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.
When Constantine, through his “Edict of Milan,” opened the door to pluralism in religious belief in the Empire, his goal was unification of the Empire. Before him, Diocletian had tried persecution as a unification process, but in his retirement, observed it’s failure.
Meanwhile, Christianity expanded throughout the Empire. Christian belief came out of the closet, helped by the agreement of both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians “that it was the duty of a bishop to act as the high priest of his city.”[1] Christianity already had a tenuous relationship with Judaism, and once the Christians were thrown out of the synagogues for refusing to join the Bar-Kochba revolution (132-136 A.D.) the relationship was mostly downhill from thereon. It was not helped by Marcion’s view at that same time, even though his view was subsequently declared heretical.
But 300 years have passed, and it’s the midst of the fifth century. The bishops in the cities of the Empire celebrated the Eucharist at the Great Liturgy, a public rite that was designed to ensure God’s favor for the entire community. “The bishop’s relations with his city were expressed by formal ceremonies.”[2] He led his clergy through the city chanting supplications. It was a grand spectacle, a parade of the triumph of Christianity, even if the faith was mixed with error, as it was in many instances.
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.
Writing in the 19th century, Henry Buckle put together a three-volume History of Civilization in England (1869). Buckle was no friend of Christianity, and was happy to witness its demise in his time. But his observation as to the cause of the decline of the influence of Christianity is rather revealing. Speaking of the decline of ecclesiastical power and the emergence of what he called “religious liberty”, he made these comments:
Among the innumerable symptoms of this great movement, there were two of peculiar importance. These were the separation of theology, first form morals, and second from politics. The separation from morals was effected late in the seventeenth century; the separation from politics before the the middle of the eighteenth century. And it is a striking instance of the decline of the old ecclesiastical spirit, that both of these great changes were begun by the clergy themselves. . . . Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, was the first who laid down that the state must consider religion in reference, not to revelation, but to expediency; and that it should favour any particular creed, not in proportion to its truth, but solely with a view to its general utility. . . .
Thus it was that, in England, theology was finally severed from the two great departments of ethics and of government. . . [1]
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.
“Luther himself began with victory and ended in defeat, a self-tortured, guilt-ridden, and bloated man. He who had been the hope of the Christian poor had been denounced by them as Herr Luder, Mr. Liar, decoy, law scoundrel, or carrion. Luther could rightfully plead that his was not a theology of social revolution, but he had raised false hopes among the peasants. ‘Sola Sciptura’ was his standard: the word of God alone. This to the people meant not only justification by faith but also the sovereign law of God. To that law they appealed, and Luther denounced God’s law in favor of statist law. . . .
“Calvin also made possible the revival of natural law by his loose views of the law of God. The Puritans for a time saved Calvinism from itself by their emphasis on Biblical law, only to succumb themselves to the intellectual climate of neoplatonism and also the lure of the natural law. The Reformation as a whole moved form victory to defeat, from relevance to irrelevance, from a challenge to the world to a surrender to the world or a meaningless withdrawal from it. Rome, Geneva, Wittenberg, and Canterbury retreated also into an ineffectual pietism. They were all now of the world but not in the world.”[1]
See also:
Why I Am Not (Always) A Calvinist.
Calvin and Usury.
The Myth of Calvinism.
Neopolatonism and Calvinism.
Here is a very succinct survey of modern philosophy from Rene Descartes to Immanuel Kant. It’s a one-of-a-kind explanation of how our world has gotten itself into a mess. It takes about 15 minutes.
If you like this excerpt, then you can hear the full one hour lecture here.
This lecture is taken from a series of 10 lectures entitled “Epistemology” by Dr. R.J. Rushdoony. You can find all of them here.
The loss of freedom we are witnessing is not for lack of speaking. The books, articles, speeches, and sermons on what is wrong, or warning us against evil, can fill libraries, and they have done us little good.
Men are not saved by talking, nor by warnings, nor by endless fact-finding investigations. Many women believe that they can save their husbands by nagging them. Salvation by nagging is a modern article of faith, and more than women believe in it. On all side of the political fences, in Congress, through the pulpit, school, and press, the basic presupposition seems to be a very simple one: people can be saved if they are nagged enough.
Few ideas are more ridiculous and yet more popular. What nagging involves is a faith in ourselves, in the power of our arguments to save. Therefore, we talk on and on, hoping we will eventually be heard and salvation brought forth.
The Bible makes clear that salvation is the act of God and His sovereign grace. Our response to God’s grace cannot be a wind of words but active obedience. “[F]aith without works is dead” (James 2:26). As our Lord expressed it, “[E]very good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit” (Matt. 7:17).
Our problem today is not a lack of people speaking out, but a lack of people with faith, bringing forth the fruit of faith.
This quotation from:
Recent Comments