Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 12)
Search Results for: worship
Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined
I have had the privilege of preaching a series on the Sabbath and its relationship to the Lord’s Day. Topics covered include the Sabbath as Israel’s sign of creation and redemption; the way the Sabbath points forward to redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ; Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, Puritan, and dispensational Baptist views of the Sabbath; the question of whether churches in the New Testament era need to meet for worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord’s Day; and a careful study of the heresies, not just on the Sabbath, but on the doctrines of Scripture, God, Trinitarianism, Christ, salvation, last things, and many other areas of Seventh-Day Adventism, as explained in “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends.”
To listen to the sermons and/or watch the preaching, please:
Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath
and feel free to add a comment, “like” the videos, and/or subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel if you have not already do so.
There is probably one more message on the Sabbath coming, so feel free to check back. You can’t end a series with six messages instead of seven anyway, can you?
–TDR
Why is the Holy Spirit called the Holy “Spirit”?
Last Friday we asked some questions, including the following:
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
So what are the answers?
The third Person in the Godhead possesses a spiritual nature identical to that of the Father and the Son. He is denominated the Spirit with reference to his Person, not only with reference to His essence. He is no more or less spiritual as to his substance than is the Father or the Son, for He is one being–homoousios–with them, but is called the Spirit because of the mode in which the essence is communicated to him, namely, by procession from the Father and the Son or by the Father and the Son’s spiration: “Spirit, because spirated.” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pg. 268) “The Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is emphatically the Spirit. Not that he is spirit in any higher or any different sense of the word spirit, but upon other accounts, the name of Spirit is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to him” (Waterland, Second Defence Q. 2). The chart below comes from Bible Study #2, Who is God?, where the Scriptural evidence for it is found, as it is in the detailed study in my Trinitarianism college class:
The Father is most fundamentally Father not because in the work of God toward us–the economic Trinity–He adopts His people and make them His adopted children, but because considering God as He is in Himself–the ontological Trinity–He is eternally the Father of the eternal Son, and the Son is eternally begotten by the Father; in time the Son was sent by the Father to be born in Bethlehem because in eternity the Son’s “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), the Father’s begetting expressing the eternal relation between the eternal Persons. The Son is eternally Son because He is eternally begotten of the Father. (Lecture #7 in the Trinitarianism course discusses the Biblical evidence that the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s procession are eternal.) Likewise the Spirit is eternally the Spirit because He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and the Son (cf. John 20:22) in a manner that is comparable in an ineffably exalted way to being breathed forth, rather than the way the Son is of the Father, in an ineffably exalted way that is comparable to being begotten.
John Owen helpfully writes concerning the designation of the eternal third Person as the “Spirit,” and how this differs from the spiritual essence possessed in common by all three Trinitarian Persons:
This, then, being the name of him concerning whom we treat, some things concerning it and the use of it, as peculiarly applied unto him, are to be premised:1 for sometimes he is called the “Spirit” absolutely; sometimes the “Holy Spirit,” or, as we speak, the “Holy Ghost;” sometimes the “Spirit of God,” the “good Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of truth” and “holiness;” sometimes the “Spirit of Christ” or “of the Son.” The first absolutely used denotes his person; the additions express his properties and relation unto the other persons.
In the name Spirit two things are included;—First, His nature or essence,—namely, that he is a pure, spiritual, or immaterial substance; for neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks can express such a being in its subsistence but by ruach and pneuma, a spirit. Nor is this name, firstly, given unto the Holy Spirit in allusion unto the wind in its subtilty, agility, and efficacy; for these things have respect only unto his operations, wherein, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened unto the wind and its effects, John 3:8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name. So it is said of God, John 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός·—“God is a Spirit;” that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined unto any place, and so not regarding one more than another in his worship; as is the design of the place to evince. It will therefore be said, that on this account the name of “Spirit” is not peculiar unto the third person, seeing it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for whereas it is said, “God is a Spirit,” it is not spoken of this or that person, but of the nature of God abstractedly. I grant that so it is; and therefore the name “Spirit” is not, in the first place, characteristical of the third person in the Trinity, but denotes that nature whereof each person is partaker.
But, moreover, as it is peculiarly and constantly ascribed unto him, it declares his especial manner and order of existence; so that wherever there is mention of the “Holy Spirit,” his relation unto the Father and Son is included therein; for he is the Spirit of God. And herein there is an allusion to somewhat created,—not, as I said, to the wind in general, unto whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations, but unto the breath of man; for as the vital breath of a man hath a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them: for all those allusions are weak and imperfect wherein substantial things are compared with accidental, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet such allusions doth our weakness need instruction from and by. Thus he is called … Ps. 33:6, “The Spirit” or “breath of the mouth of the LORD,” or “of his nostrils;” as Ps. 18:15, wherein there is an eminent allusion unto the breath of a man. … And from hence, or the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son, as the breath of God, did our Saviour signify his communication of his gifts unto his disciples by breathing on them: John 20:22 … and because in our first creation it is said of Adam that God … “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” Gen. 2:7. He hath the same appellation with respect unto God, Ps. 18:15. Thus is he called the “Spirit.” …
Again; He is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so, in the first mention of him, Gen. 1:2, רוּחַ אֶלֹהִים, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I doubt not but that the name אֶלֹהִים, “Elohim,” which includes a plurality in the same nature, is used in the creation and the whole description of it to intimate the distinction of the divine persons; for presently upon it the name Jehovah is mentioned also, chap. 2:4, but so as Elohim is joined with it. But that name is not used in the account given us of the work of creation, because it hath respect only unto the unity of the essence of God. … Now, the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” originally and principally, as the Son is called the “Son of God;” for the name of “God” in those enunciations is taken personally for the Father,—that is, God the Father, the Father of Christ, and our Father, John 20:17. And he is thus termed … upon the account of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being [the font of the Trinity], the Son is from him by eternal generation, and is therefore his Son, the Son of God; whose denomination as the Father is originally from hence, even the eternal generation of the Son. So is the person of the Holy Spirit from him by eternal procession or emanation. Hence is that relation of his to God even the Father, whence he is called the “Spirit of God.” And he is not only called … the “Spirit of God,” but … “the Spirit that is of God,” which proceedeth from him as a distinct person. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from him, he is called, metaphorically, “The breath of his mouth,” as proceeding from him by an eternal spiration. On this foundation and supposition he is also called, secondly, “The Spirit of God” … to difference him from all other spirits whatever; as, thirdly, also, because he is promised, given, and sent of God, for the accomplishment of his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances hereof will be afterward considered. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation unto the Father, before mentioned.
On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts,” Gal 4:6;—and the Spirit of Christ: “What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,” 1 Pet. 1:11. So Rom. 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The Spirit, therefore, of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” is an inference taken from the words foregoing, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the “Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead.” Look, then, in what sense he is said to be the Spirit of God,—that is, of the Father,—in the same he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this is because he proceedeth from the Son also; and for no other reason can he be so called, at least not without the original and formal reason of that appellation. Secondarily, I confess he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because promised by him, sent by him, and that to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But this he could not be unless he had antecedently been the Spirit of the Son by his proceeding from him also: for the order of the dispensation of the divine persons towards us ariseth from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence; and if the Spirit did proceed only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Consider, therefore, the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, and the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for it was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by him, as we shall show. … This, therefore, is the formal reason of this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son,” and the “Spirit of Christ,” upon the account of his precession or emanation from his person also. Without respect hereunto he could not be called properly the “Spirit of Christ;” but on that supposition he may be. He is so denominated from that various relation and respect that he hath unto him in his work and operations. Thus is the Spirit called in the Scripture, these are the names whereby the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on the account of his offices and operations will be manifested in our progress. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 3 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 54-64)
So most fundamentally the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit,” Pneuma, because He is, as it were, “breathed forth” (pneo, cf. Psalm 147:7, “he will blow his breath, pneusei to pneuma autou,” [LXX]) in an eternal procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle, while the Son, by contrast, is eternally begotten by the Father.
That is why the Holy Spirit is most fundamentally designated the “Spirit”; it is because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Son. Why is He so frequently called “Holy”? Stay tuned–that will be the subject of an upcoming post (although it may not be next Friday; I’m thinking October 15th’s blogpost, probably).
–TDR
LDS Visions or Revelations a Consideration for Their Danger as a Source of Authority for Everyone Else, Including Baptists
The visions or revelations of Joseph Smith came about in America at a time in this country when many others were receiving their own visions or revelations, paving the way for Smith’s and the acceptance of his by others. The United States was a land of equality, equal opportunity, and populism. It despised a king and state religion. It liked, loved really, democratic society, where everyone’s voice was heard, and it was, therefore, acceptable to get your own personal revelation from God as a part of your personal relationship with God. That spirit is still very alive in America. Americans distrust their own institutions and this is woven into the fabric of being an American. That includes the institution of the church.
In early nineteenth century, especially on the frontier, people operated in many unconventional ways, depending on superstitions in medicine, farming, and predicting the weather. It was not unusual to use dowsing to find water with a special, forked stick. People could see signs everywhere, giving them guidance from above or within. Snake oil salesman got their name in this era, literally selling snake oil, promising cures to almost anything, circumventing the conventional manner of tending to one’s health.
Joseph Smith was 14 years of age when he had his first vision or revelation from God, and the Smiths, Joseph Smith Sr. and mom, Lucy, weren’t members of a church. Joseph Jr. didn’t come up with the idea of getting visions. It was a thing to have. Only special people had them.
The Smiths couldn’t find a church they liked or agreed with, were still looking, and then Joseph ‘heard from God’ that there was no true church to join. Convenient. Churches have set beliefs and if you are a rank and file non-clergy, you might disagree, your opinion probably doesn’t count for much, and you don’t have a means of having your own in those situations. You might not want the church doctrines and practices imposed on you and also their financial obligations. You want a church where perhaps everyone could share, like is seen in the first church in Jerusalem in Acts chapters 2 and 5. That’s what churches should do, accept your way and then take care of you with little expectation.
On top of everything above, even though there was freedom, it was tough to navigate the new world, especially if you were not born into wealth, grinding it out to earn a living. Many made it through subsistence farming, sometimes succeeding, perhaps enough to invest in a cockamamie get-rich-quick scheme, lose everything and start over again. People still are very allured by the suggestion of some easier path to success, willing to subject themselves to whatever comes along that promises to work better, reinventing the wheel.
Joseph Smith lived in an environment, a culture, that someone could believe that God was talking to him directly. All of the new, astounding doctrines and practices of LDS came by this manner, contradicting doctrines and practices hitherto already established in the history of Christianity: the preexistence of human souls or spirits, God was once a man on another planet before being exalted to Godhood, celestial marriage, polygamy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same being, God organized the world but did not create it from nothing, and proxy baptism for dead people. It was also revealed to him through a story that all of these beliefs were the original truth that had been lost and buried for 1400 years. On many occasions, Joseph Smith and then other Mormon leaders received revelations at a time that fit whatever it was they needed to hear from God to make a pronouncement to deal with that situation.
Matthew Bowman writes in The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith (pp. 10-12):
The Smiths had unwittingly moved into an ideal location for a family with unresolved spiritual yearnings, the center of what one historian has called “the antebellum spiritual hothouse” and another “the burned-over district.” . . . . The optimism, instability, and freedom of the New York frontier were life’s blood to the eclecticism and experimentation always to be found at the margins of mainstream Christianity. The Shakers, for instance, so named for their physical worship services, had fled to America from a disapproving Britain under the leadership of Ann Lee, whom they believe to be Christ reincarnated. In the United States, they found fertile ground for both converts and settlement, and in 1826 they established a colony less than thirty miles from Palmyra. . . . North of Albany, the farmer William Miller sat by the fire in his home in Low Hampton, New York, feverishly working out the precise date of the Second Coming from the book of Daniel for his thousands of followers, who were convinced that they needed no trained pastors to interpret scripture for them.
But the Smiths had always been drawn — particularly Lucy — not to such visionaries but to the more mainstream ecstasies of evangelical revivalism. The force behind revivalism was the Methodists, who . . . urged potential converts to embrace Christ in a personal divine encounter. At Methodist camp meetings, itinerant preachers, though frequently uneducated and even unlettered, learned how to muse the Holy Spirit among their listeners. Between rousing and sometimes raucous gospel hymns, they offered not prepared sermon on doctrinal topics but emotional appeals, promising forgiveness, warning of hell, reaching their hands to the heavens, and pleading with the crowd to leave sin behind and walk forward to be saved in the arms of Christ. . . . “Men are so spiritually sluggish,” declared Charles Grandison Finney, the great revivalist of the age, “that they must be so excited that they will break over their countervailing influences before they will obey God.” Finney’s talents shone in a month-long revival in 1830-31 in Rochester, a few miles from Palmyra, in which he converted hundreds. . . .
The sort of spiritual manifestations the Smith family had already experienced were not new to most revivalists. Portentous dreams were common particularly among itinerant Methodist preachers, as were the type of healings and providential manifestations Lucy had experienced. . . .
It was in this atmosphere that Joseph Jr., then a young teenager, began thinking about religion.
The ecstasies and visions of revivalism were the seedbed or hothouse for Joseph Smith and the new religion. What makes this acceptable? Some might say, because what they revealed was not false. I don’t know that they can say, that what they’re saying is in fact true. How do you know it’s true, if it is? Someone could say, it’s scriptural. Well, then you don’t need a vision or a revelation from God. It’s already in the Bible. If cannot be proven to be false, then it is an acceptable vision or revelation.
If someone can hear revelations from God, how do those differentiate from scripture? If they are from God, that is equal to scripture. One cannot accept visions and revelations as from God. That opens up Pandora’s box. It’s not acceptable. And yet it is today. You really can’t question it. You’ve got to accept whatever version of it. How does a LDS today distinguish evangelical visions from their LDS ones? It really just buttresses the point of Mormon visions and revelations, that God is still talking to men. He’s still talking to Mormons.
LDS do not have a kind of closed canon of scripture. They have their continued visions, their continued revelations, even if they don’t like the LDS teachings, which many LDS has a problem with, and with their prophets. What has pushed LDS along is their continued revelations. I had a long talk last Saturday to an LDS man, coming out of the garage of his big house, a CEO of a small software company, and he disconnects from LDS doctrine, but he’s got his own testimony, his own experience, his own way of connecting with God, so he can pick and choose. LDS is fine with that. They encourage it. They might call it “the burning in the bosom.” Before Joseph Smith got his first vision, he prayed James 1:5, and that’s become the pattern of LDS since then.
I estimate that a majority of Baptists still get direct messages from God. They call it different things, but these impressions are authoritative, nonetheless, very often for some of the major decisions of their lives. When they give testimony to the important decisions, they don’t say, it was scriptural, my church was fine with it, so I had the liberty to do it, so I did. They say, I knew, God told me. Sometimes God also told the spouse, as a validation. Both knew. Both heard.
The one who questions the experience is the one who says he’s in authority, he’s a king, taking away from the egalitarian nature of receiving visions. Some kind of exegesis of an authoritative book is not sufficient for a genuine Christian experience. Obviously there are contradictions, because many have been excommunicated for contradicting the vision of someone in authority, Smith or Brigham Young. The acceptance of a democratic community fine with your receiving your vision or revelation is the level playing field. Revelations aren’t just for the elite few, but for anyone. This is the “antebellum spiritual hothouse” that we still live in.
Pre or Post Tribulation Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20? Part 2 of 2
In part one of this series, I mentioned that I was discussing last things–eschatology–with someone who strongly asserted that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 refuted the pre-Tribulation Rapture position. He argued that 1 Thessalonians states that the dead in Christ shall rise first, and then the Rapture takes place, but the first resurrection, when the dead in Christ rise, takes place in Revelation 20 at the end of the Tribulation period; a post-Tribulation Rapture. Therefore, he concluded, the pre-Tribulation Rapture position was false. We looked at 1 Thessalonians last week. We will look at Revelation 20 now. Does Revelation 20 teach a post-Tribulation Rapture?
Rev. 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev. 20:6 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ βασιλεύσουσι μετ’ αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη.
Profane
Reading through the Bible for my second time this year, I arrived at Leviticus again and the word “profane” stood out to me. It is found 26 times in the Old Testament of the King James Version and seven in the New. Fifteen of those total times are in Leviticus.
In eighteenth century English dictionaries, to profane something is to violate something sacred. The Universal English Dictionary in 1706 defines “profane”:
Ungodly, unholy, irreligious, wicked; unhallowed, common, ordinary: It is often opposed to sacred.
The Hebrew word, translated “profane,” also many times means and is translated “to bore or to pierce.” Something is added that is not natural to a thing when it is pierced. It is violated. I like to use the analogy of a dirty dish placed with the clean dishes.
Here are the fifteen usages of the English word “profane” in Leviticus, all found in five of the chapters.
Leviticus 18:21, And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:12, And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 20:3, And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Leviticus 21:4, But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
6, They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
7, They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
9, And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
12, Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.
14, A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
15, Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
Leviticus 22:2, Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.
9, They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them.
15, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD.
32, Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you.
Profane, you can see, is an adjective, noun, or verb. As a verb, the Hebrew word (chalal) means, “to be commonly used.” The Hebrew word is also translated in the King James Version, “pollute” (Numbers 18:32). An understanding of “profane” must be taken in contrast to sacred, hallowed, or holy.
Something sacred is kept separate, not mixed with the common. By mixing it with the common, it is profaned or becomes profane, which is the opposite of holy. By adding something common to something sacred, the sacred is profaned. It is no longer hallowed or kept separate. The common is something not sacred, so it is of a different nature than the sacred or the holy. For something to remain holy, it must be kept distinct, and a difference must be kept between the holy and the profane in order to keep sanctified that what is holy. This is especially in important in worship and Leviticus is a guidebook for worship.
To keep something hallowed that is sacred, one must understand it’s nature. What makes it holy? What is this act, thing, or person in its essence? Then only something of that essence or of the same kind can be associated with it, brought into contact with it, or linked with it or correlated to it. It’s worth reading all the usages above from Leviticus.
The first usage in Leviticus of “profane” reads, “neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” It does not explain what that is. It assumes the reader knows what that is.
“The name of God” is who God is. It’s what characterizes Him in His Person and Work. To profane His name is to associate or correlate with Him something that is contrary to His nature. It disrespects Him. It dishonors Him. It mischaracterizes Him, and this is very serious to do to God, so God adds, “I am the LORD.” John Gill writes about this: “I [am] the Lord; who would avenge such a profanation of his name.” God isn’t going to allow someone to keep profaning His name.
I’m going to select a few of the above examples to give the sense or understanding of “profane.” Leviticus 21:12 says, “Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God.” To profane the sanctuary is to make it common. It’s a sacred place and it is treated as a common place, not unique to God. This is not just profaning God, but profaning God’s sanctuary, something closely associated with God.
Leviticus 22:1-2 say,
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.
Those who had become common and, therefore, not holy, were not qualified to offer holy sacrifices. God would be profaned by the unholy offering the holy. The person himself could profane God and the worship of God and the thing offered could be profaned so as to profane God and the worship of Him. Common things, which are unholy, are to be kept out of worship. They may not even be evil — they’re just common. Something is made common when it is not treated in a unique or sacred manner, but is treated like everything else.
How people understand God in their imagination comes in a major way through association. Not only does God take offense at it, because it disrespects Him, but it also gives people as much as anything a wrong view of God. Someone will have a lesser view of God, a diminished understanding of Him, and that will affect a person’s life. He may not believe in the true God or live in accordance with the true God.
As much as anything today as an application of profane is the mixture in worship in the contemporary churches what is common with what it holy. Professing churches give God profane worship and they profane God. They give Him something worldly, lustful, and distorted so as to blaspheme God. The people then become like their worship. They themselves are profane and this just results in even further profanity of God and of their lives. The world doesn’t know God because of the correlation of the common or the profane with God in professing churches. The people of these professing churches are made common and profane as they blaspheme God with their profanity.
The Gnostic History of Images of Jesus Christ
Images of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, should not be made for the reasons explained in the appropriate articles in the studies on ecclesiology here. But did you know that the Gnostics were the first ones to makes images of the Savior? Note the following:
The Gnostics, in their enmity to God the Father, had proscribed his image, but being favourable to the Son, they painted and sculptured the figure of the Saviour, of all dimensions, and under various forms. It … appears … that we are indebted to Gnostics for the earliest portraits of Jesus. “It was for the use of Gnostics, and by the hand of those sectaries, who attempted at various times, and by a thousand different schemes, to effect a monstrous combination of the doctrines of Christianity with Pagan superstitions, that little images of Christ were first fabricated; the original model of these figures they traced back to Pontius Pilate himself, by a hypothetical train of reasoning, which could scarcely deceive even the most ignorant of their initiated disciples. These little statues were made of gold, or silver, or some other substance, and after the pattern of those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other sages of antiquity, which those sectarians were accustomed to exhibit, crowned with flowers in their Conciliabula, and all of which were honoured with the same degree of worship. Such, indeed, is the positive assertion of St. Iræneus,* confirmed, or at least reiterated by St. Epiphanius.† This superstition, which on the same principle permitted painted images of Christ, was peculiarly in vogue amongst the Gnostics of the sects of Carpocrates; and history has preserved the name of a woman, Marcellina, adopted by that sect, for the propagation of which she removed from the farthest East, to Rome; and who in the little Gnostic church, as it may be called, which was under her direction, exposed to the adoration of her followers images of Christ and of St. Paul, of Homer and Pythagoras. This fact, which is supported by the serious evidence of St. Augustine,‡ is, besides, perfectly in accordance with the celebrated anecdote of the Emperor, Alexander Severus, who placed amongst his Lares, between the images of the most revered philosophers and kings, the portraits of Christ, and of Abraham, opposite those of Orpheus and Apollonius of Tyana, and who paid to all a vague kind of divine worship.§ It cannot, therefore, be doubted, that this strange association originated in the bosom of certain schools of the Neo-Platonists, as well as in several Gnostic sects, and we may thence infer, that the existence of images fabricated by Gnostic hands, induced Christians, as soon as the Church relaxed in its primitive aversion to monuments of idolatry, to adopt them for their own use.*”[1]
* St. Irenæus, Advers. Hæres. lib. i., cap. xxv., a. 6, édition de Massuet.
† St. Epiphanius, Hæres. cap. xxvii., a. 6. See on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, “de Origine imaginum Christi Domini in Ecclesia Christiana,” s. 10, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iii., 394–396.
‡ St. Augustin, de Hæresib. cap. vii.: “Sectæ ipsius (Carpocratis) fuisse traditur socia quædam Marcellina, quæ colebat imagines Jesu et Pauli, et Homeri et Pythagoræ, adorando incensumque ponendo.” (See the dissertation of Fueldner, upon the Carpocratians, in the Dritte Denkschrift der Hist. Theol. Gesellschaft zu Leipzig., p. 267, et seq.)
- Æl. Lamprid. in Alexandr. Sever. cap. xxix. “In larario suo, in quo et divos principes, sed optimos (et) electos et animas sanctiores, in queis et Appollonium, et quantum scriptor suorum temporum dicit. Christum, Abraham et Orpheum, et hujusmodi ceteros, habebat ac majorum effigies, rem divinam faciebat.” Such is the lesson proposed by Heyne for the employment of this text. (See the dissertation of Alexandr. Sever. Imp. religion. miscell. probant., &c., in his Opuscul. Academ. vol. vi., p. 169–281; see also on this subject the dissertation of Jablonsky, De Alexandra Severo, Imperatore Romano, Christianorum sacris per Gnostico initiato, in his Opuscul. Philol. vol. iv., p. 38–79.
* Such, we are told by M. Raoul Rochette, is the inference drawn by the pious and learned Bottari, from the testimony quoted above, Pitture e Sculture Sacre, vol i., p. 196; and that his opinion, formed in the bosom of orthodox Catholicism, has been adopted by all Roman antiquaries.
[1] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Christian Iconography; Or, the History of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, trans. E. J. Millington and Margaret Stokes, vol. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886), 243–245.
So if you use images of Jesus Christ to (mis)represent Him in curricula for children’s ministries, or around the 25th of December you make a little image of Jesus and put it in a stable, you are not only violating the Second Commandment by engaging in a form of (likely unintentional) idolatry, but you are following the ancient Gnostics.
Maybe it is time to immediately stop making, using, condoning, promoting, or contributing in any way to the use of images of the Son of God.
–TDR
Christian Patriotism
Christian patriotism could sound like an oxymoron. Patriotism is devotion to and rigorous support of one’s country and Christian is devotion to and rigorous support of Jesus Christ. If you’re really a Christian, then there would not be room for patriotism. What is true about this?
At some point, some kind of patriotism isn’t Christian anymore. There’s a real danger of that. However, I believe patriotism can be consistent with being a Christian. It’s even good and right to a certain extent that is still in the bounds of actual patriotism. Some will disagree and I think in many cases it is harmful disagreement.
Right now, it seems to me that about thirty percent of Americans do not love the flag. In a recent article in the New York Times, an article, “A Fourth of July Symbol of Unity That May No Longer Unite,” starts by telling the story of a produce salesman, who couldn’t sell his potatoes to locals because he displayed the American flag. They associated that with something evil. The theme of the story is that the American flag is a polarizing symbol, not a unifying one.
The state itself wants to change the story of America that is told to children growing up in its school system. It’s a version of history that isn’t happy about America, let alone patriotic. I would assert that those who attack America are an almost exact overlap of those who will attack Christianity today. They’re the same people. Some patriotic Americans now don’t feel free expressing patriotism. Now the American flag associates with Christianity to many and they’re either happy or unhappy with it in a divisive way.
Where does patriotism go too far? God isn’t worshiped by singing a patriotic song; He isn’t. We won’t sing patriotic songs as an act of worship. Mormons have a view very close to the idea that the U.S. Constitution is inspired by God. That’s also not true.
Christian patriotism could be something in the trajectory of Paul’s claiming and using Roman citizenship. It was helpful to him based upon the providence of God. The providence of God is a practical ramification of the sovereignty of God. Because of the power, wisdom, and love of God, we can know that He allows and causes everything, so that He is working all things together for good to those who love God. We look for those ways.
The United States is an example of the providence of God, especially the idea of America, and any way that the scriptural aspects of this idea are upheld. By being patriotic, we are being thankful to God for what He has done. We want to support this. We want to hang on to this. We don’t want to lose this.
America is a part of the plan of God. God has used the country insofar that America has held to scriptural concepts and a belief in the true God. Righteousness has exalted the nation. Sin on the other hand is increasingly though being a reproach to the nation, and genuine Christians would do well as salt to retard that corruption in a patriotic manner.
Christian patriotism is loyal to the preservation of a righteous nation as salt. Why retard corruption? Why not let the nation die? This isn’t God’s will for a Christian. A true patriot will embrace what makes America great and preserve it. To keep it, you’ve got to know what it is. You’ve got to teach it. When people try to keep you from teaching it, you try to do something about that.
Christian patriotism connects with something in the past to celebrate. There is something to shoot off fireworks, wear red, white, and blue, and be thankful to God. Nations are in the will of God. The preservation of those nations requires true affection for what truly makes them great. Patriotism and this affection might be one and the same.
How Jesus Relates Persecution to the Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount and His Example to Us In Doing So
In what is called “the Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5-7, Jesus preaches salvation to a Jewish crowd of people and pulls down with supernatural wisdom and authority their unique strongholds. For instance, in the very first statement, one of the Beatitudes, He says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The Jews didn’t see themselves as spiritually poor, but spiritually wealthy. They were by rights, God’s chosen people. Of course, they were already “blessed” through the Abrahamic covenant, and even in their own eyes, the Mosaic covenant, according to the Deuteronomic code. None of their thinking was true on this, so Jesus eviscerated it in the Sermon.
Another Jewish thought is “the kingdom.” They would have considered themselves already the beneficiaries of the kingdom through the Davidic covenant. “Heaven” is the abode of God and they saw themselves as the children of God, so wherever God was, they would be, even as God resided in the tabernacle through the wilderness. Jesus confronts their wrong thinking when he shows the rich man is in Hell, not in heaven in Luke 16. None of this, the kingdom or heaven, was theirs, however, unless they were poor in spirit, which meant that they acquiesced to their own spiritual poverty, that they really were lacking and in dire need. They needed to do what the Apostle Paul did and count their own spirituality as loss and as dung for them to win Christ or find themselves under the reign of the Messiah in His kingdom with all its promised blessings.
The Jews already saw themselves as sadly and badly not receiving their just desserts, their appropriate reward. According to their own assessment, they were persecuted by the Romans as they had been by many other various empires previously. This would fly in the face of being a blessed people and a kingdom people. It was an unacceptable circumstance that should be turned around and would be reversed by a true Messiah. That’s not what Jesus said though.
Just like the people in the kingdom of heaven would be first poor in spirit, they would also be persecuted for righteousness sake (Matthew 5:10). Persecution is the guaranteed cost of a truly saved person and Jesus frontloads this in His gospel presentation in Matthew 5:10-12. As people enter into true salvation through Jesus Christ, they need to expect persecution. They need to count the cost. Jesus said in Luke 9:23, that if any man will come after him, let him take up his cross daily. Jesus issues that understanding right up front to those who might receive the kingdom. It’s a narrow road with few on it.
Churches today do not give their targets for attendance or membership the impression that they will suffer or be persecuted by joining up. That’s a way to shrink the numbers. However, it is the method of Jesus. He included that in His gospel presentation and more than once. Do not expect to have it easy if you’re a Christian, and that’s not why you’re receiving Christ, for what you’ll receive in time, because that’s going to be persecution. Very likely why less are truly converted today is because they do not see the Christian life as worth suffering for. They would choose a Christianity full of pleasure, but not the one with guaranteed pain, so they reject genuine Christianity for the placebo. Churches offer the placebo, because that’s what people want. Then the entire program of the church revolves around various pleasures, especially for the young people.
The Jews thought they were persecuted already, but they were were persecuted for unrighteousness. Daniel prophecies why Israel would be dominated by the Romans. He was downhearted by the lack of enthusiasm for God among the captives in Babylon, comfortable to just stay and not return to the land for true worship of God. They would keep being chastised because of their faithlessness and then they took that as persecution. Actual persecution is for righteousness and not unrighteousness. Just because the Jews of Jesus’ day were suffering didn’t mean they were persecuted and neither did it mean they had a future kingdom for them. No, that kingdom was only for those persecuted for righteousness.
People in the future kingdom do not fit into the present one, the kingdom of this world. The people under the future reign of Jesus are those who want a present reign of Jesus. People who want Him to be king in the future have got to want Him to be king in the present. Those over whom Jesus reigns will be persecuted. They will not fit in. They will be despised, reviled, and accused falsely by men. That will be the norm for those following Jesus Christ into the kingdom and He wants them to know that right up front.
Jesus isn’t going to take away persecution in the short term. He offers the future kingdom as a motivation for present rejoicing. The basis for being exceeding glad now is the reward in heaven for all eternity. There is a lack of joy in churches and in professing Christian families because of something far less than persecution. The church and family members are not getting their way and they don’t like the discomfort now. They expect to be treated better and have their rights protected. When they get hard preaching from scripture they become easily offended. When they are required to live like a Christian, they are put off and threaten to quit, if not just to find another church where they’ll be treated like they want.
Professing Christians aren’t looking for a church where they will suffer. They are looking for a place of creature comforts with lots of friends. This is not what Jesus told true believers to expect. He told them just the opposite and He included it in His gospel presentation.
Why I Got Vaccinated for COVID
I believe Scripture does not directly address whether someone should be vaccinated against COVID or not. Within a church people should have liberty to follow their conscience. I made the decision to get vaccinated. Here are the reasons why. Please consider them respectfully. If you agree, that is great. If you disagree, that does not mean you do not love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I hope we can respectfully and rationally discuss our reasons, and we can still “receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God,” and still “with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:6-7).
1.) I got vaccinated because vaccines have saved millions of lives. Compare, for example, David Cloud’s articles on life before and after typhoid vaccines, smallpox vaccines, and yellow fever vaccines. God tells man to subdue the earth and have dominion over it (Genesis 1), and the scientific method and science are part of the way that we obey that command. I got vaccinated because I believe I am helping to stop a disease that has killed or contributed to the death of millions of people world-wide, and in this way am loving my neighbor as myself.
2.) I got vaccinated because I believe it helps to save the health and lives of the Lord’s people in His churches. I know of good churches where people have died from COVID. I know of numbers of the Lord’s saints who were hospitalized because of COVID. I know of numbers of the Lord’s people that had to go on oxygen because of COVID. Some of them were elderly, but others were young. By way of contrast, I don’t know anyone who has died of the flu or had to go on oxygen because of the flu. And these are just people I am familiar with–there are countless numbers of the saints of Christ in other places who have likewise gotten sick, been hospitalized, or died. I want to do what I can to help God’s saints be able to serve the Lord Jesus Christ on earth for as long as possible until He comes.
3.) I got vaccinated because even if one does not get hospitalized or die from COVID, it is not a fun disease to have for many people. Some people I know who got COVID months ago still have issues with their sense of smell now and have other problems. When they were sick it was not a good time for them. I would rather not risk getting really sick and having ongoing effects possibly a long time later when I could just get a poke in my arm and go about my day just like normal. My only side affect was a slightly sore arm for a short time. Also, I am much less likely to have to lose several weeks of income quarantined, and much less likely to cause other people and businesses to have to lose their livelihoods for several weeks, and I would like to prevent those things from happening.
4.) I got vaccinated so that I can have greater ministry to the elderly. I would like to be able to go into a nursing home to preach the gospel, not limit my opportunities to go into an elderly person’s home to preach the gospel door-to-door, pick elderly people up for church, and so on.
5.) I got vaccinated so that I do not give people a reason to stay away from the Lord’s house on the Lord’s Day. They don’t need to be afraid that I am going to make them sick. I also do not want to give weak people a reason to stumble. I would much rather get a little poke in my arm than hang a millstone around my neck and be cast into the sea (Mark 9:42), but it is better to have that bad situation with a millstone than cause others to stumble.
6.) I got vaccinated so that if I have opportunities to preach or teach the Word in other countries my ministry will not be limited by being unvaccinated and unable to get into the country.
7.) I got vaccinated to defend religious liberty. Religious liberty is increasingly under fire, especially from the left in the USA. Many restrictions on churches meeting at all were very bad, and they were justified by the threat of the spread of disease. I believe I am taking away this excuse to attack Christ’s churches and restrict them and their worship and their ministry. If the majority–which always has been and always will be unregenerate (Luke 12:32)–thinks of churches as places where anti-vax conspiracy people spread disease all over the place, they will want to shut them down. If they don’t like churches because of the gospel we preach, that is fine. If they don’t like us because we are taking a “stand” for something not in the Bible, like opposing vaccination, that is not good. Assembling, as Christ commanded, to worship the Triune God, is something worth fighting for and dying for. I do not believe opposing vaccination is worth fighting or dying for. (I also believe supporting vaccination is not a doctrinal issue and should not cause division in a church.)
8.) I got vaccinated because I believe it will help our church to be able to minister to everyone in the community, not just people who subscribe to certain conspiracies or hold certain unconventional views on science.
9.) I got vaccinated because it can help with evangelism. If I am at a public transit station passing out gospel tracts to thousands of people, they might be afraid to take one from me if I am unvaccinated, or I might give them an excuse not to take one. Furthermore, I am more likely to get sick by being out with very large groups of people, and I want to be able to minister without increasing my risk of infecting others.
10.) I got vaccinated because I do not want my unvaccinated brethren in Christ, or other fellow humans in God’s image, to get sick. If a high enough percentage of the population gets vaccinated, COVID will be unable to spread as effectively, and those who do not get vaccinated will also be safe. If not enough people get vaccinated, while the vaccinated people will be protected, those who are unvaccinated will remain vulnerable. I would like to help protect those vulnerable people.
11.) I got vaccinated because, while none of us knows the future, it is very possible that this virus will keep mutating so even people who have gotten COVID already may get it again in a year or so. There are churches that have very few vaccinated people, and where for a variety of reasons they either neglect or refuse to social distance, mask, etc. COVID has gone through many such congregations, sickening many, hospitalizing some, and killing a few. At least for now if practically everyone has already gotten sick, though, they have antibodies just as if they had been vaccinated. If this is a once-for-a-lifetime situation, it would still be very sad for precious saints of the Lord to be in an untimely grave, or on oxygen for weeks, teetering on the brink of death or life, with many others unable to smell or taste properly for months. Unfortunately, COVID may become a yearly thing like the flu. It would be terrible for churches to have COVID sweep through every year and hospitalize or pick off a few of God’s sheep every year. By getting vaccinated, and getting a follow up in future years if necessary, I can do what I can to prevent a recurrence of serious and sometimes deadly sickness among the Lord’s people.
12.) I got vaccinated because I believe it fits in with the real world that God made, which is not the imaginary world of conspiracy theories from InfoWars and its kidnapped children who are in slave labor on Mars, or lies spread by countries such as Russia that are spreading vaccine disinformation. I don’t want God’s Word and His infallible truth associated with such things, or for people to associate the Bible or Christianity with such false ideas or with a failure to be able to think logically and rationally, when Scripture strongly favors a “sound mind” and commands, “come, let us reason” (2 Timothy 1:7; Isaiah 1:18). Of course, not everyone who has not received a COVID vaccine is a follower of InfoWars or accepts Russian disinformation. People may have many reasons for not getting vaccinated which may be better than these ones—for example, if a person already had COVID and was treated with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, in conjunction with his doctor’s advice it may be good to wait a few months before getting vaccinated. If a husband forbids his wife from getting vaccinated, then she should not get vaccinated. But if InfoWars or another highly unreliable Internet source is why we are not getting the vaccine, it might be wise to reconsider that reason, at least.
13.) I got vaccinated to honor my father and my mother. My family is helping to care for an elderly parent who has not yet believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. This person does not believe in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. I do not want this loved one to get sick because of me, hindering my ability to share the gospel, or even worse, pass into an eternity without Christ, because I did not get vaccinated. I also do not want my ability to witness to this loved one hindered by adopting anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and having this person think that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ–which is overwhelming–is like the evidence for anti-vax conspiracies, which is, at best, far from overwhelming.
14.) I got vaccinated because after carefully considering them I did not believe arguments against vaccination are as strong as the arguments for getting vaccinated. The best anti-COVID vaccine argument is that one is supporting abortion by getting a COVID vaccine. However, I do not believe getting vaccinated supports abortion or is anti-life. No COVID vaccine has tissue from any aborted children. It is true that in the 1970s and 1980s cell lines from abortions were placed into labs and used for medical testing. We are now thousands and thousands of generations of cells away from this originally wicked act of getting the cells in this way. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has more involvement with abortion than Moderna or Pfizer, so I avoided the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although I do not condemn those who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. I am not killing any preborn children by getting vaccinated, nor am I supporting the way decades ago a particular cell line was originated by getting a vaccine that is made thousands of generations of cells later when there are no other alternatives. I believe I am very pro-life if I make it so that the lives of the very real people I know who have died from COVID are the end of the death from this disease. Pro-life means I try to stop the unnecessary death of adults as well as those of the preborn. Non-Christian religious pro-life movements such as Catholicism as well as secular pro-life groups also recognize the morality of getting a COVID vaccine, even while they (as I agree) recognize it would be better to get cell lines that originated in a different way. If a treatment for a deadly and dangerous disease was achieved by experimentation on the corpse of an adult person who had been murdered, and there were no other equally effective alternative treatments, I would get the treatment for the disease while advocating for other methods of research and development and trying to eliminate future murders in every righteous way possible. I will do the same in this situation. If you think that there is too much of a connection to abortion to get vaccinated, I respect your concern and don’t want you to violate your conscience. From the way I see, it, however, we probably have a closer connection to abortion if we ever shop at a grocery store that donates to pro-abortion causes and if we pay taxes–as Romans 13 commands–to a government that funds abortion and other terrible evils. Maybe we have a closer connection if we are part owner of pro-abortion companies in mutual funds or other investments (find out if you are here), or if we never warn about abortion through means such as passing out the pro-life, anti-abortion gospel tract here.
Another anti-COVID vaccine argument is that testing has been insufficient. We certainly can always do more testing, and more testing is always commendable, but I believe the likelihood of health problems arising from getting vaccinated is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of getting health problems from actually getting COVID. I don’t know anyone who had to go on oxygen or is dead from getting vaccinated, but, sadly, I do know numbers of people who have from actually getting COVID. Testing requirements for vaccines in the US are very rigorous, and the competing companies have every incentive to expose their competitors if another firm’s vaccine is unsafe. Thousands of lawyers hoping for a class action lawsuit, countless doctors, millions of people who simply want safe vaccines, and many other competing interests that make it very difficult for a vaccine known to be unsafe to continue to be marketed in the long term. Also, concern that the vaccine utilizes mRNA and therefore, according to some anti-COVID vaccine conspiracy advocates, changes one’s DNA is simply entirely unsubstantiated and highly inaccurate scientifically. (See also here.) Claims that thousands of people are dying because they got vaccinated, based on misunderstood VAERS data, are simply misinterpreting the data in question and confusing the fact that with millions of people getting vaccinated thousands of people would die afterwards by simple probability does not mean that they died because of the vaccine–one could equally point out that thousands of people died within 24 hours of reading a book or within 24 hours of getting a good night’s sleep and conclude that getting enough sleep or reading books is deadly.
In my opinion, I did not think that other anti-COVID vaccine arguments were very strong after examining both sides of the issue using critical thinking and scientific principles, as commanded in the Bible.
One of the weakest arguments against vaccination that, sadly, I have heard a lot, is that people are only getting vaccinated because they are afraid, while opposing vaccination is the way to be free from fear. In my view, it would be a lot better to make rational arguments rather than imputing motives that one cannot know to the millions of Christians and the many godly preachers and godly households who have gotten vaccinated. For myself, I know that I got vaccinated to honor and show love for the Lord Jesus Christ, to show love for others, and to be a good steward of the life the Lord has given me. I do not doubt that there are many people who have gotten vaccinated because they were afraid of getting COVID and its sometimes serious effects and a lot of people who have not gotten vaccinated because they were afraid of the very rare instances where vaccines have serious side effects. However, I don’t think it would work to go up to a Christian who opposes vaccination and tell him he is just foolishly full of fear and that is why he is anti-vax. That would not get me anywhere. I would probably be more effective if I could show that he was much more likely to be killed on his morning drive to work than he is likely to be killed from getting vaccinated. Nor, if I were against vaccination, would I go up to a Christian who thinks vaccines are blessings from God the Father that save many lives and tell him he is only vaccinated because he is full of fear. If he actually was not full of fear, he would view my false accusation as ridiculous. Instead, whichever side I was on, I would attempt to find logical and scientific arguments for my view instead of assuming things only God knows about other people’s hearts and minds.
So those are the reasons why I got vaccinated against COVID. (Oh, and here is one more–I am tired of wearing masks and look forward to a time when enough people are vaccinated so we can stop wearing them, although I will still wear one when I am supposed to until that time, since I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where it says not to wear one if a private company tells me to on their own property or the government God has ordained (Romans 13) tells me to do it.)
People can be very godly and can know nothing about science, can be very godly and know very little about how vaccination works, be very godly and be very into conspiracy theories, can be very godly and can disagree with this post for a variety of other reasons that may be a lot better than those ones, etc. There is a godly man I know in the United Kingdom who thinks the sun moves around the earth, and says he can prove this because if you jump up and come back on earth the earth does not move away while you are in the air. I am thankful for his being able to serve the Lord. He could well have much more eternal reward in heaven than I will have. If you are reading this and you are an anti-vax Christian, please don’t take this post as a personal attack and get angry. Please think about it rationally instead of reacting emotionally. I would also encourage you, if you don’t already, to remember that “he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13), so make sure you are reading both sides of an issue, not just finding people who agree with you on opposition to vaccination. If you have never read a Christian biology textbook such as those by BJU Press, I would encourage you to check one out and make sure your arguments against vaccines, or against the COVID vaccine in particular, do not require the abandonment of basic biology. If you have never read an article on PubMed by one of the top medical journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine, try reading a few and try avoiding YouTube and social media as sources for information on science. See what your doctor says on the matter. I trust that we would agree that we must be very careful as a Christians, and especially if we are Christian leaders, not to tell people falsehoods, even if we are sincere in advocating them, and we must be very careful so people can distinguish between when we are giving opinions of ours that are uncertain and are matters of Christian liberty and when we are giving people the infallible truth of God’s Word. Of course, you are also welcome to comment on this post. I may not have time to get into a lengthy pro and con argument on vaccination, though, so please don’t be offended if I don’t do that.
I believe getting vaccinated is a Christian liberty issue, and have explained why I have gotten vaccinated. If you have not gotten vaccinated, you are still my brother or sister in Christ. If you are a Christian who cares more about my getting vaccinated than you care about what I think on the gospel, on repentance, on sanctification, on the Triune Godhead, on the church, on worship, on the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, and on other crucial Biblical matters of doctrine and life, and care more about my getting vaccinated then you do about what I do to serve the Lord in my personal life, my family, and my church, then maybe you ought to reexamine your beliefs and see if they are Biblically balanced; maybe you are making anti-vax into a doctrinal issue, and just perhaps you ought not to do that.
May the Lord graciously guide you into His will for you in this matter as you search the Scriptures and apply Biblical principles.
–TDR
The Circularity and Wholeness of the Ten Commandments and, Hence, God’s Law
God is one, so His Word is one and His Law is one. It can explain James 2:10:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James says offend one point in the law, offend the whole law. It’s like being controlled by the Holy Spirit. You are or you’re not. It’s not like 57% control is control. 100% control is control. Let me explain, using the ten commandments.
The first command is this (Exodus 20:3):
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
The tenth command is this (Exodus 20:17):
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Paul writes that covetousness is idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Is. Breaking the tenth commandment is breaking the first commandment.
The desire for anything but God’s pleasure is covetousness. It’s also having other gods before God. The first commandment and the tenth commandment are the start and the finish, but they are also the same thing, as if it’s all the same thing. This is why all the commandments can be one commandment, love the Lord Thy God with all thy heart. If you do that, you keep all the commandments.
If you are not coveting, God is before all other gods. If God is not before other gods, you are coveting. The key is the first commandment. Have God before other gods. Then you will not be coveting. How will you know that you have other gods before God? You will be coveting. It’s the means for knowing.
If you start your way through the other commandments, they are interchangeable in the same way. The second command is a physical thing, an image, which is being coveted. It’s an idol, so it also breaks the first commandment and the tenth commandment. Covetousness is idolatry. And idol is before God.
Someone takes God’s name in vain because God is too low in a person’s estimation, so something is ahead of God, so again he is coveting. That which is higher in estimation, even in attitude, is being coveted. Vain taking of God’s name isn’t high treatment of God because something else is ahead of Him, so it is being coveted.
The Sabbath might seem like a difficult one, but it is like the others. God could require every day of the week to be set aside, but He requires one. If someone won’t do that, something else is ahead of God and someone has a vain relationship with God. You can’t say, God is high, but I can’t give Him just one day that He requires.
What about the second table of the law? The nature of God as love is God putting others ahead of Himself. This is why it isn’t murder to kill someone out of the protection of another person. In the case of the Sabbath, someone hasn’t violated the Sabbath when he saves someone’s life and protects someone’s property. If God does that, then you are not putting Him first when you don’t do what He does.
All authority is of God with a special emphasis on father and mother. It is hierarchical, so as long as it puts God first, then all of God’s authority will be kept. You can’t say that you’ve put God first, when you don’t honor those whom He puts in charge. You want your own way so much that you are willing to dishonor your parents, that is covetousness.
God attaches a long life with honoring parents, which is getting something that you can’t get through covetousness, even if you really want it. It’s not how life works. God is the author of all life. On average dishonor of parents, and God, who sustains life, doesn’t allow the same length of life to enjoy what’s more important than His authority. You can say God is before all things when you dishonor His authority, father and mother, but you in fact do not. One can say that anyone who does not honor father and mother does not honor God, even if he claims to honor God.
In Genesis 9, we know that murder strikes at the image of God in man. That’s before the law was written. God created men in His image. Murdering a man is to put another god before God. God’s prohibition against adultery we know was because God is holy and as a part of worship of Him, His people needed to be different than those in the land of Canaan, distinct and according to His design. It’s obvious stealing proceeds from covetousness rather than trusting God. You’ve stolen a material thing, elevating a thing ahead of God, a kind of idolatry.
God reveals Himself through the truth. Bearing false witness is against God’s identity as the Truth. The revelation of God is dependent on truthfulness. No one can know God and, therefore, worship Him without the truth about Him.
All of the ten commandments relate with one another to the extent that they are one. If you offend one, you’ve offended them all.
Recent Comments