Should We Use OT Laws in Ethical Decisions Today?

In most ethical debates, the question causing debate is often not what the law means or how it should be applied, but rather what is the law that should be applied.

Even among Christians, who all recognize Jesus Christ as the King of Kings, there is significant disagreement about which of the many words that he has spoken are applicable in any given situation and which are not. One doesn’t have to listen to this debate very long before hearing the assertion, “We are not under law, but under grace.”  In fact, these words themselves are part of the law of God. (“…for you are not under law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14b)

What do they mean? To answer that question, let’s begin by defining the terms, particularly the terms under and law. In the Bible, Law is used in several different ways. It can refer to:

Since this article is much longer than a normal post and formatting is tedious on the web, the rest of the article here (where formatting is much easier).

Truth From Russia? On Pragmatic Voting?

Why post a Russian's observations on this year's American presidential election? Because sometimes what's not so obvious to those of us in the middle of something is to those looking on from outside:

"And so we come to the case of the actual elections, or rather the mock elections. Once more, as has been the road show every 4 years for the past 24 years, Americans are given the choice between two muppet clones, presented to them by the two wings (Democrats and Republicans) of the One American Party of Oligarchs.
This year, more so than any other year, the two candidates have never been so much alike. In truth, what is the difference between the Muslim half Arab and the Mormon? Nothing. Both are war mongering socialists, running a bankrupt gangster war state. Both hold real Christianity in contempt at best and outright hostility at worst. Both are happy to promote filth and homosexuality to destroy what little Christianity is left in America and export this evil. Both are quite happy to empower one Islamic regime after another to murder Christians.
What is the difference that would make Americans ready to fight each other in the elections? Ready to beat each other's faces in? What? Why simply one has a D and the other an R and we all know that for bread and circuses to work, the circus has to be filled with blood." - Stanislav Mishin, August 12, 2012

Taking America back, Turning this country around, and whatever else conservatives are hoping to do in this election won't happen by voting for the "lesser of two evils" or by the victory of one socialist over another socialist, or even by the victory of a capitalist over a socialist. The liberty that conservatives are seeking to restore flows from obedience to King Jesus and his Word.  Far more important than whether a particular party wins is whether your vote for a particular candidate is obedient to scripture.  Far more significant as an indicator of progress is how many people obey scripture and remove their children from the idolatrous government school than how many people are voting for Romney. Far more important in restoring political liberty is how many Christians in the jury box obey God rather than men and refuse to convict people who have done no wrong.

Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than removing Obama, and to hearken than a Republican senate.

Why I Left the Navy: The Subversion of the US Military

When I resigned from the nuclear submarine service nearly seventeen years ago, I listed as one of my reasons irreconcilable ethical differences resulting from the Navy’s acceptance of homosexuality. Such impertinence on the part of a US Naval Academy (USNA) faculty member resulted in an informal visit to my office by a senior officer of the engineering division in which I taught, who wondered whether I really wanted a statement like that forwarded to the Pentagon. The unspoken sentiment was that such a bald statement might reflect poorly on the command climate. After all, my visitor reasoned, homosexual conduct was still illegal under the new “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) rules, to which I replied, “For now.”

After a short pause in which he could think of no meaningful reply, he shrugged and walked away. Just a few months earlier General Colin Powell (then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), in a Q&A session following his address to the USNA brigade, had told a midshipman in response to his query regarding the morality of DADT, “If after those decisions are made you still find it completely unacceptable and it strikes to the heart of your moral beliefs, then I think you have to resign.”

...Read More in the July/August 2010 issue of Faith for All of Life.

The Cambridge Synod on the Civil Magistrate's Duty to Enforce the First Table

At Last! The full Disputation translated from the English of then to the English of now...

The Results of the Disputations of the Synod or Assembly

at Cambridge, New-England

Regarding The Power of the Civil Magistrate in Matters of the First Table

On July 1, 1646 a Synod met at Cambridge, Massachusetts to discuss the question:

Does the Civil Magistrate have power to 1. Command or forbid things respecting the outward man in matters of religion, or the first table, which are clearly commanded and forbidden in the word, and to 2. Inflict suitable punishments according to the nature of the transgression against the same [the first table transgressions], and all this with reference to godly peace?

Their answer and the arguments behind it are found here.

Rutherford Proven Right

(External pdf file from Lt Klingerschmitt can be downloaded from above link)

Chaplain Klingenschmitt's recent battles with the Navy over not being allowed to pray "in Jesus Name" are proving that pluralism is not really about tolerating other relgions. It's more accurately characterized as nothing less than a direct attack on Christ and his disciples.

How right Rutherford was when he noted: "man should remember, there is a Christian external peace, which, in an ordinary providence, can not be kept where there be divers religions, and sundry ways of worshipping Christ."

This seems downright harsh to us today. What, we exclaim! Isn't America proof that this is not so? Well, I would point to our country as proof that it is so. During the first 185 or so years of our country's existence, the culture was dominated by Christian thought. I realize that over those years many political and religious leaders may not have been Christian, but they had to act like Christians if they wanted to stay in power. Even today, despite the fraility of the American church, no President has yet dared to swear their oath of office on anything other than the Word of God -although that day is probably not far away. It is only in the last two generations that our cultural framework has become explicitly non-Christian. True to Rutherford's words, it is in this time frame that we have seen the concurrent rise of "culture wars" over Christianity.

This is no surprise. Christ claims to be the Only Way, not just a way to the Father. No man comes to the Father except through him. That is saying there is no life outside of Christ. That is saying that every other religion is wrong.

Given Rutherford's position, it should be no surprise that the Westminster Divines, of whom Rutherford was one , considered tolerating a false religion to be a greivous sin for a civil magistrate.

According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, one of the sins forbidden in the 2nd Commandment is "tolerating a false religion".

Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I should add that since not all people exercise the same authority, the culpability in tolerating a false religion does depend on one's position.

Lt. Klingenschmitt, an episcopal chaplain in the US Navy, merely wants to pray as scripture commands him to pray, In Jesus Name. He is quite willing to allow others to pray to their heathen gods in place of his prayer, as long as he has a turn to pray to the true God. As much as I admire Lt. Klingenschmitt, such a notion would have be considered a transgression of the 2nd commandment. This is to consider it acceptable for people to incur God's wrath on themselves. While we may not be in a position to stop other people from so doing, we should never be on record as considering it acceptable for them to do so. We wouldn't stand idly by, if we could do otherwise, while someone broke the 6th Commandment against their own body. Why would we think and act any differently in regard to the 1st and 2nd Commandments?

The Church of Jesus Christ has to start believing their King is what he says he is, King above all other kings and Lord above all other lords. All men born of Adam are responsible to worship the Jehovah and sin when they fail to do so. There is no true law by which to regulate society apart from God's law.

Hello, I'm Your Sister. Our Father Is Donor 150

(With the new blog settings, it's not obvious that the title is a link to an article in the NYT. The article this post is responding to is here).
The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked Jeremiah tells us. Since the fall men have sought to sin in ways that would be culturally acceptable— ways that allow a deceitful heart to rationalize the sin into acceptable behavior.
In Jesus day, apparently it was culturally acceptable to declare one’s goods Corban and thereby honorably relieve one’s self of any obligations to provide for one’s extended family.

In previous centuries, while it would have been considered murder for a man-hater to simply put a bullet in the head of the man he hated as he walked out his front door, it was acceptable to challenge him to a duel and put a bullet in his head from 15 paces. In fact, refusal to participate in such activity was considered dishonorable or cowardly.

We’re no different today. While it’s no longer culturally acceptable to leave your unwanted baby to die in the center of town, it is acceptable to bash in their skull and suck out their brains, provided the baby’s feet are still in the birth canal. If they weren’t, of course, then it would be murder.

While it is illegal to confiscate other people’s labor today without compensation, simply because they are black, it is perfectly legal and acceptable to confiscate other peoples labor without compensation under the elastic currency laws. [For the full explanation of how this works, see the book, Dollar Non¢ents.] Similarly, while no one would condone greedy men collecting money at gunpoint, many consider it perfectly acceptable for greedy men to enact a tax of 90% of other people’s income and then to collect the tax at gunpoint. In fact, participation in such activity by legislators, voters, and special agents is considered worthy public service.

The same games that are played with the 5th, 6th, and 8th commandment are also played with the 7th commandment. In the 7th commandment, God forbids procreation outside of the marriage covenant. Donor eggs and sperm from outside a marriage produce children outside of a marriage. When all the rationalizing is over, participation in such activity by married people is adultery. Participation in such activity by unmarried people is fornication.

Why all these silly distinctions? People know in their heart of hearts that murder, adultery, and theft are wrong. Their conscience accuses them until they are able to sear it. And so they play games in a futile effort to pretend that the murder they are committing is not murder, that the theft they are committing is not theft, or that the adultery they are committing is not adultery.

It is the church, Jesus said, that is to be the conscience of culture. For you are the salt of the earth. The church primarily accomplishes this through Christians living their lives in obedience to the word of God. It is through synods and preaching that Christians are guided and equipped to live their lives in obedience to the Word of God.

All would acknowledge that it is the law of God that must direct and form our conscience. God's Word is the only rule of faith and practice. So when we come to society as salt and light, what other law can we bring than the law of God? What other standard can we use in being the cultural conscience?
Obviously the only standard that we can bring is the law of God. We should not argue for laws against murder and theft because these actions inconvenience us or ruin families. Our reason these things are wrong must be the simple, "Thus says the Lord." By the same token, neither should we discuss the punishment for these sins in terms of what benefits society. Our reason for executing murderers must be because God has commanded the civil magistrate to bring his [i.e God's] wrath on those that do evil. Although societal benefit is not the basis for punishing criminals, we certainly expect that cultural obedience to God's law in this area will bring his blessing on society. This does not exclude the need for laws that are not specifically given in scripture. But our starting point in such discussions must always be the application of God's revealed law to the specific situation in which we find ourselves.

It is when the church, being ashamed of the law of God, begins to argue for right and wrong in utilitarian terms that she becomes unable to speak clearly on ethical issues. She becomes salt that has lost its savor; she becomes a candle hid under a basket.

The Civil Magistrate and the First Table

On July 1, 1646 a Synod met at Cambridge, Massachusetts to discuss the following question:

Whether the Civil Magistrate in matters of religion or the first table, hath power civilly to command or forbid things respecting the outward man, which are clearly commanded and forbidden in the word, and to inflict suitable punishments according to the nature of the transgression against the same, and all this with reference to godly peace?

Their answer was:

The want of a right stating of this question touching the civil magistrate's power in matters of religion hath occasioned a world of errors, tending to infringe the just power of the magistrate, we shall therefore explain the terms of the questions and then confirm it in the affirmative.

The synod first looked at all the Old Testament evidence for such a requirement. And then (surprise, surprise) they looked at the New Testament evidence supporting their position. Stay tuned for some of their arguements in coming days.

The US is Tough on Crime?

If you are tempted to think the US is getting tough crime, consider these laws from 1641 New England relating to capital crimes:

Chapter VII

And first, of such as deserve capital punishment or cutting off from a mans people, whether by death or banishment
1. First, Blasphemy which is a cursing of God by Atheisine or the like to be punished with death.
2. Idolatry to be punished with death.
3. Witchcraft which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar Spirit to be punished with death.
4. Consulters with Witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death, or by banishment.
5. Heresie which is the maintenance of some wicked errors, over- throwing the foundation of Christian Religion, which obstinacy, if it be joyned with endeavour to seduce others thereunto, to be punished with death because such an Hereticke no, less than an Idolater, seeketh to thrust the soules of men from the Lord their God.
6. To worship God in a molten or graven Image, to be punished with death.
7. Such members of the Church, as do willfully reject to walk after due admonition, and conviction, the Churches establishment and their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banishment.
8. Whosoever shall revile the Religion and Worship of God, and the Government of the Church as it is now established, to be cut off by banishment.
9. Willful perjury, whether before the judgement seat or in private conference, to be punished with death.
10. Rash perjury whether in publicke or in private, to be punished with banishment, just it is that such a man's name should be cut off from his people, who profanes so grossly the name of God before his people.
11. Profaning of the Lords day, in a carelesse and scornful neglect or contempt thereof to be punished with death.
12. To put in practice the betraying of the Country, or any principal sort therein to the hand of any foreign State, Spanish, French, Dutch, or the like: contrary to the alleageance we owe, and professe to our Dread Sovereign Lord King Charles, His Heires and Successors; which he is pleased to protect us as his loyal subjects to be punished with death.
13. Unreverend and dishonorable carriage to Magistrates to be punished with banishment for a time, till they acknowledge their fault, and professe reformation.
14. Reviling of the Magistrates in highest rancke amongst us, to wit of the Governours and Counsell to be punished with death.
15. Rebellion, Sedition, or Insurrection, by taking up armes against the present Government established in. the Country to be punished with death.
16. Rebellious children whither they continue in riot or drunkennesse after due correction from their parents, or whether they curse or smite their Parents, to be put to death.
17. Murder which is a wilfull man-slaughter not in a man's necessary and just defense, nor casually committed, but out of hatred or cruelty to be punished with death.
18. Adultery which is the defiling of the marriage bed, to be punished with death. Defiling of a women espoused, is a kind of Adultery and punishable by death, of both` parties; but if a woman be forced, then by the death of the man only.
19. Incest, which is the defiling of any near of kin, within the degrees prohibited in Leviticus to be punished with death.
20. Unnatural filthinesse to be punished with death, whether sodomy, which it carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman;Or Buggery. which is carnal fellowship of man or woman, with beast or fowles.
21. Pollution of a woman known to be in her flowers to be punished with death.
22. Whoredome of a maiden in her father's house, kept secret till after her marriage with another, to be punished with death.
23 Man-stealing to be punished with death.
24. False witnesse bearing to be punished with death.

What is not shown in the above excerpt are the scripture proofs in the margin of the text of the law. The civil magistrate was understood to be God's ordained servent to execute God's wrath on those that do evil. This authority is from God. Where else but scripture can the civil magistrate learn what God's wrath is, that he is supposed to execute?

Abstract of New England Laws 1641(pdf)

A Quarter of Texas Supports Legalizing Sodomite Marriage

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

On Tuesday last week, 76% of the voters in the state of Texas exercised their judicial authority to uphold the law of God in the state. 24% of the voters attempted to cast down the law of God, calling good evil, and evil good. In many rural counties the vote ran as high as 10:1 for the amendment. Travis county was the only place the amendment actually lost (by 2:3 margin).

But I don't know which is the greater tradgedy, that over half a million people in Texas think sodomy is acceptable or at least were willing to vote to bring reproach on our land; or the 10,322,980 people who didn't care enough to vote. I grant there were probably some who honestly forgot, some who were in coma's in the hospital and so on. That still leaves 10,000,000 people who didn't care if a reproach was brought on the land or not.

Polls indicate that 30% (or about 4,000,000 registered voters) consider themselves Christian in the state of Texas. If everyone who voted to pass the amemdment was a part of this group, then there were 2.3 million people who consider themselves Christian but did not vote to outlaw what Christ has declared to be outside the law. Clearly the problem in our culture is merely a reflection of a bigger problem with the church.

Until the church of Jesus Christ becomes the salt of the earth, the light set on a hill, we have no room to complain about the course of society, the state of our public schools, or the tyranny of judicial legislation.

But I am grateful for the 1.7 million people who honored their Creator at the polls last Tuesday. Thank you.