A homosexual counter-argument to the old testament references calling sodomy an abomination is that the old testament also called certain foods abominations (see e.g., Lev. 11:11). But the problem with that counter-argument is contained within itself. Jesus Christ proclaimed all foods clean when he said,
"And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
Mark 7:18-23. See also 15:10-20.
Unlike foods, Jesus did not purge or make clean all sexual practices. The lawgiver has the power to alter what was intended to be a temporary ordinance. However, God's laws on sexual practices are not temporary. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, an abomination: "Go and sin no more." John 8:11.
So, why were certain foods temporarily unclean or abominations? It demonstrated that there were clean people and unclean people. It divided the Jew from the Gentile. Acts 9. Once Christ came to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, Ephesians 3, then those foods no longer represented that barrier.
However, Jesus Christ's virgin birth did not do away with sexual relations; it sanctified the family. But He only sanctified a family as God established - male and female parents. He did not break down the boundary between clean and unclean sex practices or between male and female, with the exception of the basis of salvation. Christ came to restore the creation order, which was that husband and wife would be male and female; He did not come to destroy the creation order, which God saw as very good.
Therefore, God the Creator has set up boundaries for sexual practice for our good and the advance of dominion mandate. The law against homosexual and other perverted sexual practices is still in effect because they involve the natural order created by God, not some symbol for demonstrating a temporary condition.
Only that which is permanent is law, at least, the law of God. That which is temporary or varying cannot be law. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches us the difference. The moral, even which is simply spoken out of your mouth defiles the man, but the food you eat, which is ejected as waste, cannot. See Matthew 15:10-20.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess." Matthew 23:23-5. Ceremonial matters that have been fulfilled, for example the sacrifices of the Old Testament fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice, are not permanent. But faithfulness, mercy, temperance, love, etc. – these remain.
Therefore, the laws of Moses which deal with those things last forever. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Why America has a Problem of Judicial Tyranny 4
Even England, before the Constitution, had a check on the highest court:
"The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven."
Brutus, "The Federalist Papers," Anti-Federalist Paper 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
So, one of the solutions to the problem of judicial tyranny in this country is to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court shall not be the final word. It needs a "tribunal in which their errors may be corrected." Better yet, let's agree that the vote of one Supreme Court Justice (in a close case where the Justices know it will be a 5-4 vote, one Justice can decide the law for the entire United States) shall not be the final word for the entire country.
Mark Levin, in his book, "The Liberty Amendments," proposes the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyrannical Supreme Court:
"SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
"SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.
"SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.
"SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
"SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
"SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures , the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override."
Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 49-50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.
There is also the option of nullification by the states. The states could take back their lawful, constitutional authority and stand against federal court tyranny. The legislatures and governors could issue lawfully decided contradictions to the federal courts as they attempt unconstitutional takeovers of the states and their laws.
There's also the Article V amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Then there's the long term work of cultural kingdom advancement, which takes generations. The latter may be the path we must take. And we'll see the gospel, like a mustard seed, gradually grow into the largest tree in the garden.
Shall we live with judicial tyranny, or shall we do something about it. The Christian will not let a godless idolization of an institution stop him from fighting for an alternative that preserves the independence of the judiciary without giving it carte blanche power to overrule every other authority.
"The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven."
Brutus, "The Federalist Papers," Anti-Federalist Paper 78-79, Part one is taken from the first part of the “Brutus’s” 15th essay of The New-York Journal on March 20, 1788; Part two is part one of his 16th of the New York Journal of April 10, 1788, accessed at http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-78-79, Oct. 12, 2014.
So, one of the solutions to the problem of judicial tyranny in this country is to agree that the U.S. Supreme Court shall not be the final word. It needs a "tribunal in which their errors may be corrected." Better yet, let's agree that the vote of one Supreme Court Justice (in a close case where the Justices know it will be a 5-4 vote, one Justice can decide the law for the entire United States) shall not be the final word for the entire country.
Mark Levin, in his book, "The Liberty Amendments," proposes the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent a tyrannical Supreme Court:
"SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
"SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, Congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the First Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eighth Year, and of the Third Class at the end of the twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth Year.
"SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be renominated to a full term.
"SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
"SECTION 5: The Congressional override under Section 4 is not subject to a Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
"SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures , the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court. SECTION 7: The States’ override under Section 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President. SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override."
Levin, Mark R. (2013-08-13). The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (pp. 49-50). Threshold Editions. Kindle Edition.
There is also the option of nullification by the states. The states could take back their lawful, constitutional authority and stand against federal court tyranny. The legislatures and governors could issue lawfully decided contradictions to the federal courts as they attempt unconstitutional takeovers of the states and their laws.
There's also the Article V amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. Then there's the long term work of cultural kingdom advancement, which takes generations. The latter may be the path we must take. And we'll see the gospel, like a mustard seed, gradually grow into the largest tree in the garden.
Shall we live with judicial tyranny, or shall we do something about it. The Christian will not let a godless idolization of an institution stop him from fighting for an alternative that preserves the independence of the judiciary without giving it carte blanche power to overrule every other authority.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
What is Law?
The first time the word "law" appears in the bible is in Genesis 47:26: "And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's." What is telling about this reference is the longevity of this law. It developed out of a seemingly temporary situation, but it lasted for centuries. Is something changeable a law? Or is law a reflection of the character of God, who is unchangeable?
The next mention of the word is Exodus 12:49: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Not only is law unchangeable, it is applicable equally to all. This is a statement of equality before the law. Law that is different for one person as opposed to another indicates a differentiation of mankind before man, whereas the law of God applies to all human beings alike.
The references to law become quite frequent after that. Exodus 13:9 states: "And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt." The law of God becomes the defining character of life of those delivered by God from slavery. The law tells how to live, and keeping it in one's heart and mind constantly is an act of gratitude to that God. Therefore, the law of God is a statement - of gratitude by those who obey, but what does it express of those who do not obey?
For those who don't obey, it expresses a failure to care about life itself. Exodus 16:4: "Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." God kept the people alive by raining manna from heaven in the wilderness where they would have died without His assistance. He gave them strict instructions on how to live by eating the manna in the manner he indicated. This scripture indicates that issuance of the law provides a test of man by God. Sanctions for those who fail to obey that which determines whether they live or die.
Law is issued by the unchanging God who applies the law equally to all men and who gives it to preserve life. Exodus 24:12: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them." Law is given by God. One way we know a law is not of God is because it lacks the above characteristics.
More importantly, does it subtract from the law of God? Does it add to the law of God? If you answer yes to either of those questions, you had better tread carefully. Christ criticized the Pharisees, lawyers, and Scribes of His day were guilty of both, yet they claimed to represent the God who issued the law by Moses. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to them for such "adjustments" to God's law.
The idea that every human must consent to the law is humanist, not biblical. If the society denies God’s law, whether from the pew or the pulpit or the US Supreme Court, God will have His due. “You reap what you sow.” He’s really not dependent upon man’s will to ensure His “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Mt. 6. By the way, why would we pray that, if we didn't want God's law to be our law?
If your faith is in the law as conceived by the governed, then you will have to please every single governed. We will get 300 million versions of the 10 commandments, and we will deserve every one of them. Thus, we receive the just judgment of pleasing man – being unable to please man.
Law is not a democratically determined matter. It's determined by God. Contracts, agreed upon between people in such a way as to ignore God, result in the world of the ancients - each society with its own law and own god. This is the world before the Great Flood and of Canaan, societies God wanted to destroy, no, annihilate.
Without a return to biblical law or some other authoritative law system that is not subject to the chaos of human diversity, the society of America is headed in that direction. Law, lacking no direction or eternal foundation or boundaries, will degrade to meet, not the common denominator, but every denominator, and it will not be able to do so without lawlessness becoming the result. What replaces the resulting chaos, wherein no one knows what is legal or illegal from one day to the next, is anyone's guess. But it will be replaced by something that is not democratically determined. And when I say not democratically determined, I mean not changeable at the whim of the latest fad. It will be chosen by people, but it will be because they realize that society cannot continue on the trajectory it is on.
The next mention of the word is Exodus 12:49: "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Not only is law unchangeable, it is applicable equally to all. This is a statement of equality before the law. Law that is different for one person as opposed to another indicates a differentiation of mankind before man, whereas the law of God applies to all human beings alike.
The references to law become quite frequent after that. Exodus 13:9 states: "And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt." The law of God becomes the defining character of life of those delivered by God from slavery. The law tells how to live, and keeping it in one's heart and mind constantly is an act of gratitude to that God. Therefore, the law of God is a statement - of gratitude by those who obey, but what does it express of those who do not obey?
For those who don't obey, it expresses a failure to care about life itself. Exodus 16:4: "Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no." God kept the people alive by raining manna from heaven in the wilderness where they would have died without His assistance. He gave them strict instructions on how to live by eating the manna in the manner he indicated. This scripture indicates that issuance of the law provides a test of man by God. Sanctions for those who fail to obey that which determines whether they live or die.
Law is issued by the unchanging God who applies the law equally to all men and who gives it to preserve life. Exodus 24:12: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them." Law is given by God. One way we know a law is not of God is because it lacks the above characteristics.
More importantly, does it subtract from the law of God? Does it add to the law of God? If you answer yes to either of those questions, you had better tread carefully. Christ criticized the Pharisees, lawyers, and Scribes of His day were guilty of both, yet they claimed to represent the God who issued the law by Moses. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to them for such "adjustments" to God's law.
The idea that every human must consent to the law is humanist, not biblical. If the society denies God’s law, whether from the pew or the pulpit or the US Supreme Court, God will have His due. “You reap what you sow.” He’s really not dependent upon man’s will to ensure His “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Mt. 6. By the way, why would we pray that, if we didn't want God's law to be our law?
If your faith is in the law as conceived by the governed, then you will have to please every single governed. We will get 300 million versions of the 10 commandments, and we will deserve every one of them. Thus, we receive the just judgment of pleasing man – being unable to please man.
Law is not a democratically determined matter. It's determined by God. Contracts, agreed upon between people in such a way as to ignore God, result in the world of the ancients - each society with its own law and own god. This is the world before the Great Flood and of Canaan, societies God wanted to destroy, no, annihilate.
Without a return to biblical law or some other authoritative law system that is not subject to the chaos of human diversity, the society of America is headed in that direction. Law, lacking no direction or eternal foundation or boundaries, will degrade to meet, not the common denominator, but every denominator, and it will not be able to do so without lawlessness becoming the result. What replaces the resulting chaos, wherein no one knows what is legal or illegal from one day to the next, is anyone's guess. But it will be replaced by something that is not democratically determined. And when I say not democratically determined, I mean not changeable at the whim of the latest fad. It will be chosen by people, but it will be because they realize that society cannot continue on the trajectory it is on.
The Foolishness of the Creator God
The temptation in the Garden of Eden was not just some silly lesson about not stealing an apple. The temptation to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was motivated by an illicit desire to be like God, to take over His sovereign rule over right and wrong, good and evil, for man to determine the relationship with God, the rules of that relationship and of life itself, and, therefore, the nature of God Himself. It was an attack on truth, authority, and the nature of determining reality.
The challenge to God's method of determining good and evil was scientifically motivated, that is, it was Adam and Eve's desire to "test" by experience and decide for themselves what's right and wrong. The tempter's assurance that there were no consequences - "Ye shall not surely die" - was immunity from consequences so they could enjoy and appreciate all experience with no limitations. As with the nature of reality and of good and evil, it was an attack on the truth that there are consequences to disobeying God, both short term and for future generations. Man apparently doesn't want to think that is so.
It was also a personal attack. It denied the goodness, the faithfulness, the honesty of God in His person. It was a choice to believe the serpent and assert God was not trustworthy, a judicial determination that God was a liar. It was a use of the circumstances into which God had placed man for the cynical purpose of the pursuit of power. God allowed Adam and Eve the power to turn on Him. They agreed with the serpent that power is more important than the trustworthiness of God, the ability to trust their Creator, the importance of friendship with the greatest, most loving being of all. It was the denial of their origin, the betrayal of their maker, the undoing of themselves. All for power - "Ye shall be as gods!" They lost all to gain an illusion.
Here's the point at which man is most hardened. A person can be the nicest, most righteous person you've ever met. He could be an expert in theology, having thought through all the implications of human behavior, religious writings, and be able to counsel you on all your problems you've ever faced. But if that person can't say to the God who created him, who sent His Son to die for him: "You are the God I've offended personally, the personal Creator to whom I owe all my life and breath, and the Judge before whom I will personally stand and give account one day," that person doesn't understand who His God is.
No matter how wise that person appears to be, how could that person claim to be a judge of other men in this life? Will they replay the Garden of Eden? Will that judge seek power at the expense of that small thing called truth? That small thing called integrity? That small thing called law? That small thing called the appropriate relationship between the branches, the states and federal government? Or will their agenda overrule your just cause because it just doesn't rank very well with his or her priorities in their agenda? This is what is at stake when choosing a judge? When deciding whether the liberal with an agenda is fit to be a judge.
But they're so wise, so intelligent, you say. I say, "So what." How foolish of God to give us such power! But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25. It's the simple loyalty to truth and law that is more important even than intelligence. The intelligent can fleece you more effectively than the moron can.
The judge who misuses the judicial system to advance their agenda will be judged by the Judge of all. It's not just some political powerplay that is at stake. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to the lawyers of His say for "adjustments" to God's law for the sake of their convenience, power, or wealth accumulation.
The loss of the doctrine of creation to evolution results in the following according to R.J. Rushdoony:
"First of all, man is no longer viewed as created in the image of God. According to scripture, man was created in God's image, and, although fallen, is strictly under God's law. Man cannot be reduced to the level of an animal. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man is called to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, and the world is man's dominion under God. But the evolutionary theory views man as a product of the world rather than a destined lord over it in Christ. Man is seen as having evolved out of the fortuitous concourse of atoms and out of primeval slime. Instead of being set over nature, man is set under nature as a product of it. Man is reduced to the same slavish status as existed during antiquity in ancient Egypt and other states which to an evolutionary model. Man's liberty is a product of Biblical faith; the concept of evolution produces slavery, and it was welcomed by Marx as the necessary foundation for socialism. When man is a product of nature, as he is according to theories of evolution, he is passive in relationship to nature; his being is determined by nature, and his psychology is passive, conditioned, reflex action rather than governing action. When man knows himself to be created by God, and his faith is basic to his thinking, man is a product of God's creative work and is therefore passive in relationship to God but active towards nature. He is determined by God, not by nature, and man is then active towards nature and governs it. Man is thus free from nature, not a slave to it, because man is created and governed by God, not by nature. Man's calling is to exercise dominion under God over nature, to rule it, develop and exploit it, under God and to His glory. Only the regenerate man in Jesus Christ can do this. The fallen man is in captivity to his own nature and to the forces around him. As a result, liberty rapidly declines when Biblical Christianity declines. Where men are not ruled by God, they are ruled by tyrants. And the rise of evolutionary thinking has produced a worldwide rise of totalitarianism. Since man is no longer seen as God's creation, he is becoming a creature of the total state, and the total state is determined to remake man in its own image. In consequence, man is now the primary experimental animal. People are alarmed at the use of animal in scientific experimentation. But the grim reality is that the primary experimental animal is man. Not only the mental health experts, but also virtually every agency of civil government is today engaged in trying to remake man. . . . When men set aside God as Creator, they then set themselves up as man's recreators, as the new gods over an and the universe."
R.J. Rushdoony, "The Mythology of Science," (Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 2001), pp. 67-8.
As with science, so with judging. There is no appeal beyond man to God if man was not created by God. Under the evolutionary scheme, it is those who think they are smarter and stronger than all other men who seek to rule over us for their ends, and they will do so without God in their thinking to limit their scheme. Thankfully, the sovereign God rules in the affairs of men and will defend the righteous. See Psalm 82:4.
The challenge to God's method of determining good and evil was scientifically motivated, that is, it was Adam and Eve's desire to "test" by experience and decide for themselves what's right and wrong. The tempter's assurance that there were no consequences - "Ye shall not surely die" - was immunity from consequences so they could enjoy and appreciate all experience with no limitations. As with the nature of reality and of good and evil, it was an attack on the truth that there are consequences to disobeying God, both short term and for future generations. Man apparently doesn't want to think that is so.
It was also a personal attack. It denied the goodness, the faithfulness, the honesty of God in His person. It was a choice to believe the serpent and assert God was not trustworthy, a judicial determination that God was a liar. It was a use of the circumstances into which God had placed man for the cynical purpose of the pursuit of power. God allowed Adam and Eve the power to turn on Him. They agreed with the serpent that power is more important than the trustworthiness of God, the ability to trust their Creator, the importance of friendship with the greatest, most loving being of all. It was the denial of their origin, the betrayal of their maker, the undoing of themselves. All for power - "Ye shall be as gods!" They lost all to gain an illusion.
Here's the point at which man is most hardened. A person can be the nicest, most righteous person you've ever met. He could be an expert in theology, having thought through all the implications of human behavior, religious writings, and be able to counsel you on all your problems you've ever faced. But if that person can't say to the God who created him, who sent His Son to die for him: "You are the God I've offended personally, the personal Creator to whom I owe all my life and breath, and the Judge before whom I will personally stand and give account one day," that person doesn't understand who His God is.
No matter how wise that person appears to be, how could that person claim to be a judge of other men in this life? Will they replay the Garden of Eden? Will that judge seek power at the expense of that small thing called truth? That small thing called integrity? That small thing called law? That small thing called the appropriate relationship between the branches, the states and federal government? Or will their agenda overrule your just cause because it just doesn't rank very well with his or her priorities in their agenda? This is what is at stake when choosing a judge? When deciding whether the liberal with an agenda is fit to be a judge.
But they're so wise, so intelligent, you say. I say, "So what." How foolish of God to give us such power! But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." I Corinthians 1:25. It's the simple loyalty to truth and law that is more important even than intelligence. The intelligent can fleece you more effectively than the moron can.
The judge who misuses the judicial system to advance their agenda will be judged by the Judge of all. It's not just some political powerplay that is at stake. Jesus issued some of His most scathing rebukes and warnings to the lawyers of His say for "adjustments" to God's law for the sake of their convenience, power, or wealth accumulation.
The loss of the doctrine of creation to evolution results in the following according to R.J. Rushdoony:
"First of all, man is no longer viewed as created in the image of God. According to scripture, man was created in God's image, and, although fallen, is strictly under God's law. Man cannot be reduced to the level of an animal. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man is called to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, and the world is man's dominion under God. But the evolutionary theory views man as a product of the world rather than a destined lord over it in Christ. Man is seen as having evolved out of the fortuitous concourse of atoms and out of primeval slime. Instead of being set over nature, man is set under nature as a product of it. Man is reduced to the same slavish status as existed during antiquity in ancient Egypt and other states which to an evolutionary model. Man's liberty is a product of Biblical faith; the concept of evolution produces slavery, and it was welcomed by Marx as the necessary foundation for socialism. When man is a product of nature, as he is according to theories of evolution, he is passive in relationship to nature; his being is determined by nature, and his psychology is passive, conditioned, reflex action rather than governing action. When man knows himself to be created by God, and his faith is basic to his thinking, man is a product of God's creative work and is therefore passive in relationship to God but active towards nature. He is determined by God, not by nature, and man is then active towards nature and governs it. Man is thus free from nature, not a slave to it, because man is created and governed by God, not by nature. Man's calling is to exercise dominion under God over nature, to rule it, develop and exploit it, under God and to His glory. Only the regenerate man in Jesus Christ can do this. The fallen man is in captivity to his own nature and to the forces around him. As a result, liberty rapidly declines when Biblical Christianity declines. Where men are not ruled by God, they are ruled by tyrants. And the rise of evolutionary thinking has produced a worldwide rise of totalitarianism. Since man is no longer seen as God's creation, he is becoming a creature of the total state, and the total state is determined to remake man in its own image. In consequence, man is now the primary experimental animal. People are alarmed at the use of animal in scientific experimentation. But the grim reality is that the primary experimental animal is man. Not only the mental health experts, but also virtually every agency of civil government is today engaged in trying to remake man. . . . When men set aside God as Creator, they then set themselves up as man's recreators, as the new gods over an and the universe."
R.J. Rushdoony, "The Mythology of Science," (Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 2001), pp. 67-8.
As with science, so with judging. There is no appeal beyond man to God if man was not created by God. Under the evolutionary scheme, it is those who think they are smarter and stronger than all other men who seek to rule over us for their ends, and they will do so without God in their thinking to limit their scheme. Thankfully, the sovereign God rules in the affairs of men and will defend the righteous. See Psalm 82:4.
Covenant Structure in Judging I
The Creator God works by covenant. He even makes a covenant with creation. "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth." Gen.9:9-10, KJV. He makes covenants with persons. Gen. 15:18.
The covenant permeates all of life because the Creator has impressed upon all creation His glory and something of His character. He does not thereby become identified with His Creation in any way other than as Creator. In other words, He is still separate from His creation even when His fingerprints are all over it, as is His presence - immanence. Our God is not a pantheist being, identified with the creation.
Here's a basic outline of a covenant as developed by Ray Sutton and Gary North, based on some of the scholarship of Meredith G. Kline:
1. Transcendence/immanence
2. Authority/hierarchy
3. Ethics/dominion
4. Judgment/sanctions
5. Inheritance/continuity
Gary North, "The Dominion Covenant: An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. 1," (Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, Texas, 1987) p. ix.
The first two elements of a covenant are prominent in the concept of a judge sitting to decide disputes between persons and entities. The judge has authority to command people to comply with a judgment. In other words, the judge not only uses the law, 3rd element, in deciding controversies but also commands the losing party to part with something that party owned. But for the fact that the judge has that authority - inherently - as a judge, the judge would be violating that party's rights of ownership. Such a hierarchical position of command surely meets the criteria for the 2nd element - the authority to which men must answer.
However, the 1st comes into play also. The parties are humans, created in the image of God; therefore, how can another human order one party to part with property, freedom, or even life itself? If we were living in a worldview of multiple gods, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, then we might posit a form of dispute resolution by combat. Why? Because the Roman and Greek entities on Mount Olympus were all gods, technically equal in substance to each other but unable to agree with each other, and that's what these gods did - proved who was entitled to something by warring against each other, with the more powerful taking the spoils, particularly the authority from then on.
Thus, the cultural influence of the Greeks' and Romans' religions of plural gods does not logically lead to the concept of impartial justice for all based on the law. And it raises the question as to how they could have developed a legal system based on equal justice. It also raises the question whether the prevailing view of the source of the American judicial system could have been those systems, as is popularly promoted and taught to children in the state schools.
That conceptual problem, dispute resolution by warfare, would explain Pilate's decision to ceremonially wash his hands of the deed of ordering the execution of Christ. Clearly, the washing of hands by judicial authorities, which is the position in which Pilate was acting when he sentenced Jesus Christ, was already established within the Roman Empire's legal system. What was he washing away? His violation of the concept of equal justice before the law. He ordered an innocent man executed, contrary to law, based not on guilt or innocence but on the popular demand of the crowd and fear that word would get to the Roman Emperor, who might have Pilate's power withdrawn for not suppressing a potential rival - the King of Israel. John 19:12-16.
To sum up what I'm positing: The act of Pilate in condemning Jesus to death was not an individual aberration by a rogue, cowardly authority; the concept of protecting those in power, at the expense of equal justice, was built into the Roman legal and judicial system, as evidenced by the option of washing his hands of the matter. Matthew 27:24. And just as the gods could fight it out with no law, other than that of power (and trickery), governing their actions, so did Rome see its political and judicial power to trump law, if that power was threatened.
The survival of its power was Rome's highest principle, not equal justice before the law. This conclusion is logical seeing their gods held to the same principle. Jesus Christ, the Son of David, and Christ's ancestor King David, held to a different view - that God "putteth down one, and setteth up another." Psalm 75:7, KJV. King David was willing to lose the kingship when Absalom raised a rebellion against the King, but he knew he'd be restored as king "if I shall find favour in the eyes of the LORD." II Samuel 15:25, KJV. Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself, also respected that authority of God, to the point that He allowed Himself to be executed, knowing that the just God would not leave Him under that unjust sentence but would raise Him up, even from the dead. They were not passive, they were active in their faith that God Almighty held the keys to power.
In this contrast between the ancient Roman system and the attitude of the Israelite authorities, we see the 1st element displayed. Rome was its own source of power, obtained by warfare and wielded for practical purposes to keep "the peace" and to ensure the survival of the Romans' power. If there was any transcendence to their judicial system, it was a negative one, influenced by the lawless, power-hungry beings they had posited as their gods. Whether they believed in these gods or not is irrelevant; they reflected Rome's view of itself and provided a backdrop of justification for Rome's use of power.
The biblical view of the Israelites was that God, being the Creator and transcendent above all men, deserved the sovereign right to determine who has authority or not and how that authority should be exercised. Thus, the God of the bible told Moses that even strangers, foreigners who were not necessarily believers in Israel's God and not part of the covenant with Abraham, were to receive the same justice as Israelites under the law of Moses. Exodus 12:49.
Therefore, transcendence is determined by the core principles of your society, and the biblical society acknowledges the God of the bible as the source of all law, all authority. Any other concept of the source of authority and justice leads to a diminishing of the principle of equal justice, and it typically promotes power - for preservation of the state - at the expense of justice. The transcendence of the God of the bible justifies the authority of a judge to take away what belongs to another human being and subjects the judge to accountability before God. A humanistic system, even if it upholds equal justice, cannot keep human judges accountable because the only source of appeal or impeachment is another human authority.
In the drawing up of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of power for power's sake was used by the Federalists and pro-Constitutionalists to justify violating their charter at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, "smelt a rat in Philadelphia." The Convention delegates were authorized only to revise the Article of Confederation, not create a whole new governing document. However, they justified their action by appealing to the principle of the self-preservation of the state. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which also posits such a view of power at the expense of lawful authority. So the Federalists used the threat that the Articles of Confederation would not allow for the young country's survival. The Federalists used this possibility to justify going beyond their charter, which was to only amend the Articles.
This transcendence of the God of the bible also leads logically to the 2nd and 3rd elements of a judicial system - the authority of a judge to sit in judgment over other human beings and the proper law to use in such judging, which would logically be the law of that same God who placed the judge in his position over other men.
The covenant permeates all of life because the Creator has impressed upon all creation His glory and something of His character. He does not thereby become identified with His Creation in any way other than as Creator. In other words, He is still separate from His creation even when His fingerprints are all over it, as is His presence - immanence. Our God is not a pantheist being, identified with the creation.
Here's a basic outline of a covenant as developed by Ray Sutton and Gary North, based on some of the scholarship of Meredith G. Kline:
1. Transcendence/immanence
2. Authority/hierarchy
3. Ethics/dominion
4. Judgment/sanctions
5. Inheritance/continuity
Gary North, "The Dominion Covenant: An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. 1," (Institute for Christian Economics: Tyler, Texas, 1987) p. ix.
The first two elements of a covenant are prominent in the concept of a judge sitting to decide disputes between persons and entities. The judge has authority to command people to comply with a judgment. In other words, the judge not only uses the law, 3rd element, in deciding controversies but also commands the losing party to part with something that party owned. But for the fact that the judge has that authority - inherently - as a judge, the judge would be violating that party's rights of ownership. Such a hierarchical position of command surely meets the criteria for the 2nd element - the authority to which men must answer.
However, the 1st comes into play also. The parties are humans, created in the image of God; therefore, how can another human order one party to part with property, freedom, or even life itself? If we were living in a worldview of multiple gods, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, then we might posit a form of dispute resolution by combat. Why? Because the Roman and Greek entities on Mount Olympus were all gods, technically equal in substance to each other but unable to agree with each other, and that's what these gods did - proved who was entitled to something by warring against each other, with the more powerful taking the spoils, particularly the authority from then on.
Thus, the cultural influence of the Greeks' and Romans' religions of plural gods does not logically lead to the concept of impartial justice for all based on the law. And it raises the question as to how they could have developed a legal system based on equal justice. It also raises the question whether the prevailing view of the source of the American judicial system could have been those systems, as is popularly promoted and taught to children in the state schools.
That conceptual problem, dispute resolution by warfare, would explain Pilate's decision to ceremonially wash his hands of the deed of ordering the execution of Christ. Clearly, the washing of hands by judicial authorities, which is the position in which Pilate was acting when he sentenced Jesus Christ, was already established within the Roman Empire's legal system. What was he washing away? His violation of the concept of equal justice before the law. He ordered an innocent man executed, contrary to law, based not on guilt or innocence but on the popular demand of the crowd and fear that word would get to the Roman Emperor, who might have Pilate's power withdrawn for not suppressing a potential rival - the King of Israel. John 19:12-16.
To sum up what I'm positing: The act of Pilate in condemning Jesus to death was not an individual aberration by a rogue, cowardly authority; the concept of protecting those in power, at the expense of equal justice, was built into the Roman legal and judicial system, as evidenced by the option of washing his hands of the matter. Matthew 27:24. And just as the gods could fight it out with no law, other than that of power (and trickery), governing their actions, so did Rome see its political and judicial power to trump law, if that power was threatened.
The survival of its power was Rome's highest principle, not equal justice before the law. This conclusion is logical seeing their gods held to the same principle. Jesus Christ, the Son of David, and Christ's ancestor King David, held to a different view - that God "putteth down one, and setteth up another." Psalm 75:7, KJV. King David was willing to lose the kingship when Absalom raised a rebellion against the King, but he knew he'd be restored as king "if I shall find favour in the eyes of the LORD." II Samuel 15:25, KJV. Jesus Christ, the Son of God Himself, also respected that authority of God, to the point that He allowed Himself to be executed, knowing that the just God would not leave Him under that unjust sentence but would raise Him up, even from the dead. They were not passive, they were active in their faith that God Almighty held the keys to power.
In this contrast between the ancient Roman system and the attitude of the Israelite authorities, we see the 1st element displayed. Rome was its own source of power, obtained by warfare and wielded for practical purposes to keep "the peace" and to ensure the survival of the Romans' power. If there was any transcendence to their judicial system, it was a negative one, influenced by the lawless, power-hungry beings they had posited as their gods. Whether they believed in these gods or not is irrelevant; they reflected Rome's view of itself and provided a backdrop of justification for Rome's use of power.
The biblical view of the Israelites was that God, being the Creator and transcendent above all men, deserved the sovereign right to determine who has authority or not and how that authority should be exercised. Thus, the God of the bible told Moses that even strangers, foreigners who were not necessarily believers in Israel's God and not part of the covenant with Abraham, were to receive the same justice as Israelites under the law of Moses. Exodus 12:49.
Therefore, transcendence is determined by the core principles of your society, and the biblical society acknowledges the God of the bible as the source of all law, all authority. Any other concept of the source of authority and justice leads to a diminishing of the principle of equal justice, and it typically promotes power - for preservation of the state - at the expense of justice. The transcendence of the God of the bible justifies the authority of a judge to take away what belongs to another human being and subjects the judge to accountability before God. A humanistic system, even if it upholds equal justice, cannot keep human judges accountable because the only source of appeal or impeachment is another human authority.
In the drawing up of the U.S. Constitution, the concept of power for power's sake was used by the Federalists and pro-Constitutionalists to justify violating their charter at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, "smelt a rat in Philadelphia." The Convention delegates were authorized only to revise the Article of Confederation, not create a whole new governing document. However, they justified their action by appealing to the principle of the self-preservation of the state. See Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which also posits such a view of power at the expense of lawful authority. So the Federalists used the threat that the Articles of Confederation would not allow for the young country's survival. The Federalists used this possibility to justify going beyond their charter, which was to only amend the Articles.
This transcendence of the God of the bible also leads logically to the 2nd and 3rd elements of a judicial system - the authority of a judge to sit in judgment over other human beings and the proper law to use in such judging, which would logically be the law of that same God who placed the judge in his position over other men.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Abominations 1
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says that "Abomination" means "a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages), in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)." The first two times that the word "abomination" is used in the bible are as follows: 1) The Egyptians considers shepherds an abomination, and 2) Lev 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." It's repeated in Leviticus 20:13, but a sanction is added: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
God's judgment comes for and through abominations. Romans 1:18-32 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Religious practices can be abominations. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 18:26-30.
Sacred relics and physical idols are abominations. "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God." Deuteronomy 7:25. Worshipping other gods who are not the God of the bible is an abomination. Deuteronomy 13:12-15. Sacrificing an animal with a blemish is an abomination. Deuteronomy 17:1. Passing a wife back and forth from one husband to an ex-husband is an abomination. Deuteronomy 24:4.
Certain immoral practices are abominations. "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Proverbs 6:16-19.
Fraudulent business practices are an abomination. "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 20:10.
Particularly important for this blog is the fact that reversing justice in the judicial system is an abomination. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 17:15. These actions are complimentary; whenever the court does not protect the righteous by condemning the wicked, it inevitably justifies the wicked. There's no neutrality. When the courts justify homosexual marriage, it condemns those who support God's basis for marriage - heterosexuality. The more the courts justify the wicked, the more the just are condemned.
So do we hate what God hates? Or do we accept what God hates and thereby hate Him? What is the consequence of hating God? Do not think the consequence will be minor, for men commit abominations while "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death." Romans 1:32.
What about food? Certain foods are condemned as abominations. Leviticus 11. We'll discuss the relevance of that in the next blog on this topic.
God's judgment comes for and through abominations. Romans 1:18-32 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Religious practices can be abominations. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 18:26-30.
Sacred relics and physical idols are abominations. "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God." Deuteronomy 7:25. Worshipping other gods who are not the God of the bible is an abomination. Deuteronomy 13:12-15. Sacrificing an animal with a blemish is an abomination. Deuteronomy 17:1. Passing a wife back and forth from one husband to an ex-husband is an abomination. Deuteronomy 24:4.
Certain immoral practices are abominations. "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." Proverbs 6:16-19.
Fraudulent business practices are an abomination. "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 20:10.
Particularly important for this blog is the fact that reversing justice in the judicial system is an abomination. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 17:15. These actions are complimentary; whenever the court does not protect the righteous by condemning the wicked, it inevitably justifies the wicked. There's no neutrality. When the courts justify homosexual marriage, it condemns those who support God's basis for marriage - heterosexuality. The more the courts justify the wicked, the more the just are condemned.
So do we hate what God hates? Or do we accept what God hates and thereby hate Him? What is the consequence of hating God? Do not think the consequence will be minor, for men commit abominations while "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death." Romans 1:32.
What about food? Certain foods are condemned as abominations. Leviticus 11. We'll discuss the relevance of that in the next blog on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)