The wild rise of atheism in the midst of a culture that was — note, was — so under the influence of Christian theism, is a phenomenon of the twentieth century. although atheism’s roots go back to the Enlightenment (and earlier), the expansion of atheism in the 20th century was phenomenal. Christians suddenly find themselves surrounded by people who, if not outright atheist, are certainly agnostic. If there is a God, he’s “the Big Guy up in the sky,” to borrow a phrase I heard from one Australian.
But atheism has spread like a wildfire (or, as we say in Australia, a bush fire). It has left a trail of burned-out homes and killed thousands of people who were swept up in its spread. While atheism has a long history, it is the meteoric spread of atheism that needs to be accounted for. Its scorched earth policy means total annihilation of competing world views.
How did atheism get such a strong foothold that now nothing seems capable of halting it? What has fueled this devastation that simply tramples over anything that stands in its way, leaving a trail of destruction in the lives and homes of so many people?
Odd-ball information. That’s what keeps some of us running.
And here’s a key question. Which Bible did Jesus use? Now before you rush in and say the Old Testament, think about this. The predominant “Bible” in Jesus’s day was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Most, if not all, quotations from the Hebrew Bible that are found in the New Testament come from the Septuagint.
But the problem does not stop there. The little book of Jude (vv. 14-15), right at the end of the New Testament has a quotation from the now-called apocryphal book, I Enoch. Does this NT quotation establish Enoch as being Scripture, and therefore should it be included in the canon of Scripture? If not, why not?
Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt 5:48
A MUSIC SCHOOL, where students from age three upwards learn various instruments, is a great place to learn about perfection. A significant number of the students in this particular school learn either violin or piano, and for very young students, the violin has some added attraction. For a start, it’s possible to buy an instrument in fractional sizes so that the very young can fit their arms and hands around the instrument. No such ease exists with piano, and young students must simply learn to spread their fingers and extend their hand in order to cope with the physical dimensions of the instrument.
How difficult it is on the hearing of adults as these young students, especially the violinists, struggle to master their instruments. One of the few things more difficult to endure than someone learning the violin is a beginner on the bagpipes.[1]
Since the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life, it follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavour to bring all human society social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into the obedience to its law of righteousness. It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. . . .”[1]
“Most heresies begin with a partial use of Scripture and end with an alien faith.” — R.J. Rushdoony
Myth — a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence. — Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
CONTENTS
1. The Problem Defined
2. Mirror Theology
3. From the Mountain Top
4. The Meaning of Sovereignty
5. Anthropomorphism: Smoke and Mirrors
6. Whatever Happened to Sin?
7. The Myth of Libertarian Free Will
8. Is God Irresponsible?
9. God Overboard
10. Conclusion
When Marcus Tullius Cicero introduced philosophy into the Roman Empire, he helped set the stage for one of the most volatile debates as Christianity spread throughout the Empire. His influence on Renaissance thinkers ensured the clash of ideas that eventuated between Erasmus and Martin Luther. Cicero was a statesman, lawyer, politician, and a gifted orator. But he was more than a famous citizen and politician: he was a philosopher in the Greek tradition, an ardent defender of the freedom of the will, what is called “libertarian free will.”
Libertarian free will is the idea that in order for man to have choice and true contingency it cannot be as Luther argued, and Augustine before him, the free will of a created being, as distinct from the free will of an uncreated being. In order to qualify for the name, some people argue that man’s free will must be identical to God’s free will. They may not phrase it exactly like this, but this is what the demand for libertarian free will requires. What they believe is that in order for man to be “free” he must be beyond the control of God.
The debate has raged for well over two millennia. Can anything new be added? Maybe nothing new, but an improved emphasis on the key issue at stake here is important.
The Problem Defined
Defenders of libertarian free fall into a pattern. They deny God’s infallibility, they renounce the traditional views of his omniscience and his immutability, they assert God is everlasting but he is not timelessly eternal, and, naturally, they disavow any concept of the eternal decrees. Any God who knows the future infallibly destroys human choice, they say. If God knows now (at this moment) that you are going to get run over by an 18-wheeler tomorrow afternoon at 4:45 pm, then there is nothing you can do to prevent that. You cannot choose to take another route and thereby avoid the collision with the trailer.
The abandonment of systematic theology in our age is an indication of the influence of non-Biblical thought forms. It demonstrates a commitment to man-centered epistemology. Things are what man declares them to be. But things can never be what man declares them to be while creation stands at the beginning of the Scriptures. For it identifies the source of all things – Elohim, the Creator.
The alternative to an epistemology based on the idea of God as Creator and therefore the source of the eternal decree, is an epistemology based on an abstraction – unrelated facts.
When it comes to preachers and preaching, theologians and theology, it is thus necessary to understand their system of thought as it applies to what they say or write. That is, it requires an understanding of their presuppositions, for what is said and done is no more than applied presuppositions – or applied systematics.
If you only read ONE history book in your lifetime, read this one.
You cannot understand how far we’ve come away from Christian culture until you realize what had to change to get non-Christian culture. And this little book helps explain the necessary steps to abolish freedom and Christian culture.
Since the time of Magna Carta individuals have been in disagreement with their rulers over the issues of power and control, especially control over money. It took centuries for property rights in money to be abolished, eventually in the 19th century. See Debt and the Bankers for an overview.
The modern nation-state, with its claim to total jurisdiction is a return to the concepts of the Roman Empire. Thus currency debasement, high taxes, and a belief that that the empire-nation can be unified by political means are evident. But it was not always like this. There was an interlude between the Empire and us.
There was, for a while, an alternative in the middle between the Empire and the nation-state. It brought low taxes, local government, and an individual liberty rare in the history of mankind. This period shaped the modern world, both good and bad. Magna Charta, for example is a product of the period, representing the local government’s attempt to control the power of the monarch. But it also indicates the issues that transformed local government into the nation-state. See How Magna Charta Was Used To Destroy Property Rights
Joseph Strayer, Professor of History at Princeton University, and a part time CIA employee, has described the three steps necessary for the modern nation-state. These were:
1. Control of money — taxation and eventually a monopoly on the creation of currency;
2. Control of the courts — that way, the people could not use the courts to have legislation declared “illegal”;
3. And finally the population needed to accept that the nation-state was a higher priority than either church or family.
These were pretty much in place by the seventeenth century, and once the parliaments and the congresses of this world controlled the monarchy and the Church, the anti-God, democratic nation-state was the outcome with its relentless march toward totalitarian control. It’s an important study on why we’re in the mess we’re in.
Read it! Then get to work to change something.
When Yeshua HaMashiach walked on earth and conducted his ministry the gospels record many occasions when he confronted the Pharisees. He accused them of using their traditions to overturn the true meaning of the Torah. He did not hold much respect for the opinion of the Torah-teachers. Thus, Yeshua insisted, “unless your righteousness is far greater than the Torah-teachers and the P’rushim (Pharisees), you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!”[1] In other words, he expected his true followers would do better at understanding and obeying the Torah than the Scribes and Pharisees. That’s equivalent to saying that those who understand Yeshua’s teaching on the Torah and follow it, will be far ahead of many of the pastors, professors, and teachers who claim to be following the Scriptures. And the criterion? Righteousness, obedience to Torah.
To this day there are those who remain confused about Yeshua and the way he confronted the religious leaders of his people, the Israelites. The confusion is found among Christians who mistakenly think the problem with Judaism is that it is bound to the Torah whereas Christians are released from the Torah. A similar confusion exists among many Jews who mistakenly think Yeshua was not the promised Messiah because he did not accept the Torah as explained by the official Jewish interpreters.
The truth of the matter is that both the Jews and the Messiah held a high view of the Torah. What brought them into conflict was their different methods of interpretation.
Who is the wise man?
As a young boy in a small Baptist church in rural Australia, I was taught to sing:
The wise man built his house upon the rock,
The wise man built his house upon the rock,
The wise man built his house upon the rock,
And the rains came tumbling down.
Continue reading
Neoplatonism, with its division of worldy and spiritual realms, has played havoc with Christian belief. Not even a great scholar such as John Calvin was completely devoid of its influence.
For example, in the introduction to his Harmony of the Four Last Books of the Pentateuch, he makes these comments. He claims that “God protests that he never enjoined anything with respect to the Sacrifices: and he pronounced all External Rites but vain and trifling.”
The first part of this statement is rather startling. God never “enjoined” (i.e. imposed) Sacrifices? This statement is an amazing misrepresentation of the Torah. If there is one thing that is very clear, Sacrifices were not only commanded, but also expected, from God’s people.
Did God really pronounce “all External Rites but vain and trifling”? There’s a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ answer to this question. It is certainly clear that God says that External Rites without faith have no meaning and value in his sight. Time and time again God tells his people that he does not want sacrifices that were external only. The sacrifices were to come from a life of faith and obedience. But this does not mean that God did not want the sacrifices; he just wanted them done the right way and in the right spirit.
Recent Comments