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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)