Christianity, The Northwest Ordinance, and Government Schooling

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

The Northwest Ordinance
Passed July 13, 1787

Those who passed the Northwest Ordinance knew what many if not most people have forgotten and that is that education by definition is as hopelessly about religion, and morality as it is about knowledge. There is no passing on knowledge, that isn’t at the same time a passing on of religion and morality. Each is bound up with the other and though distinctions might be made between the three, divorce between the three is impossible.

This means that when you send your child to Government schools you are sending your child to a place that not only is going to pass on knowledge to your child, but you are also sending them to a place that is going to pass on religion and morality to your child.

If you’re a garden variety heathen you don’t lose any sleep over that. If you’re a Biblical Christian the fright involved in thinking that your children would be indoctrinated against Christianity as a religion if attending a Government school will make your heart stop. Biblical Christians know that they could never send God’s offspring entrusted to them to educational establishments, run by the State, that are committed to overthrowing the knowledge, morality, and religion owned by the Christian parents.

Naturally, very few Government schools open classes with the teacher saying; “Today students we are going to learn why Biblical Christianity is not true.” It’s not the way the game is played. Instead, every book, every curriculum, every assignment, every lesson in Government schools is premised upon the fact that Christianity is not true. History is taught presupposing Marxist class conflict. Science is taught presupposing Evolutionary theorem. Philosophy is taught presupposing the humanist manifestos. Children attending public schools are children attending Government factories where the raw material are children and where the factory laborers working on the raw material (Teachers) are actors and agents of the State. The product these children factories are seeking to manufacture is an adult who has been trained to religiously and morally fit into a social order created by centuries of Government factories hardwiring anti-Christ religion, morality, and knowledge into centuries of students.

Folks are often discouraged by the state of the Christian church and the Christian clergy in America and the West but the reason for such a demise is found in the fact that the overwhelming percentage of “Christian” parents send God’s covenant seed that God gave them to raise in the fear and admonition of the Lord to the Government schools where the Government actors (Teachers) labor for 13 years to pass on religion, morality, and knowledge to children who were supposed to be reared “in the Lord.” It is silly to expect that the Church or clergy would be in any better of condition then it or they currently are given this ongoing cultural dynamic.

There are well intentioned people out there who want to reform the Government schools. This is a lost cause. Government schools cannot be Reformed until the Government that is running the Government schools is Reformed. The Government schools in the US cannot be Reformed. Instead they must be starved to death and the way that happens is by more and more parents (Especially Christian parents) refusing to send their children to the Government school factories. Only once the swamp of Government schools is drained can education hope to be Reformed in this country. Similarly, only once the swamp of Government schools is drained can the Church and clergy hope to return to a reinvigorated Christianity. Until such a time the faithful church remnant and the faithful Christian clergy are going to be continually dealing with a people sitting in the pews who are the expected humanist products of Government factories and Government agents (teachers) efficiently doing their jobs at creating humanist humanoids.

Scripture teaches; “As a man thinketh in his heart so he is.” Government schools run by agents of the State teach men and women to think in their hearts like Christ haters. The religion, morality, and knowledge these Government schools with their Government agents pass on to children rejects the religion, morality, and knowledge of historic Christianity.

As long as the Government schools stand the cause of Christ will be diminished.

Scripture Alone & Roman Catholicism

“It is the original lie of Satan that God, speaking in his Word, needs an interpreter to give man infallible guidance (Gen. 2: 17; 3: 4). This ancient error now is supreme in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1328) asks:

“How can we know the true meaning of the doctrines contained in the Bible?”

Answer: “We can know the true meaning . . . from the Catholic Church which has been authorized by Jesus Christ to explain His doctrines, and which is preserved from error in its teachings by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.”

Thus, while affirming that God has spoken to men in the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God has not made clear what he means, and so above the Word of God must stand the authoritative interpretation of the Church (which, we are to presume, has an expert opinion about what God’s Word means). This also means that Rome would have us trust in the clear word of man rather than the obscure Word of God.

The Reformed faith views the matter precisely in reverse, holding that Scripture alone expresses divine truth with perfect clarity, and so regarding the Scriptures alone as finally authoritative. The interpretation of the Church (as in its creeds) must always, therefore, be regarded as less than a perfectly clear expression of divine truth, and as necessarily subordinate to Scripture. The authority of creeds is determined by Scripture, not determinative of Scripture. They have authority only if, and to the extent that, they truly are faithful to Scripture.”

G.I. Williamson
The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes

1.) Now add the reality that if the average layperson needs the Roman Catholic Church to tell him what Scripture means because God’s speaking is so opaque in God’s inspired special Revelation (Scripture) how is the average layperson supposed to understand the uninspired interpretation of what God speaks in His Word as given by the Church without someone else explaining to him what the Church means when it interprets God’s perspicuous word. In other words this reasoning falls into an infinite regress. If man is not capable of understanding God’s spoken Word aright and so needs an interpreter then it is only reasonable to believe that man is not capable of understanding the interpreter of God’s Word aright and so needs yet another interpreter to interpret the original interpreter’s interpretation of God’s Word…. ad infinitum.

Are we to believe that the Roman Catholic Church can explain with more clarity than the God of the universe?

2.) The Roman Catholic church has made so many errors in Church history that it is laughable that they want to insist that they have been preserved in their teachings from error by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. Whether it is the embrace of purgatory (nowhere taught in Scripture) or the embrace of relics (nowhere taught in Scripture) or having Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix (nowhere taught in Scripture) the history of the Roman Catholic church is one error after another.

3.) It is a pretty good gig to be in the position as an Institution to give yourself the ability to be the one in charge of what God does or does not say. Rome, when it makes this move, has indeed ascended to the seat of God. It really doesn’t matter what God says if Rome is the one with the final authority of what God says and means. Honestly, it seems beyond obvious that with this doctrine of the Church having authority over Scripture that the Roman Catholic Institutional Church has made itself to be God. With this false doctrine promulgated by Rome it is the case that in the Church we live and move and have our being.

4.) This doctrine underscores another doctrine by Rome and that is their doctrine that their is no salvation outside the Church of Rome. This is an obvious implication of the above authority over Scripture. If the Church is God’s final interpreter of God’s mind then it is obvious that to be out of fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church is to be out of fellowship with God. This Roman Catholic doctrine of being the “mouth of God” keeps people who really believe this chained as slaves inside the Roman Catholic whore of a “church.” If one really believed this doctrine one would never leave Rome no matter what demonic deviation Rome might insists that God really says.

5.) Of course this issue was the formal principle of the Reformation. While “Justification by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone” was the material principle of the Reformation (the fuse that was lit that set the whole thing off) behind the material principle was the formal principle which was a dispute of where the authority lie in order to determine where to find the mind of God. Rome, following their epistemological doctrine that the Church is the ultimate authority, the Reformers insisted that the epistemological authority for men is the written word of God.

God’s Law is One… Yet Distinctions Between Moral, Judicial, Ceremonial Remain

There are those Theonomists out there who advocate getting rid of the distinctions between “Moral Law,” “Civil/Judicial Law” and “Ceremonial Law.” They want to insist that as God’s law is one we should not make these distinctions. Still, one can believe that God’s law is one and at the same time continue to insist that the above distinctions are necessary.

We need the distinctions in the law (Moral, Ceremonial, Civil/Judicial) that the Scripture gives us because without those distinctions idiots would be out there involved in the silliest of things like trying to keep the feasts and festivals. (Those come to mind because I just bought a book that details how Christ fulfilled all the feasts and festivals and therefore to go back to requiring those to be practiced would be to go back to the shadows.) The OT feasts and festivals, just like the OT sacrifices belong to the Ceremonial law that was fulfilled in the completed work of Jesus Christ.

The Moral law is distinct from the civil law the way our Constitution is distinct from our case laws that are a result of decisions made based upon the Constitution. God in His graciousness gave us not only the Moral Law (Constitution) but also the civil/judicial case laws that find the Moral Law applied.

The civil law abides both in its general equity (the principle lives on that animated the original civil law such as we find in the OT with railings providing protecting from injury) and when warranted in its exact prescription (such as the consanguinity laws). However, the civil law remains distinct from the Moral law. With the Moral law (10 Commandments) we don’t suggest that it may not be applicable any longer. With the Civil law we do suggest that there may be times when it is not applicable the way the Hebrews applied those case laws. Hence there is a distinction between moral law and civil (judicial) law.

Hence we need the distinctions “ceremonial,” “civil” (or “judicial” if one prefers) and “Moral.” What we don’t need is Ministers who insist that merely because a law is judicial/civil that therefore means we can automatically dismiss its ongoing validity without asking questions like, “what was the principle of the Moral law that was driving this civil law and how can we incarnate that Moral law principle today.”

As you know, if we don’t do that then men become autonomous in establishing their law order and that is the very definition of humanism. If we will not see the relationship between God’s covenant Law rightly interpreted and God Himself we will reinterpret man to be God as seen in the fact that man is the one issuing laws that men must walk by. To say that we want God but not His law properly understood and applied is like saying we want God and we don’t want God. Separating God from His law is separating God from Himself. When we separate God from His law we have fashioned new gods reflecting our new laws.

Many Pastors want to hold on to the Moral law while giving up completely the judicial law merely because that law was the application of the Moral law (R2K is famous for advocating this) are men who really don’t take the Moral law seriously. The Moral law for men like this is a mere shibboleth… something someone tips their cap to but doesn’t really take seriously. In brief, men who won’t take the judicial law seriously and who insist that it has completely passed in every sense with the eclipse of OT Israel and so is no longer relevant for us in terms of law order governance are not ministers of Christ but of Baal.

Dancing With The Baptists On Covenant Theology & Infant Baptism

Of course our disagreement here is NOT primarily infant Baptism, but as you know something far deeper and more significant. The issue is the nature of the covenant. Baptists, like Rev. Bushsong presuppose discontinuity between the old covenant and the new and better covenant. They see the new and better covenant as largely unrelated to the old covenant and because the new and better covenant is a different covenant the Baptist “reasons” that children should not (MUST NOT) be brought to the baptismal font. The new and better covenant is so discontinuous with the old covenant that whereas the old covenant was inclusive of parents and seed the new covenant is inclusive of ONLY “age appropriate” (however that is subjectively defined) confessors. In this commitment to discontinuity the new emphasis finds baptism being primarily about the promises of the one being baptized to be committed to God whereas in the paedo-covenant conviction baptism is NOT primarily about the promises of the one being baptized but is primarily about God’s promises to us to be our God and to take us and our seed as His people. Now surely, as all Reformed Baptism ceremonies communicate, there is a reciprocal promise on the part of God’s people to walk in newness of life. Still, the emphasis for paedobaptists in Baptism is on God is the one doing the saving (and Baptizing) and not, such as one finds in Baptist baptisms, the emphasis being on the communicants resolve to say “I have decided to follow Jesus.” (Hence, the reason that song is so often played in Baptism services.)

One problem here (and there are a multitude of problems) is that all of this presupposes that God works His salvation differently between the Old covenant and the New and Better covenant. In the old covenant, Baptists teach implicitly, God’s salvation was inferior vis-a-vis the New Covenant and therefore a salvation upgrade was required. That salvation upgrade is found in the fact that God has done away with the corporate dimension of salvation wherein the children go with the parents.

When the paedo-Baptists look at the old covenant and new and better covenant they see continuity. They understand “new and better” to be “new and better” because what was only promissory in the old testament is now fulfilled in and with the coming of the magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. Christ did not come to bring in a salvation unrelated to the old covenant but rather Christ comes to fulfill all that was promised in the old covenant. As such, the paedobaptist, understanding the continuity between the covenants, following Scripture, brings God’s covenant seed to the baptismal font in obedience to God’s commands and promises.

The paedobaptist, following Scripture, looks at the history of redemption and covenant history and sees that which each covenantal progression the children and the parents were, without fail, part of the family of God. We see nothing in the New Testament that changes that pattern and steadfastly insist that if there were to be a change to that long established pattern there would be a need for an explicit word in the new covenant that the children are NOT to be included. There is no explicit word to that end. Not even close.

This last point is underscored by the fact there is not one peep in the NT of protest against any refusal to baptize covenant seed and this despite the fact that the Jews were OUTRAGED that the Gentiles were coming into the covenant. So, the Baptists ask us to believe that the Jews were silent in the NT record about their children being kept out of the covenant while the NT record records their outrage about Gentiles coming in? This is an argument from silence but the silence is so loud here that it is deafening.

As to the original post … yes, it clearly is the case that Baptists by disobediently not bringing God’s seed to the baptismal font are assuming that God’s seed given to them are outside the covenant and what else can that mean except that Baptists presuppose their children are vipers in diapers? When Baptists raise their children faithfully in the covenant (and many do) their practice is better than their belief. Felicitous inconsistency, thy name is Baptist.

Paedobaptists believe that there is one uninterrupted scarlet thread of salvation that runs from Genesis to Revelation and and that one uninterrupted scarlet thread of salvation has always included God’s covenant seed. To teach otherwise breaks the unity of Scripture.

More could be said but to what end? It is very seldom the case that Baptists are convicted on this point (though it does happen) and from the Baptist perspective it is also the case that very seldom do paedobaptists decide to believe that their children stand in no relation of belonging to the one covenant of grace since Baptists believe that only the elect belong to the covenant of grace and deny that one can be within the administrative reach of the covenant without being in the covenant and so having the substance of the covenant (Christ).

Rev. Tim Bushsong wrote,

1 & 2: The “newness” of the NC is tied-in with that covenant’s head-for-head integrity; that is, all who are “in” are truly in, salvifically, whereas in the OC, only those who were of faith were *truly* in.

BLMc responds,

This is not true as is clearly taught with Jesus parable about tares and wheat and with the book of Hebrews (6 & 10) warnings against falling away. Also there is I John’s statement,

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”  (2:19)

Clearly there was some kind of covenantal relationship as seen in the fact that these folks were part of the community. Paul explains all this in Romans 9 where he says that;

“For they are not all Israel, who are descendants from Israel.”

In the old and worse covenant not all in the covenant had the essence of the covenant and yet they are held responsible as covenant breakers. One cannot break the covenant unless one belongs to the covenant. So in the NT not all who are related to the new covenant have the essence of the covenant (Christ) and so they “go out from us.”

It would be literally impossible to warn against covenant breaking if it was not possible in some sense to break covenant.

Rev. Bushsong writes,

3: That is apples/oranges – spiritual benefits have to do with sin/blessing. You assume what has yet to be proven – that obedience requires baby-baptizing.

BLMc replies,

Obedience requiring Baby baptism has been proven so often and so thoroughly through the centuries that to suggest that “it is not proven” is whistling past the graveyard. As Bahnsen liked to say …”I may not have persuaded you. That is not my bailiwick but I have clearly provided the proof.”

Rev. Bushsong writes,

Look: As I said in the vid, I (Baptist) get all the blessings of covenant theology without diluting the nature of the NC. That’s the line we Baptists will not cross.

BLMc replies,

You assume what has yet to be proven, to wit, that obedience does not require baby-baptizing.

Of course that is quite the charge against the paedobaptist of being guilty of “diluting the nature of the New Covenant.” As you surely understand, we here think the same of y’all.

The Bible & National Israel’s Lack Of A Future In The Kingdom Of God

I.) Matthew 21:19: “He said to it, ‘May you never bear fruit again.’ Immediately the tree withered.”

The tree really withered; the disciples “saw it withered from the roots” (Mark 11:20).

The sudden death of the fig tree (symbolic of Israel) dramatized coming judgment on a nation bearing leaves of ritual but no fruit of righteousness.

Jesus here in cursing the fig tree finds the consequence that it is indeed cursed and teaches that God is done with National Israel in terms of having any relevance in relation to redemption or to the eschatological future. Individual Jews may well bow to Christ (and we pray that many will) but the nation of Israel is irrelevant to God. He cursed it. It is dead to Him.

II.) Matthew 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

The Kingdom of God which was contained within the Israel of God in the OT is taken from Israel. Israel is no longer in any way associated with the Kingdom of God. National Israel is dead to God.

III.) Luke 13:6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it cumbereth up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 [c]And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”

The timeline between the events described in Luke 13 and Jesus’ crucifixion is not precisely defined in the Gospels, but it is generally understood to be around one to two years. This indicates that Israel’s time was up. It did not bear fruit as the Mt. 21:43 passage explicitly teaches and so it was cut down in AD 70 and God is done with national Israel.

The parable of the wicked vinedressers (Mt. 21) really does seal that God is done with national Israel. Yet, we have much more than Matthew 21 to hang our hat on that God has eternally cursed any idea of National Israel. The Dispensationalists were able to revive Israel but that revival was completely man-centered and that revived Israel in terms of redemption means absolutely nothing. Frankly, the preoccupation of the Church with Israel for the last 150 years smells of sulfur.  Revived Israel has been a major detraction from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The violent rejection by the Bagels of 1st century Israel’s Messiah – of the Father’s beloved son – has, as its appropriate consequence, the termination of the Kingdom so far as the Bagels as a nation are concerned.

Interpretations of Romans 13 that find Israel grafted back into the Olive tree after AD 70 are plainly in error.