Everyone can see that a person appointed for life as a judge does not represent a constituency. There's a reason for that. The judge must stand for the law and only the law. Justice, only Justice, shall you pursue. Leviticus 19:15.
A king is more democratic than a court because if a king is willing, the lowliest peasant can approach the king and petition him to not enact an evil law. Not so the courts, which are forbidden in principle from such outside influence so that it may protect the interests of the the parties before it. This is not a criticism. The courts must have independence from outside influence in order to hear the arguments and evidence of the parties before it and make a judgment based on justice alone. Because of this need for independence in the courts and the protection of the parties before it in the Obergefell case on marriage, it was improper for anyone else in the entire country (unless they were granted amicus curiae status) to petition Justice Kennedy and the other Supreme Court Justices for them to respect marriage and the laws of the states. We, the people, were forbidden from interfering with that process. Thus, the courts are the most undemocratic of the three branches of government – by design.
Therefore, the question arises as to whether a Court should even address such policy questions at all. Not many people know that the Constitution of the United States does not even give that authority to the U.S. Supreme Court. It gave that power to itself. How? In an opinion it issued, of course. It occurred early in our history - the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison.
However, the problems are compounded in our day. As the opinions as to right and wrong change seemingly every day, and each person, educational system, or region of the country, develops its own value system, the choices allowed by liberty grow. As liberty grows in the society, the choices a President can make as to federal judges grow also. As the federal government grows in power extending its tentacles throughout the society, the more likely that a value judgment by an individual sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court will butt up against the viewpoints, choices, and laws of another part of the country. With no objective standard of right and wrong, there’s no telling what moral values a Justice may have when appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Add the mistaken idea that much of the legal community has adopted – that the Constitution forbids any religious influence whatsoever upon a court’s decision, and the Court becomes absolutely hostile to objective good and evil as defined by God. It gets worse.
Add to that system, the idea that all must obey the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions, no matter how far beyond the boundary of law and constitution, and we have conferred upon it the incommunicable attributes of infallibility and absolute obedience, the prerogatives of God alone. A king can change his mind if he sees he has made a mistake and rescind an order fairly easily. Our courts have become something like the legal system of the Medes and Persians, for whom the law once declared by the king couldn’t be changed by anyone, even the king. (Remember the story of Daniel and the lions’ den, when he disobeyed the king.)
Take the homosexual issue. Once the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized that issue for itself to decide for the states what is right or wrong, thereby reversing its own prior opinion (Bowers v Hardwick, 1986, when it said the states decided the question of the criminality of consensual homosexual activity), as it did in Lawrence v Texas, 2003, it can not go back and re-reverse itself by un-constitutionalizing the issue. If it did, it would look even sillier. It might change an opinion as to a result in a case, but we’re stuck with the decision to constitutionalize. The U.S. Constitution has now been interpreted to impose on every state a foreign version of law and federalism, and it is forever enshrined as what the Constitution means for all and for all time. It’s like the law of the Medes and Persians in Daniel’s day, when once the King issued a decree, even he couldn’t reverse it. But it wasn't a king's decision or a legislature's or the Congress' or the people's. It was five judges. And they forever denied the people the right to speak on the issue.
I haven’t even gotten to the Tenth Amendment. Need I explain that the issues which the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address are left to the states and to the people? This one portion of the Constitution is enough to show that the U.S. Supreme Court went beyond its boundary as a court to invent a new form of marriage entirely, equate it with the only form of marriage we had ever known in Alabama and which is a fundamental right, then cram it down our throat by constitutionalizing the issue in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. Apparently, even the U.S. Constitution cannot restrain judges who are intent upon using the Constitution to advance their personal agenda.
Some will argue that the people can now change the Constitution by amendment. Wait a minute. How is it that one group, those in favor of changing the definition of marriage contrary to the Constitution and the will of the people, don't have to go to the trouble of getting three fourths of the states to agree with them but get to have five unelected judges rule in their favor? Yet, those who stand for the original meaning of the Constitution and the right of the people to keep their rights pursuant to the Tenth Amendment have to get three fourths of the states to vote to amend the Constitution to say what it already says?
One state should be able to pass laws on an issue in the way the people of that state desire and that affect it without having to get 36 other states to go along with it. That is part of the American foundation - locals getting to govern themselves, self-government. A court ruling for the entire country on an issue it lacks authority denies the very nature of the American system, its purpose, and the U.S. Constitution when it defies the people so blatantly.
Therefore, a constitutional amendment, say, allowing states to define marriage as they see fit, cannot fix the problem. Even if such an amendment were to pass in the future, it cannot fix that systemic, foundational error that has become so common in modern America - a federal court ruling "ultra vires" (beyond its legitimate authority) that a state law or federal law is unconstitutional. What issue will the "High Court" rule on next that undoes the constitutional system so radically and thoroughly? Do we need a constitutional amendment ratified by 37 states every time it perverts our governing system? What a broken system!
We have a high Court full of highly educated legal professionals who are bound by no God and are content to impose their view of morality and law upon the rest of us without any constraints beyond their ability to contort the words of the Constitution to fit their personal agenda. More removed from the people than a king and immune from removal from office except for the most notorious of crimes. This is a serious problem.
The authors did not address this problem in detail because they considered the judicial branch, which has no army, the least dangerous. As Alexander Hamilton wrote of the Court in Federalist 78: “It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Its legitimacy is based on its ability to convince us that, in fact, its rulings are based on the U.S. Constitution. It lost that legitimacy that long ago.
In their attempt to justify avoiding the limitations of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices have even gone to the extent of relying upon other nations' laws and international law. See comments by Justices Ginsburg, O'Connor, Kennedy, and others regarding using other nations' laws. We have reached such a perverse condition in this country that the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court completely ignore the U.S. Constitution, the votes of the people, and the laws of the states, but they rely upon the laws of other countries and the kookiest new idea to come down the pike. Somewhere, the American dream of representative government went off the rails, and it is nowhere better represented than in the American judicial system.
The question we must answer (which has already been answered for us in the opinions issued) is whether the U.S. Supreme Court can violate the U.S. Constitution with its opinions. I say, "Of course, it can." But what's the solution?
Saturday, August 15, 2015
What is law 4?
Legitimate law is God's law or law that is derived logically and legitimately therefrom. As Paul wrote, "we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." I Timothy 1:8. It's not just knowing the law, it's using the law lawfully.
Who can do this? Any Christian can do this job of judging the law better than an unbeliever.
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church."
I Corinthians 6:3-4. Paul wrote this in the context of a discussion of Christians taking other Christians to a Roman court. In other words, the least esteemed in the church is better at judging than the best unbelieving judge.
As quoted in "Oaths 3," the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution required representatives to swear to the following: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." Magistrates had to swear to this oath: "And I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
Notice the elements of these two Oaths: 1. A belief in the most important and reliable authority for a source of law, "God, the creator and governor of the universe." 2. Belief in the God of final judgment, meaning the oath taker recognizes there are consequences for wrong behavior and right behavior. 3. Belief in the bible, which identifies the correct authority (the Trinitarian God), the correct law, and the correct savior.
That last point is important for several reasons. For one, the correct God is critical. The Islamic faith believes in a creator and a final judge, but it does not posit the Trinitarian God, who is more than just a creator and judge. The Trinitarian God is a God of community - three in one; He's a God of mercy, offering His own Son, the second person of the Trinity, as a sacrifice for our sin; He's also a God who offers His Spirit, the third person of the Trinity and the author of the scripture, as a guide and teacher to man. He is with us, as well as above us.
Also, there are many laws in the world, perhaps as many laws as there are nations and political subdivisions and religions and sects; however, God's law is not a matter of human choice, thereby denying its nature. This is the very problem the modern secularist cannot solve and which results in the very problem the above oath is supposed to resolve.
The simplest, most uneducated believer in the cross has two things going for him as a judge above anyone else. He believes in a fixed law that requires punishment for violation - the cross, and he believes in mercy, even for those who violate that law - the cross. The cross combines the most perfect and severest law and the greatest mercy for the violators of that law. By holding to the cross, the Christian combines two of the most important elements that a judge should have. The third follows right behind.
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8.
Who can do this? Any Christian can do this job of judging the law better than an unbeliever.
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church."
I Corinthians 6:3-4. Paul wrote this in the context of a discussion of Christians taking other Christians to a Roman court. In other words, the least esteemed in the church is better at judging than the best unbelieving judge.
As quoted in "Oaths 3," the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution required representatives to swear to the following: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." Magistrates had to swear to this oath: "And I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
Notice the elements of these two Oaths: 1. A belief in the most important and reliable authority for a source of law, "God, the creator and governor of the universe." 2. Belief in the God of final judgment, meaning the oath taker recognizes there are consequences for wrong behavior and right behavior. 3. Belief in the bible, which identifies the correct authority (the Trinitarian God), the correct law, and the correct savior.
That last point is important for several reasons. For one, the correct God is critical. The Islamic faith believes in a creator and a final judge, but it does not posit the Trinitarian God, who is more than just a creator and judge. The Trinitarian God is a God of community - three in one; He's a God of mercy, offering His own Son, the second person of the Trinity, as a sacrifice for our sin; He's also a God who offers His Spirit, the third person of the Trinity and the author of the scripture, as a guide and teacher to man. He is with us, as well as above us.
Also, there are many laws in the world, perhaps as many laws as there are nations and political subdivisions and religions and sects; however, God's law is not a matter of human choice, thereby denying its nature. This is the very problem the modern secularist cannot solve and which results in the very problem the above oath is supposed to resolve.
The simplest, most uneducated believer in the cross has two things going for him as a judge above anyone else. He believes in a fixed law that requires punishment for violation - the cross, and he believes in mercy, even for those who violate that law - the cross. The cross combines the most perfect and severest law and the greatest mercy for the violators of that law. By holding to the cross, the Christian combines two of the most important elements that a judge should have. The third follows right behind.
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8.
What is law 3?
The Western, semi-Christian world has a serious problem. It doesn't know what law is. The "rule of law" has been understood historically as something fixed, something every man knows he should obey, and something that leads to liberty under God, not man. The rule of law liberates us from rule by man. But if the "law" is identified with the opinion of certain men, then we have done away with the benefit of the "rule of law." By changing the definition of law, we've done away with it and placed ourselves under the rule of men.
Law is God's law and man's law legitimately derived from that law. For example, the law against murder is God's law. The law against speeding in a car is man's law, but it is derived from the law of murder because reckless driving, which one should know will or could probably lead to an accident using a fast-moving multi-ton vehicle, is threatening to the lives of other humans. The traffic laws are intended to protect us from the reckless who might kill us, which is reckless homicide.
Today, I read about a judge who ruled a state law unconstitutional. Why? Because the circumstances had changed, making "a facially neutral regulation into one that actually prevents women from exercising a fundamental right to obtain an abortion." Montgomery Advertiser, "Judge: Rule 'harms' women," August 15, 2015. What circumstances changed to suddenly make the regulation unconstitutional? The West Alabama Women's Center couldn't find an OB/GYN who can get admitting privileges at a hospital. This is not what law is - something that can change based on the circumstances. The judge doesn't understand the law or doesn't care that he's contradicted the most fundamental meaning of law in the writing of his opinion.
Also, court decisions that undo the law of God and man's law derived therefrom are growing in our midst. The most prominent examples are the court decision forbidding the criminalization of the murder of a certain helpless segment of our population (Roe v. Wade, 1973), the forbidding of the criminalization of consensual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and the requirement that states recognize and license the so-called marriage of same-sex couples. Changes so drastic cannot be called law. They are based solely on the personal opinions of the Justices writing and agreeing with the opinions. They rely on their black robes alone to promulgate obedience among the authorities of the states and the people.
These robed purveyors of perversions of the law can rely on people obeying them because of the successful propaganda efforts of the legal community during the last few decades. Instead of promoting the true and historical definition of the "rule of law" on Law Day each year or when other educational opportunities arise, like important court opinions, the legal community says, "Federal courts must be obeyed." It matters not what the federal court says; the importance is that everyone fall in line and salute like good soldiers. But where are these soldiers marching? And doesn't even the lowliest in rank soldier have the duty to disobey an unlawful order?
Peace and conformity at all costs is what matters. And this message is from the people - the lawyers - who helped lead the colonies to liberty from an overweening authority which went beyond the law and ordered taxation and other measures and which the colonies knew to be unlawful. When will the legal community really begin the debate in the public realm where the regular folk can hear it, instead of leaving it to the law review articles? When will the legal community quit fearing the people and start respecting them by acknowledging that the courts are not only undemocratic, which they should be, but that they have gone outside their judicial bounds and become our masters?
What will change next? What will we be told to obey next that is new and inordinate and offensive to God and the godly? How does a society preserve law as intended? See next post.
Law is God's law and man's law legitimately derived from that law. For example, the law against murder is God's law. The law against speeding in a car is man's law, but it is derived from the law of murder because reckless driving, which one should know will or could probably lead to an accident using a fast-moving multi-ton vehicle, is threatening to the lives of other humans. The traffic laws are intended to protect us from the reckless who might kill us, which is reckless homicide.
Today, I read about a judge who ruled a state law unconstitutional. Why? Because the circumstances had changed, making "a facially neutral regulation into one that actually prevents women from exercising a fundamental right to obtain an abortion." Montgomery Advertiser, "Judge: Rule 'harms' women," August 15, 2015. What circumstances changed to suddenly make the regulation unconstitutional? The West Alabama Women's Center couldn't find an OB/GYN who can get admitting privileges at a hospital. This is not what law is - something that can change based on the circumstances. The judge doesn't understand the law or doesn't care that he's contradicted the most fundamental meaning of law in the writing of his opinion.
Also, court decisions that undo the law of God and man's law derived therefrom are growing in our midst. The most prominent examples are the court decision forbidding the criminalization of the murder of a certain helpless segment of our population (Roe v. Wade, 1973), the forbidding of the criminalization of consensual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and the requirement that states recognize and license the so-called marriage of same-sex couples. Changes so drastic cannot be called law. They are based solely on the personal opinions of the Justices writing and agreeing with the opinions. They rely on their black robes alone to promulgate obedience among the authorities of the states and the people.
These robed purveyors of perversions of the law can rely on people obeying them because of the successful propaganda efforts of the legal community during the last few decades. Instead of promoting the true and historical definition of the "rule of law" on Law Day each year or when other educational opportunities arise, like important court opinions, the legal community says, "Federal courts must be obeyed." It matters not what the federal court says; the importance is that everyone fall in line and salute like good soldiers. But where are these soldiers marching? And doesn't even the lowliest in rank soldier have the duty to disobey an unlawful order?
Peace and conformity at all costs is what matters. And this message is from the people - the lawyers - who helped lead the colonies to liberty from an overweening authority which went beyond the law and ordered taxation and other measures and which the colonies knew to be unlawful. When will the legal community really begin the debate in the public realm where the regular folk can hear it, instead of leaving it to the law review articles? When will the legal community quit fearing the people and start respecting them by acknowledging that the courts are not only undemocratic, which they should be, but that they have gone outside their judicial bounds and become our masters?
What will change next? What will we be told to obey next that is new and inordinate and offensive to God and the godly? How does a society preserve law as intended? See next post.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
What is Law? 2
Definitions are important to law. The phrase “rule of law” has been bantered about in the marriage debate. As a protection against the rule of man, the rule of law applies to all, even judges.
But what happens to the meaning of “the law” if a judge doesn’t consider himself or herself bound by it? With an opinion, the judge changes “the law.” What if a federal judge were to order Alabama’s government to become Marxist, opining that is the best way under the U.S. Constitution to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility? What if the change were ordered implemented in two weeks, even before the state could appeal? This would not be the rule of law; it would be the rule of man.
Another phrase in the debate is “equal protection,” a principle of constitutional interpretation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, equal protection can’t logically apply to different things. Therefore, if I’m refused a license to kill eagles, I have no equal protection claim if another person receives a duck-hunting license. Not only is an eagle-hunting license different from a duck-hunting license, it doesn’t exist. It is the same with same sex marriage.
Yet judges have applied equal protection to something that didn’t exist until recently as if it’s no different from marriage. The court redefines marriage to mean “two committed people,” which has never been the definition of marriage in any state, then the court says, “See, you’re denying this same sex couple the right to marry.” The court redefines the institution to justify redefining it. The court picks the state’s pocket as it walks into court, then won’t even let the state roll its dice because it has no money now. It’s law roulette, not the rule of law.
The definition of “good” and “evil” has changed in recent years. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a state must stop criminalizing consensual, homosexual sodomy, even though the states had been criminalizing it since their founding. That opinion, Lawrence v. Texas, led to where we are today.
This imposition of five justices’ personal morality upon the states plus the court-enforced sanctioning of same sex marriage means changing the definition of “custodial parent” in a divorce. If your spouse leaves you and marries someone of the same sex, they become the “stable couple” and will be awarded custody of your children. Also, you can’t talk badly about your ex-spouse in front of your kids, which means you can’t teach them the bible’s condemnation of homosexuality. You’ve lost your chance to raise a godly heritage. Your future generations belong to the homosexuals.
“Federalism,” a key constitutional principle based upon states’ rights, changes too. When does a state have the right to define marriage? Apparently, only when the federal court says so, like the U.S. Supreme Court said in the DOMA case of the summer of 2013, when it said the federal government can’t write a law defining marriage differing from the law of certain states.
But in the summer of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court said the opposite – that the states cannot define marriage. The experts said it would happen even before it did happen, as if the U.S. Supreme Court had already made up its mind, even before reading the briefs or hearing arguments – the definition of an illegitimate court. At least, that’s how an illegitimate court used to be defined.
One summer you think the law is this, but now the justices says it’s the opposite. But in Alabama, it was this: "Let’s not even wait until that Court rules; let’s obey a federal trial judge in Mobile." This “law roulette,” according to the advocates of the new “law,” is the “supreme law of the land.” Now you see it, now you don’t. Law is redefined into the opinion of five unelected individuals and is like playing “freeze-tag” or “Mother, may I.”
Isn’t “law” supposed to be fixed, definite, discernible by the common man, not variable, waiting to trap you? How often can you change “the law” and it remain “law?”
So as words change meanings, obeying Alabama’s law becomes breaking it and love of heterosexual marriage becomes hatred and making a moral distinction between good and evil becomes bigotry. The question becomes: “Who is justice?” instead of “What is justice?”
Not just marriage, but the entire house of justice is at stake. If definitions are so malleable that the cards’ definitions can be pulled out of the deck and reshuffled, the house of cards will fall. You’re a partner to the reshuffling of the deck if you think “the law” is defined as whatever a federal trial judge says.
But what happens to the meaning of “the law” if a judge doesn’t consider himself or herself bound by it? With an opinion, the judge changes “the law.” What if a federal judge were to order Alabama’s government to become Marxist, opining that is the best way under the U.S. Constitution to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility? What if the change were ordered implemented in two weeks, even before the state could appeal? This would not be the rule of law; it would be the rule of man.
Another phrase in the debate is “equal protection,” a principle of constitutional interpretation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, equal protection can’t logically apply to different things. Therefore, if I’m refused a license to kill eagles, I have no equal protection claim if another person receives a duck-hunting license. Not only is an eagle-hunting license different from a duck-hunting license, it doesn’t exist. It is the same with same sex marriage.
Yet judges have applied equal protection to something that didn’t exist until recently as if it’s no different from marriage. The court redefines marriage to mean “two committed people,” which has never been the definition of marriage in any state, then the court says, “See, you’re denying this same sex couple the right to marry.” The court redefines the institution to justify redefining it. The court picks the state’s pocket as it walks into court, then won’t even let the state roll its dice because it has no money now. It’s law roulette, not the rule of law.
The definition of “good” and “evil” has changed in recent years. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a state must stop criminalizing consensual, homosexual sodomy, even though the states had been criminalizing it since their founding. That opinion, Lawrence v. Texas, led to where we are today.
This imposition of five justices’ personal morality upon the states plus the court-enforced sanctioning of same sex marriage means changing the definition of “custodial parent” in a divorce. If your spouse leaves you and marries someone of the same sex, they become the “stable couple” and will be awarded custody of your children. Also, you can’t talk badly about your ex-spouse in front of your kids, which means you can’t teach them the bible’s condemnation of homosexuality. You’ve lost your chance to raise a godly heritage. Your future generations belong to the homosexuals.
“Federalism,” a key constitutional principle based upon states’ rights, changes too. When does a state have the right to define marriage? Apparently, only when the federal court says so, like the U.S. Supreme Court said in the DOMA case of the summer of 2013, when it said the federal government can’t write a law defining marriage differing from the law of certain states.
But in the summer of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court said the opposite – that the states cannot define marriage. The experts said it would happen even before it did happen, as if the U.S. Supreme Court had already made up its mind, even before reading the briefs or hearing arguments – the definition of an illegitimate court. At least, that’s how an illegitimate court used to be defined.
One summer you think the law is this, but now the justices says it’s the opposite. But in Alabama, it was this: "Let’s not even wait until that Court rules; let’s obey a federal trial judge in Mobile." This “law roulette,” according to the advocates of the new “law,” is the “supreme law of the land.” Now you see it, now you don’t. Law is redefined into the opinion of five unelected individuals and is like playing “freeze-tag” or “Mother, may I.”
Isn’t “law” supposed to be fixed, definite, discernible by the common man, not variable, waiting to trap you? How often can you change “the law” and it remain “law?”
So as words change meanings, obeying Alabama’s law becomes breaking it and love of heterosexual marriage becomes hatred and making a moral distinction between good and evil becomes bigotry. The question becomes: “Who is justice?” instead of “What is justice?”
Not just marriage, but the entire house of justice is at stake. If definitions are so malleable that the cards’ definitions can be pulled out of the deck and reshuffled, the house of cards will fall. You’re a partner to the reshuffling of the deck if you think “the law” is defined as whatever a federal trial judge says.
Monday, July 6, 2015
The Covenant Structure in Judging 4
So how does the civil government know what is evil? It can only turn to the law of God to determine such. Otherwise, it depends merely on man's opinion. Instead of a legal system, it becomes an opinion system. One day evil equals homosexual sodomy, the next day evil equals the condemnation of a sexual lifestyle chosen by a part of humanity. There is no law, only an opinion at a certain time. Such a "legal system" cannot survive long. It will be replaced by a system which has a fixed, determined, predictable standard of behavior. Only God can provide that.
Dr. Cornelius Van Til, professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, described modern man this way regarding standards: He's like a man made entirely out of water, swimming in an infinite ocean of water, trying to climb an infinite ladder made out of water. No reference point, no high or low, no goal or finish line, no standard whatsoever. So what type of law does this man invent? Whatever stimulates him as wonderful at the moment, and he can't do evil, and you can't tell him he's wrong, and you can't reason with him about God and God's law, and you can't even get him to be grateful for forgiveness. Forgiveness for what? he asks.
This is why I believe the darkness which Jesus spoke of is lawlessness. In Jesus' time on earth, He could speak to sinners and offer them forgiveness, in response to which they would fall at his feet and worship in gratitude and love. He could even rebuke the Pharisees, and they would be silenced by his arguments. They believed in a common, definable, discernible standard to which all must conform.
But the modern, secular man looks at Jesus' forgiveness and says, "Isn't that sweet that some people need that?" To them, Jesus Christ is not King, nor is He savior. To them, He's a person who manipulated people's feelings, just like the modern politician. They think, "If only I could be as smart as He was, I could figure out the pulse of the people and get elected. Oh, and I'd avoid that cross stuff too."
The cross points to the standard - a God who saves us only if His Justice is satisfied. It is so important that His Justice be satisfied, there's only one way it can happen - a way so horrible that His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matthew 26:39b, KJV. Only the death of the second person of the Trinity could pay the price of man's sin before the holy God of Creation, the maker of Adam, the giver of the Law, the one who defines Love itself.
In the cross are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and it only begins with the knowledge of the holy law of God and the just sentence for not being in conformity with it, the only solution being the grace of God in Christ. It is not a human-defined psychological need that defines what man needs; it is the living God who defines it. It just so happens that it does completely meet man's need because man is made in God's image.
Just as the Israelites, who had been bitten by serpents in the wilderness, could look upon the bronze serpent made by Moses and be healed, so can we look upon Christ and His sacrifice in simple belief that He paid the entire price for our sin. And so we are healed in soul and, perhaps, in body also.
The civil government that conforms its law to that of God provides a double witness, along with the Church, of the need for salvation. The law leads men to see their need for a savior, for they cannot keep it. IT teaches man how to live. It suppresses evil when properly executed. It is a salutary thing, but it can never save. Only the living God operating by the 3d person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, can give a man a new heart and lead him in the way of righteousness.
The state will die with the earth, but the Church will continue on as the bride of Christ for all eternity. Therefore, the Church, which has a different function in punishing sin - the keys of the kingdom, must not take on the tools of the state - the sword of coercion. The state has the monopoly on violence - the sword of punishment, and the family has the monopoly on violence with the rod for children. The Church disciplines its members differently, and discipline, while salutary and loving in its purpose, is not the main message; reconciliation with the living God is its main message. And with that reconciliation with God comes reconciliation with other men, such that less punishment by the state and the Church are necessary.
Without God's law, we don't know what needs to be punishment nor what the punishment should be. But the law will always be necessary because sin will always be present with us until that great and final day when Christ effectively and finally makes all things new. Oh what a day that will be!
Dr. Cornelius Van Til, professor at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, described modern man this way regarding standards: He's like a man made entirely out of water, swimming in an infinite ocean of water, trying to climb an infinite ladder made out of water. No reference point, no high or low, no goal or finish line, no standard whatsoever. So what type of law does this man invent? Whatever stimulates him as wonderful at the moment, and he can't do evil, and you can't tell him he's wrong, and you can't reason with him about God and God's law, and you can't even get him to be grateful for forgiveness. Forgiveness for what? he asks.
This is why I believe the darkness which Jesus spoke of is lawlessness. In Jesus' time on earth, He could speak to sinners and offer them forgiveness, in response to which they would fall at his feet and worship in gratitude and love. He could even rebuke the Pharisees, and they would be silenced by his arguments. They believed in a common, definable, discernible standard to which all must conform.
But the modern, secular man looks at Jesus' forgiveness and says, "Isn't that sweet that some people need that?" To them, Jesus Christ is not King, nor is He savior. To them, He's a person who manipulated people's feelings, just like the modern politician. They think, "If only I could be as smart as He was, I could figure out the pulse of the people and get elected. Oh, and I'd avoid that cross stuff too."
The cross points to the standard - a God who saves us only if His Justice is satisfied. It is so important that His Justice be satisfied, there's only one way it can happen - a way so horrible that His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Matthew 26:39b, KJV. Only the death of the second person of the Trinity could pay the price of man's sin before the holy God of Creation, the maker of Adam, the giver of the Law, the one who defines Love itself.
In the cross are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and it only begins with the knowledge of the holy law of God and the just sentence for not being in conformity with it, the only solution being the grace of God in Christ. It is not a human-defined psychological need that defines what man needs; it is the living God who defines it. It just so happens that it does completely meet man's need because man is made in God's image.
Just as the Israelites, who had been bitten by serpents in the wilderness, could look upon the bronze serpent made by Moses and be healed, so can we look upon Christ and His sacrifice in simple belief that He paid the entire price for our sin. And so we are healed in soul and, perhaps, in body also.
The civil government that conforms its law to that of God provides a double witness, along with the Church, of the need for salvation. The law leads men to see their need for a savior, for they cannot keep it. IT teaches man how to live. It suppresses evil when properly executed. It is a salutary thing, but it can never save. Only the living God operating by the 3d person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, can give a man a new heart and lead him in the way of righteousness.
The state will die with the earth, but the Church will continue on as the bride of Christ for all eternity. Therefore, the Church, which has a different function in punishing sin - the keys of the kingdom, must not take on the tools of the state - the sword of coercion. The state has the monopoly on violence - the sword of punishment, and the family has the monopoly on violence with the rod for children. The Church disciplines its members differently, and discipline, while salutary and loving in its purpose, is not the main message; reconciliation with the living God is its main message. And with that reconciliation with God comes reconciliation with other men, such that less punishment by the state and the Church are necessary.
Without God's law, we don't know what needs to be punishment nor what the punishment should be. But the law will always be necessary because sin will always be present with us until that great and final day when Christ effectively and finally makes all things new. Oh what a day that will be!
Monday, June 15, 2015
The Covenant Structure in Judging 3
The outline of Judging's Covenant Structure should appear like this:
1. Transcendence/Sovereignty - Jurisdiction, limited for man, unlimited for God.
2. Delegated Authority/Hierarchy - The human courts and the judges, lawfully delegated the authority to make judgments, the goal of which are to apply God's judgment, not man's.
3. Law - Law, but only God's law or law based on the equities of God's law.
4. Sanctions - Sentences/Judgments, if applied lawfully to those committing unrighteous acts.
5. Inheritance/Continuity - the taking of life can affect a man's inheritance.
The jurisdiction question encompasses the boundaries of other kingdoms, like the Church. The Church is not just a club of people with similar beliefs; it's the organization established by Christ, who after his death, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of God became ruler of all. Thus the Church is God's established embassy on earth. Like any earthly kingdom, the Church is off-limits, not subject to the jurisdiction of the civil government. The two governments - the Church and the Civil Government - are equal in power but different in function.
The Church holds the keys of the Kingdom of God and can dispense forgiveness and excommunicate the unrepentant. The civil government holds the power of the sword and can exercise coercion to force compliance with God's law. It can even execute certain offenders.
However, the secular world ignores these facts and calls the Church just another religion, another opinion with no authority, not claim on mankind, no jurisdiction beyond the four walls of the church building. The separation of church and state does not require officials to deny there is a God who judges the universe. Because the ruling, intellectual elite in the legal community construe religion as some “opiate of the masses,” they do not see religion as anything but a personal predilection that receives constitutional protection, sort of like how they view the protection that sexual orientation should receive. They do not see that the First Amendment honors the fact that God exists and that His realm, the Church, must have a sphere that is not trespassed upon by the state. The “reasonable” legal minds have, therefore, narrowed what the First Amendment is all about in order to prevent anyone from appealing to the God of Heaven for relief from unjust human rulings.
There are significant implications for this type of “reasonable” thinking. First, the protection of the young, the weak, the vulnerable is abandoned to the seductions of the predator, as in the case of homosexuality, and the whim of the more powerful, as in the case of abortion. Second, there is no limit to what is allowable. Mock all day those who predict the acceptance of sexual acts more heinous than homosexuality and the incorporation of all forms of relationships into the category of marriage, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules for the perverting of the definition of marriage. Such consequences are simply the logical follow-on for the abandonment of the traditional definition.
Third, the failure to protect the righteous will logically follow the failure to punish the wicked. Equality means no judgment on those who differ, even if that difference is a moral defiance of God's law. The god "humanity" must not be blasphemed. If a human being chooses a lifestyle, all must accept it. To condemn those who choose something because it violates another god's law is to defect from the "true" religion. Thus equality is fundamental to all of Humanism.
The acceptance of evil behavior by the civil government logically means that all those working for the civil government will have to engage in the systematic persecution of the righteous. They will be hounded from the workplace, they will be demonized as bigots on the level of the KKK, and they will be penalized for not participating and celebrating in the new “equality.” Consider the verse in Hebrews 11 that speaks of those who stood up for righteousness in the bible, those “of whom the world was not worthy.” They were cast out of society because the society of the time was unfit for the presence of those who stood with the Lord.
In other words, the sanction against evil, the fourth element of the covenant, which the civil authority is supposed to apply to the wicked gets applied to the righteous. The civil institution turns the power of the sword against the righteous instead of the wicked. It cannot be otherwise. To favor one segment of the society, which is the enemy of the other, is to become allied with that enemy. The civil government either attacks the wicked, or it attacks the righteous. It becomes an agent for evil instead of an agent for good.
1. Transcendence/Sovereignty - Jurisdiction, limited for man, unlimited for God.
2. Delegated Authority/Hierarchy - The human courts and the judges, lawfully delegated the authority to make judgments, the goal of which are to apply God's judgment, not man's.
3. Law - Law, but only God's law or law based on the equities of God's law.
4. Sanctions - Sentences/Judgments, if applied lawfully to those committing unrighteous acts.
5. Inheritance/Continuity - the taking of life can affect a man's inheritance.
The jurisdiction question encompasses the boundaries of other kingdoms, like the Church. The Church is not just a club of people with similar beliefs; it's the organization established by Christ, who after his death, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of God became ruler of all. Thus the Church is God's established embassy on earth. Like any earthly kingdom, the Church is off-limits, not subject to the jurisdiction of the civil government. The two governments - the Church and the Civil Government - are equal in power but different in function.
The Church holds the keys of the Kingdom of God and can dispense forgiveness and excommunicate the unrepentant. The civil government holds the power of the sword and can exercise coercion to force compliance with God's law. It can even execute certain offenders.
However, the secular world ignores these facts and calls the Church just another religion, another opinion with no authority, not claim on mankind, no jurisdiction beyond the four walls of the church building. The separation of church and state does not require officials to deny there is a God who judges the universe. Because the ruling, intellectual elite in the legal community construe religion as some “opiate of the masses,” they do not see religion as anything but a personal predilection that receives constitutional protection, sort of like how they view the protection that sexual orientation should receive. They do not see that the First Amendment honors the fact that God exists and that His realm, the Church, must have a sphere that is not trespassed upon by the state. The “reasonable” legal minds have, therefore, narrowed what the First Amendment is all about in order to prevent anyone from appealing to the God of Heaven for relief from unjust human rulings.
There are significant implications for this type of “reasonable” thinking. First, the protection of the young, the weak, the vulnerable is abandoned to the seductions of the predator, as in the case of homosexuality, and the whim of the more powerful, as in the case of abortion. Second, there is no limit to what is allowable. Mock all day those who predict the acceptance of sexual acts more heinous than homosexuality and the incorporation of all forms of relationships into the category of marriage, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules for the perverting of the definition of marriage. Such consequences are simply the logical follow-on for the abandonment of the traditional definition.
Third, the failure to protect the righteous will logically follow the failure to punish the wicked. Equality means no judgment on those who differ, even if that difference is a moral defiance of God's law. The god "humanity" must not be blasphemed. If a human being chooses a lifestyle, all must accept it. To condemn those who choose something because it violates another god's law is to defect from the "true" religion. Thus equality is fundamental to all of Humanism.
The acceptance of evil behavior by the civil government logically means that all those working for the civil government will have to engage in the systematic persecution of the righteous. They will be hounded from the workplace, they will be demonized as bigots on the level of the KKK, and they will be penalized for not participating and celebrating in the new “equality.” Consider the verse in Hebrews 11 that speaks of those who stood up for righteousness in the bible, those “of whom the world was not worthy.” They were cast out of society because the society of the time was unfit for the presence of those who stood with the Lord.
In other words, the sanction against evil, the fourth element of the covenant, which the civil authority is supposed to apply to the wicked gets applied to the righteous. The civil institution turns the power of the sword against the righteous instead of the wicked. It cannot be otherwise. To favor one segment of the society, which is the enemy of the other, is to become allied with that enemy. The civil government either attacks the wicked, or it attacks the righteous. It becomes an agent for evil instead of an agent for good.
Monday, January 19, 2015
The Covenant Structure in Judging 2
The second covenantal aspect, that is, the authority for judging, could be summed up by the term "jurisdiction," which is defined in one way as follows:
"Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies."
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction, accessed January 15, 2015.
A judge may only rule and make decisions over that which the judge has jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judge cannot even hear the case or any contentions of the party. The judge can't solve the contestants' problem. They must go somewhere else for relief. The civil courts are not to answer every prayer, just prayers for relief over which they have jurisdiction. Law, particularly human civil law, is not the answer for every problem. God's world is bigger and more diverse than that. Only God can answer every problem, and He has delegated limited authority to civil courts to provide redress for a limited spectrum of problems.
One way we know that jurisdiction and law are limited is the fact that God's law is limited. In what ways? First, it cannot save. The endless writing of laws to deal with every wrong and every complaint that people come up with is futile. It is, however, how certain politicians get and keep their jobs. It's how David's son, Absalom, began his rebellion.
"And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!" II Samuel 15:2-4.
Maybe the man had a complaint over which the courts didn't have jurisdiction. But Absalom would expand the court's jurisdiction. Absalom, unlike his father, would see that "justice" was done. Absalom, as if he were God, would solve everyone's problems. That's the politician, always promising what he or she cannot give.
The third covenantal aspect, law, is obviously central to a civil court. If there's no law addressing a grievance, then the court would not be able to apply a standard to the dispute. However, no law can adequately address every single instance in life; therefore, western law, particularly England and its successors (former colonies) adopted common law. Cases would determine the law in some cases, as well as to what cases the "law" applied. It allowed flexibility to a civil court to determine if a wrong occurred and the best way to provide restitution to the victim.
Here is the importance of limited law and careful analysis based on those limits. The populist, the power-seeking tyrant uses existing law to expand his or her power. The bible says to not add to or take away from it. That applies to biblical law. The common law method of applying law to individual cases means that the judge applies the law according to the general equities of that law. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
Chapter XIX, Paragraph IV. "To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."
Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Confession of Faith, written 1646, accessed at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/, Jan. 16, 2015. The judge who expands instead of applying in a disciplined fashion is not being a judge; that person is making law, as if the judge were a legislator or God Himself.
The "liberal judge" has no limits except what he or she can pass off as intellectually acceptable - to his or her liberal colleagues. Those colleagues accept the law-making actions of the judge because they also do not believe in limits, except gradualism. Liberals who believe in immediate change are revolutionaries. They work together. If revolutionaries can get away with their actions, the gradualists applaud and excuse them. If the revolutionaries are prosecuted or conquered militarily, the gradualists make movies and books to make them look like heroes. The surviving revolutionaries accuse the gradualists of moving too slow, but at the same time, the revolutionaries are happy with the paving job accomplished by the gradualists, preparing the way for the revolutionaries. Thus they work hand-in-hand.
The individual application of legal principles/equities to a case is very different. Perhaps an example would help readers understand. If a driver of a car strikes another vehicle after running a red light, then the driver running the red light owes the victim the costs of their lost vehicle and any medical costs. The driver also owes the civil government a fine for running a red light. However, the liberal judge may go further and state:
"Insurance companies are too wealthy. Therefore, even though the defendant has no insurance, I order the victim's insurance company to pay for their customer's damage and the damage to the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's job depends on his ability to travel. Therefore, insurance companies that set 'limits' to the coverage are harming society."
Sanctions and continuity go together. If you're sanctioned positively, then your future is more blessed, more secure, but never absolutely. How does a judge decide a sanction? Although the civil/criminal distinction that western law establishes is somewhat artificial, it is a convenient way to distinguish some types of cases from others.
In a criminal case, the judge is normally constrained by statutes determining what sanction to apply. There is some discretion however. The most important biblical standards for justice are victim's rights and restitution. Because of the risk of incarceration, criminal law is applied very strictly against the State. Therefore, even though biblical law does not mention incarceration, except for quarantine, at least, western law allows requires strict proof by the state to obtain a conviction.
Here is where continuity/inheritance and sovereignty meet, else wickedness reigns. Sinful man attempts to use the law to obtain his inheritance. He uses it to punish his enemies and to take others' wealth. Thus, he thinks that he can obtain positive sanctions for himself and negative sanctions for his enemy and thereby preserve his posterity. The righteous man submits to God's law, applied by God's delegated authority, and he trusts God to grant his posterity continuity or not. Thus, Christ submitted to the delegated authority of Pilate's Court (John 19:11), which denied the Righteous One any inheritance and imposed the most severe sanction of death. Yet Christ knew that God, being sovereign, could vindicate Him even in death, and He did by raising Christ from the dead.
Thus, faith triumphs over man's law because it trusts in God's righteous judgment. Righteousness before God triumphs over the unrighteous judgment of man because the Sovereign God is unlimited in HIs authority and power. His jurisdiction, unlike a human court, is unlimited. To oppose the concept of limited jurisdiction of man's courts is to oppose the unlimited jurisdiction of God's, opposes God's law, sanctions negatively the righteous, and attempts to steal the inheritance only God can grant.
"Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies."
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction, accessed January 15, 2015.
A judge may only rule and make decisions over that which the judge has jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judge cannot even hear the case or any contentions of the party. The judge can't solve the contestants' problem. They must go somewhere else for relief. The civil courts are not to answer every prayer, just prayers for relief over which they have jurisdiction. Law, particularly human civil law, is not the answer for every problem. God's world is bigger and more diverse than that. Only God can answer every problem, and He has delegated limited authority to civil courts to provide redress for a limited spectrum of problems.
One way we know that jurisdiction and law are limited is the fact that God's law is limited. In what ways? First, it cannot save. The endless writing of laws to deal with every wrong and every complaint that people come up with is futile. It is, however, how certain politicians get and keep their jobs. It's how David's son, Absalom, began his rebellion.
"And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!" II Samuel 15:2-4.
Maybe the man had a complaint over which the courts didn't have jurisdiction. But Absalom would expand the court's jurisdiction. Absalom, unlike his father, would see that "justice" was done. Absalom, as if he were God, would solve everyone's problems. That's the politician, always promising what he or she cannot give.
The third covenantal aspect, law, is obviously central to a civil court. If there's no law addressing a grievance, then the court would not be able to apply a standard to the dispute. However, no law can adequately address every single instance in life; therefore, western law, particularly England and its successors (former colonies) adopted common law. Cases would determine the law in some cases, as well as to what cases the "law" applied. It allowed flexibility to a civil court to determine if a wrong occurred and the best way to provide restitution to the victim.
Here is the importance of limited law and careful analysis based on those limits. The populist, the power-seeking tyrant uses existing law to expand his or her power. The bible says to not add to or take away from it. That applies to biblical law. The common law method of applying law to individual cases means that the judge applies the law according to the general equities of that law. This principle is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
Chapter XIX, Paragraph IV. "To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require."
Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, Westminster Confession of Faith, written 1646, accessed at http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/, Jan. 16, 2015. The judge who expands instead of applying in a disciplined fashion is not being a judge; that person is making law, as if the judge were a legislator or God Himself.
The "liberal judge" has no limits except what he or she can pass off as intellectually acceptable - to his or her liberal colleagues. Those colleagues accept the law-making actions of the judge because they also do not believe in limits, except gradualism. Liberals who believe in immediate change are revolutionaries. They work together. If revolutionaries can get away with their actions, the gradualists applaud and excuse them. If the revolutionaries are prosecuted or conquered militarily, the gradualists make movies and books to make them look like heroes. The surviving revolutionaries accuse the gradualists of moving too slow, but at the same time, the revolutionaries are happy with the paving job accomplished by the gradualists, preparing the way for the revolutionaries. Thus they work hand-in-hand.
The individual application of legal principles/equities to a case is very different. Perhaps an example would help readers understand. If a driver of a car strikes another vehicle after running a red light, then the driver running the red light owes the victim the costs of their lost vehicle and any medical costs. The driver also owes the civil government a fine for running a red light. However, the liberal judge may go further and state:
"Insurance companies are too wealthy. Therefore, even though the defendant has no insurance, I order the victim's insurance company to pay for their customer's damage and the damage to the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's job depends on his ability to travel. Therefore, insurance companies that set 'limits' to the coverage are harming society."
Sanctions and continuity go together. If you're sanctioned positively, then your future is more blessed, more secure, but never absolutely. How does a judge decide a sanction? Although the civil/criminal distinction that western law establishes is somewhat artificial, it is a convenient way to distinguish some types of cases from others.
In a criminal case, the judge is normally constrained by statutes determining what sanction to apply. There is some discretion however. The most important biblical standards for justice are victim's rights and restitution. Because of the risk of incarceration, criminal law is applied very strictly against the State. Therefore, even though biblical law does not mention incarceration, except for quarantine, at least, western law allows requires strict proof by the state to obtain a conviction.
Here is where continuity/inheritance and sovereignty meet, else wickedness reigns. Sinful man attempts to use the law to obtain his inheritance. He uses it to punish his enemies and to take others' wealth. Thus, he thinks that he can obtain positive sanctions for himself and negative sanctions for his enemy and thereby preserve his posterity. The righteous man submits to God's law, applied by God's delegated authority, and he trusts God to grant his posterity continuity or not. Thus, Christ submitted to the delegated authority of Pilate's Court (John 19:11), which denied the Righteous One any inheritance and imposed the most severe sanction of death. Yet Christ knew that God, being sovereign, could vindicate Him even in death, and He did by raising Christ from the dead.
Thus, faith triumphs over man's law because it trusts in God's righteous judgment. Righteousness before God triumphs over the unrighteous judgment of man because the Sovereign God is unlimited in HIs authority and power. His jurisdiction, unlike a human court, is unlimited. To oppose the concept of limited jurisdiction of man's courts is to oppose the unlimited jurisdiction of God's, opposes God's law, sanctions negatively the righteous, and attempts to steal the inheritance only God can grant.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Natural Law Cannot be the Answer 3
Gary North in his commentary on Genesis explains the humanistic ways man tries to create and apply law.
"There are two humanistic standards that covenant-breakers substitute in place of biblical law: natural law and positive law. Natural law theorists declare that man, as judge, has access to universal standards of righteousness that are binding on all men in all periods of time. These standards are therefore available to all men through the use of a universal faculty of judgment, either reason or intuition. In fact, to declare judgment in terms of such a law-order, the judge must exercise both reason and intuition, in order to “fit” the morally binding universal standard to the particular circumstances of the case. What is therefore logically binding becomes morally binding in natural law theories.
What is logical is therefore right.
"Positive law does not appeal to universal standards of logic in order to discover righteousness. It appeals to the particular case. Circumstances determine what is correct. In the United States, the legislature (Congress) declares definitively what the law is, and this becomes the morally binding code of justice. But the legislature has a rival: the judiciary. The judge interprets the law in terms of a written Constitution and also previous judicial declarations. In other societies, there is no such authority of the courts. Judgment finally becomes the true law, if “the people” (or the executive) are willing and able to enforce what the judge declares. In short, what the state can enforce is therefore right."
Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion, An Economic Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 2 (Dallas, GA: 2012), pp. 554-5.
Here's natural law in action. A man and a woman in the original garden adopt a "reasonable" justification for eating what God has forbidden. It's good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and can make one wise. So the woman and the man made use of their senses and intelligence to determine what is natural law.
It was entirely unnatural to have a tree in a garden full of tree and from which one could not eat. It made no sense to have a valuable tree and not eat from it. It was also unnatural to listen to someone telling them what they could or could not do, without even consulting them or explaining why they could not eat from it. This person posed a threat to them by commanding them to not eat from the tree. They would die, he said.
How unnatural! What a threat! How undemocratic? How selfish on the part of the threatener! It made more sense to eat of the tree and profit from it than to abstain. Again, Gary North's analysis is instructive.
"It is more common for self-styled Christian social, political, and legal theorists to declare the doctrines of natural law. Natural law seems at first glance to be closer to a concept of eternal law made by God. Natural law theorists can also appeal to the fatherhood of God (Acts 17:26) as the foundation of their universal valid categories of law. But the fatherhood of God is a doctrine that condemns man, for it points to fallen man’s position as a disinherited covenant-breaker, not an ethical son. How can a disinherited son agree with an adopted son about the nature of their mutual responsibilities to themselves and to the Father, let alone agree about the final distribution of the inheritance? Did Isaac and Ishmael agree? Did Jacob and Esau agree? Did Cain and Abel?
"What was the “natural law” aspect of God’s prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The serpent at first tried to lure Eve into eating by an appeal to what appeared to be a universal law. Hadn’t God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden? In other words, why not eat of this one tree? Eve replied appropriately: God has forbidden us to eat of this particular tree. This was a specific revelation to her husband. If she had stuck with her initial resistance, Satan would have thwarted his plans. If man had relied on natural law theory to guide his actions, he would not have offered even this token resistance to the temptation. The general law—eat from every tree—would have prevailed. It took God’s verbal revelation to warn them about the prohibited tree.
"It is not surprising to find that those Christian scholars who have been most open in their denial of the continuing applicability of revealed Old Testament law have also been vociferous promoters of some version of natural law theory. Natural law theory offers them a time-honored, man-made covering for their shame, for they fear being exposed as unfashionably dressed in the eyes of their humanist colleagues. Natural law theory is the conservative antinomian Christian’s fashion preference in the world of fig leaf coverings. The 'bloody skins of God-slaughtered animals'—the forthrightly biblical morality of Bible-revealed law—are just not adequate for him.
"There was also an element of positive law in the temptation. The serpent denied that God’s sanction would come true. So, he was asking them to test the reliability of God’s word with respect to the sanctions. 'Go ahead and test this. You’re in charge. See if I’m correct about the outcome.' Adam and Eve attempted to establish an alternative legal order by eating. They sought to impose a different outcome in history from the one God had declared."
***
"For many of those who believe that Christianity is doomed to historical impotence, there seems to be no reason to call forth ridicule, let alone persecution, on themselves by declaring that all humanists are wearing fig leaves, and that Bible-revealed law is the only way that God wants us to cover our nakedness, through grace. Meanwhile, they can buy an 'off the rack' fig leaf wardrobe from the latest humanist collection—well, maybe not the latest, but a discount version that is only ten years out of date. 'Better to be trendy ten years late than never to be trendy at all!'
"Fig leaves do not stand up to the howling winters of a cursed world. When Christians finally learn this lesson, they will be ready to begin to exercise godly judgment."
North, ibid, pp. 555-7.
Why is Natural Law theory not the answer as far as a Christian law order is concerned? It's not Christian. Therefore, it's time Christians repented of relying on humanistic law orders and returned to God's word.
"There are two humanistic standards that covenant-breakers substitute in place of biblical law: natural law and positive law. Natural law theorists declare that man, as judge, has access to universal standards of righteousness that are binding on all men in all periods of time. These standards are therefore available to all men through the use of a universal faculty of judgment, either reason or intuition. In fact, to declare judgment in terms of such a law-order, the judge must exercise both reason and intuition, in order to “fit” the morally binding universal standard to the particular circumstances of the case. What is therefore logically binding becomes morally binding in natural law theories.
What is logical is therefore right.
"Positive law does not appeal to universal standards of logic in order to discover righteousness. It appeals to the particular case. Circumstances determine what is correct. In the United States, the legislature (Congress) declares definitively what the law is, and this becomes the morally binding code of justice. But the legislature has a rival: the judiciary. The judge interprets the law in terms of a written Constitution and also previous judicial declarations. In other societies, there is no such authority of the courts. Judgment finally becomes the true law, if “the people” (or the executive) are willing and able to enforce what the judge declares. In short, what the state can enforce is therefore right."
Gary North, Sovereignty and Dominion, An Economic Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 2 (Dallas, GA: 2012), pp. 554-5.
Here's natural law in action. A man and a woman in the original garden adopt a "reasonable" justification for eating what God has forbidden. It's good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and can make one wise. So the woman and the man made use of their senses and intelligence to determine what is natural law.
It was entirely unnatural to have a tree in a garden full of tree and from which one could not eat. It made no sense to have a valuable tree and not eat from it. It was also unnatural to listen to someone telling them what they could or could not do, without even consulting them or explaining why they could not eat from it. This person posed a threat to them by commanding them to not eat from the tree. They would die, he said.
How unnatural! What a threat! How undemocratic? How selfish on the part of the threatener! It made more sense to eat of the tree and profit from it than to abstain. Again, Gary North's analysis is instructive.
"It is more common for self-styled Christian social, political, and legal theorists to declare the doctrines of natural law. Natural law seems at first glance to be closer to a concept of eternal law made by God. Natural law theorists can also appeal to the fatherhood of God (Acts 17:26) as the foundation of their universal valid categories of law. But the fatherhood of God is a doctrine that condemns man, for it points to fallen man’s position as a disinherited covenant-breaker, not an ethical son. How can a disinherited son agree with an adopted son about the nature of their mutual responsibilities to themselves and to the Father, let alone agree about the final distribution of the inheritance? Did Isaac and Ishmael agree? Did Jacob and Esau agree? Did Cain and Abel?
"What was the “natural law” aspect of God’s prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The serpent at first tried to lure Eve into eating by an appeal to what appeared to be a universal law. Hadn’t God said that they could eat of every tree in the garden? In other words, why not eat of this one tree? Eve replied appropriately: God has forbidden us to eat of this particular tree. This was a specific revelation to her husband. If she had stuck with her initial resistance, Satan would have thwarted his plans. If man had relied on natural law theory to guide his actions, he would not have offered even this token resistance to the temptation. The general law—eat from every tree—would have prevailed. It took God’s verbal revelation to warn them about the prohibited tree.
"It is not surprising to find that those Christian scholars who have been most open in their denial of the continuing applicability of revealed Old Testament law have also been vociferous promoters of some version of natural law theory. Natural law theory offers them a time-honored, man-made covering for their shame, for they fear being exposed as unfashionably dressed in the eyes of their humanist colleagues. Natural law theory is the conservative antinomian Christian’s fashion preference in the world of fig leaf coverings. The 'bloody skins of God-slaughtered animals'—the forthrightly biblical morality of Bible-revealed law—are just not adequate for him.
"There was also an element of positive law in the temptation. The serpent denied that God’s sanction would come true. So, he was asking them to test the reliability of God’s word with respect to the sanctions. 'Go ahead and test this. You’re in charge. See if I’m correct about the outcome.' Adam and Eve attempted to establish an alternative legal order by eating. They sought to impose a different outcome in history from the one God had declared."
***
"For many of those who believe that Christianity is doomed to historical impotence, there seems to be no reason to call forth ridicule, let alone persecution, on themselves by declaring that all humanists are wearing fig leaves, and that Bible-revealed law is the only way that God wants us to cover our nakedness, through grace. Meanwhile, they can buy an 'off the rack' fig leaf wardrobe from the latest humanist collection—well, maybe not the latest, but a discount version that is only ten years out of date. 'Better to be trendy ten years late than never to be trendy at all!'
"Fig leaves do not stand up to the howling winters of a cursed world. When Christians finally learn this lesson, they will be ready to begin to exercise godly judgment."
North, ibid, pp. 555-7.
Why is Natural Law theory not the answer as far as a Christian law order is concerned? It's not Christian. Therefore, it's time Christians repented of relying on humanistic law orders and returned to God's word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)