Language and Dominion: Results of the Image of God (Part 3)

(2) Language and Creativity as the image of God:

The following two views are seen by their proponents as being the imago dei.  I would like to demonstrate that although these views come close to hitting the mark, they fail to see the difference between the the results of man being created in the image of God and man being the image of God.

The second view has many things to commend to itself.⁽¹⁾ Language is definitely something unique to man, and we see the first thing God did in the beginning was create, and man likewise is a creative being. After all, a few contrasts can be given between man and the beasts in this regard. While humans construct beautiful architecture, communicate in propositions, build societies and make things for the purpose of beauty, beasts do not. They don’t speak an intelligent language or communicate in propositions.  However, I do not think we are totally left to speculation as to what the image of God in man is. We have already quoted thus far from Genesis and Job. The Job passage makes clear part of this image is understanding and Colossians mentions knowledge. That language is unique to man is clear, and that man has knowledge, indeed, innate knowledge is clear from such passages as Romans 1 and 2. But is there something more foundational to the image of God in man than language and creativity? The point is that we don’t have the biblical basis to say the image is language and creativity. We have conjectures once again. We will leave this view and come back to it later. We come now to the third view.

(3) Dominion in Righteousness as the image of God:

Some Scriptures seemingly show the third view to be correct:

Genesis 1:26-28:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

However, an aspect of the image of God should be noted which I think makes this view not as plausible as perhaps might be seen from a superficial reading of Genesis 1. It is this: before and after the fall, man is the image of God.⁽²⁾ There are a few problems with asserting that dominion is the image of God. First, some men don’t take dominion. Most men are rebels against God and don’t think they need to take dominion. Secondly, whatever limited dominion some men may take in an analogous fashion, is not the dominion talked about in Genesis 1 which is dominion under God or in righteousness.. One could say the Socialist is taking dominion in terms of his Socialistic ideals, but to say dominion in general is what is referred to in Genesis 1 cannot be substantiated by the context. Even Christians are not as faithful as they ought to be in taking dominion for Christ the Lord. Does this mean in a Christian’s life he wavers from being the image of God and not being the image of God? Scripturally and Confessionally, this cannot be so. Man is the image of God; he is not, as some have put it “imaging God” as if the image of God in man is something man does.⁽²⁾ It is who he is. As Dr. Robert Reymond writes,

“[I]t is because man is God’s image that God bestows dominion over the earth upon him”.

Gordon Clark says something along the same lines,

“The image of God is not something man has, somewhere inside of him, or somewhere on the surface, as if God had first created man and then stamped him with a signet ring. No, the image is not something man has, man is the image. First Corinthians 11:7 pointedly says “He [man] is the image and glory of God.” ⁽⁴⁾

“[And since man is the image] the image must in some way or other be a permanent characteristic of personality.” ⁽⁵⁾

One reason adduced in the Scripture for the immorality of killing an innocent person is man is the image of God (see Gen 9:6). This was stated after the fall.  Note too that this bears upon those who assert that the image of God is an activity of man (“imaging God”) rather than something man is. The full significance of all this will be elaborated on later. However, the conclusion from what has been presented is clear: Dominion in righteousness is not the image of God. Dominion is given to man as a result of his being the image of God, just like language, but it is not what constitutes that image. This does not alter the significance of dominion under God but this just means that this will not be discussed at this point. Dominion in righteousness is an application of the image of God in man, but is not the image. Next we shall come to the fourth view.

(1) See www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/man.asp for an example of this view.

(2) See Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, page 449. The logical implication of Rushdoony’s position is that after the fall man ceases to be the image of God. The reformed view is that the image of God in man has been marred, not eradicated.

(3) See Stewart, The image of God in man: A Reformed Reassessment: http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/imageofgod.htm

(4) Clark, The Biblical doctrine of man, pg. 9

(5) Ibid. pg. 8

Is Free-will the Image of God? (Part 2)

The blue M&M or the red M&M?

The introduction gave us the biblical foundation for the discussion of the image of God. Before going into the view that sees free-will as the image of God, I would like to stress one thing. When we speak on the “image of God”, we are not going to be emphasizing the creature-Creator distinction. This is not to say that this is disregarded, for it is, in truth, an essential doctrine. But the very nature of the discussion is drawing our attention to the creature-Creator connection. We are wanting to know in what sense man is created in the “likeness of God”.

Can free-will be the image of God? It is a common conception, especially of those in

Pelagians are adherrents to the basic view of Pelagius, a British monk who lived in the 4th century. He is infamously known for his denial of the doctrine of original sin and his assertions of the basic goodness of man.

the semi-Palagian and Palagian (1) camps, that the creature-Creator connection is the free-will of man. As God has free-will, so God has given to man this characteristic. It it free-will that makes man superior to the beast. It is free-will that is the key to man’s destiny; whether he will choose good and blessedness, or choose evil and the consequent judgments. This notion of free-will being the image of God in man, however, has a few internal difficulties as well as a lack of Biblical support. Those who are of a Pelagian bent tend to see the image of God as constituting free-will to support their already assumed theodicy. The argument seems to be more an assumption than something arrived at through investigation of Biblical texts. It is posed in this manner, “God has free-will and man has free-will. Therefore, free-will is the image of God”. But this simply begs the question.

Besides begging the question, this view has some internal inconsistencies. The most obvious internal inconsistency is if God has free-will, man cannot also have free-will given the meaning of “freedom” to begin with. Those who hold that God, in His freedom, made a being who in turn thwarts the free-will of God, is, to say the least, problematic. Does God give up His freedom to give man free-will? To suppose He does, for the sake of argument, only demonstrates this cannot possibly be the image of God since God Himself ends up losing the attribute of free-will. And how, then, could man be said to be created in the likeness of God? As theologian and philosopher Gordon Clark says in relation to this, “[I]f man were free, God could not confront him imperiously, from which Feuerbach had already deduced atheism, and modernism had deified man.^{” (2)}

The point is simple: If man has free-will to frustrate God in His purposes, man’s will- not God’s will -  is established. Man’s will, then, is ultimate, not God’s. And from this proposition atheism has flourished, and from it likewise man has been seen as his own god determining for himself good and evil.

The second problem is the ambiguity of the word “free-will”. If it means the ability to choose between two incompatible courses of action then the above refutation stands. If it means freedom to act outside of one’s nature then not even God has that freedom. God cannot lie, cannot become weak, and cannot speak in contradictory propositions. Man, by his constitution after the fall cannot will to do something that is outside if his natural bent. Man before and after the fall was determined by his nature. The difference now is that since the fall, man has become corrupted in all his faculties so he is free only to do that which is evil. Man is said to be “born in sin” (Ps. 51:5) and speaking lies as soon as he is born (Ps. 58:3)

The above establishes this conclusion: Free-will is not the image of God in man. It must be sought elsewhere. The next one that shall be examined is “Language and Creativity”: Is it the image of God?

(1) The works of Gordon Clark, vol. IV, page 309

The Biblical doctrine of the Image of God (part 1.)

Introduction: Scriptural legwork for the doctrine

The doctrine of the imago dei, or the image of God in man, has many Scripture texts to give a sound foundation as a

It is tempting to compare the doctrine of the image of God to a mirror. That is, that we mirror God, as it were. But we must be careful to be sure that we understand the doctrine according to Scriptural usage, not preconceived notions

matter doctrine  and application. We first hear of God creating man in His image in Genesis 1:27,

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”.

And in chapter 2 and v.7,

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Another passage in the book of Job touches upon this subject when it says,

“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8).

From the New Testament we have Colossians 3:10, 1 Corinthians 11a and James 3:9:

“And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:”

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”

“Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”

That man was created in the image of God is not much disputed, at least not among Christians. The question we must ask is what is the image of God? And was the image of God in man lost? It might be prudent to start with a few different views that have been espoused by various theologians to narrow down what the image of God in man is. The five views we will consider are:

1. Free-will is the image of God in man

2. Language and creativity are the image of God in man

3. Dominion in righteousness are the image of God in man

4. The persons in the Godhead and the three part nature of man constitute the image of God.

5. Knowledge and rationality are the image of God.

Not all of these views put a hard fast rule as to what the image of God in man is. Some extend their list to many different things. There is also a view holding man in body and in soul is the image of God (Monalism). Nevertheless, that even some of these can be the part of the image of God in man, I think quite untenable. It is the purpose of this author to delineate what the image of God is and what the implications of that image are. In the next post, I will seek to answer the first view, namely, is free-will the image of God in man?

Christian Exceptionalism

Does President Obama believe in “American exceptionalism?” This has been a subject of debate between liberals and conservatives for months and will no doubt continue until he is out of office. Conservative pundits on the one hand claim that because the president made a particular statement, and because his policies represent a desire on his part for the country to be socialized like many of our European neighbors,  he cannot possibly believe in American exceptionalism. Liberals on the other hand (yes, the left hand) claim the President does believe in American exceptionalism and has, in fact, employed the phrase in affirmation more than George Bush or even Ronald Reagan [1].

The phrase from the president that has the conservative pundits so outraged (as if they weren’t glad to hear it) comes from the April 4, 2009 press conference in Strasbourg, France when the President was asked if he subscribed “to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world”. His answer, in part, was as follows:

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world…. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional.[2]”

What is American exceptionalism? Fundamentally it is the view that America is qualitatively different than other political states. America, because of it’s jurisprudence, moral superiority, economic power, and overall love and defense of liberty (I snicker slightly as I type this),  has the right, and even the duty to dispense this superiority across the globe.

President Obama no doubt equivocated somewhat in answering the question about American exceptionalism, regarding it as some sort of pride or esteem of one’s country and its history, not as a right and duty of America to lead the world.

My goal in writing on this subject, however, is not to take sides on whether President Obama believes in American exceptionalism, and whether he is Satan if he disbelieves it. Rather, as usual, I will use this debate as an occasion to advance my exclusively Christian philosophical agenda.

Though I don’t think this was the President’s intent, he did stumble upon some truth: Every worldview believes in its own superiority. So, indeed, the British believe in British exceptionalism (to the degree they are truly British), likewise the Greeks and the Americans. Even the “love everybody equally, except for  Christians, ’cause they’re haters” crowd, with all of their guise of humility (“I’m not better than you, nor you me”) believe in the superiority of thinking as they do (which is self-refuting on its face, nevertheless, it is their confession).

To the degree that one doubts the superiority or exceptional nature of his own beliefs, to that degree he doubts his own beliefs. If I believe 2+2=4 as truth, I believe it is superior to 2+2=39. If I begin to say 2+2=39 is also true, I am not only denying the superiority of 2+2=4, but denying 2+2=4 altogether because they cannot both be true.

Scripture claims exclusivity to it’s truths. As Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) Christ claims to be truth, so that his words are truth:  “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” His “words” are not only the audible words he spoke to the Pharisees that day and during his time on earth, but all of Scripture, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17) All Christ’s words, all Scripture is truth. In logical form: all a is b. Now, if we combine this truth with Christ’s words, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad,” (Matthew 12:30) we may add to our formula no c is b — c representing anything that is not Christ’s truth — anything that is not Christ‘s truth is not truth at all, but opposed to it. All a is b and no c is b. All Christ’s words are truth, and nothing else is.

Allow me to point out the obvious: this makes Christianity exceptional.  Therefore, America is only exceptional to the degree it practices Christianity in it’s jurisprudence, moral acceptance or rejection of certain practices, in its economics, and in its overall system of liberty. Conversely, to the degree America rejects Christian principles, it becomes not just non-exceptional, but polluted,  poisoned, corrupt and destitute of any goodness. This may be said of any state, any philosophy, and of every person individually.

The wisdom we have must be the wisdom of God — wisdom as God defines it. The knowledge that we have must be the knowledge from God — knowledge as God defines it, or else it is not truly wisdom or knowledge. We are to “cast down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

The wisdom and knowledge we have from Scripture that we receive by the grace of God alone through regeneration of the Sprit, the propitiation of Christ, according to the calling and election of God, is superior to the wisdom and knowledge of the rest of the world which Scripture describes as “foolish.”

So there is no cause to accept in any form the dribbling irrationality of the wicked. Rather we should hate it: “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” (Psalms 119:104).  We have the best knowledge, the best wisdom, the only truth; a nation built on these will be exceptional. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD.” Let‘s act like this is true. May we as Christians proclaim with confidence God’s truth to a people who view it as foolishness.

-Ben Murch

[1] Robert Schlesinger wrote an editorial for U.S.News with the catchy title “Obama Has Mentioned ‘American Exceptionalism’ More Than Bush” in which he makes this case.

[2] Full transcript here.

Forgetting How to Blush?

” Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.” Jeremiah 6:15

One must wonder how the people of Israel came to this point and we could speculate forever about it with little progress. What we can conjecture is that it did not happen overnight. Additionally, it is certain that this can be applied to our culture, as both an American and a “Christian” culture, though the way it has come about today differs from the Old Testament time period. It comes, not in blatant blows that will strike our conscience, but in subtle workings that gradually numb the conscience.

I will put forth areas where we are assaulted on this front, the effects that this numbing has, and some solutions to the problem, particularly how to avoid the quandary of a dull conscience to the exceeding sinfulness of sin.

These gradual assaults upon us as Christians come on six fronts that I can think of:

• Books

• Movies and TV shows

• Music

• The Media

• The expectations of our unbelieving neighbors

• The lack of sanctions against evil in our law-system

Let’s start applying what is meant in general. Suppose you know someone who is an adulterer.  Adultery is, according to biblical law both a capital punishment and a gross iniquity that undermines the societal order, disgraces individuals and destroys families. Now, the usual response to this is that capital punishment for adultery is too severe, antiquated and bigoted. Now, this might be expected from unbelievers (although there were times in history when they didn’t), but the fact is that this is the predominate reaction from those in the Christian community who should know better. This happens because there is no sense of loathing of sin coupled with an apathy to God’s commands and holy character. But this didn’t come about over night. It happened because Christians are getting a steady diet of humanistic pottage, though not so much at a time that they will choke on it and recognize it for what it is. It is gradual, subtle and satanic.

I could elaborate on each of the six areas of assault that we are bombarded with, but perhaps a general look at the effects of these things will be sufficient. The books you read, the movies you watch, the music you listen to, the things the media chooses to report upon, the pressure of the expectations of our neighbors in our behavior and the law-system we operate in are all advocating a certain worldview and it is humanistic. Do not kid yourself that they are passive in this endeavor either; they are rabid in making sure every fabric of your life is influenced with their ideology. So what are they in general and how do we avoid them?

First, it can come implicitly through all of the above by making feelings as “love” ultimate. You will hear this especially in music and in movies. Nothing matters but that we perpetuate love with no connection to laws or morality. Think of your favorite pop songs. What do they advocate? Think of your favorite movie: what was glorified in it?

Second, it can come explicitly by openly advocating godless ideas. This is seen, as in movies where the “good guy” is an adulterating, murdering, thieving individual. Or, as in the case of music, where sexual promiscuity is glorified or seen in a casual light. It can also be seen in what the media chooses on to report upon. If orthodox Christianity is consistently represented as loony, and sexual perversions such as sodomy as “normal”, you have it there as well.

Third, it can come by personal sins. Pornography would be a good example. If a man or woman indulges in heart adultery, they will hardly view the physical act as something outrageous. This is also the reason why there is so much protest against the biblical sanctions against adultery; we are a nation full of people who are adulterers at heart.

Now, many more examples could be produced, but it would be superfluous. The simple fact is that wickedness is daily presented to you as fine, normal, and wonderful and you absorb it whether you realize it or not. I am not speaking as one who is above this, but someone who has experienced this. How do you know if you’ve been infected? Ask yourself if you can blush any more about the things that the Bible says is a shame to speak about. If not, it’s because you’ve be inoculated with humanism. The constant representation of sin as “the thing to do” has seared your sensitivity to the horror of it. Can you say with David, “Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake thy law”? Are you grieved by it so that “Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law”?

So, that is the problem. What are some solutions that will help us keep a sensitive heart towards God and to see sin as it really is, which is exceeding sinful?

1. Memorization of Scripture so that we are meditating on the law of God, hiding it in our heart that we might not sin against God. (Ps 119:11)
2. Daily reading of Scripture for man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Mt. 4:4)
3. Provoking one another unto good works, specifically with sobriety in godliness and praying for one another. (Heb. 10:24)
4. Being conscious of the wickedness in your culture and either battling it or avoiding it. (1Pet.5:8-9)There is a fine line here. While we should avoid the blatantly sinful things in things we watch and listen to and read, it will always be there in some form, whether blatant or disguised. You can’t avoid it so long as we live in a godless culture. The step to take against it, therefore, is to identify the specific godless worldview presented and to refute it. This can actually be quite an exercise with some movies. But if you walk away from some hedonistic film and think, “Wow! That was a GREAT movie!” you can be sure you’ve been infected with humanism. The remedy is a steady dose of the opposite: God-centered books starting with the Bible, the revelation of the mind of God. If we are careful to study God’s Word and to obey it, then we can expect to start hating the things that God hates, and loving the things that God love. Only then will we learn again to blush.

   Ephesians 5:11-12: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

   - Jesse Murch

Assurance And Doubt, Love And Fear And It’s Correlation to Lust And Holy Living

“It is not God’s design that men should obtain assurance in any other way than by mortifying corruption, and increasing in grace, and obtaining lively exercises of it. Although self-examination be a duty of great importance, and by no means to be neglected, yet it is not the principle means by which saints do get satisfaction of their good estate. Assurance is not obtained so much by self-examination as by action“1

Jonathan Edwards wrote this in one of his works (reference given at the end of the quotation). I think it is a good point especially in the context in which he gives it. I think he does a most excellent job in expounding it, thus I will be providing no commentary. The following is the context:

“Indeed, persons’ doubting of their good state may in several respects arise from unbelief. It may be from unbelief, or because they have so little faith that they have so little evidence of their good estate: if they had more experience of the actings of faith, and so more experience of the exercise of grace, they would have clearer evidence that their state is good; and so their doubts [about their salvation] would be removed. And then their doubting of their state may be from unbelief thus, when, though there be many that are good evidences of a work of grace in them, yet they doubt very much whether they are in a state of favour with God, because it is they, those that are so unworthy, and  have done so much to provoke God to anger against them. Their doubts in such a case arise from unbelief, as they arise from want of a sufficient sense of, and reliance on, the infinite riches of God’s grace, and the sufficiency of Christ for the chief of sinners. They may also be from unbelief, when they doubt of their state, because of the mystery of God’s dealings with them; they are not able to reconcile  such dispensations with God’s favour to them; or when they doubt whether they have any interest [ that is, part in] in the promises, because they promises from the aspect of Providence appear so unlikely to be fulfilled; the difficulties that are in the way are so many and great. Such doubting arises from want of dependence upon God’s almighty power, and His knowledge and wisdom, as infinitely above theirs.

But yet, in such persons, their unbelief, and their doubting of their state, are not the same, though one arises from the other. Persons may be greatly to blame for doubting of their state on such grounds as these last mentioned; and they may be to blame that they have no more grace, and no more present exercises and experiences of it, to be an evidence to them of the goodness of their state: men are doubtless to blame for being in a dead, carnal frame; but when they are in such a frame, and have no sensible experience of the exercise of grace, but on the contrary, are much under the prevalence  of their lusts and an unchristian spirit, they are not to blame for doubting of their state. It is impossible in the nature of things, that a holy and Christian hope should be kept alive in its clearness and strength in such circumstances, as it is to keep the light in the room when the candle is put out; or to maintain the brightness of the sunshine in the air when the sun is gone down. Distant experiences, when darkened by present prevailing lust and corruption, will never keep alive a gracious confidence and assurance, but one that sickens and decays upon it, as necessarily as a little child by repeated blows on the head with a hammer. Nor is it at all to be lamented that persons doubt of their state in such circumstances: on the contrary, it is desirable and every way best that they should. It is agreeable to that wise and merciful constitution of things, which God hath established, that it should be so. For so hath God contrived and constituted things, in His dispensations towards His own people, that when their love decays, and the exercises of it fail or become weak, fear should arise; for then they need it to restrain them from sin, and to excite them to care for the good of their souls, and so to stir them up up to watchfulness and diligence in religion. But God hath so ordered, that when love rises and in vigorous exercise, then should fear vanish and be driven away; for they need it not, having a higher and more excellent principle in exercise, to restrain them from sin and stir them up to duty. There are no other principles which human nature is under the influence of, that will ever make men conscientious , but one of these two, fear or love; and therefore , if one of these should not prevail as the other decays, God’s people, when fallen into dead and carnal frames when love is asleep. would be lamentably exposed indeed: and therefore God has wisely ordained, that these two opposite principles of love and fear should arise and fall, like the two opposite scales of a balance; when one rises the other sinks. Light and darkness necessarily and unavoidably succeed each other; if light prevails, so much does darkness cease, and no more; and if light decays, so much does darkness prevail. So it is in the heart of a child of God: if divine love decays and falls asleep, and lust prevails, the light and joy of hope go out, and dark fear and doubting arises; and if, on the contrary, divine love prevails and come into lively exercise, this brings in the brightness of hope, and drives away black lust and fear with it. Love is the spirit of adoption, or the childlike principle; if that slumbers, men fall under fear, which is the spirit of bondage or the servile principle; and so the contrary. And if it be so, that love, or the spirit of adoption, be carried to a great height, it quite drives away all fear and gives full assurance; agreeable to that of the apostle, I John iv. 18, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” These two opposite principles of lust and holy love bring hope and fear into the hearts of God’s children in the proportion  as they prevail…

…Fear is cast out by the Spirit of God no other way than by the prevailing of love; nor is fear ever maintained but when love is asleep. At such time, in vain is all the saint’s self-examinations, and poring on past experience, in order to establish his peace and assurance. For it is contrary to the nature of things, as God hath constituted them”2

Jonathan Edwards, “Religious Affections”, pg. 123

Ibid. pg.107-109

Cultural sins we overlook: all things entertainment

Often we are given the opportunity to look back in history and see the development of the church of Jesus Christ. When we do this, we are often struck about how blind they seemed on points! How could there be times in history where the church thought that torture was acceptable? Or, as in the case of the witch trials in New England, how could the Puritans be swallowed up in superstition and unbiblical ways of adjudicating the matters set before them? We may even point to things like slavery in the 1700 and 1800′s and just stand amazed at what the church missed in terms of its duty and in terms of its violation of that duty.

Then again, we recognize that we are men and women of our cultures. It is quite difficult to see beyond that, though indeed it is possible if we humbly look to Scripture for all matters of doctrine and practice and the Holy Spirit illumines our understanding to receive His Word. Nevertheless, we seem to imply that we have no such blotches that are glaring as that of the past church. Oh, we are not torturing people or holding people unjustly in slavery (although there is a such thing as biblical slavery), but,  I say, we have glaring inconsistencies in the church of Christ. But what are they?

Before I embark on this subject, I will add that I am not referring to the general apostate church in America. We see that, in terms of the apostate church, we have accepted as normal all sorts of abominations, from sodomy, to women preachers, to mass adultery and divorce, to peddling the Gospel, etc. etc. But I am not referring to these since these things are normally accepted in churches that hold no semblance of the Gospel any longer are synagogues of Satan.

But in the faithful church of Christ, the proverbial white elephant that is standing in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is the obsession with all things entertainment. We see bumper stickers that say “If it’s not fun, why do it?” and the Hollywood industry which is solely that of entertainment, is one of the most successful businesses in America. As Americans, we’re about fun and this has carried over into the church. We choose our churches based on fun programs and get together dinners. Our “fellowships” are around sports activities, recreational programs and tea parties. We seem to think that in any setting where we want to give people the Gospel, we need to have some sort of “goodie” that will entice them to listen. Our churches start looking more like circuses and our pastors more like clowns and we give people free doughnuts instead of the Bread of Life and Living Water.

Ask yourself these questions and see if this applies to you: how much time do you spend in matters of entertainment per day. Most families have a tradition of watching a movie every night. Most movies last about 100 minutes, a little more than an hour and a half. Multiply that by 7 and divide by 60 and you have about 12 hours a week on the one specific entertainment of movies (doubtless there are more). Now, ask yourself how much of that time in the week do you take up in Christian duties, prayer, praise, God-centered work, reading God’s Word and Christian fellowship? Is there even a comparison? This is not to make categorically all leisure activities as sinful. My point is that we have made an idol of it.

Life is more than just fun. In fact, Christianity as such isn’t about “fun” at all. It is about Christ and His reign in heaven above and, no, He isn’t exalted and subduing all His enemies under his feet so that you can have fun. He gives you a cross (Mt 16:24) and a commission (Mt. 28:19-20). 1. To live a life of self-sacrifice and self-denial, and 2. a commission to evangelize the nations for His Glory and Kingdom’s sake. What He does promise is contentment, joy unspeakable and full of glory, tribulations and the faith to endure them, encouragement by His Word and His Church, the body of Christ, and to be conformed more and more to the image of His dear son, Jesus Christ. Is this fun? No; the two are incomparable. The point in all this is not to show that Christianity is about some austere life that we need to live. The point is that we have traded fun and games with the unspeakable and matchless glory of Jesus Christ. We have, like Esau, traded our birthright for a mess of pottage.

If future generations are going to evaluate us like we do the church in the past, undoubtedly the criticism they will raise against us will be that, while our culture was at its lowest and the Gospel of Christ comprehensive rule over all things for the church was preached the least, we were playing games, watching movies and joining the circus. That when we should have been the light of the world, the salt and preservative agent of society and culture, we were too busy with all things entertainment.

I am speaking mostly of those of my generation, though doubtless it applies to those of older generations as well: are you just living life in “cruise mode”, as it were? Is your life about the new fun thing,  great band, epic movie, new celebrity, or weekly sports? Now, I don’t mean to condemn all movies or music, but that is not my point. Do you delight in the Word of God? Do you, like David, hunger and thirst after God? Does your life reflect the fact that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? We are decayed, my brothers and sisters. It is no doubt that we are like the valley of dry bones; lifeless and unable to rise unless God grant us a great measure of His grace and mercy.

Mediocrity is unacceptable. The thicker the darkness in our culture, the more brilliant our light should shine. But it has been the exact opposite. It seems as if the darkness has swallowed us up and we can’t even conceptualize what light should look like anymore; our fellowship becomes shallow, our life’s example to a lost and dying world lamentable, and our senses to discern good and evil almost gone entirely.  We start looking like the darkness we profess to hate. Why? Because we absorb it through all the media and entertainment we occupy ourselves in, and we become hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. The sad thing is that we don’t even realize it. We are men and women of our cultures.

What then? What we need is to cry out to God to have mercy upon us.  Christ is our strength, and this is a testimony of our lack of strength. We cannot perform what is our duty to perform. We cannot love what we should love or hate what we should hate. If God should withhold His hand of grace, immediately we turn to dust and are undone. We need to learn to pray the prayer of St. Augustine, “Lord, give what Thou commandest and command what Thou wilt”. We need to live in conscious dependence upon Christ and repent of our sloth and complacency. Why would we trade a life of glorious service to the Lamb of God, our High Priest and King of Kings, Jesus Christ, for a life of vanity that serves no purpose beyond temporal and shallow pleasure?

-Jesse

The nature of law and Law-giver

It is a common objection against Calvinism that we make God the author of evil. There are several problems with this objection, the main of which is the ambiguity of the words. What would it mean for God to be the author of evil? The second problem is that those who assert the evils of Calvinism do so on the basis that they think God is actually obligated to the same set of standards we are obligated to, namely, God’s law. But, as I shall prove, the law is meant to govern man, not God.

1. “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20:15)

Application: how does God steal? Can God steal? How could He since He owns everything? (Ps 50:10-12, Eze 18:4)

2. “Thou shalt not murder” (Ex. 20:13)

Application: Murdering is taking life on our terms. Since God gives life, He is the only one who decides the extent and bounds of man’s life. But how could God murder?(Job 14:5, Ex. 22:24)

3. “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me”. (Ex. 20:3)

Application: All men are accountable to give God supreme reverence and worship in accord to God’s dictates (2nd commandment). How could God break the first command when it asserts that God is to have the preeminence in all things?

4. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” (Ex. 20:7 )

Application: How could God take his name in vain? What would that entail?

5. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Ex. 20:16)

Application: God cannot lie; it is part of His nature. (Tit 1:2)

6. “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex 20:17)

Application: How would God covet? Again, God not only has legitimate ownership of everything, and He is the be the supreme object of our desires. How could God covet?

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Ex. 20:14)

Application: God does not have a body and does not have the passions of men. He does not have emotions. How could God commit adultery? (Ac 14:15)

To break these commands is for us to sin, that is, to commit evil. Evil, then, is not abiding by God’s law. But God cannot do evil, as I have above demonstrated. It is not a matter of God not willing to do evil (although that could be in view as well), but that God, by the very nature of law and Law-giver, cannot sin; He cannot do evil. If there was a law that said, “God cannot cause men or spirits to lie”, then yes, that would be evil for God to do that. But this would be setting God’s law above God Himself, the Law-giver and thus even this is an impossibility.

Law, then, is not for God, but for man. It tells man how he is to live before God. It does not say what God is obligated to obey. It can’t. God cannot sin for the sole reason that law is given to show how man is to abide himself by, not what God abides Himself by. To know what it is that God does, or how He governs among the nations, this would need to be entirely different study altogether. Nevertheless, what is demonstrated here is that God is above the law. He is accountable to no one and nothing other than Himself.

Biblical Slavery: What It Is And What It Isn’t

This may be a rather lengthy post, but I want to start addressing some atheistic misrepresentations of biblical law. The matter that I wish to specifically address is that of biblical slavery. At the outset let me hasten to say that whatever the Bible teaches on slavery I hold to be finally authoritative, equitable and righteous. Thus, I will not be apologizing for the biblical position of slavery. But it seems to me that the biblical doctrine has suffered from caricature from those of the atheistic crowd. I think they do this, not because of genuine misunderstanding, but out of dull-headed malice. The article I will be referencing to is from evilbible.com (I know, right?)

Some preliminary concepts should be discussed before delving into the author of evilbible.com. Biblical law is based on restitution.  Thus, slavery has some element of restitution in it. In fact, this is not at all that difficult to point out. Suppose individual X steals my chickens and he is not apprehended for his actions for several weeks. Biblical law requires the man to restore what was lost by fourfold (2 Samuel 12:6, Luke 19:8, Exodus 22:1).

Now suppose an individual which we’ll call Mr. X doesn’t have anything to give. He is to work off his debt with labor, that is, he becomes  my slave. The word “slave” itself  carries with it

all sorts of emotional assumptions and this is unfortunate. Unfortunate because those who are usually so vehemently opposed to

Basically, there isn't much good one can do in a cell. No restitution.

slavery (like the writer of evilbible.com, or from now on referred to as “our Fellow”) are for slavery in other areas, or at least indifferent. For example,  America is for slavery. That’s right, we have legal slavery in America and it’s called the prison system. But, unlike the biblical case of slavery, it is not based on restitution, yet I haven’t seen very many emotional outbursts against this institution coming from our Fellow. Let’s reapply the example of  Mr. X in our American system and see which is equitable.  Suppose Mr. X commits grand larceny against me (suppose he takes and destroys my means of livelihood: tools and property) and for weeks he is not apprehended. Ah, but news comes to me that Mr. X has been caught. Joy fills my heart! At last, I shall be recompensed! But do you know what happens? The government fines him; I don’t see a penny unless I hire a lawyer and sue him and this is something added other than the fine that the government gives (which means Mr. X is paying more than he should be). This of course could be dragged on and on for a year or more with court hearings. But this doesn’t help my current situation. Oh, but it gets better. The individual who wronged me, instead of helping me with his labor (which would be beneficial at this point given my situation), gets sent to prison to either sit there idly or works for the government doing “community service” for free. If you were in such a situation, would you rather sit idly in a cell block or help pay off your debt? Oh, and by the way, Mr. X is put up all at my (and you, the taxpayer) expense, that is, I am the one providing the man free room and board. Here’s a question: does the victim get compensated? Forced labor without compensation for the labor is ipso facto slavery. You see, most everyone is for slavery, but the question is this which sort of slavery are you for?

Our Fellow starts out his article against biblical slavery with this comment:

“Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do.  Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.  The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.”

This is a rather queer statement. For one thing, he is borrowing our terminology to try to make his point. The word “murder” is a specifically religious concept since it is distinguished from mere killing by the fact that the life is taken outside of the perimeters God has set for man to live. In an atheistic universe where the highest form of appeal is to the self there is no distinction between “murder” and “killing”. Also, one could take issue with the author being able to call anything “immoral”, but I digress. The author is correct when he says that the Bible approves slavery. This should at least let evangelicals to pause and at least lend an ear to this individuals criticism instead of pretending slavery is nowhere in the Bible.

 “Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants.  Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is.  While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.”

The author engages in what is called “a distinction without a difference”. It is a logical fallacy. No one is even attempting to avoid anything by calling slaves indentured servants; they’re the same thing. Yes, some were bought, some were gotten by conquest and some were slaves because of a debt they incurred. But were they treated worse than livestock? We’ll see later how he goes about to substantiate this.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.   However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

I have no contention with the fact that slaves were bought and sold. Given the considerations of what biblical slavery is about, this is their prerogative.

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.’  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.  What kind of family values are these?[2]

Notwithstanding our Fellow’s comments, this passage is actually about the limitations on slavery. He often makes this mistake in his writing. Add to that that he goes beyond the words of most passages he cites,  most of what he says can be disregarded. But I’m not going to do that. For instance, our Fellow tries to stretch the text to say that the master is holding hostage the family of the slave who is going free when the text, yet the text plainly states that the master is actually the one who gave the slave a wife. How heartless of the master! Also, at this point, the slave could refuse a wife given what his circumstances might be on the year of Jubilee. The fact is that the slavery in the Bible is not some harsh enterprise that devastated individuals. Notice the slave says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. Being a slave meant working free of charge, but with the benefits of housing, food and protection under the law. And if you were a God fearing Jew, you would “love your neighbor as yourself”. But this protection under the law is something that our Fellow twists into something quite interesting! Look what he has to say:

 What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

This is a most absurd interpretation of the matter.   This passage actually deals with the sanctions of killing one’s slave. If a master beats a slave and they die, he is punished. It most certainly does not commend beating a slave. If the slave is hurt, but recovers fully, he or she remains a slave. But, if the manservant or maidservant is beaten so that there is a loss of eye or a loss of tooth, they are to go free for the damage done to them (Ex. 21:26-27). Thus, these passages are actually dealing with how a master is to be punished if he mistreats his slaves, not about how masters can beat their slaves harshly! Like I said, these misrepresentations are motivated by a dull-malice. You have to be trying to make the passage say something like our fellow alleges that it says. This passage deals with, like I said above,  the slave’s protection under the law.

Dull malice without the malice

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Our Fellow is right in that Jesus does not have a different view of slavery than that of the Old Testament.  But his report is, as I would have expected, only partial. Paul writes in Colossians 4:1 “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Paul exhorts slaves too about their masters in 1 Timothy 6:2-3: And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. The most explicit is Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 6:9
“And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” One may argue a fortiori that if one is to forbear threatening, one is to forbear beating them. But even so, one could argue that any beating of a slave in Scripture is about sanctions for wrongdoing, as our Fellow even quotes of Christ:

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.  The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.”  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

The key word is that they were doing something wrong. It could be that the master has prerogative to chastise his servant if he does a moral evil like becoming drunk, stealing, etc. Really, such application is only for the sake of argument since Christ’s parables are not necessarily teaching normatively on this, but rather, he is teaching by way of analogy. Perhaps with more study this matter could be better clarified, but I don’t think it necessary at this point.

Footnotes:

[1] Also, biblical slavery should be distinguished from kidnapping. The Bible actually pronounces the death penalty against kidnapping in Exodus 21:16.
[2] In our fellow’s commentary on Exodus 21:7-11, our Fellow asserts that the Bible teaches the permissibility of sex slavery. The passage, however, nowhere describes sex slavery. I fear that our Fellow may have drunk a few too many at this point.

- Jesse Murch

An Infallible Defense for the Resurrection of Christ

The resurrection of Christ is a most pivotal part of the Christian religion. On the doctrine of the resurrection our entire faith stands or falls. If Christ is not raised from the dead we have faith only in a dead Messiah and failed prophecies. Faith in failure is the quintessential expression  of vanity.

The Apostle Paul makes this inference in his first letter to the Corinthians, “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14)

A defense of the resurrection is critical to the faith. For our faith to be sure we must have a sure argument for the resurrection. To the degree our evidence is weak, so is our faith.

Faith is not a blind hope in the improbable (e.g., I have faith the Red Sox will win the World Series this year). Faith is trusting assent to a proposition. If the proposition is found to be false you have no reason to have faith. You may have faith in your bank that they will keep your money safe (a foolish faith, but now is not the time to ramble about fractional reserve banking). You have faith in the proposition, “The money I have earned is safer in the bank than in my possession.”  But if the bank is robbed, your faith in that proposition is weak at best. This is to demonstrate you have reasons for your faith. If those reasons are fallacious or unreliable, so is your faith.

What we need then for a defense of the resurrection is an infallible defense. Therefore, when we argue for the resurrection we should not be content to spout off arguments to no profit. Far too often have we heard the arguments from silence (e.g., no body was produced) and appeals to empirical eyewitness accounts in an attempt to defend the resurrection. How definite are these arguments? Are they worth putting your faith in? Remember, faith does not bridge the gap where empirical evidence is insufficient. If your faith is based on empirical eyewitness accounts, your faith is only as strong as the human senses are reliable.

Are the senses infallible? There are optical illusions, mirages, hallucinations, waking dreams, varying sensation of color, taste, and touch. How many accidents have been the result of someone’s false perception of the situation? At best what can be said of the human sensory organs is that they are “generally” reliable. Which is only to say they are “probably” reliable. Which is only to say Jesus Christ was probably raised from the dead, so our faith is probably not in vain, and we are probably not false witnesses of God, and we are probably not still in our sins. When we preach, the most convicting thing we can say is, “You should probably repent and believe in Christ.”

This type of uncertainty is not necessary. It may be objected that Paul appeals to empirical eye witness accounts earlier in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says:

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (3-8)

At first glance it may appear as though Paul is saying that the eye witness accounts are the reason for believing the resurrection. But let’s look closely at the text. Paul is delivering to the Corinthians that which was delivered to him — the Gospel message. Within this Gospel message are the eye witness accounts. Paul says, “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” The Gospel is not confirmed by eyewitness accounts, but the eye witness accounts are part of the Gospel message, the message Paul received, and also preached. Paul does not place his confidence in the sense organs of the disciples.

It may even be argued that Paul is not speaking of a literal seeing, as in images of color perceived through the retina. Paul adds his vision of Christ to the list of those that saw Christ, but Paul never actually saw Him with the physical eye. The accounts of Paul’s encounter with Christ in Acts 9 and 22 tell us that Paul never saw Christ’s resurrected body. Paul expressed this when he said, “I could not see for the glory of that light.” When Paul says that Christ was “seen of him” in 1 Corinthians, he is not speaking of an eye witness account of Christ. Because Paul says, “he was seen of me also” all of the “seeing” must be figurative, as the word “also“ identifies the “seeing” as the same.  If it was a figurative seeing for Paul (and it seems from the two Acts accounts that it is) it must also be for all the other witnesses. “Seeing” seems to be referring to conversion, not to eyewitness testimony.

This becomes more evident in examining the two appearances of Christ in Luke 24; the appearing of Christ to Cleopas and his companion on the road to Emmaus (13-32) and the appearing of Christ to the Eleven and those that were with them in Jerusalem (33-49).

The road to Emmaus

When Christ approached the two on their way to Emmaus the Scripture says, “their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” No doubt, they physically saw the resurrected Christ who was speaking to them but they did not see Him for who He was. At His inquiry they told Christ of all the events that took place. It is obvious from their words they did not believe as of  yet the resurrection. They did not believe because of an empty tomb or even the testimony of the women who saw the vision of angels.

Christ rebukes them, not for disbelieving the women or doubting the implications of the empty tomb, but for disbelieving the prophets recorded in Scripture, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” Then, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” It was after Christ expounded Scripture and after He blessed the bread that “their eyes were opened, and they knew him.”

The appearing of Christ to the disciples in Jerusalem is even more clear. Christ appears to them and they don’t recognize Him as the risen Christ; they think he must be a spirit. Like the two on the way to Emmaus their eyes did not behold Him for who He was. Christ shows them that He is not a spirit and allows them to touch him. Yet even after this they did not believe: “And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered….” They didn’t believe until He supped with them, “and he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.”

What is the infallible evidence for the resurrection? The same evidence Christ delivered unto the disciples, the same evidence that Paul received and preach –the Scripture. Because the Bible is the infallible Word of God, its testimony of the resurrection is an infallible testimony. “But that’s not convincing to most people,” one may object. To which I answer: It wasn’t convincing to those staring the resurrected  Christ in the face until he opened their eyes to see. Without God enabling a sinner to believe His Word he cannot believe even if Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate, put to death and resurrected the third day, was the one delivering the message.

But God by His grace does enable some to believe and what He enables them to believe is not a probability, but the sure Word of the Scriptures. May the same Scripture that Christ opened and explained to those He walked with be our source for every argument and our foundation for faith.

-Ben Murch