Principles by which we live in this world

"I shall tell you of an inference  that is plain to me, and that I think  I plainly deduce from all that I have had access to consider of the controversy betwixt uniformity  and liberty of conscience in matters of religion; and it is this, That while the world is the world, we must either suffer the horrible  ignorance,  spiritual  slavery and superstition  of the tenth century  to take place in it, or the infidelity,  heresy, and sects of this century,  and of the last; and that in this case, the only  way wherein a man can walk suitably  to the rules of the gospel,  and his duty therein required  toward the power of the earth, so as to keep himself unspotted from the world, and promote  the eternal welfare of his own soul, and the souls of others, in a preparation  for the world to come, is indeed the congregational way." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas, pg. 305

Unprofitable servants

"If people think they can be all-powerful masters of life, that life is given to them for the lust of the flesh, then it is obvious that every act of sacrifice for another will seem to them a deed worthy of a reward and without reward they will not do anything. . . . One must understand that man can do nothing on his own and that if he gives away his mortal life for the good, then there should be no thanks or reward expected." - Leo Tolstoy, The Gospel in Brief, pg. 96

Wives are to submit to their husband

"After that Eve was deceived of the serpent, God said unto her (Genesis 3), thy lust or appetite shall pertain unto thy husband and he shall rule thee or reign over thee. God which created the woman knoweth what is in that weak vessel (as Peter calleth her) and hath therefore put her under the obedience of her husband to rule her lusts and wanton appetites. Peter (1Peter 3) exhorteth wives to be in subjection unto their husbands, after the example of the holy women which in old time trusted in God, and as Sara obeyed Abraham and called him lord. Which sara before she was married, was Abraham's sister and equal with him: but as soon as she was married was in subjection and became without comparison inferior. For so is the nature of wedlock by the ordination of God. It were much better that our wives followed the example of the holy women of old time in obeying their husbands, than to worship them with a Pater Noster, an Ave and Credo, or to stick up candles before their images. Paul (Ephesians 5) saith: women submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the wife's head even as Christ is the head of the congregation. Therefore as the congregation is in subjection to Christ, likewise let wives be in subjection unto their husbands in all things. Let the woman therefore fear her husband, as Paul saith in the said place. For her husband is unto her in the stead of God, that she obey him and wait on his commandments. And his commandments are God's commandments. If she therefore grudge against him or resist him she grudgeth against God and resisteth God." - William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, Pg. 34

Wether the governing rulers are good or evil we are to be submissive

"In considering the duties enjoined in the apostolic Epistles, it is constantly to be kept in view that, while written on particular occasions, and addressed to particular churches, they are equally adapted, in the wisdom of God, to all times and circumstances. They are intended for the instruction and guidance of Christians in every country and every age, just as the Decalogue, though delivered to only one nation, and that only once, is binding on every nation under heaven, in every period, till ths end of time. Christians learn from at present from this passage the will of God respecting their duty to civil government, just as those to whom this Epistle was addressed. It is true that there is an innumerable variety of differences in circumstances; but this is nothing to the purpose. The things taught in these Epistles are in all circumstances duty. The Roman Christians were under a despotism, and those who read this Epistle may live under a free government. But the dury of obedience is in both cases the same. The powers are under both equally to be obeyed." -Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, pg. 576

God's chastisement for his children

"But, as for afflictions, we must reply, firstly: although all affliction and death entered into the world by sin, God does not always have regard to our sins when He afflicts us. We establish this from the whole history of Job and elsewhere (John 9:3; 1 Pet 2:19; 3:14; James 1:2). But He has several other ends in view which tend to His glory and our profit, as we shall explain further on.
On the other side, when God afflicts Hus own for their sins, even if He comes to make them feel the pains of death (Job 13:15), He is not provoked to anger against them as a judge, to condemn them, but as a Father who is chastising His children in order to prevent them from perishing (2 Cor 6:9; Heb 12:6; 2 Sam 7:14), or to give an example to others (2 Sam 12:13, 14)."  - Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, pg. 19



"Nor do the hidings of God's face from them after conversion, prove any change in his love to them; for though he hides his face from them, and forsakes them for a moment, in a little seeming wrath, to shew his resentment at their sins, to bring them to a sense of them, to humble them before him, and to cause them to seek his face and favour; yet with great mercies he gathers them again to himself, in the most tender manner, and with loving-kindness, has mercy on them; and, for the strengthening of their faith in his love, swears he will not be wroth with them; and declares his loving-kindness to be more immoveable than hills and mountains, Isa. liv. 7-10. Afflictions are no evidence of a change of affections to them; though he may thoroughly chastise them, and, as they may think, severely, yet he deals with them but as children; and, like Ephraim, they are his dear sons and daughters, and pleasant children, in whom he takes the utmost complacency and delight; chastenings are rather proofs of sonship, than arguments against it." -John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 39

This reminds me of the Westminster Confessions of Faith - Chapter 17


They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

Of course all of this reminds me of the Book of Hebrews in the Bible.

No difference between the law of Christ and the decalogue

In sundry other places of their confessions they explain their meaning more fully thus: Many laws were uttered by Christ of which Moses knew nothing; for instance, the law to love our enemies, the law not to seek private revenge, the law not to demand back what has been taken from us, ect. All these matters the papists declare to be 'new laws.' This is wrong; for even Moses has said: ' Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with ...all thy might,' Deut. 6,5; and: ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' Lev. 19, 18. Now, Christ did not abrogate this law of Moses, but neither did He publish any new laws. He only opened up the spiritual meaning of the Law. Accordingly, He says in Matt. 5, 17: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' That means that He did not come to issue new laws, but to fulfill the Law for us, so that we may share His fulfillment. - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 73-74

"The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins through faith." -Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg, pg. 2

 .

What of the Christian bearing the sword?

"It is true, he had signified to his disciples, that they would be in such circumstances as wherein they would stand in extreme need of this sort of defence; and had said to them, 'He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy 'one,' Luke 22. 36. Yet, while tehy stood in the greatest need of selling their garments to buy swords, before the Emperor turned Christian, they did not reckon that these words of the Lord were intended to oblige them to take the sword for their defence in their profession: For when the disciples answered Christ, saying, 'Here are two swords,' he said unto them, 'It is enough;' surely not for eleven disciples; but it was enough for his purpose, which was to give occasion, first, for the 'miracle of healing Malchus's 'ear,' wherein he gave a notable evidence of his good-will to his enemies, and that he was able to deliver himself, but condescended to suffer; and a notable pattern to his people, of doing acts of kindness to enemies, and of patience in suffering; and, secondly, for the following prohibition of drawing the sword in his quarrel; for, when he healed the ear, he said to his enemies, 'Suffer ye thus far,' Luke 22. 51; and to Peter, Matth. 26. 52 'Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.' He speaks there of another sort of defence, more agreeable to the nature of his heavenly kingdom, than the sword of his disciples, which he would have used rather, if it had not been unsuitable to his present condition, and against the fulfillment of the Scripture, v 53-54 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?' There is no need of the sword of the disciples to defend the kingdom of heaven; the armies of angels are more suitable to this kingdom than armies of fighting men." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas: In Four Volumes, Vol. 1, Pg. 90

Utilitarianism is immoral

Utilitarianism teaches that what is right is what is good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is not moralistic at all in any sense of the word. It is immoralistic. It teaches that what is right or wrong changes with the tide so how shall we say one thing is wrong and another right. Sure what is considered moral may be so now but in 10 or 100 or 1000 years down the road it may not be for we have "progressed". Utilitarianism therefore does not teach moral norms for people and is therefore harmful for society. How unfortunate that a philosophical view that teaches that what is good is what gives pleasure for the majority. I suppose we may never know what the good is. Maybe Hitler sought the good for his people by murdering several thousands or millions of Jews for his people. Today, we find religious people accepting this viewpoint also related with Christian Hedonism.

Christian Liberty where the commands of God do not clearly communicate

"Already, at an early date, we have taught Christian liberty from [the writings] of St. Paul. There is to be freedom of choice in everything that God has not clearly taught in the New Testament, for example, in matters pertaining to various foods, beverages, attire, places, persons and various forms of conduct [Rom. 14:2-6; 1 Cor. 8:8-10]. We are obligated to do nothing at all for God, except believe and love. Now tell me, where has Christ forbidden us to elevate the sacrament or commanded us to elevate it? Show me one little word, and I will yield. Yet Dr. Karlstadt ventures to burst out and say that it is forbidden by Christ, and considers it a sin as great as the denial of God. He is unable to prove this. Nor is it true. Is it not a woeful, pitiable blindness, so to burden souls with sin and murder them, and make laws where none exist?" -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 205-206

No one deliberately encourage sinning

If an ethical theory without directions for daily conduct is at best an incomplete theory, further emphasis on Scriptural injunctions are to the point in contrast with tendencies now and then apparent in Christian Circles To belittle ethical precepts as legalistic and sub-christian. The reverse of the same coin is the disrepute into which jesuitical casuistry has so justly fallen. It is probably unnecessary here to undertake a refutation of that extreme for of antinomianism, which tells us to sin that grace may abound. However lax some Christians may be, and however easily they may succumb to temptation, there seems to be no large body of professing believers who deliberately encourage sin. - Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark

The law for believers does not condemn but is a rule of life

"The law as a rule of life to believers, especially in this view of it, is very different from the law as a covenant of works. The precept of the law as a covenant is 'Do and live,' but the command of the law as a rule is 'live and do'; the law of works says, 'Do or you shall be condemned to die,' but the law in the hand of Christ says, 'You are delivered from the condemnation; therefore do.' The command of the former is 'Do perfectly that you may have a right to eternal life,' but that of the latter is, 'You already have begun possession of eternal life, as well as the promise of the complete possession of it, therefore do in such a manner as to advance daily toward perfection.' By the former, a man is commanded to do in his own strength; but by the latter he is required to do in the strength that is in Christ Jesus. The Lord Jesus says to every believer, 'My grace is sufficient for you; My strength is made perfect in weakness; therefore do.' The commandments of the law, both as a covenant and as a rule, are materially, but are not formally, the same."

John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel

We are freed from the law of sin and death's penalty

"Thus sin in us after baptism is in its nature truly sin; but only according to substance, and not in its quantity, quality, or action, for it is wholly passive. The motion of anger and of evil desire is exactly the same in the godly and the godless, the same before grace and after, just as the flesh is the same before grace and after grace; but in grace it can do nothing, while outside of grace it gets the upper hand. Because of this Paul says in Rom. 8[:2], 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.' Why does he not say that, 'It has set me free from sin and death'? Has not Christ set us free from sin and desth once and for all? Paul, however, is speaking of the proper operation of the law of the Spirit, which does what Christ has merited. Indeed, Christ once and for all absolved and freed everyone from sin and death when He merited for us the law of the Spirit of Life." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus

What are Good Works?

Good Works are those that God commands us in his word to do. Nothing more and nothing less. Jeremiah 7:21-23, Deuteronomy 12:8, 32, and Jeremiah 32:35


John Calvin also says, "Now, since the Lord, when about to deliver a rule of perfect righteousness, referred all the parts of it to his own will, this shows that nothing is more acceptable to him than obedience. This is worthy of the most diligent observation, since the licentiousness of the human mind is so inclined to the frequent invention of various services in order to merit his favour. For this irreligious affectation of religion, which is a principle innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in all ages, and betrays itself even in the present day, for men always take a pleasure in contriving some way of attaining righteousness, which is not agreeable to the Divine word. Hence among those which are commonly esteemed good works, the precepts of the law hold a very contracted station, the numberless multitude of human inventions occupying almost the whole space. But what was the design of Moses, unless it was to repress such an unwarrantable license, when, after the promulgation of the law, he addressed the people in the following manner! 'Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord thy God. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.'" - The Institutes, 2. 8. 5.

Calvin also says, "We are certainly bound by the same declaration, for the claims of the Lord on behalf of his law, that it contains the doctrine of perfect righteousness, beyond all doubt remain perpetually the same; yet not contented with it, we are wonderfully laborious in inventing and performing other good works, one after another. The best remedy for this fault will be a constant attention to this reflection, that the law was given to us from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness, that in it no righteousness is taught, but that which is conformable to the decrees of the Divine will; that it is therefore vain to attempt new species of works in order to merit the favour of God, whose legitimate worship consists solely in obedience, but that any pursuit of good works deviating from the law of God is an intolerable profanation of the Divine and real righteousness." - The Institutes, 2. 8. 5.

Here we have it from Calvin that good works are  what God commands as oppose to what many so-called 'Christians' who have never read their Bibles think of good works as something done for the nilly willy of it.

Martin Luther and Assurance

"But you say, how can I be absolutely sure that all my works are pleasing to God, when at times I fall, talk,eat, drink and sleep too much, or otherwise transgress in ways I cannot avoid? Answer: This questions shows that you still regard faith as a work among other works and do not set it above all works. It is the highest work because it blots out these everyday sins and still stands fast by never doubting that God is so favorably disposed toward you that he overlooks such everyday failures and offenses. Yes, even if a deadly sin should arise (which, however, never or rarely happens to those who live in faith and trust in God), nonetheless faith always rises again and does not doubt that its sin is already gone. As it is written in 1 John 2 [:1-2], 'My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate before God, Jesus Christ, who is the forgiveness for our sins.'" - Martin Luther, Treatise on Good Works

Christian Rap and Man's Sinfulness

Scott Aniol and Shai Linne, continue in their well debate against one another. Interesting remarks to be made is that the point Shai is making is that Music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful. Indeed it can be sinful. Just as the sowing of the evil one is sinful. It is not sinful in and of itself to simply create music. But, the intentions and the darkness of our hearts make it so. Scott is disagreeing (without Scriptural backing) albeit he may have some knowledge of Scripture. certainly his points are full of error though. I agree in one sense Shai's point on Romans 14 - we are not obligated to remain with the two distinctions between a thing and another thing. Shai is debating over whether Rap MUSIC is sinful or not. So you can actually place these distinctions in place of say the meat offered up to idols. Does Rap music actually cause one to commit idolatrous worship?

Scott replies back to Shai's point by saying again the Scripture is concerned with not only the WHAT we say but the HOW we say it, which is something that I disagree whole heartedly. Scripture does not speak on the HOW so much. Consider this as an example: Prayer. Someone who prays to the true God (What) is said to be praying in idolatrous tones because of How he prays, whereas Hindu who prays to whoever is said to be the most devote person in Prayer because of HOW he prayed. Again Scripture is more concerned with What we know and not in how we know it. Of course Scott furnishes for us some scriptural evidences of his view, granted - taken out of context. For one thing Ephesians 4:15 is not speaking to us about how we communicate something. Whether we preach or teach has nothing to do with how we communicate it. The in love furnishes the purpose for why we communicate these truths. In fact, it furnishes the why God has given us the Apostles, and teachers. The purpose of the Apostles and Teachers were to communicate truths of revelation for the purpose that the Church would grow into unity of the knowledge of the faith. Of course there are those of the flesh who do not know the truth and do not want to truth these people are talked about in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthains 2:1-5 - simply Paul's point is that God has appointed Paul as an apostle and elder and teacher so that what Paul preaches is not 'lofty speech' but the word of God alone. Nothing here speaks against knowledge but everything in Paul's letters speaks against carnal knowledge. Gnostic knowledge puff's up, but true knowledge which Paul is not talking against does not.

The last point I wish to make is that Scott seems to be making a very very common error with regards to God and secondary causations. For one God is said to have caused the fall in the sense that God simply moved into motion the world so that the world now is on a course in which it cannot stop. Now whatever happens to the world happens because it does it on its own and not because God actually Caused it to happen. Consider this clearly to be the Cosmological Argument. The great danger here is that although God is said to be the Creator of all things He is not the 'maker' of all things. Indeed man makes things out of the saw dust that God made. But man can make something out of the portion that God made sinful. Who is making the jump? Shai or Scott? I believe the prayer of Scott would be like God I thank you that you have given me your dirt so that I could make a beautiful bow and arrow. Not what you have done, but what my hand had wrought (pun intended).

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/

On Judging Classes of Men

When Jesus and the Apostles say do not judge this is in relation to the fact hat all men without distinction are part of the body. We are not to judge those who are suffering or who are poor or rich. This is what the Hebrews did. But those who mourn let us mourn and those who rejoice let us rejoice. We are to be truth lovers and prudent as light has no fellowship with darkness. Christ has died for all of His elect (his body, who is the Church also known as Israel of God) so that all would live and glorify God.

Clarkian's Revelation and Morality

I have been reading Gordon H. Clark's work Religion, Reason and Revelation in order to under the issues better of Equal Ultimacy which I have slim knowledge of.
It has been good so far, yet some things I have difficulty understanding. Might be worth another read through sometime. But there is a quote from Newman Smyth (I have not heard of him) whom Clark quotes which says, 

Old theology is always becoming new in the vitalizing influence of ethics. . . . It is reason enough for doubting and for restudying any traditional teaching or received word of doctrine if it be felt to harass or confuse the Christian conscience of an age. Nothing can abide as true in theology which does not prove its genuineness under the ever renewed searching of the Christian moral sense. . . . Still less can we allow in Christian ethics any dogmatic belief which would put in bonds the Christian ethical principle itself; as, for instance, the tenet that morality is dependent upon the divine will. . . . Christian ethics cannot consent to commit suicide in any supposed interest of theology.

Clark does not agree with the quote (Neither do I). But he says the reason why is that Smyth separates as Kant and Plato does the truth and the practical. That is truth is set in one arena while ethics is what matters here and now. That the practical is the judge of what is true based upon what the quote says is interesting. It kind of informed me that as a Christian I am to be both the dispenser of truth and while also (not watering the truth down) but showing its practicalness or applying the very truth to the hearers of truth.

Our Freedom in Christ Alone never in the Law

The point in 1 Corinthians 9 is that Paul is no longer under the law but being in Christ has become free unto the law of Christ. The gospel, the good news, is that we are free from the that says my right my want to consider others as more important than ourselves.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is that of combating issues of disunity within the church. Essentially Paul deals with the quite essential reasons why there are disunity or breaking of fellowship. His last reason and most compelling and important one at that is that their doctrine of the Gospel was messed up. Without a great foundation a house will not stand together not only congruently but perhaps maybe even permanently as foundations shifts and moves the house will suddenly break apart and tumble down eventually. The issue of the church was not their view of the law, but of much extreme importance of the gospel - the resurrection. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still caught in our sins and are most to be pitied never mind the thought that we will then be shown to be most morally good and perhaps praised. Paul knocks this thought down right away in Chapter 15 verse 18.

So with that the law cannot bring unity but only disunity. As Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Seminary) says in his book Culture Shift, The city of man is disunified, whereas in the city of God the ruler is God and all are unified under His rulership. Those who are outside of Christ are under the curse of the law and its demands and burdens. No one is free there is no unity to be had in the works of the law. Some might charge this Antinomian - I don't see it this way. The law is preached to those who are dead in trespasses and sins to show them that they have not obeyed and are not righteous but have fallen short of God's glory and are under His just wrath and anger. Paul says in Romans 8 however that God has done what the law weakened by the flesh could not do and that is essentially break down the curse and save humans from the corrupting power and decay of its power by work of the Spirit. In Christ God has not only punished sin but He has justified sinners (Romans 3). Therefore Paul could explain that there is Therefore NOW no Condemnation for God's elect (those who are IN CHRIST). Finally it has been done. The debt has been Paid, nothing do I owe.

So going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that he most certainly does have a right to eat and drink according to his privilege as an apostle, however, he does not take up his privileges but rather has surrendered his rights (v. 12; v. 15). The reason why he has surrendered his rights and could do such is because he is not under the law. Paul in verse 19 - 23 says that in order to win some not under the law he becomes like one not under the law and to win those who are under the law he becomes like one who is under the law So that He might win some to Christ. He could do this because he is not under the law but is in Christ who has become for him a new 'law' - that is the law of love in which believers who are in Christ stand in unity of because of the Gospel truth that Christ has died and has been resurrected destroying both sin and death so that by faith repenting of their sins and trusting in Him alone they might also live freely unto glory.

So with that Paul is able to say that "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." He can only do such by surrendering his rights and can only surrender his rights only in Christ.

On Christian Joy, Worship, and Happiness

"And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment." Luke 7:37-38

On Christian Truth and Living

Christ Jesus fully embodies the truth and love aspect. Not just in his actions and what He taught but also in that He fully reveals to us the Father and that we are to be made like Him through the Spirit's work.
Essentially what I am saying Knowing who He really is that He  is the great proposition to be taught and understood and that also to be like Him is the end of life.