and to be delivered from all deception. We should hunger for God’s thinking so that we won’t find ourselves turned over.

5.) We see God’s absolute sovereignty once again. We should be preoccupied with God alone. No need to be preoccupied with the devil’s ability to destroy us if we are preoccupied with God’s ability to keep us.

6.) We are safe from the machinations of the God of this World because of the finished work of Jesus Christ. As our catechims notes,

He has fully paid for all my sins

with his precious blood,

and has set me free

from all the power of the devil.

Conclusion,

So we need to make proper distinctions on this matter. The this “world” distinction is critical. When the scriptures say “My kingdom is not of this world” or “love not the world” or that “Satan is the God of this world,” it is not speaking of the Cosmos or physical world and creation of God, but the “way of the world” or the “philosophy of autonomous worldly men,” or the “world as it lies in Adam.” This is a critical distinction, that is too often lost on many in the Christian community.

From the Mailbag …Dear Pastor, We must allow immigrants

Dear Pastor,

I am bothered by your stance on immigration. Europe decided to help people who come from war-torn countries get a better life. The Daily Mail is full of lies and over-exaggerates every negative thing based on its own right-wing agenda. The Daily Mail’s reporting on what happened at Cologne is such an example. Yes, there are bad Muslims, but they don’t speak for the majority. There are bad Christians, but they don’t speak for everybody, either etc. Most people just want to live in peace. We all come from and have been immigrants. Or are we supposed to not care because they aren’t all Christians? Can’t we just look at each other as human beings rather than place divisions between us? Everyone deserves a better life and a few evil people (on all sides) should not be allowed to represent the masses.

Laura Lindson

Dear Laura,

Thanks for writing. Let’s try to be somewhat systematic in our approach to your letter.

1.) Laura is a white female like the ones who were raped and assaulted in Cologne and yet, here she is defending the rapefugees behavior. She probably also votes for those who want to continue to pursue these policies … policies that might find her some day raped.

2.) Laura cannot distinguish between people coming to get a better life and people coming here to colonize and destroy the West. These people are not coming here to find a better life. They are coming her to turn the life that is better for the West into the same latrine hole that the lands they are coming from already are.

3.) Laura makes the accusation of “exaggeration.” Odd, because that is the very same accusation that was made against the early reports of the same kind of behavior that Allan Antonio is describing in this thread as it occurred in Rotherham England between 1997-2013 when over 1400 pre-pubescent white girls and boys were raped, tortured, and sex-trafficked by filthy Muslim men. For years people like Laura turned a deaf ear to those who were insisting that there was a major problem by means of insisting that these accusations were all “exaggerations.” They weren’t then. They aren’t now. Laura either is grossly naive and so a useful idiot or she is in league with those desiring the fall of the West. I would guess she is a useful idiot.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/grap…/projects/rotherham/index.html

4.) Laura wants to suggest that there is an equivalency between bad Christians and bad Muslims. Where are the news stories about gangs of Christians sex Trafficking children? Where are the stories about gangs of Christians gang-banging and raping minority women? Apparently bad Christians are not quite the problem bad Muslims are. Apparently civilized nations can function as civilized with bad Christians as opposed to being able to function as civilized with bad Muslims.

5.) Most people just want to live in peace? Really? Having been in the people business for over 25 years I can testify that it is just not true that most people want to live in peace. What most people want to do is to control everybody around them even if that means conflict, friction, and destruction.

6.) Laura involves herself in myth when she invokes the, “We’ve all been immigrants and have come from immigrants.” The myth here is that immigrants moving from Western lands to Western lands are the same as immigrants moving from non Western lands to Western lands. While assimilation is possible when going from Western lands to Western lands it has become manifestly obvious that the West can not remain the West and be absorbed and abolished by the massive influx from non Christian and non Western lands as influenced, shaped, and informed by anti-Christ religions.

7.) Laura then invokes “caring” as a reason why we should accept being inundated by the stranger and the alien. But what Laura doesn’t mention is that by caring for the stranger and the alien we at that moment are throwing our children and women to the wolves. We have a choice in terms of caring. We can either care for our families and clans or we can care for the stranger and alien who desires to devour our families and clans but we cannot do both. Either we protect our women and children or we sacrifice them on the altar of multiculturalism and political correctness. In short, it is precisely because I care that I insist that immigration must halt and those who have come here be returned to lands of origins.

8.) Laura invokes the necessity that we all look at each other as human beings as opposed to looking at what divides us from one another. The problem here is that we are not merely human beings. We are people who belong to a particular place and who have been claimed by particular Gods. We are people who belong to particular families and clans. We are not merely human beings as if human beings were merely cogs that can fit into any place at any time. The way the West and the God of the Bible has shaped human beings is categorically different and so completely non-amenable to how Allah has shaped the sons of the Crescent. Scripture asks, “unless two be agreed how can they walk together?” We might add, “unless two be agreed how can they live in one nation together?”

9.) Everyone most certainly does not deserve a better life contra Laura’s insistence. Do rapists deserve a better life? Do people who desire the death of Christians deserve a better life? Do people groups who are known for their violence and Jihad deserve a better life? If they want a better life than they should start by serving better Gods. That is the only way they can have a better life.

Later you wrote back to me saying,

Laura writes,

Better Gods? What are better gods? What about abuse that has been covered up by Christian religions all these years? Or the fact that hard-line people of ALL religions still view women as walking wombs who should be quiet and serve their men? Why are you only bothered about Christians being hurt or murdered? What about everyone else, including those who don’t follow any religion? Vile people exist in all walks of life, religious or not. My only point is that I hate the hypocrisy of it all. And also, on another note, can you stop starting every line with ‘Laura’ and talking about me in the third person. It makes you sound incredibly patronizing and makes a mockery of my freedom to express an opinion. I’m not asking you to agree. I’m asking you to respect my right to see things from different points of view and respect my belief that in spite of the barbarians living in this world, there are also wonderful people with hopes and dreams and we need to stop putting people in categories. The end.

Bret responds,

There is only one Better God and that is the God of the Bible. All those who don’t serve Him love death. It strikes me that you are a testimony of that truth. Having refused the God of the Bible you are now advocating the importing of those who will be death to you.

And what abuse of Christians have been covered up? The abuse of bringing modern hygiene to the world? The abuse of bring life extending medicines to the world? The abuse of ships that ply the seas and manned rockets that explore space? The abuse of bringing civilization to heathen nations? The abuse of ending the slaughter and cannibalism that was found among the Aztecs and other tribal Indians in newly discovered lands? The abuse of bringing reading and writing to whole people groups? The abuse of architecture that built mind stunningly beautiful Cathedrals and later skyscrapers? The abuse of creating Governments that provided the greatest liberty the world has ever known? The abuse of international trade and economies that could sustain a standard of living that the ancients couldn’t even dream of? The abuse of Missionaries traveling, at the cost of their own lives, to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations? You mean that kind of abuse?

Laura, you mention the possibility of those who don’t follow any religion. That, of course, is not possible, as religion is an inescapable category. No person lives who does not embrace a religion.

You ask if I am bothered by people from other religions being harmed and hurt. The answer, is obviously “yes, I am concerned about that.” The Holy Scriptures teach me that I must,

10 … While we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

So you see, there is a priority listed here. Seeking to do good to all people but zeroing in on and prioritizing fellow believers in Jesus Christ.

Next, Laura, it is the case that I do believe that God graced women with the beauty of the womb and so the ability to bear children. Further I believe it is the privilege of women to serve those who give up their lives to protect them. Finally, in terms of women being on the quiet side I agree with the Christian Scriptures which teach,

⁹In like manner also, that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobermindedness, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array, ¹⁰but, as becometh women professing godliness, with good works. ¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Finally, I don’t respect your right or anybody else’s right to be wrong when being wrong means the approach of death. Indeed, I’m not sure where such a “right” springs from. Sorry, but people who are wrong the way you are wrong need to be silenced by means of demonstrating their arguments as foolish, and so once again be embarrassed to utter such death bringing opinions for fear of again being the outcasts that such people once were.

All the best Laura,

Dr. Piper and His Insistence that Christians Should Lie Down and Die — Part V

Dr. Piper offers,

7. When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death.

[Jesus] said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough [that’s plenty].” (Luke 22:35–38)

I do not think that Jesus meant in verse 36 that his disciples were to henceforth be an armed band of preachers ready to use violence to defend themselves from persecution. Jerry Falwell, Jr. said in his clarifying remarks on December 9,

It just boggles my mind that anybody would be against what Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36. He told them if they had to sell their coat to buy a sword to do it because he knew danger was coming, and he wanted them to defend themselves.

If that is the correct interpretation of this text, my question is, “Why did none of his disciples in the New Testament ever do that — or commend that?” The probable answer is that Jesus did not mean for them to think in terms of armed defense for the rest of their ministry. Jesus’s abrupt words, at the end of the paragraph, when the disciples produced two swords, were not, “Well, you need to get nine more.” He said, “It is enough!” or “That’s plenty!” This may well signify that the disciples have given a mistaken literal meaning to a figurative intention. Darrell Bock concludes,

Two events [are] commentary on this verse [36]: Jesus’ rebuke of the use of a sword against the high priest’s servant (22:49–51) and the church’s nonviolent response to persecution in the Book of Acts (4:25–31; 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). In fact, Acts 4:25–31 shows the church armed only with prayer and faith in God. Luke 22:36 sees the sword as only a symbol of preparation for pressure, since Jesus’ rebuke of a literal interpretation (22:38) shows that a symbol is meant (Fitzmyer 1985: 1432; Marshall 1978: 825). It points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge (Nolland 1993b: 1076). (Luke, volume 2, page 1747)

What seems plain to me is that the uncertainty of this text (which I share) should not be used to silence the others I have cited.

Bret responds,

Those passages that Dr. Piper cites that are supposed to overturn the passage in Luke 22 Piper doesn’t like are in a historical context. Jesus is speaking to his disciples about eventualities that will come upon them. Even if the message to the disciples was to “lie down and die” that wouldn’t necessarily mean that would be the message for all time and all disciples everywhere. The fact that the passages that Dr. Piper quotes (Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 10:16-22) are not necessarily for all disciples at all times everywhere is proven by a differing counsel that the Lord Christ gave to His disciples in Luke 22:36-38

36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

The Lord Christ counsel the purchase of a sword in vs. 36 because unlike the previous, in-house missionary journeys to their fellow Israelites, the Lord Christ knew that He was now sending his disciples out into the hostile/pagan Gentile world and they would need to be prepared to defend themselves. Dr. Piper is reading the Scripture through his Anabaptistic – Pacifistic lenses and so he concludes what he concludes but Anabaptist theology is not God honoring theology.

Dr. Piper follows up his eisegesis with more or arguing from silence. “The Apostles didn’t say anything about self defense therefore that proves we shouldn’t use self defense.” Can you say “fallacious argumentation?”

Dr. Piper complains about Dr. Falwell Jr. trying to use Luke 22 to silence other texts and then Piper turns around and tries to use the other texts to silence Luke 22 by appealing to the time honored evasion of “symbolism.” On top of that there is the whole reality that Piper is trying to keep this debate in the New Testament. Dr. Piper does this because he knows that if the God’s Word in the whole of Scripture is allowed to speak on this subject his Anabaptist pacifism is even more dead on arrival than it has been seen to be demonstrated in this series.

Dr. Piper offers,

8. A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”

My answer is sevenfold.

1) This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse, and abuse us (Luke 6:27–28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military. This is remarkable when you think about it, since I cannot help but think this precise situation presented itself, since we read that Saul drug men and women bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

Bret responds,

a.) Everyone reading this should have pity and compassion for Noel Piper, Dr. John Piper’s wife.

b.) Note again how Dr. Piper goes out of his way to limit this discussion to the New Testament. This is all very Marcion of Dr. Piper.

c.) As I have shown in the first entry on this subject, the Reformed Confessions demand that we conclude that we shoot an assailant of our wife if that is the only means from keeping her from being maimed and killed. To not shoot such an assailant would incur God’s displeasure against us for being so cowardly in disobeying the 6th commandment.

d.) Dr. Piper, as I have demonstrated in previous entries, is in error, when he presumes that it is doing evil to those who intend to do harm to the judicially innocent, when we stop them from doing evil. It is not doing evil to them but is returning to them good for evil.

e.) In Dr. Piper’s last sentence above he, once again, argues from silence.

Dr. Piper offers,

2) Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.

Bret responds,

a.) Our primary aim in life is to glorify God. The 6th commandment, with the attendant Catechism explanations, demonstrate that if we do not defend life when defending life is possible we are defaming God.

b.) The fact that our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life is itself reason to honor Christ by taking the life of the wicked who would take the life of my wife, daughter, or friend. Christ is glorified when the 6th commandment is esteemed.

Dr. Piper offers,

3) Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family. That is, Jesus’s personal strategy for overcoming crimes was to overcome sinful inclinations by giving his life to pay debts and change hearts. It is no small thing that Peter based non-retaliatory suffering from unjust treatment on the atoning work of Christ as exemplary: “To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

Bret responds,

a.) Dr. Piper does not know that the Lord Christ died to pay the debt of the assailant who is trying to kill a family member. If the Lord Christ did die for the debt of the assailant then Dr. Piper can be sure that when he fires his weapon to defend his wife, or daughter, that he will not inflict a mortal wound since God never fails to win His elect for whom Christ died.

b .) God’s personal strategy for overcoming crimes is for people to obey his law and the law in Exodus 22 clearly and unambiguously teaches self defense.

c.) Peter is writing a suffering people who have no recourse. Peter is not writing to recommend going out of one’s way to come under suffering.

Dr. Piper offers,

4) I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1–4 — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

Bret responds,

a.) Here John’s Anabaptist pacifism reaches so far as to suggest that calling the police would be dishonoring to Christ.

b.) The only way the heart can be in step with the mind of Christ is by esteeming the law of God which requires, via the 6th commandment, self defense. Here John is divorcing God’s Word from the mind of Christ.

Dr. Piper offers

5) I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.

Bret responds,

John might as well say,

“I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I, as a Anabaptist pacifist, would personally counsel that you make no provision to obey the 6th commandment.”

Dr. Piper offers,

6) I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors. And I would be very slow to condemn a person who chose differently from me.

Bret offers,

That’s big of John to allow that someone who defended his family from murder and mayhem, by way of self defense, might not be condemned by John Piper.

Dr. Piper offers,

7) Back to the first point, it seems to me that the New Testament does not aim to make this clear for us. Its aim is a radically transformed heart that lives with its treasure in another world, longs to show Jesus to be more satisfying than life, trusts in the help of God in every situation, and desires the salvation of our enemies.

Bret responds,

a.) And yet here Dr. Piper has spilled vast amounts of cyber ink to suggest that the NT does make matters clear for us. This statement is schizophrenic on John’s part.

b.) Self defense does not negate, as I have demonstrated in all these entries, the desire for a “radically transformed heart that lives with its treasure in another world, longs to show Jesus to be more satisfying than life, trusts in the help of God in every situation, and desires the salvation of our enemies.” I can do all these things and defend my pregnant wife and toddler children as in keeping with the 6th commandment.

c.) Of course with the way that John has crafted his #7 we see his Marcion like admission that the God of the OT was different than the God of the NT. What John is implying here, perhaps without even realizing is, is that the NT God has one aim while the OT God has a different aim.

Dr. Piper offers,

9. Even though the Lord ordains for us to use ordinary means of providing for life (work to earn; plant and harvest; take food, drink, sleep, and medicine; save for future needs; provide governments with police and military forces for society), nevertheless, the unique calling of the church is to live in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about our hope (1 Peter 3:15), not about the ingenuity of our armed defenses.

God is our refuge and strength. (Psalm 46:1)

My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19)

You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. (Luke 21:17–18)

Bret Responds,

a.) Pretty soon, I expect Dr. Piper to go all John Reed on me and write, “Property is theft.”

b.) If John really believes this then why does he own anything? Is not his ownership of anything proof that he is not living “in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about his hope?” Does John lock his door at night? Proof that he isn’t acting as a Christian. Does John lock his car doors? Proof he isn’t acting as a Christian. Does John buckle up when he goes for a drive? Proof that John isn’t acting as a Christian. Does John have a savings account? Proof that John isn’t acting as a Christian. Does John vote for the candidate he thinks will be best? Proof that John isn’t acting Christian. All these things that John is doing that is keeping the world from asking about his hope. John should be ashamed and riven with guilt.

Dr. Piper offers,

This article is about the people whom the Bible calls “refugees and exiles” on earth; namely, Christians. It’s about the fact that our weapons are not material, but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:4). It is an argument that the overwhelming focus and thrust of the New Testament is that Christians are sent into the world — religious and non-religious — “as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:3). And that exhorting the lambs to carry concealed weapons with which to shoot the wolves does not advance the counter-cultural, self-sacrificing, soul-saving cause of Christ.

Bret responds,

a.) On the potential spirituality of guns see the 3rd paragraph of this entry,

https://ironink.org/?p=5915

b.) John Piper must really not like the 6th commandment and the Reformed Catechisms that comment on it.

c.) Piper continues with his false dichotomy to the bitter end. There is no dichotomy between protecting the lives of the judicially innocent and advancing the cause of Christ. Indeed, Dr. Piper might be amazed at how people stand up and notice the cause of Christ once a few Christians step forward to defend their wives and families from deranged sociopaths with weapons.

Honestly, I hope that Dr. Piper.’s writing can be explained by his suffering from some form of dementia that is driving him to write this kind of drivel. I would hate to think that Dr. Piper honestly is in full possession of his faculties and so really believes this eisegesis. This kind of drivel is detracting from the really stellar work he did 20-30 years ago.

Dr. Piper and His Insistence That Christians Lie Down and Die — Part IV

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves.

Dr. Piper offers,

4. Jesus set the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian cause with the sword.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

Jesus said to [Peter], “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

Bret

a.) Jesus also came to die for the sins of His people. Does that mean that we likewise are called to die for the sins of people? Jesus also went about doing miracles. Does that mean that we likewise are called to go about doing miracles?

Of course the point here is that we are not called to do everything that Jesus was called to do. We are not called to born of a Virgin. We are not called to resurrect on the third day.

b.) Dr. Piper fails to explain how self-defense of the lives of the judicially innocent from the threat of the wicked is an example of trying to “establish or advance our Christian cause with the sword.” Dr. Piper fails to demonstrate that those who follow the 6th commandment in self defense means that we are trying to communicate that this world is our Christian home and is our Christian Kingdom.

c.) We could just as easily argue, in contradiction to Dr. Piper, that as Jesus came to establish His Kingdom in and over this world we should likewise seek to establish the Kingdom of God in and over this world.

d.) Dr. Piper then offers Scripture, completely taken out of context and misinterpreted.

For Dr. Piper’s mishandling of John 18:36 see,

My Kingdom Is Not Of This World

The Matthew 26 passage has a very established context. The most we can prove from it is that we should not use self defense to protect people who are on their way to the Cross to die for the sins of the world. This is especially so, where elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels (Luke 22:36f) the Lord Christ expressly instruct His disciples to carry a sword.

Dr. Piper offers,

To be sure, there are many ambiguities about being exiles on this earth with our citizenship in heaven (Philippians 3:20), while at the same time being called to serve in the structures of society (1 Peter 2:13). But no book of the Bible wrestles with this more directly than 1 Peter, and the overwhelming thrust of that book is this: As you suffer patiently and even joyfully for your faith, do so much good that people will ask a reason for the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15).

I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with concealed weapons will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us. They will know perfectly well where our hope is. It’s in our pocket.

Bret responds,

a.) The fact that Dr. Piper admits there are ambiguities might mean that he should be a little less dogmatic on his pacifistic declamations.

b.) The fact that Christians will suffer — and should do so patiently and joyfully — is not itself proof against the fact that Christians are commanded to defend themselves when able. The way Piper is reasoning here, one would think that Christians should be required to seek to put themselves under suffering. Peter’s book is speaking in the context of when suffering comes upon us. Peter is not teaching that all Christians must themselves seek out situations where they can suffer.

c.) Dr. Piper again makes the mistake of supposing that all because someone takes the 6th commandment seriously therefore that means that they are identifying with the tools used to esteem the 6th commandment.

d.) Given Dr. Piper’s reasoning one could as easily say, “I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with wearing safety belts will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us. They will know perfectly well where our hope is. It’s across our chest while driving.”

Does Dr. Piper wear a seat belt while driving? Well, clearly no one will now ask him for the reason of the hope that is within him.

Dr. Piper presses on,

5. Jesus strikes the note that the dominant (not the only) way Christians will show the supreme value of our treasure in heaven is by being so freed from the love of this world and so satisfied with the hope of glory that we are able to love our enemies and not return evil for evil, even as we expect to be wronged in this world.

Bret responds,

a.) Why would Dr. Piper suppose that self defense means that those defending themselves no longer have as their supreme value our treasure in heaven? All because we take the 6th commandment seriously it means that we are not freed from the love of this world?

b.) Why would Dr. Piper think, that firing a weapon in defense of the judicially innocent against the wicked, who would unjustly and without biblical warrant take the life of children and women, be an example of returning evil for evil?

c.) Why would Dr. Piper think that because we expect to be wronged in this world therefore we should do everything we can to facilitate being wronged in this world? When Dr. Piper is wrongly accused of some heinous crime he committed while doing counseling does he not defend himself against such accusations because he expects to be wronged in this world?

d.) I would insist, in keeping with the 6th commandment, that when we return fire upon evil men seeking to take the lives of the judicially innocent we are at that point most certainly not returning evil for evil but are returning good for evil.

Dr. Piper offers,

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5:44–45)

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11–12)

Bret responds,

a.) The “turn the other cheek” passage (Matthew 5:38-42), often cited to support an extreme pacifism, clearly addresses our reaction to personal insults and inconveniences, and not serious threats to one’s life, family, livelihood, or home.

b.) When justice, in the context of self defense, is visited upon the wicked who are seeking to harm the judicially innocent, we are loving our enemies.

c.) Matthew 5:11-12 has nothing to do with this conversation. We can still defend ourselves and remember that we are blessed with others revile us and persecute us and utter all kinds of evil against us falsely on the account of Christ.

Dr. Piper offers,

The point of Matthew 5:11–12 is that Christians are freed to rejoice in persecution because our hearts have been so changed that we are more satisfied in the hope of heaven than in the hope of self-defense. This is the root of turning the other cheek and loving the enemy. The steadfast love of the Lord is better than life (Psalm 63:3). Or as Paul put it, “Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Philippians 3:7–8).

Jesus struck the note that the way his disciples demonstrate most forcefully the supreme value of knowing him is by “letting goods and kindred go, this mortal life also,” and calling it “gain” (Philippians 1:21).

Bret responds,

a.) Matthew 5:11-12 says nothing about the abjuring of self defense. This is complete eisegesis on the part of Dr. Piper. I can be free to rejoice in persecution and reload at the same time.

b.) The steadfast love of the Lord lies upon those who esteem the 6th commandment.

c.) All because I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord doesn’t mean I stand by and allow women to be raped, children to be killed, and the judicially innocent to be attacked because I’ve concluded, by way of the grossest eisegesis, that the Scriptures teach Anabaptist pacifism.

Dr. Piper continues,

6. The early church, as we see her in Acts, expected and endured persecution without armed resistance, but rather with joyful suffering, prayer, and the word of God.

“Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:29–31)

Bret responds,

a.) Dr. Piper continues to compare apples with hot pocket’s pizza. Of course it is the case when we have been stripped of all ability to defend ourselves we must entrust ourselves to the God of hosts who fights for us. However, all because we entrust ourselves, when completely stripped of the ability to use tools to esteem the 6th commandment, to the God of hosts who fights for us, doesn’t mean that when God has providentially provided weapons of self defense we should not use them. The Hebrew children could not fight against Egypt because they had no way to resist Egypt and they witnessed the God of Host be Warrior on their behalf. Later the God of Hosts fought through them and their weapons of which they now commanded.

b.) The Acts 4 passage and Dr. Piper’s usage of it is another example of gross exegesis. What could that passages possibly have to do with the propriety of self defense. Dr. Piper takes a unique historical situation and absolutizes it to prove that Christians shouldn’t defend the judicially innocent against the intention of evil men firing weapons.

c.) Doubtless there will again be times when Christians have to endure persecution as unarmed. One thinks of the Armenian Christians in Turkey at the turn of the 20th century. One thinks of the Ukrainian Christians during the Holdomar. But the reality of these persecutions doesn’t prove that therefore we should do all we can to make sure that we too come under the hand of the Satanists. Should God decide to place us in the kiln of oppression we should rejoice for great is our award in heaven. However, that is not the same as crawling in the kiln of oppression by our own idiotic reasoning.

Dr. Piper offers,

In all the dangers Paul faced in the book of Acts, there is not a hint that he ever planned to carry or use a weapon for his defense against his adversaries. He was willing to appeal to the authorities in Philippi (Acts 16:37) and Jerusalem (Acts 22:25). But he never used a weapon to defend himself against persecution.

Bret responds,

This is called arguing from silence and is universally recognized as weak argumentation.

Reformed vs. Lutheran Preaching … A Brief Synopsis

Lutheran preaching uses the Law and Gospel hermeneutic. It will often begin with what God requires and man can not give (Law) and will finish with what God alone gives (Gospel). Like Lutheran theology, Lutheran preaching terminates on man.

Reformed preaching often likewise followed the Law and Gospel hermeneutic. Reformed preaching will also emphasize how the law leaves us guilty before God, with the same ringing announcement that God must do all.

The difference between Lutheran and Reformed preaching is that Lutherans saw Justification (the Gospel glad tidings in preaching) as being an end in itself. Once the announcement was made to man that God has done all that is the end. Not so the Reformed. The Reformed agreed with Lutherans on the wonder of Justification (the Gospel glad tidings in preaching) BUT the Reformed insisted that Justification was not an end but a means to a higher end — a higher end that could not be spoken of apart from the good news. The higher end of Justification was the answering of the question, “How shall we now live, as a Justified people, in order to glorify God.”

In brief the Reformed didn’t absolutize the antithesis between Law and Gospel. The Reformed in their preaching, following Scripture, saw the hermeneutical antithesis as between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent. The law does not function solely as negative in the lives of those who belong to Christ. The Reformed saw a harmony between the Gospel and the third use of the law with which Lutherans are not typically comfortable.

And so Reformed preaching goes on from Lutheran truncated Law Gospel to explain what it looks like now, in keeping with the third use of the law, for a purified people who have been Redeemed by Christ from every lawless deed to now live as a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:14)

Lutheran ears hear Reformed preaching and think that it fails their Law Gospel hermeneutic, and so is legalistic, but the point of the matter is, is that Lutherans have made the Gospel end upon man’s salvation (and so really is anthropocentric) while Reformed preaching understands that man’s salvation serves God’s glorification and so Reformed preaching, while announcing the same glad tidings as Lutheran preaching goes on to instruct God’s people that salvation means that we make it our goal to please Him and then spends time how it is that people who God is pleased with, for the sake of Christ’s atoning work, can live as children who please their Father in all their living. Thus Reformed preaching is Christocentric.

Subtle differences. Important differences.

Now, Reformed preaching can break down and where I have heard Reformed preaching break down is in the respect that it is often Law/Gospel/ and then the Law again as a means to earn God’s favor. It ends up sounding something like, “Yeah. Isn’t the good news good. OK. That’s enough of a break from the burden of the law. Now get back under there and start doing some “sanctified” law keeping.” To avoid falling back under the works of the law, we need to keep in mind the Heidelberg Catechism which teaches us that good works are,

Only those which are done

out of true faith,

in accordance with the law of God,

and to his glory,

and not those based

on our own opinion

or on precepts of men

We also need to keep in mind that we, as God’s Redeemed, never obey in order to attain an uncertain forgiveness, but we obey out of love and gratitude for a certain forgiveness granted. We do not obey to gain life. We obey out of life already obtained. As such, our third use of the law, law respecting, is not a threat to justification by faith alone.

Next, we need to remember that the Holy Spirit has been given as a deposit guaranteeing that which is to come. Because we have been given the Holy Spirit we are a people thirsty to work out what God has worked within us. We are not a people who are obeying by lifting ourselves by our own bootstraps, seeking to curry an uncertain favor. Rather we are a people who are only living in ways that we are bent toward due to our possession of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, we need to keep before us that even when God is pleased to increase in His people sanctification that we still are only received by Him for the sake of the finished work of Jesus Christ. We remain unprofitable servants who have, even when we have done what we think is our “best,” only done what we ought (Luke 17:10). There is nothing in us or our performance that wins our salvation. Our salvation is anchored only in the performance of the Lord Christ on our behalf. This is a comfort to us when we begin to see that even our best of works are far from what they are called to be.