An Analysis of Supreme Court Overturn of Roe and the Lie of the Dissenting Opinion
Early Friday my phone notified me the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It brought great happiness, comparable to the 2016 election. I knew it was happening, but it got off my radar, so when I saw it, it was adulation. Praise God! I looked for a copy of the decision, downloaded the pdf, and started to read. My mind gobbled Alito’s text with delight and refreshment. Outside of the Bible, this doesn’t happen much.
I celebrate Samuel Alito and the four other justices. They showed great courage. They did something that I will never forget, a highlight of my life. I was eleven years old at the Roe v. Wade decision and did not even know it happened. I’ve lived almost my entire life under its evil effects.
Even as I say that, the most courageous was Clarence Thomas. I separate him from the entire group with his concurring opinion. Same sex marriage is not in the constitution either. He wrote (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.”
Obergefell decided same sex marriage. The court passed that on the same basis as Roe. On the other hand, Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion, to distinguish himself, wrote:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in . . . . Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
I hope he reconsiders this point if same sex marriage comes to the court again.
The decision showed three basic opinions, represented by a majority of five, minority of three, and then Chief Justice Roberts alone. The majority said nothing personal about the morality of abortion. The five wrote the Constitution says nothing about abortion and contains no right to abortion therein. The Constitution neither commends or condemns abortion. Roe v. Wade found a right where there was none. It was unconstitutional.
Roberts upheld the Mississippi law as constitutional based upon a generous interpretation of Casey. Even though the arguments required to choose one way or the other, he chose silence on an abortion right. Roberts kicked the abortion can down the road, siding neither way on its constitutionality, attempting, it seems, to please both sides.
The minority of three wrote:
Today, The Court . . . says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.
The Court did not say that. These three Supreme Court justices lied. The Court said nothing about whether a woman has a right to abortion. It said the Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion. The Supreme Court does not decide what rights people have or do not have. It does decide constitutional rights. Is a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution? The majority said, no.
Right now a state cannot force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term. She can travel to another state with legal abortion and get one. Everyone knows this. The governor of California says it will give sanctuary to pregnant women who want to kill their babies.
As you and I read opinions such as written by the minority, perhaps you ask, “What is a woman?” Or, “Who is ‘her’?” The three liberal judges function according to outdated language and meaning. Doesn’t the patriarchy force its bias and its meaning of existence and reality through gendered language?
Feminists could support the Dobbs decision. It establishes the existence of women. For the court to force women to have their babies, there must be women. What does that mean for transgender rights? The Casey decision argued in 1992 a constitutional “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” These words followed Justice Anthony Kennedy’s now very famous sentence from the Casey opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Yes, Kennedy was apparently one of the conservative faction of justices, seen as a moderate, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was no conservative in the spirit of William Buckley.
Donald Trump did a better job choosing justices than Ronald Reagan, who also chose Sandra Day O’Connor. Take a moment to thank Donald J. Trump. He picked three of these justices in the majority. Three for three. Let’s hear it for Trump. True conservatives should give Trump credit, but many won’t.
Mitt Romney tweeted out support of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe. Could we trust him to have made the choices Trump did? I don’t think so, but he could impeach Trump for an appropriate call to the Ukrainian president.
The Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe was no thanks to Anti-Trumpers, who did not vote for Trump in 2016. Most are further to blame for the horrific consequences of 2020. This includes John Piper and David French. I concur with this Mollie Hemingway answer to French.
So thankful your anti-Trumpist obsession and damaged ego failed to keep the country from this moment. If you had gotten your way, this day would have never happened. You should repent for your continual slanders against those who had far more courage and wisdom.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 24, 2022
George Bush selected David Souter and George W. Bush did Chief Justice Roberts. Thankfully the latter also picked Samuel Alito, the author of Dobbs. This decision would not have happened under Romney or McCain and didn’t under the Bushes.
Liberty Magazine writes the following about Anthony Kennedy’s words in Casey, the infamous abortion decision after Roe:
Though sounding more like a discourse on Spinozean metaphysics than on constitutional jurisprudence, this sentence has reached the level of notoriety among judicial and political conservatives that “separate but equal” once did among civil libertarians, or “material substratum” did among post-Enlightenment idealists.
No U.S. Supreme Court dictum in decades has faced such vilification as has poor Justice Kennedy’s 28 words. Robert Bork called the phrase indicative of “New Age jurisprudence”; William Bennett derided it as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”: George Will said it was “gaseously” written; Michael Uhlman labeled it a “thing of almost infinite plasticity”; the editors of First Things called it the “notorious mystery passage”; and on and on.
Kennedy’s take on liberty fits very nicely with a naturalist’s view of the world, turning language and meaning into one’s personal Gumby toy.
If I could brag about any one aspect of a reading of Dobbs by Samuel Alito, it’s the return to objective, plain writing. He wrote like words meant something. No one can follow that sentence by Kennedy, but it allowed for the perverseness we see in modern culture. Your truth is your truth. Your liberty is your liberty. That’s not a baby, but a fetal, clump of cells.
The argument buttressing a right to abortion now undermines the definition of woman. Most of those out there protesting the decision could and should protest both sides of the decision. Both sides used oppressive and sexist language that uphold the patriarchy. The liberal side does it in a more subtle and insidious way, thereby causing even worse damage to the LGBTQIA agenda.
The new, correct word for mother, or its replacement, abandoning the former meaning of woman, is gestator. It’s obvious that this movement does not have everyone on the same page. Their gender is fluid and the movement itself is too. It’s changing and mutating so fast, it doesn’t have time to finish its handbook. This forces liberal judges to use the outdated terms like “woman” and “her.” You think I’m joking.
In a refreshing bit of honesty, unlike Roe and Casey, a gestator calling their self Sophie Lewis, in answer to Dobbs provides unmitigated clarity with her The Nation article: “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!” This entity (person, whatever) says: “Dishonest sugar-coating did not work. Let’s stop. It didn’t work. Let’s call it what it is, killing.” Another word I would use, that Sophie did not, is “murder.” So here we have it. Samuel Alito was clear and so was Sophie Lewis. Exhilarating truthfulness.
When you and I look at the protestors, they represent a profane culture. They wear their piercings, falsely colored hair, and they speak streams of expletives and destroy private and public property. This reflects the postmodern philosophy of Sartre, the French existentialist, who said that existence preceded essence. Humans have no essential nature, thus no morality besides what every man makes for himself. They don’t see themselves as accountable to God. The appearance of Dobbs protestors mirrors this existential philosophy aligned with the Anthony Kennedy statement in Casey. Their costumes are the uniform of their view of reality. They define their own essence.
Not everyone will say it like Sophie Lewis, but the reason why an assassin could show up at Justice Kavanaugh’s house after the leak of the Dobbs opinion was because “killing is OK.” That is also why a large majority of the media says little to nothing in opposition. Their liberty allows for murder. A baby may exist but cannot define his essence. A critical theory justifies killing as the essence of liberty.
Since the Supreme Court announced the ruling on Friday, plain language came to the surface. At a pro-abortion protest a man says, ala Sophie Lewis, he “loves killing babies.” Many women call it the best decision they ever made. Over ten years ago, I walked in a large pro-life march in San Francisco. Those protesting the march on the side of the road were the most vile and lewd people I’ve ever seen in my life. Their signs, language, and appearance were as bad as I’ve ever seen as an attempt to intimidate the march.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is so good. The war, however, is just begun. Hopefully, it won’t be a real war with real bullets, one that the Supreme Court provided the previous day with its concealed carry decision.
How Do We Know What the New Testament Is?
What chapter or verse of the Bible says there will be 27 books of the New Testament? Of course, none. Where does it say what the 27 books will be? Again, of course, none. How then do we know what are the 27 books of the New Testament?
When we read the New Testament, we open about two-thirds of the way through the Bible to that title page that says “New Testament” on it. The churches that received scripture were not sent such a copy. The New Testament did not come to churches with a cover page, stating, “New Testament,” and behind it 27 books.
Churches acknowledged and copied inspired books. They treated them as though they were inspired. They passed them from church to church and read then in churches. Before copies wore out, they were copied again to preserve them for the future.
The scriptural doctrine of which I speak concerning canonicity proceeds from the Bible itself. Through the inward testimony of the Spirit, regenerate, immersed church members distinguish between words which man’s wisdom teaches and those of and from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13-25). God gave His inspired Words to the apostles or the inspired human authors according to the plan of the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26, 17:8, 14; Gal 1:11-12). True believers led by the Spirit would know the things written were the words of God (1 Corinthians 14:37). The same Holy Spirit who had regenerated, indwelt, and filled them would testify to the words.
The testimony or witness of books of the New Testament arises from the promise of words. They knew Paul’s epistles were scripture like the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:16), but they were guided to inspired words. The epistles or books were an implication of received words. The Lord gave unto them “words” and they “received them” (John 17:8; cf. 12:48, Acts 2:41, 1 Thess 2:13).
Revelation 22:18-19 read:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The Apostle John testifies to a completed book of Revelation. He speaks of “the words of the prophecy of this book.” He confirms a settled, completed, perfect text of words. One could only add or take away words from a book with a settled text. His instruction assumes the precision of the text and continued knowledge of it. No one could obey this command without standardized words.
God’s people will know what His Words are and receive them. That is how they knew and know the twenty-seven books. God intervenes through His Spirit in His churches to receive His Words and, therefore, His Books. History confirms this teaching. The nature of God’s Word is that when God says He will do something, He does it. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. They believe what He says. They have.
Through the history of the Lord’s churches, they believed the biblical doctrine of canonicity or the preservation of the text and books of the New Testament. Errors were made in copies, what are most often called variants today. God did not promise to preserve copies. Believers do not receive copies. They receive “words.” They identify words. True churches assume a settled text. They have.
The Lord’s churches now call the text, the words and books, received and passed down from one generation to the next by the work of the Holy Spirit, the received, traditional, ecclesiastical, or standardized text. By “traditional,” they mean it like Paul used it in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” It is an ecclesiastical text, because churches received it. Some today call this a “confessional bibliology,” because it reflects the historical belief of churches and so written down in confessions.
Scripture is science. If God says it, it is true and it is knowledge. It is the pure mother’s milk without variableness or shadow of turning (1 Peter 2:2, James 1:17). Everything God says is true and is the standard for truth (John 17:17). God repudiates rejection of what He said for so-called science or for experience. We have a more sure word of prophecy (2 Peter 1:19-21).
The Lord’s churches received the text still received by His churches before the invention of the printing press. With the invention of the printing press in 1440, they printed that text in the 16th century. They continued to receive it for centuries. These people translated from it into other languages. They preached sermons from it in churches and wrote commentaries and other books from it or based upon it. We have all of this record.
No one should add to or take away from the settled text of the New Testament. This contradicts the teaching of the New Testament about itself. No one should assume and then believe God’s Words were lost and in need of restoration. This violates scripture. This hurts the faith.
Professing believers today do not know the New Testament by science. They do not know it by probability. God’s people do not know it by rules of textual criticism. They do not know it by intelligibility. The people of God know it by the testimony of the Holy Spirit through history or through the preceding centuries through the Lord’s churches. They should reject any other teaching or way. These are heretical ways that distort or veer from the already received and established scriptural bibliology.
God’s Grace As An Attitude Adjuster
James wrote that “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:17). God keeps giving and giving and giving. People do not deserve these good gifts. They deserve the opposite. People getting good things that they don’t deserve is God’s grace.
For a professing believer, what causes a bad attitude? I contend the biggest contributor is his thinking that he deserves what he doesn’t or that he doesn’t deserve what he really does. This is an unmet expectation. He expects what he doesn’t deserve and then he doesn’t get it.
It is difficult to expect what I really do deserve. I want better treatment, better consequences, better circumstances, or even better reactions. Yet, I don’t deserve them.
When I think I got better than I deserve, that affects my attitude. If I change my thinking to this thinking, based on what I know scripture says, it also changes my attitude.
God’s grace can adjust an attitude. The professing believer must think God’s grace. The attitude is the resultant emotion, either a good feeling or a bad one.
A bad attitude is an emotion that can turn to something deeper, like a kind of depression or discouragement. This can become deep settled and change the trajectory of a person’s life. He digs himself or even buries himself into a rut or hole. He doesn’t make his way out.
The grace of God must adjust the attitude. This adjustment occurs through the mind. The professing believer thinks he deserves worse. He keeps thinking he gets better than he deserves. God does give him more than he deserves.
Sometime in Christian history, someone defined grace as “undeserved favor.” Christians overall have agreed with this definition for centuries. God gives us better and more than what we deserve. This is God’s grace. If we allow that thinking to permeate our mind, it will adjust our attitude.
The world makes it difficult to keep a good attitude. This is why right attitudes very often are commanded, like “rejoice evermore” (Philippians 4:4). They are commanded, because we might not have them. His commands also mean we can have them, that we are able to have them. God won’t command what He won’t also enable. He wouldn’t command you if He didn’t also provide the power to keep the command.
When I write that the world system and its father, Satan, make for a tougher environment to have a good attitude, I am saying that it will still be a struggle. When you hit your thumb with a hammer, you say, “Ouch.” This is a kind of point Job mentions when he’s criticized by his friends. When I talk about God’s grace adjusting the attitude of a professing Christian, I speak of the struggle. This will help the believer not to sink into long term or permanent bad attitudes and struggle against short term wrong ones.
God’s grace can and will keep attitude struggles short term or win those struggles. This is God’s will, but it is also important for the thriving and well being of the professing believer. Believers will do better in ministry to and with others with a good attitude. Even if people have a bad attitude themselves, they want you to have a good one when you are with them.
If you say, “God is good,” and then your attitude says, “God hasn’t been good,” it hurts the efforts for God with others. Maybe you don’t even believe God is good. God knows whether you think He is, but your attitude might be saying that you think He is not. All of us should consider this.
What in the world could spur a bad attitude? You know. You are mistreated by several others. The people around you are not grateful for what you do. You work hard without notice or credit. One thing after another breaks. People gossip about you. You don’t have many friends. Friends betray you. You can’t get ahead with your finances. School is a struggle. Others are promoted ahead of you unfairly. People don’t laugh at your jokes, and you think you’re funny.
No one is a victim of a bad attitude. Someone else doesn’t cause it. Your parents didn’t cause it. Neither did your husband or wife. You choose what attitude you will have. Victimization is just an excuse. It’s lying to yourself.
The joy of the Lord is our strength. His grace will fuel that joy. Like Paul wrote in Philippians 4:8, think on this thing.
The Relationship Between Wokeism and Revivalism in Churches
Some of you may know that right now the Southern Baptists (SBC) convene in Southern California for their 2022 annual meeting. At this very time, Mark Dever and 9 Marks, a Reformed faction of the SBC, produce their journal with the emphasis on revivalism (June 2022). I wish I could be happy to join their concern. Their accepted wokeism proceeds from the same root as revivalism, which is pragmatism.
One would think professing Reformed or Calvinists would insist on dependence on God for conversion and church growth. I don’t believe these men. They use measures as extreme as Charles Finney to produce results. Among many ways, their wokeism reveals their contradiction or hypocrisy.
Jonathan Leeman writes in his introduction, and I agree, “Revivalism depends on God’s Words plus our methods.” I also concur with these sentences:
Revivalism, which depends on our ingenuity and energy, brings short-term gains. It looks fruitful. It appeals to our yearning to see the results of our labors.
The SBC, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and independent Baptists are all rife with revivalism. The adherents depend on more than the Word of God for the results.
A word to describe a particularly wicked kind of “our ingenuity and energy” and “our methods” is pandering. This manifested itself in the seeker sensitive movement and the purpose-driven movement. A church studies its particular demographic and forms a strategy that conforms to the culture. The region likes either pop rock, rap, or southern gospel through which a church panders to its audience.
In “Six Marks of Revivalism,” Andrew Ballitch writes, “Revivalism can actually make this happen,” referring to meeting conditions that spur church growth. He also writes, and I agree again, “This revivalism was by no means monolithic.” Revivalism changes in how it manifests itself, because it centers on man, not God. The new measures of Finney have morphed into whatever measures seem necessary to produce numbers.
Not that long ago, churches and their leaders decided they needed a neutral name to attract the lost to the church. About one of the journal authors who wrote a few of the articles, the journal says “is the senior pastor of Fellowship in the Pass Church in Beaumont, California.” A part of the church growth movement, which is an insidious form of revivalism, is that you’ve got to market your church with a branding or label. If it’s all God, why not just call yourself “Beaumont Baptist Church”?
Church growth philosophy says it might offend an unsaved person to hear “Baptist.” Someone might think, “Hell fire and brimstone.” You don’t want to have that happen, so instead you call yourself, “Fellowship in the Pass Church.” This practice illustrates a pragmatic mindset in the trajectory of revivalism.
The name “Baptist” carries with it doctrinal connotations. Revivalism isn’t monolithic. Unsaved people don’t like the feeling of “Baptist,” and you can change that feeling, help along the process of church growth and increase your numbers, by choosing a neutral, apparently non-offensive name.
Like we know that gas prices went up before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we know that revivalism in its present iteration panders to unchurched Harry and Sally. That means the “blended worship” that 9 Marks won’t include in its presentation. You also might want to appear “woke” to your younger and perhaps ethnic demographic.
To get and keep a specialized population, you must show support to its grievances. For instance, you should call January 6 more than a “dustup,” as a recent NFL defensive coordinator, Jack Del Rio, did and was fined 100,000 dollars by his team. It means muting strong statements against popular sin, especially homosexuality and even abortion, in the spirit of Tim Keller. You might be complementarian, but you manage your speech so as not to offend egalitarians. Be careful of delineating male and female roles as if those distinctions exist.
Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman, and 9 Marks promoted and still push wokeism. This matches the spirit of corporate America flying rainbow flags to celebrate gay pride. You can’t go into a McDonalds or Starbucks without rainbows hanging all over.
Have you heard of “virtue signaling”? Wokeism sends a signal to a demographic to attract, gain, and then keep their allegiance. It is a new measure.
Ballitch gives as a characteristic of revivalism, “emotional manipulation.” Wokeism is emotional manipulation. He also lists “reductionist views of conversion.” Revivalism reduced conversion to something short of true conversion. Wokeism better “reconstructs conversion.” It calls for repentance over implicit racism in all white people, specifying group guilt rather than individual.
Critical theory claims special knowledge of racism, a modern form of gnosticism. The true gospel eliminates racial and ethnic barriers and sees everyone the same. Including race in the gospel corrupts it.
With wokeism, wokeness becomes a necessary fruit of repentance like speaking in tongues among the Charismatics. Important transformation of language must accompany the repentance. Leadership attracts followers by modifying language, conforming to wokeism. This easily fits a particular view of the kingdom compatible with the amillennialism of Dever and his church.
Root to Finney’s revivalism was pelagianism. In his Systematic Theology, he denied man’s total depravity. He saw within man a spark of goodness, which he could fan with human measures unto salvation. With man’s sinful condition, his rebellion, the only solution is divine. A theoretical Calvinism with God at center does not reach actual practice.
Is there a particular approach for growing an urban church? Revivalism and wokeism both say, “Yes.” The Bible says, “No.” Don’t do anything different. Just preach the gospel. Don’t change based on white, black, Hispanic, Chinese, African, whatever. Depend on God.
When 9 Marks points out the moat of revivalism in its audience’s eye, it should remove the beam of wokeism in its.
Review: Strength for the Day, Wisdom for the Way, by Robert Sorenson
Peter commanded in 1 Peter 2:2:
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
Desire the sincere milk of the word as newborn babes. How do newborn babes desire the pure mother’s milk? I think you know. The Apostle Paul commanded in Romans 12:2, “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” How do you renew your mind? A major facet of renewing the mind comes by what we put into our mind. The best content by far is scripture. Joshua 1:8 gives a good recipe for success:
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Strong, prosperous, successful living requires knowing and meditating on the Word of God. People need to hear the preaching of the Word of God. They also need to read it and study it on its own. Through my years of pastoring, I worked at getting church members into the Bible on their own. Some of you reading perhaps have used a daily devotional book or guide. C. H. Spurgeon, 19th century London pastor, wrote Morning and Evening, which blessed many.
In recent days, unaffiliated Baptist pastor, Robert Sorenson, wrote several volumes of daily devotionals. I read his Strength for the Day, Wisdom for the Way, Volume 8. He has these in stock and if you looked for one to use, I have a box of them. I can send you one for $20 plus shipping ($3.50). They are 366 pages for the total number of days in a year. Each page a day corresponds to the next day of the year. The bottom of each page presents the Bible reading that day to finish it in a year. I recommend it.
The book is well written. It is substantive, but not overly technical. You will learn from each page. It will challenge you. It is sound theologically. You will grow.
Strength for the Day is a nice spiral bound with an attractive cover. It will sit flat on your desk. You can turn pages so that the one you’re using is in the front. You could carry it easily with your Bible.
If you want to get it, you can email me at betbapt AT flash DOT net, using the appropriate symbols. You can send a check to 912 E. Sam Circle, Clearfield, Utah 84015. I make nothing from the book, nor do I receive support from this pastor or church. I just wanted to let you know about it.
Answers for Both the Rise and the Threat of Suicide
Between 1999 and 2019, suicide rose 35.2% in the United States. Also according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, in 2019:
- Suicide was the tenth leading cause of death overall in the U.S., claiming 47,500 lives.
- Suicide was the second leading cause of death for those age 10 to 34, and fourth for 35 to 44.
- Suicides (47,511) more than doubled homicides (19,141) in the U.S.
Apparently China has a much higher suicide rate, something like 22 out of 100,000 in China to 16 out of 100,000 in the U.S. The United States is climbing there. It was at 9 in 1999. China hired an evangelical pastor I know to provide a curriculum to prevent suicides. It didn’t have answers in its own worldview. China still won’t allow the Bible, but so helpless to stop the suicides in its young people, it permits a presentation that offers principles without the scripture references.
I talked to a believing Delta airline pilot. He faces great pressure to capitulate to woke philosophy with a threat of cancellation. Co-workers use the woke system to attempt to entrap the non-woke for firing. It reminded him of what occurred as an Air Force officer, when the leadership found itself facing multiplying suicides among officers and enlisted. The top men called bullying the cause and softness the remedy.
People hear more now with the internet, so they know more. They hear more about suicide and those threatening it. Statistics though show the percentages rising. This isn’t just greater information. It’s real. What is happening?
First, contentment and joy come from internal spiritual strength. God gives peace and satisfaction. Jesus said in John 14:27 and 16:33:
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
On the contrary, Isaiah wrote in 48:22 and 57:21:
There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.
There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.
Likewise, he wrote in 59:8:
The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
The things of the world and superficial pleasures will not fill inner longing. Only God will.
No one can put a bandaid over a spiritual problem and expect it to work. The world offers bandaids. A standing in God’s grace will ward off suicidal ideations. John describes this as overcoming the world. Satan and the world system tend toward death. God gives abundant life, which safeguards against this bad thinking.
With God as his highest value, a believer soaks in satisfaction. He does not look for or need the approval of social media. He finds pleasure in the will of God, not moved by worldly fads and popular notions.
Second, a death culture promulgates suicide. China is a death culture. The United States has become one. A death culture proceeds from at least two related causes. One, untethered from God it devalues His gift of life. The righteousness of God protects the right to live. Abortion manifests the divide from God. Two, taking life strikes at the image of God. A society that values God renders to Him the things that are His. A life is not man’s to take.
Third, the victim mentality justifies suicide. Eve was not a victim, but Satan got her thinking that way. This justified what she did. It brought forth death. God through Ezekiel denounces this mentality in Israel (Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32). The children said their teeth were set on edge because their fathers ate sour grapes.
A rudiment of wokeness is someone else made me a victim. Satan perpetuates this lie, because he wants people to kill themselves. His marks sink down into self-pity under false delusions. Instead of exposing this lie, other professing victims bolster it, reinforcing their victimhood. Among others, this lie feeds the popularity of the left in the United States. The left shrivels and disappears without victim mentality.
Short of suicide, people look for solace in drugs, alcohol, and worldly lust. Not everyone kills themselves, but they still live in a sad, dark existence, attempting to keep their head above water. Solomon said this world is vanity and vexation of spirit, so that the answer is not below the sun, but above it. Find peace in God, His truth and goodness.
I hope for less suicide and the threat of it. Under the temptation, God provides the way of escape. The answer is in Him. Everything else is a placebo for temporal inoculation, but it will not stop the spread of suicide.
Thomas Cranmer and the Lord’s Table: How Is the Presence of Christ There?
Since Christ, an important part of the history of true Christianity proceeded from and among the English speaking people. Whatever good came from the English, which affected the whole world, related to a populist association with the Bible. The populist movement against Roman Catholicism in sixteenth century England corresponded to respect for the Word of God. Two main figures served as a conduit for the fulfillment of the English Reformation: King Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. The former clashed with the pope for personal reasons and the latter for doctrinal ones.
Henry VIII served like a wrecking ball, while Cranmer worked more behind the scenes, picking his opportunities to exact systemic changes to the entire nation. These positive words do not serve as an endorsement of the Church of England. They explain an important departure from Catholic authority over the nation, opening the door for further deference to scripture. True New Testament churches benefitted from this work.
A direction toward freedom of conscience and soul liberty traces from King Alfred’s ninth century translation and circulation of the ten commandments, the psalms, and the four gospels in Old English. In the late fourteenth century John Wycliffe produced a hand written translation of the entire Bible into the vernacular. His followers, the Lollards, were persecuted by authority, but populist seed was scattered. William Tyndale brought about the first printed edition of the New Testament into English in 1525. Shortly thereafter, Miles Coverdale finished Tyndale’s work with an entire English Bible in 1535.
Three major events in Cranmer’s life shaped his biblical influence on England. First, Cranmer’s work as a scholar at Cambridge drew the attention of Cardinal Wolsey for the justification of the annulment of Henry’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon. Wolsey took Cranmer’s suggestion to canvass European theologians for their opinion rather than the Pope. Second, when Cranmer became ambassador to the Holy Roman Emperor, he intersected with influential reformers, who opposed Roman Catholicism. Third, he married Margarete, niece of Andreas Osiander’s wife, leader of reform in Nuremberg. To keep peace with the Catholic Church in England, the pope allowed for Cranmer’s appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533. Henry was far less the Protestant, but his annulment and then marriage to Anne Boleyn, aligned him with Cranmer. He became sympathetic with separation from Rome.
Jumping past Henry’s death in 1547, Cranmer had exerted great influence in the upbringing and training of Henry’s only son, Edward VI. At Edward’s coronation, Cranmer called Edward a second Josiah and encouraged him to continue reformation of the Church of England. Edward trusted Cranmer more than anyone. Cranmer saw the pope and the Mass as enemies of true Christianity and especially in the Mass. For him, the Mass was false doctrine that resulted in the condemnation of men. In 1550, Cranmer published a paper, “A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Savior Christ.” Cranmer rejected the Roman Catholic theology of the Mass or its version of the Lord’s Table.
Thomas Cranmer saw the reform of the Eucharist, the Catholic term for the Lord’s Table, as a return to biblical Christianity. He also thought that the false teaching kept its adherents from the true salvation of their souls. Cranmer believed the corruption sprang from the popish doctrine of transubstantiation or the physical presence of the real flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the elements. However, Cranmer did believe that Christ was present spiritually at the Table. Cranmer wrote that the eating and drinking of Christ is the faith of the believer, that those who have believed in Jesus Christ have in them His spiritual presence at the Table through justification by faith. He said that the presence of Christ was not in the elements.
Cranmer rejected and repudiated the continued sacrifice of Christ at the Mass. It detracted from the finished work of Christ, His substitutionary, sacrificial death one time on the cross. He argued that salvation could come only through Christ’s death. Even though Cranmer believed that the celebration of the Lord’s Table may be a good work, it did not win the favor of God or put away evil. He also taught that it was a memorial of Christ and spiritual nourishment to the godly. On the other hand, the belief and practice of the Roman Catholic Church led men into idolatry and endangered their souls, the doctrine of Antichrist.
Upon focusing upon this distinction of Cranmer from the transubstantiation of Roman Catholicism, I ask you reading if the presence of Christ is a factor in the observance of the Lord’s Table? Roman Catholicism says Christ’s physical presence is in the elements, transubstantiation. Later leader of the Oxford movement within the Church of England in the early 19th century, Edward Pusey, revived the doctrine of consubstantiation, the real, spiritual presence of Christ in the elements. This apparently was also Luther’s teaching, rejected by Cranmer. Cranmer taught not the “real presence” of Christ in the elements, but the “real absence” of Christ in them. Instead, the presence of Christ is in the converted soul of the believer as he partakes of those elements.
As I grew up in church, I heard three titles: the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, and communion. Very often, I refer to the ordinance taught in Matthew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11 as communion. When I call it, when anyone calls it, “communion,” what do they mean? I don’t think I understood that as I grew up in church, but later as I studied 1 Corinthians 10 especially, I did understand. At the Lord’s Table, God intends for not only communion with the other members of the church by partaking of the one bread, but also communion with Jesus Christ spiritually. That seems to me like the Cranmer view of the presence of Christ at the Lord’s Table in the believing person who partakes of the elements.
The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:15-22:
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
This is where the terminology “communion” comes, referring to the Lord’s Table. In chapter 10, Paul argues against eating meat offered unto idols because there is the presence of demons with the physical meat. He says that eating is fellowship with or communion with devils. Paul uses the Lord’s Table as part of his argument. He is writing that when someone eats the bread and drinks of the cup, he communes with or fellowship with (same Greek word) Christ. Those eating things of the Gentile sacrifice commune with devils.
Earlier Paul said the idol was nothing (1 Corinthians 8:10). It’s not the hunk of wood or stone that is something, but what is behind the idol that is something, which is, as Paul later shows in 1 Corinthians 10, a devil or a demon. This same teaching goes back to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Moses writes that they sacrificed unto devils (Leviticus 17:17, Deuteronomy 32:17). Something spiritually is happening with the offering of the meat to the idol. Someone comes into communion with a devil or devils just like at the Lord’s Table someone comes into communion with Jesus Christ spiritually. It is not just a physical act, the Lord’s Table, but a spiritual one.
The same point could be made from the beginning of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, when Paul says that the passing through the Red Sea for the children of Israel was a spiritual experience. I believe that Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 12:13. A spiritual communion exists with the ordinances. It is more than just a physical act. God is present and with true believers communion with Him occurs. The basis for communion with each other is the communion that regenerated, immersed church members have with God. When believers call it “communion,” we mean “communion” with other believers, but also “communion” with God spiritually. Hence, God’s spiritual presence is there at the Lord’s Table.
The Prime Directive Isn’t a Biblical Directive
The Star Trek series began in 1966, when I was four years old. In my home in a small town in Indiana, I grew up watching our black and white tube television set. I became a “trekkie” with Captain Kirk, Spock, Scottie, and McCoy. If someone held up his hand with only his middle fingers separated, I knew that meant, “Live long and prosper.” It isn’t unusual in this country. Many watch and read fantasy and science fiction.
I’m not endorsing Star Trek or even the genre of science fiction. I lay down a full disclaimer. I would argue for disinterest as the superior position.
Star Trek shows a naturalistic world view. It imagines that everything came about by accident and evolved, producing whole other galaxies full of living creatures and intelligence. Having progressed in technology to the extent that people can travel at light speed to get to those galaxies, the science fiction of Star Trek says this is how good things should be. None of this mirrors a Christian worldview, which is the only true one.
Christianity, of course, reveals the best possible outcome for people. God wants people to have it and it could not be better.
In the Star Trek imagination, the future sees very evolved, sophisticated people visit less evolved ones. They study them like scientists, almost like humans watching an ant farm. The speculation is that this is bound to happen. All these different creatures evolved in their separate locations.
When the main Star Trek characters visit, they cannot interfere with development or evolution. Some of you reading know the law. They call it the “prime directive,” which “prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.”
While traveling, my wife and I used a laundromat (also called a launderette some places). At one location, while I went to get cash for change, she started into evangelism with a woman, who was a secular humanist. I didn’t hear the first half of the conversation, but the woman was arguing against Christianity interfering with indigenous people. Why should Christians see their point of view superior to tribes with subsistence living and their accompanying religions?
I had walked in to hear the woman say this to my wife. I smiled to myself, because it sounded like the prime directive. Just leave people alone. Just because they’re different doesn’t mean they’re inferior. I also recognize this as multi-culturalism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
While the term has come to encompass a variety of normative claims and goals, it is fair to say that proponents of multiculturalism find common ground in rejecting the ideal of the “melting pot” in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture. Instead, proponents of multiculturalism endorse an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices.
The prime directive says “don’t assimilate” the minority culture. This philosophy further associates with “cultural relativism.” Foundational to this thinking is the absence of objective truth, goodness, and beauty. With cultural relativism, one people cannot say that they are better than some other people in their beliefs, practices, and aesthetics.
If there is objective truth, goodness, and beauty, which there is, you help a culture when you intervene with the truth, goodness, and beauty. There is one God, no other. He is also the judge of the world. Every person, whatever culture he’s in, will face the same God.
The Bible teaches the polar opposite of the prime directive. Something is better than something else. One culture is superior to another.
Multiculturalism, the prime directive, or cultural relativism reject the truth. Satan wants men going down the broad way unaware that it sends them to eternal death. They think they’re fine, because no one can say with certainty what the truth is.
Cultures are different dependent upon their relationship to the truth. The closer to the truth, the better they are. If they aren’t following the truth, someone can help them by preaching the truth to them. God requires the violation of the prime directive.
Not Knowing What You With Certainty Can Know Is True and Knowing What You Can’t Know Is True
What you can know with certainty is anything that God says. You know the Bible is true. God said it. It’s true and you can know it with certainty. More than ever, what God says, people don’t know. They treat what God said like they can’t know it.
Scripture talks about treating what you can know like you can’t know it. It’s not about knowing. It’s about wanting. Someone doesn’t want to do it, so he eliminates it by not knowing it. He can know it and he does know it. He says he doesn’t know it.
What I’m writing about is like a little child who “forgets.” A parent asks if the child knows. The child nods, “No,” shaking his head back and forth, when the child knows. Not knowing is an excuse for not doing. He does know. With a very large sample size, I can say that children know more than what they act like they do.
Very often, for what people can know, they stay ignorant. They could know, but they don’t want to know. They like what they’re doing. If they don’t try to find out, then they won’t know. If they don’t know, they won’t have to do.
Knowing what you can know with certainty very often isn’t popular. It’s easier just to say that you don’t know.
On the other hand, people treat the Bible like it can’t be known. It’s just opinion. It is a story book of preferences. If it makes you feel good, sure, go ahead with it, but don’t treat it like something you can know.
An example of not knowing what you can know occurred recently in the Senate hearings for confirming the Supreme Court justice, when a Senator asked her to define a woman. She said she didn’t know that. She could know, but wasn’t willing to know.
Very often what the world knows is that it can’t know. It knows with certainty that it can’t know. The unknowability provides freedom. You’re not to judge what you can’t know, so you must not know. That way no one can judge. Then you get to live like you want.
Unwillingness to know becomes a basis of toleration. You’re in trouble if you judge something wrong, because you’re saying you can know, when you can’t. You’re left with tolerating wrong things. It’s required. The judgment itself becomes what’s wrong. An irony is that you can know when someone else can’t know.
I’m not saying, however, that people don’t say they know things. They know what’s wrong with their meal at a restaurant. These people write a bad review with complete conviction of their own knowledge. They know if they got bad service from someone. They know when someone offends them because it’s what they feel.
People know evolution is true. Evolution is still a theory. That status hasn’t changed, but men now know men evolved. This theory promotes naturalism. Knowing it frees men from their accountability to God, when they don’t know it. It’s a theory. It’s a theory that we actually know is not true.
Critical theory poses as knowledge. People know your motives. They know you’re racist. Climate science says it knows the world will end by global warming. Man causes the end of the world through natural means. God tells man how the world will end. That we know.
Churches are more and more worldly because of more and more preference, a lack of knowledge about scriptural things that were once known. They are still known, but treated like they are not. What distinguishes the roles of men and women, what were once known, now not known. The psychology behind overturning scripture, creating victims, who are not victims, this is now known. People are sure of this.
What I’m describing is leaning on man’s understanding and not on God’s. God is always right. Man is rarely to never. Living by faith, which pleases God, is living by what man can and should know, not by what he knows, but that he really cannot.
How should someone treat willful not knowing or rebellious knowing? He should tell the truth. He should embrace knowing what he can and should know. As the psalmist wrote in Psalm 118:6, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?” He should also stand against what he knows men cannot know.
The Bible Teaches Premillennialism, But Premillennialism Also Fits What We See Happening In The World
If you read a word like premillennialism and you just stop reading, I understand. Why does anyone need to use a word like that to explain or represent the Bible? I didn’t come up with the words amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism, but they are historic words that stand for particular representations, explanations, or systems of interpretation of the Bible.
As a system, the first of the three above words, amillennialism was the first to appear, even though it wasn’t coined until the 1930s. Every one of the previously stated terms have “millennialism” in them. This means that each of them pivot on the meaning of “the kingdom,” because the millennium refers to the kingdom in the Bible.
Amillennialism says “a” or “no” millennium. Instead of saying that Revelation 20 is a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on earth, amillennialism spiritualizes 1,000, doesn’t take it literally. In that way, it says there is no millennial reign of Jesus Christ. Amillennialism itself is an explanation of scripture that relies on spiritualization of the text, a highly subjective approach to the Bible.
If someone can read into the words of scripture by spiritualizing them, he can become the authority for scripture. He can make it mean what he wants it to mean. The system of ahmillennialism began with Catholicism or Roman Catholicism, that latter the terminology for the former that arose during the Protestant Reformation. Catholicism said the church is the kingdom of God and the true nation of Israel. It reached that conclusion through allegorical interpretation, which arose from Catholic theologians.
Both amillennialism and postmillennialism say that the kingdom of Christ is the church and a true Israel. However, postmillennialism claims the added feature of an optimistic view of the success of the church in bringing in the return of Christ to earth. Amillennialism arose out of a Catholic church that ruled like a kingdom on the earth, a point of view very pragmatic and appropriate for that day. Theologians systematized that into amillennialism, then postmillennialism.
Premillennialism as an approach takes the Bible literally, that is, grammatically and historically. It takes an Old Testament priority, believing that plain meaning of the text understands scripture as those first hearing it in that day. Anyone who takes the Bible literally will also be a premillennialist. Premillennialism asks how people understood the Bible that were hearing it in the day it was written. It is called premillennialism because Jesus comes back before He sets up a thousand year kingdom on the earth, a literal reading of Revelation 19-20.
What I see happening through history and in the world today matches up with a premillennial approach or explanation. So much we read in the news fits right with the Bible. The application of scripture with a literal interpretation easily corresponds with contemporary events.
Recent Comments