Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Saturday, December 31, 2022
Friday, December 30, 2022
Thursday, December 29, 2022
Wednesday, December 28, 2022
Tuesday, December 27, 2022
Monday, December 26, 2022
Sunday, December 25, 2022
Saturday, December 24, 2022
Confessions of a J. Gresham Machen fundamentalist
I confess I am a Christian Fundamentalist in the spirit of the great historic Christian heritage of the Fundamentalist vs Modernism/Liberalism split. That caused the creation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and other Historical Biblical Christian denominational splits from the fundamentals denying Modernism movement.
However, I am a J. Gresham Machen Fundamentalist, and not in the stream of the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I belong to the Covenantal and Continental Reformed stream of fundamentalism which is Historic Postmill in eschatology/End times views. As well as differing on matters of which version of The Bible is acceptable from the KJV Only view
Fundamentalism, for the purpose of this article, is a movement within the church that holds to the essentials of the Christian faith. In modern times the word fundamentalist is often used in a derogatory sense.
The Fundamentalist movement has its roots in Princeton Theological Seminary because of its association with graduates from that institution. Two wealthy church laymen commissioned ninety-seven conservative church leaders from all over the Western world to write 12 volumes on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. They then published these writings and distributed over 300,000 copies free of charge to ministers and others involved in church leadership. The books were entitled The Fundamentals, and they are still in print today as a two-volume set.
Fundamentalism was formalized in the late 19th century and early 20th century by conservative Christians—John Nelson Darby, Dwight L. Moody, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen and others—who were concerned that moral values were being eroded by modernism—a belief that human beings (rather than God) create, improve, and reshape their environment with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation. In addition to fighting the influence of modernism, the church was struggling with the German higher criticism movement, which sought to deny the inerrancy of Scripture.
Fundamentalism is built on five tenets of the Christian faith, although there is much more to the movement than adherence to these tenets:
1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.
2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.
3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind.
4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.
5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal second coming of Christ to earth.
Other points of doctrine held by Fundamentalists are that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. There are multiple streams of fundamentalism. I am in the stream that disagrees with Dispensational Theology and its' form of premillenialism being biblical. The view of Despensational premill when taken to its logical conclusion is outright heresy.
The Fundamentalist movement has often embraced a certain militancy for truth, and this led to some infighting. Many new denominations and fellowships appeared, as people left their churches in the name of doctrinal purity. One of the defining characteristics of Fundamentalism has been to see itself as the guardian of the truth, usually to the exclusion of others’ biblical interpretation. At that time of the rise of Fundamentalism, the world was embracing liberalism, modernism, and Darwinism, and the church itself was being invaded by false teachers. Fundamentalism was a reaction against the loss of biblical teaching.
The movement took a severe hit in 1925 by liberal press coverage of the legendary Scopes trial. Although Fundamentalists won the case, they were mocked publicly. Afterwards, Fundamentalism began to splinter and refocus. The most prominent and vocal group in the USA has been the Christian Right. This group of self-described Fundamentalists has been more involved in political movements than most other religious groups. By the 1990s, groups such as the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council have influenced politics and cultural issues.
Like all movements, Fundamentalism has enjoyed both successes and failures. The greatest failure may be in allowing Fundamentalism’s detractors define what it means to be a Fundamentalist. As a result, many people today see Fundamentalists as radical, extremists who want to establish a state religion and force their beliefs on everyone else. This is far from the truth. Fundamentalists seek to guard the truth of Scripture and defend the Christian faith, which was “once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
The church today is struggling in the postmodern, secular culture and needs people who are not ashamed to proclaim the gospel of Christ. Truth does not change, and adherence to the fundamental principles of doctrine is needful. These principles are the bedrock upon which Christianity stands, and, as Jesus taught, the house built upon the Rock will weather any storm (Matthew 7:24-25).
Being a Reformed/Calvinistic Fundamentalist, I obviously disagree with the almost fanatical anti Calvinism of modern day groups like the Independent Fundamental Baptists. The OPC, one of the first split off denominations during the fundamentalist/modernist split was and is a Reformed denomination. The Fundamentalist movement has its Historical roots from fundamental Historical Canons of Dortrch Reformed Theology breaking off from Apostating falling away Modernism/liberal churches.
As explained by J. Gresham Machen in his own words below;
"In these days of widespread defection from the Christian faith, I rejoice with all my heart in the warmth of Christian fellowship that unites me with those who, like you, love the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and are willing to bear the reproach to which a frank acceptance of the gospel subjects them in the presence of a hostile world.
Thoroughly consistent Christianity, to my mind, is found only in the Reformed or Calvinistic Faith; and consistent Christianity, I think, is the Christianity easiest to defend. Hence I never call myself a "Fundamentalist." There is, indeed, no inherent objection to the term; and if the disjunction is between "Fundamentalism" and "Modernism," then I am willing to call myself a Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. But after all, what I prefer to call myself is not a "Fundamentalist" but a "Calvinist" — that is, an adherent of the Reformed Faith. As such I regard myself as standing in the great central current of the Church's life — the current which flows down from the Word of God through Augustine and Calvin. I have the warmest sympathy with other evangelical churches, and a keen sense of agreement with them about those Christian convictions which are today being most insistently assailed.
That system of theology, that body of truth, which we find in the Bible, is the Reformed Faith, the Faith commonly called Calvinistic, which is set forth gloriously in the Confession and Catechisms.
We rejoice in the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches; we hope that members of other churches, despite our Calvinism, may be willing to listen to what we may have to say. But we cannot consent to impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the Scriptures to contain; and we believe that we shall best serve our fellow-Christians, from whatever church they may come, if we set forth not some vague greatest common measure among various creeds, but that great historic Faith that has come through Augustin and Calvin. Glorious is the heritage of the Reformed Faith. God grant that it may go forth to new triumphs even in the present time of unbelief!"
Friday, December 23, 2022
Thursday, December 22, 2022
Wednesday, December 21, 2022
Monday, December 19, 2022
Sunday, December 18, 2022
"Compatibilist Freedom" is Compatibilist Determinism
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...
In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This evil act is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that brings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure.
We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor separately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition).
In biblical terminology, fallen man is in bondage to a corruption of nature and that is why the biblical writers considered him not free (see Rom 6). Jesus Himself affirms that the one who sins is a "slave to sin" and only the Son can set him free. Note that even Jesus speaks of a kind of freedom here. He is not speaking of freedom from God but freedom from the bondage of sin, which is the kind of freedom those have who are in Christ. In this sense God is the most free Person since He is holy, set apart from sin... yet He cannot make choices contrary to His essence, i.e. He cannot be unholy. So, we must conclude, according to Jesus in John 8:31-36, that the natural man does not have a free will. The will is in bondage to sin. Any consistent theologian who uses the term "freedom" usually is referring to that fact that while God sovereignly ordains all that comes to pass, yet man's "free choice" (voluntary) is compatible with God's sovereign decree. In other words the will is free from external coercion but not free from necessity. In my reckoning, there is no biblical warrant to use the phrase "free will", since the Bible never affirms or uses this term. So when some theologians use the word "free" they may be misusing or importing philosophical language from outside the Bible, but I think anyone who is consistent with the Text means "voluntary" when they say "free", but NEVER affirm they are free from God in any sense. For to affirm that God sovereignly brings our choices to pass and then also say man is free FROM GOD, is self-contradictory. So I repeat, many of those whom I read seem to equate the word freedom with the meaning "voluntary". If any mean "free from God" they are confused. I heard R.C. Sproul say there are "no maverick molecules". Nothing happens by chance, but all falls within God's meticulous providence, no exceptions.
One of the best statements on compatibilism is one I found from John Calvin:
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70
Prior to the fall, Adam's will was not in bondage to sin, thus it was free from sin's bondage and corruption but it was not free from God's decree. His choice to rebel was completely voluntary even though God has ordained with certainty that it would come to pass. He was not yet sealed in righteousness even though his inclination was toward the good. Through Satan's devices, that he overcame his own good inclination and chose evil makes original sin all the more heinous.
Saturday, December 17, 2022
Friday, December 16, 2022
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
The Last Days According to Jesus - R.C. Sproul
The importance of God's Law in the current moment
People in the Churches are facing the onslaught of the Queer Abomination agenda. They are in the midst of a defining moment for the Church. Some people will argue that we do not need to bring God's Law to the fight. However, I would argue that is exactly what is needed. For it is in God's Law that we find the very creation ordinance based Law against such behavior.
It is not following His Law Word that has got us to the point of where we are now. Not only treating same sex abomination in a more humane manor, but, actually seeing it as alright and normal. As opposed to the crime against nature and God it is. If we took His Law seriously as a guide for legislation such abomination would account as a criminal act.We do not want to shirk away from the truth about such abomination and what God thinks of it. Instead we need to explain why it is a criminal act against the Lord and against nature. Then provide a detailed explanation of the Biblcal alternative for people with same sex desires.
Which can range from fines for the least offending acts right up to the death penalty for things like homosexual grooming and pedophilia. I think we have every right under God's Law Word to call for such legislation depending on the circumstances of the action.
I do not think that one should jump right to the death penalty or even needs to support it. However, one can support it justly in my opinion if the context and crime is hanious enough. If one is anti death death penalty simply alter the above sentences to say life sentences.
The point is God has granted us in His Law Word what we should be doing about these issues. How we implement the law within legislation is where we can argue. Not over whether we should be treating open public displays of such as criminal. It is to the only person that matters, God Himself.
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
No, Calvinism is NOT The Gospel!
"In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; but in all things charity"
I am Reformed and 110 Grade Calvinist. I am so because Calvinism/Reformed Theology is presented in The Bible. The Canons of Dordrecht and its proceeding articles on Unconditional Election, Total Depravity, Limited or Definite Atonement, Irresistible Grace or Effectual Calling and Preservation of the Saints (Once Saved Always Saved) are all taught straight from the Bible.
"In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; but in all things charity"
A Defense of Calvinism -by C. H. Spurgeon
The Arminian Understanding of “Faith,” R.C. Sproul
The following is an excerpt from R.C. Sproul’s book, Willing to Believe
The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?
Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a “one-working.” Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.
The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.
According to semi-Pelagianism regeneration is wrought by God, but only in those who have first responded in faith to him. Faith is seen not as the fruit of regeneration, but as an act of the will cooperating with God’s offer of grace.
Evangelicals are so called because of their commitment to the biblical and historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because the Reformers saw sola fide as central and essential to the biblical gospel, the term evangelical was applied to them. Modern evangelicals in great numbers embrace the sola fide of the Reformation, but have jettisoned the sola gratia that undergirded it. Packer and Johnston assert:
“Justification by faith only” is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers’ thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.”
I must confess that the first time I read this paragraph, I blinked. On the surface it seems to be a severe indictment of Arminianism. Indeed it could hardly be more severe than to speak of it as “un-Christian” or “anti-Christian.” Does this mean that Packer and Johnston believe Arminians are not Christians? Not necessarily. Every Christian has errors of some sort in his thinking. Our theological views are fallible. Any distortion in our thought, any deviation from pure, biblical categories may be loosely deemed “un-Christian” or “anti-Christian.” The fact that our thought contains un-Christian elements does not demand the inference that we are therefore not Christians at all.
I agree with Packer and Johnston that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, “Yes, barely.” They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency.
What is this inconsistency? Arminians affirm the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They agree that we have no meritorious work that counts toward our justification, that our justification rests solely on the righteousness and merit of Christ, that sola fide means justification is by Christ alone, and that we must trust not in our own works, but in Christ’s work for our salvation. In all this they differ from Rome on crucial points.
Packer and Johnston note that later Reformed theology, however, condemned Arminianism as a betrayal of the Reformation and in principle as a return to Rome. They point out that Arminianism “in effect turned faith into a meritorious work.”
We notice that this charge is qualified by the words in effect. Usually Arminians deny that their faith is a meritorious work. If they were to insist that faith is a meritorious work, they would be explicitly denying justification by faith alone. The Arminian acknowledges that faith is something a person does. It is a work, though not a meritorious one. Is it a good work? Certainly it is not a bad work. It is good for a person to trust in Christ and in Christ alone for his or her salvation. Since God commands us to trust in Christ, when we do so we are obeying this command. But all Christians agree that faith is something we do. God does not do the believing for us. We also agree that our justification is by faith insofar as faith is the instrumental cause of our justification. All the Arminian wants and intends to assert is that man has the ability to exercise the instrumental cause of faith without first being regenerated. This position clearly negates sola gratia, but not necessarily sola fide.
Then why say that Arminianism “in effect” makes faith a meritorious work? Because the good response people make to the gospel becomes the ultimate determining factor in salvation. I often ask my Arminian friends why they are Christians and other people are not. They say it is because they believe in Christ while others do not. Then I inquire why they believe and others do not? “Is it because you are more righteous than the person who abides in unbelief?” They are quick to say no. “Is it because you are more intelligent?” Again the reply is negative. They say that God is gracious enough to offer salvation to all who believe and that one cannot be saved without that grace. But this grace is cooperative grace. Man in his fallen state must reach out and grasp this grace by an act of the will, which is free to accept or reject this grace. Some exercise the will rightly (or righteously), while others do not. When pressed on this point, the Arminian finds it difficult to escape the conclusion that ultimately his salvation rests on some righteous act of the will he has performed. He has “in effect” merited the merit of Christ, which differs only slightly from the view of Rome.
"Provisionism," A Dangerous and Fatal False Gospel
In this article I wish to explain why Leighton Flowers views are outside of The True Gospel. His views which combined are known as Provisionism are completely outside of Historical Christianity. It is, to borrow from Sonny Hernandez, A Cheap-Grace, Gospel-less Heresy.
To further borrow from Brother Hernandez. Provisionism is a foul heresy! No prophet of God, nor Paul, nor Christ, ever proclaimed this semi-Pelagian, cheap grace gospel that is powerless to save because it is no gospel at all. It completely denies Original Sin and any need for even an originating Grace of God to be saved. It denies God's Sovereignty and Providence.
How do you get saved in this false Gospel?
Easy you simply naturally work up your own faith and simply decide to choose God's Provision of Unlimited and Universally provided Salvation for every person ever born. You have totally unbounded Libertarian free will without any internal inclination towards anything good or evil. You are, in fact all people are naturally not depraved totally or even partially.
You can always have counter casual options and Predestination does not exist at all. Not even the Ramonstrants Arminianism view of looking through the corridors of time or foreseen Faith. Predestination does not mean that God has a Decree. It is simply the word for being predestined to eternal life through libertarianally choosing to do what is right and obeying God's command to repent/believe. Emphasis on the libertatianally free as in without any determination of God at all.
What does God Know?
Not much really with no real cohesive view of God's attribute in regards to knowledge of the future.
Do you need to repent and believe?
No, you will be judged upon the light that you have. Other words Provisionism does not preach The Christian Message that you need to be In Christ to have eternal life. You can have knowledge of God's general creation and believe in Jesus without knowing you do.
Can you Obey the Commands and Laws of God perfectly?
Sure you can all you need to do is to continually make the right free will decision.
Does God harden hearts?
Nope, people grow callus and harden their own hearts. God never intends evil either even for a greater good or his Glory.
What if he is wrong and Calvinism or pre-regeneration depravity or inability is right?
Then God is a horrendous Monster unworthy of Worshipping!
He made a God in his own image and left the True Christian Faith for a free will idol of his own making. Upon doing so he wants to drag as many people away into his False Gospel as he can. Leighton Flowers is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Is he hellbound and outside of the Kingdom? Unless he gets truly Saved and comes back to the Faith he will be going to eternal destruction for his False Religion. He should not be considered among the Church.
Monday, December 12, 2022
What is Theonomy? Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen
The following essay was written by Greg Bahnsen and represents a very concise explanation to the oft-asked questions regarding theonomy…”What is it?”
I do not own the rights to this title nor claim any ownership of it. It belongs solely to Covenant Media Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Van Til taught us that, “There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy” (Christian Theistic Ethics, p. 134). Every ethical decision assumes some final authority or standard, and that will either be self law (“auto nomy”) or God’s law (“theo nomy”). While unbelievers consider themselves the ultimate authority in determining moral right or wrong, believers acknowledge that God alone has that position and prerogative.
The position which has come to be labeled “theonomy” today thus holds that the word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. Our obligation to keep God’s commands cannot be judged by any extra scriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.
Jesus My Savior
When any of us come to Christ for salvation, it is with a sense of our sin and misery before God. Our very need of the Savior arises from a conviction of sin, brought home to our hearts by the HolySpirit showing our guilt for violating God’s commandments. As Paul wrote, “I had not known sin except through the law” (Rom. 7:7). The law defines what sin is (1 John 3:4). As such the law cannot be our personal vehicle for gaining favor with God. It rather aims at Christ as our only righteousness, tutoring us that justification must be by faith in him (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:24).
So theonomy teaches that since the fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one’s own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith. As Paul said, it was “through the law” that he learned to “die to the law” as a way of self-salvation (Gal. 2:9). Commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God’s redeeming grace. “By grace you have been saved through faith…not of works…. We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God previously prepared that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8 10).
In What is Faith? J. Gresham Machen urged that “a new and more powerful proclamation of that law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour…. A low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace. Pray God that the high view may again prevail” (pp. 141-142).
Jesus My Lord
After coming to Christ in faith and repentance we all naturally ask how a Christian should live. A. A. Hodge answers: “While Christ fulfilled the law for us, the Holy Spirit fulfils the law in us, by sanctifying us into complete conformity to it” (The Confession of Faith, p. 251). Paul wrote in Romans 8:4, 9 that unregenerate men are enemies of God who cannot submit to His law, but those who walk by the Holy Spirit subject themselves to that law. Paul himself endorses that we should“delight in the law after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22).
The Christian confesses that Jesus is the Lord, thus looking to the directives of Jesus to guide his life. Jesus said “if you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Moreover, we will strive to teach others to observe whatever He has commanded us (Matt. 28:18-20). Such healthy and necessary moral standards are surely not burdensome to the believer who bows to Christ as the Lord (1 John 5:3).
As our Lord, moreover, Jesus teaches us that man is to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4). We have no right to edit God’s commandments for ourselves, deciding to follow those which agree with our preconceived ideas and rejecting the others. James teaches that we are not to become “judges of the law,”but rather doers of that law (4:11-12); to break even one point of it is to be guilty of breaking it all (2:10). The whole law is our duty, except where the Lawgiver and Lord reveals otherwise. God forbids us to diminish His commands on our own authority (Deut. 4:2). “Every scripture” (even the Old Testament) is profitable, said Paul, for “instruction in righteousness” so that we would be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Accordingly theonomy views God’s laws directing moral behavior to be a reflection of His unchanging character; such laws are not arbitrary, but objectively, universally, and absolutely binding. It is God’slaw that “you are to be holy because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16, citing Leviticus). The law may not be criticized or challenged by us. It is“holy, righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). This moral law was revealed to Israel in oracles and ordinances, but even the Gentiles show the work of the law upon their hearts and know its ordinances from the natural order and inward conscience (Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15). Who, then, is under the authority of God’s law? Paul answers “all the world” (Rom. 3:19).
Covenant Theology
The law revealed by Moses and subsequent Old Testament authors was given within a covenantal administration of God’s grace which included not only moral instruction, but gloriously and mercifully“promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come” (Westminster Confession of Faith VII.5). God’s revelation itself teaches us that New Covenant believers, who have the law powerfully written on their hearts (Jer. 31:31ff.; Heb. 8:8-12), no longer follow the foreshadows and administrative details of the old covenant. They are obsolete (Heb. 8:13), having been imposed only until the time when the Messiah would come (Heb. 9:10; Col.2:17). Thus, for example, on the basis of God’s own instruction, no longer resort to animal sacrifices at the temple and a Levitical priest(Heb. 7-10); the cultic dietary laws have been set aside, for God has cleansed the unclean meats (representing the Gentiles) from which Israel was to be separate or holy (Acts 10).
Theonomy teaches, then, that in regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality. The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and “separation” principles, redefining the people of God (e.g., Matt. 21:43), and also altering the significance of the promised land (e.g., Rom. 4:13;1 Peter 1:4).
What is crucial to notice here is that theonomic ethics comes to these conclusions on the basis of Biblical instruction. Men have no right to alter or spurn Old Testament laws on their own say so, social traditions, or preconceived ideas about what is morally appropriate or inappropriate in the Mosaic law. They have no right to include more in the discontinuity between old and new covenants than can be warranted from divine revelation.
Theonomy thus teaches that we should presume that Old Testament laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation. Theonomy’smethodology stands squarely against that of dispensational theology which maintains that all of the Old Testament commandments should be deemed—in advance of exegesis—to be abrogated, unless they are repeated in the New Testament.
On this issue the words of our Lord are definitive and clear in Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus declared that he did not come not abrogate the Old Testament Law and Prophets, but to give them their full measure. John Murray wrote that Jesus’ “fulfillment” of the law “refers to the function of validating and confirming the law and the prophets”(Principles of Conduct, p. 150). With respect to the Old Testament’s moral standards, Jesus went on to insist that until the end of the physical cosmos, not the slightest stroke of the law will pass away. “Therefore whoever shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus confirmed the validity of the law, even down to its least commandment, and ensure anyone who dares to teach otherwise (without authorization from the lawgiver Himself). New Testament Christians must operate on the presumption of continuity with the Old Testament moral code.
King of Kings
That general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies to political ethics. JohnMurray called it a fatal error “if it is thought that the Christian revelation,the Bible, does not come to the civil authority with a demand for obedience to its direction and precept as stringent and inescapable as it does to the individual, to the family, and to the church”
In addition to being the Head of the church, Christ has been made King over all other earthly kings (1 Tim. 6:15), the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5); to Him by right they owe allegiance and obedience. He has been invested with all authority in heaven as well as on earth (Matt. 28:18), and it is to be our prayer that God’s will be done on earth just as perfectly as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). Jehovah has established His Son as King upon His holy hill, and thus the kings and judges of the earth are now required to submit reverently to Him and serve the Lord (Ps. 2:6-12).
So theonomy teaches that civil rulers are morally obligated to enforce those laws of Christ, found throughout the Scriptures, which are addressed to magistrates (as well as to refrain from coercion in areas where God has not prescribed their intervention). As Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-10, magistrates—even the secular rulers of Rome—are obligated to conduct their offices as “ministers of God,” avenging Gods wrath (compare 13:4 with 12:19) against criminal evildoers. They will give an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God’s transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes and political policies. Scottish theologian, William Symington, well said: “It is the duty of nations, as subjects of Christ, to take his law as their rule. They are apt to think enough that they take, as their standard of legislation and administration, human reason, natural conscience, public opinion or political expediency. None of these, however, nor indeed all of them together, can supply a sufficient guide in affairs of state” (Messiah the prince, p. 234).
Copyright: PE180—1994 © Covenant Media Foundation. 800/553-3938