Jesus Speech Pattern to Pharisees

I.) The Players

A.) Pharisees (37) — The Instructors

The Pharisees were the Talmud Traditionalists of their time. They were the ones who were uber concerned with their wrong notions of the law not being violated. Their problem wasn’t their zealousness. Their problem was that their zealousness was misdirected since they had twisted God’s law into the Talmud to suit their ends.

The word “Pharisee” may very well be derived from a term which means “to separate,” and so they viewed themselves as above the rank and file. They were the religious elitists of the day. You would not find them among the rank and file sinners of the day because they were do good for them.

Luke 15 “Then came unto him all the Publicans and sinners, to hear him. Therefore the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, He receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”

The origin of the Pharisees as a sect seems to have been in or around the second century B.C. They soon became detached and distant from the political regimes (the zealots, for example, would have brought about change through revolution). The Pharisees sought to produce spiritual holiness and spiritual reformation. They recognized that Israel’s condition was the result of sin, specifically a disobedience to the Law. It was their intention to identify, communicate, and facilitate obedience to their twisted version of God’s law, thus producing holiness and paving the way for the kingdom of God to be established on the earth. The problem was that they had, over centuries, inserted man’s law in place of God’s law so that they were more concerned with formalities than they were with righteousness. This disagreement over the law (Talmud vs. Torah) was the reason why Jesus clashed with them over and over again.

Pharisees believed in the inspiration and authority of the Scripture as they had twisted it to fit their traditions. They believed in the supernatural, in Satan, angels, heaven (the earthly kingdom of God at least) and hell, and the resurrection of the dead. Their error was in the fact that they were twisting God’s law and that they were using the law unlawfully as a means to curry God’s favor.

If God’s Law was the Constitution the Pharisees were the Supreme Court and much like our own Supreme Court for over a Century now has been twisting the original meaning and intent of our Constitution the Pharisees were twisting God’s Law in favor of their own fever demented imaginations.

And so instead of being the first to recognize the Lord Christ as God’s Incarnate Law-Word, they were the first to reject Him. Rather than turning the nation to the Lord Christ, they sought to turn the nation against Him.

We should note here that a person is not a Pharisee all because they are convinced they are right. A person is not a Pharisee all because they have a standard which they seek to uphold. A person is a Pharisee when they depart the revealed God of Scripture and His Law-word in favor of a god made in their own likeness with their own autonomous own law word, all the while insisting that they are representing God.

B.) Lawyers (Experts in the law) — Instructors of the Instructors

The Lawyers were a subset of the Pharisees. They were the cream filled center to the Pharisaical Oreo Cookie. They were those who were the informed hub around which all the Pharisees found their orbit. They were the Jedi Masters and were teachers of the Pharisees.

And so the audience of our Lord Christ were the cream crop of learned men. These men were the gatekeepers of the Hebrew culture. In our culture today they were the Hollywood moguls. They were the High level politicians and judges. They were the movers and shakers of our publishing houses. They were the nationally known televised Journalists and their producers. They are the Nationally renown clergy at our Mega Churches

And the truth be told they are too often you and I.

So this is the audience of our Lord Christ and he intends to pick a fight but only because these folks have been picking a fight with God for centuries.

C.) What do we learn here?

We learn that there is a people and a time and a place for direct words.

And who are the people for whom the direct words are reserved? Well, if Scripture is any indication it is the people who twist God’s Word. It is the people who alter the meaning of God’s word AND who think they are doing God a favor by doing so.

Quoting Rev. Doug Wilson here from his book “The Serrated Edge,”

“We are to be kind to one another. Sheep are to be kind to sheep. Shepherds are to be kind to sheep. But if a shepherd is kind to wolves, that is just another way to let them savage the sheep (60).”

If a Pastor sees wolves savaging Christ’s sheep the Pastor has a role to resist the wolf. If the Pastor doesn’t, The pastor is unfaithful. Unfaithful to the sheep. Unfaithful to the wolf. And unfaithful to the Sheep and Wolf owner.

Now, quoting Wilson again,

“…we must be careful not to be hasty in imitating [Jesus], since His wisdom is perfect and ours is not. It is therefore good to take counsel with others. Related to this, sharp rebukes and the ridiculing of evil practices should seldom be the first approach one should make, but usually should follow only after the rejection of a soft word of reproach, or when dealing with hard-hearted obstinacy displayed over an extended period of time.”

When all of this is taken together it is incredibly difficult to discern. Is now the right time to say something? Should I bide my time and wait? Would there be a better time in the future?

And keep in mind in all this that if there is a sin of being too harsh and jagged in speech there is also the sin of being to soft and effeminate. If we can sin by saying too much we can sin by saying to little.

And now remember that God’s enemies always love it when we say too little and are too soft and effeminate.

II.) The Issue (vs. 37) — The Law

Occasioned by Washing = Ceremonial Washing

The washing here was not for hygienic reasons but for ceremonial purity. It was thought that the hands could accidentally come in contact with all sorts of things that were ritually unclean and so punctilious Jews would wash their hands potentially defiled hands so as not to contaminate their food. This is an example where their oral law was going beyond Scripture. One of the treatises in one of their books chronicling the oral law covers details of hand washing, such as how much water is to be used and how many rinsings are necessary and other arcane details.

This issue comes up in a different place,

Matthew 15:1 Then [a]came to Jesus the Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders? for they [b]wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 [c]But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

In both of these places we see that the Lord Christ takes the opportunity to lay into his opponents over the issue of how they are handling the Law. In both texts the sin is the fact that they are being so punctilious about comparative minutia while ignoring the substantive and explicit word of God.

In Matthew they are ignoring God’s law as to their responsibility to parents to the end that they can do what they want with their money. Here in Luke they are ignoring God’s Law that requires justice and the Love of God in favor of ceremonial and ritual washing.

Make no mistake though … the problem that the Lord Christ goes full throttle on is the seeing how the Pharisees are manipulating the Law so that they come out looking good.

The problem is not the Law. Indeed, in the Matthew passage Jesus even says that they should have obeyed the comparative smaller portions of the Law but without violating the comparatively more significant part of the law. His problem is not with people who honor God’s law. His problem is with people who say they honor God’s law all the while dishonoring it.

The Lord Christ was opposed to Lawlessness in the name of lawfulness.

We should note here that since Law is a inescapable category it is always the case that lawlessness comes in the name of some kind of lawfulness. When we set aside the law of God we will always take up the law of man. So, consequently antinomianism is really impossible, for whenever we are against God’s law we will always be in favor of some other law, even if it is the law that teaches it is impermissible to say that anything is not impermissible.

Pharisees and Teachers of the Law come in all shapes and sizes. And we probably do best on this subject when we start with ourselves. Who of us have a complete understanding of God’s Law? Who of us doesn’t twist God’s law to our end and purposes. Behold, Pharisee and Hypocrite is a title we do all well wear to one degree or another.

Having said that we must recognize that whole cottage industries have been spun in the Modern church by denying God’s law in one way or another.

There are those who deny God’s Law because they say Jesus ended the Law with His death
There are those who deny God’s Law because they say it was “culturally conditioned.”
There are those who deny God’s Law because they say that most of it should be seen as an Intrusion Ethic
There are those who deny God’s Law applies to Christians as they engage in the Public square

This is the age in which we live and one wonders, given how out of sorts the Lord Christ was over the Pharisaic twisting in the 1st century how out of sorts He is now with the Modern Church.

III.) The Communication Methodology

A.) Audience

Before we can choose a methodology of communication we have to know our audience. Jesus did not always speak the rough way he speaks here to all people, though this is not the only time he speaks this jaggedly with people. As one reads the NT we readily see that Jesus spoke to different people in different ways.

Few examples,

Luke 7:37 And behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought a box of ointment. And she stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment…. 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven thee.

Luke 8 (Woman with a blood issue) And he said unto her, “Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace.”

Mark 7 – Syro-Phoenician woman — Request to cast devil out demon from daughter

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be fed: for it is not good to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

So, what we note here is that the Lord Christ gauged his communication with people according to the audience he was encountering. And because that is so, we must at the very least pray that we will have the wisdom to likewise know how to assess our audience and so how to communicate.

There are other considerations as well. There is the matter of the setting or context in which we find ourselves. You might not say something to someone at a formal dinner that you would say to them at a ball game. You might not say one thing to a Judge in his courtroom that you would say to him out of his courtroom. You might not say one thing to someone in the context of a funeral that you might say to them in the context of a wedding.

What we want to note here though is that direct language in a public setting is not always the wrong play as Jesus demonstrates here.

B.) Motive

Love for the listener. Love for the eaves-droppers (those listening in). Most importantly … Love for God.

There will be those who read this passage and conclude that Jesus is mean here. I do not conclude that. The Lord Christ is giving to these men exactly what they need to hear even if recoil over what is said to them. The Lord Christ is demonstrating the Love of the Father to these men.

C.) Protestation (vs. 45)

“Teacher, when you say these things you insult us also.”

I’ve always been amazed by this passage. There is an implicit plea here to go easy. Be nice. Don’t include us in your harsh judgmental “woes.”

But instead of slowing down in the face of this plea, the Lord Christ, accelerates. It is as if the only purpose of this plea, in the text, is to serve as a speed bump that does not work.

What can we say? Only that He knew what they needed to hear and how they needed to hear it.

IV.) The Consequence (vs. 53)

Conclusion

Having said all this we can not forget the other side of the equation

Scripture presents “lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love” Eph. 4:2, as the normative state of affairs in the body of Christ. Scripture does take account of other people’s feelings. Consider Paul in these passages.

Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, 8 so we cared for you. Because we loved you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well… But, brothers and sisters, when we were orphaned by being separated from you for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you. 1 Thess. 2:7-8, 17

II Cor. 1 So I made up my mind that I would not make another painful visit to you. 2 For if I grieve you, who is left to make me glad but you whom I have grieved? 3 I wrote as I did, so that when I came I would not be distressed by those who should have made me rejoice. I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy. 4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.

And yet this same Paul could write that he wished the enemies of the Gospel would go all the way and castrate themselves. And then turn around and say,

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore such a one, in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

And so, we are often left in these matters begging in prayer for the Wisdom to know how to engage. To know what the proper word is and the proper way it should be said.

God grant us forgiveness when we fail and the grace to ask for forgiveness.

Examining “Rev.” Dr. Pastor Lee’s Non Latin Theology … R2K Unleashed (IX)

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (titles ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward) wrote,

How then shall we best love our neighbors outside the church? How shall we preserve and protect those lives that are not directly subject to the moral government of the church?

We have no comparable clarity here. Shall we enact laws against abortion? Christians may, in our wisdom, decide it is best to do so. But neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.

Therefore, the church should be mindful of its members’ dual citizenship, and differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.

1.) The implication that the Institutional Church and her Ministers is directly subjecting pagans to the moral government of the Church when it speaks against matters like abortion is a red herring. When the Institutional Church and her Ministers speak consistent with the Heidelberg Catechism seeking to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” it is hardly subjecting them to the moral government of the Church, unless you consider keeping them from harm a matter of direct moral governance.

2.) “Latin Lee” insists that we have no comparable clarity here but Heidelberg Catechism q. 107 says otherwise. Whose words shall we take on the matter?

3.) Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee then launches off into the law of possible unintended consequences. If we followed Lee’s logic on this none of us would get out of bed in the morning. Perhaps such a law will lead to nuclear holocaust.” “Perhaps such a law will lead to more than 1.3 million abortions every year.” This is such a reach one seriously wonders if the good minister is receiving a commission from Planned Parenthood? Lee’s fretting changes the question from “Shall we do evil that good may abound,” to an imperative, “We shall not do good because evil might abound.” Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.

4.) “To more deadly abortions?”

More deadly abortions?

More deadly abortions?

God forbid that we would want to go from dead abortions to even more deadly abortions.

5.) “Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just.”

Only a former bureaucrat could possibly think like that. Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.

6.) Keep in mind that you, Dear Reader, read above, a Minister of the Institutional Church of Jesus Christ say, “the church must remain agnostic on such questions” of whether or not Ministers should verbally, from the Pulpit, support laws ending abortion.

What reasons are given?

a.) such laws might backfire
b.) such laws might lead to more deadly abortions
c.) such laws might be politically unwise

And despite the requirement in question 107 of the Heidelberg Catechism to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” we are told that the Institutional Church and Her ministers must not speak on this kind of matter.

Such council is to boggle the mind.

7.) But Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee is not done. His next statement almost seems to channel Joseph Fletcher — he of “situational ethics” fame. Lee warns us about the, “differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

If this is not situational ethics it then sure sounds like cultural relativism. God’s law is not multifaceted, and is simple and true but we can’t get to it because we are finite and variable. Paging Dr. Immanuel Kant, there is a severe case of the noumenal realm in room 17.

And here we end our analysis. If this is what Christianity has become, I have no interest in being a Christian.

Examining “Rev.” Dr. Pastor Lee’s Non Latin Theology … R2K Unleashed (VIII)

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward) wrote,

This is a controversial, but crucial, distinction. Let’s apply it to the contested area of abortion.

God’s law clearly proscribes the taking of life. His word clearly teaches that unborn life is precious and to be protected. This has been a hallmark of Christian social ethics since the early church. Therefore, as a preacher I can unambiguously proclaim from the pulpit that a Christian who aborts their child is committing a heinous sin. God commands his people to preserve and protect life.

But the command to not take a life is not a command to pass a law not to take a life. Nor is it a command to politically agitate or lobby for such a law. Such political activity could be understood to run counter to Paul’s command to church to “live quietly and mind your own affairs” (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

1.) Here is one example of German Christians from the 1930’s following Lee’s advice to not politically agitate and to live quietly and mind your own affairs,

“A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from the distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying innocent prisoners. They were like cattle in those cars!”

“Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the innocent prisoners would begin to cry to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. By the time the train came rumbling past the church yard, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we’d just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more.”

2.) Allow me to contend that when Christians speak up for the judicially innocent and the “least of these” they are minding their own affairs and are therefore not crosswise with I Thessalonians 4:11. Besides, is Lee really minding his own affairs and living quietly when he disrupts the Church with his alien theology? Physician heal thyself.

3.) Lee says above that a “Christian who aborts their child is committing a heinous sin.” Because of the way that Lee uses language in a slippery way one wonders if this means that Lee does not think that the non Christian who aborts their children are committing a heinous sin?

4.) Understand that Lee has explicitly said there that for a Christian, to politically agitate or lobby for a law is counter to Scripture’s command. Think about it. If it is counter to Scripture’s command for a Minister to politically agitate or lobby for a law from the Pulpit because it violates the idea of leading a quiet life then why would it be acceptable for any Christian in any context to politically agitate or lobby for a law for the same reason? Are only the ministers to live a quite life and mind their own affairs?

All of the Latin reading and German Published Minister’s “reasoning” is hash.

Examining “Rev.” Dr. Pastor Lee’s Non Latin Theology … R2K Unleashed (VII)

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward wrote,

As a minister of God’s word, I am therefore limited in how far I can say, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” I can only bind the consciences of my congregation so far as God’s Word has spoken.

There is a difference between saying “You shall not murder,” and saying “You shall pass a law that says you shall not murder.” The former implies the latter is a just act. But the latter act has different force altogether; it commands an act of governance, the authority for which the church lacks in the civil kingdom.

1.) Here Lee is seemingly non-confessional as he is sideways with HC 107 which states,

Q. Is it enough then that we do not murder our neighbor in any such way?

A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves,1 to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them,2 to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.3

The catechism instructs us that we are required to protect our neighbors from harm as much as we can while Lee is instructing us that the Institutional Church and its Ministers in its and their role as Institutional Church and Ministers must not protect our neighbors from harm as much as we can. HC 107 gives us both the wisdom and authority to speak a “thus sayeth the Lord,” and Lee denies this.

2.) Keep in mind that if a Minister says in the pulpit “Congregation, you should vote against the Law that allows abortion,” he is not saying that in the civil Kingdom. He is saying that in the Church realm. The minister therefore is not commanding an act of governance for the civil Kingdom, rather, he is commanding an act of governance for the people of God as they are underneath the authority of the Word in the Church realm. The minister takes them to the catechism (Lord’s Day 40 in this case), and teaches them that they are to prevent the hurt of their neighbor as much as lies in them and that one way to prevent the hurt of their neighbor that does lie in them is to not vote for people who will vote for abortion. (One is left wondering if this is really that difficult for a guy with a earned Doctorate who reads books in Latin and who has been published by German publishing houses.) The minister then could explain that in representative government when you vote for someone you are yoking yourself with that person so much so that when they act you act. (One basic idea of Federalism.) The minister could then bring it home that when they vote for people that vote for abortion they are involving themselves in that sin and crime and so are violating the idea of protecting our neighbor from harm as much as we can and so are trespassing the 6th commandment.

3.) On this point keep in mind that in a Constitutional Republic (in which we live) the people are a large percentage of the governance. Lee’s envisioned scenario suggests that the Institutional Church and its Ministers should not speak God’s mind by God’s authority to the percentage of the governing Constitutional Republic that is attending word and sacrament. In a Constitutional Republic the assumption is that the people do have the wisdom and authority to make these kinds of decisions and Lee’s “thinking” suggests that God’s wisdom and authority shouldn’t be impressed upon the minds of that portion of the governing Constitutional Republic under our shepherding care.

4.) Note what Lee is doing is that he is suggesting that one can give the truth of something (Thou Shalt Not Murder) but is forbidden to give all the implications of “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” Certainly a Minister can give the implications in the sense of not burying a knife into someone themselves but the Minister can not tell God’s people they can not hire someone, by their vote, to murder someone. This is all very strange stuff.

Examining “Rev.” Dr. Pastor Lee’s non Latin Theology … R2K Unleashed (VI)

Continuing to examine

“RealLive,LegitPh.DReverendDoctorwhohasreadbooksandallthat(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.) mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“RealLive,LegitPh.DReverend Doctorwhohasreadbooksandall that(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.) wrote,

“Let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating an utterly private spirituality, such that our faith has no impact on our public behavior and speech. There is a key distinction to be made between the duties of the church in its official capacity—i.e., the provisional governing authority of the heavenly kingdom—and the duties of individual dual-citizen Christians.

Churches absolutely have the obligation to mandate adherence to God’s law. Christ commanded the church to “make disciples… teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19). This is why “discipline”—teaching and enforcing God’s moral law—is a distinguishing mark of Reformed churches. How then can religious congregations guide their members in moral and social issues, especially in this politicized age where every such decision seems to have political and economic ramifications?

Here the Christian tradition must acknowledge that the New Testament is virtually silent about how the world should be governed by the civil authorities. (Note: while Old Testament Israel’s theocracy is relevant, the New Testament does not teach that it is a model for the church.)

For obvious reasons, because New Testament believers lived under Roman rule they were not commanded to engage in political activity. Nowhere in the New Testament are individual believers commanded to tell people outside the church how to behave. In contrast, we are told to lead quiet lives, and not disturb the extant order. Paul commands the church to “submit” (Romans 13.1).

1.)

RealLive,LegitPh.DReverendDoctorwhohasreadbooksandallthat(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee insist that he is not advocating an utter private spirituality and yet later in his article he insists that “neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws (against abortion) must be enacted.

One wonder if

RealLive,LegitPh.DReverendDoctorwhohasreadbooksandallthat(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee see the contradiction he is involved in? On one hand we are told that as Ministers we can privately be against abortion but we must not publicly say in a pulpit that “since God’s law prohibits abortion we should prohibit abortion in our laws.” Privately we can be opposed to abortion. Publicly in the pulpit we must not say that abortion should be prohibited.

And yet Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published wants us to believe that he is not advocating utterly private spirituality? Ok … maybe the trick there is the word “utterly?”

2.) Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles, makes a big deal about how the New Testament is virtually silent. Once again, this demonstrates that Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published is operating according to a kind of Reformed Dispensationalism. His Baptist hermeneutic is telling him that unless the New Testament repeats a truth from the Old Testament we must assume that God’s word is silent about a matter. For Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published the Old Testament is not authoritative. That this is true for Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published can be seen in the fact that he baldly says that since the New Testament doesn’t repeat the Old Testament when it comes to theocracy therefore we must believe that the Old Testament is not authoritative.

3.) The New Testament though is not virtually silent on how the world should be governed by civil authorities. Romans 13 says volumes. Here we turn to Christopher Goodman’s sermon on this text and subject.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/goodman/obeyed.htm

Read Christopher Goodman’s short book and watch him draw out from Romans 13 principles for how the world should be governed contra Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles.

As one example we see that Goodman overturns Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles thesis that Christians must be silent before all ordained leaders thus revealing how Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles is mishandling the text. Goodman (who also read Latin) writes on Romans 13:1,

Then as the Apostle writes, we confess, and so much as he speaks we grant, that is, that all men are bound to obey such Magistrates, whom God has ordained over us lawfully according to His word, which rule in His fear according to their office, as God has appointed. For though the Apostle says: There is no power but of God: yet does he here mean any other powers, but such as are orderly and lawfully instituted by God. Either else should He approve all tyranny and oppression, which comes to any commonwealth by means of wicked and ungodly rulers, which are to be called rightly disorders, and subversions in commonwealths, and not God’s ordinance. For He never ordained any laws to approve, but to reprove and punish tyrants, idolaters, papists, and oppressors. Then when they are such, they are not God’s ordinance. And in disobeying and resisting such, we do not resist God’s ordinance, but Satan’s …

So, one principle that Goodman finds here from the New Testament, for how the world should be governed is that it should not be governed by Christ Haters. I for one am shocked that Goodman would disagree on the interpretation of Romans 13:1 with Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles.

4.) We are told that “Churches absolutely have the obligation to mandate adherence to God’s law” but we are also told, in so many words, that Churches absolutely have the obligation to mandate adherence to God’s law until one is in the voting booth where the mandate is lifted. The Church must mandate that members not steal but the Church must not mandate regarding the legality of them if the membership are stealing via the agency of the third party Senator or Congressman for whom they vote.

5.) What if the Extant order passes legislation that all ministers with the last name “Lee” must be executed? Is it ok to trouble the extant order then? Is it acceptable then for Ministers to say from the Pulpit that such a law must be overturned?