The world is in a dire need for more Christian culture. The Secularists would certainly disagree with this claim, but I don’t care. Christian culture is far more beautiful than any other culture in the world. It creates an environment in society where humans are given the tools to thrive. They are given a vision of what it means to be human. Any alternative is a man-made horror that distorts humanity rather than contributes and restores it. Christians are far too comfortable with being pushed to the edge of society for the sake of “being nice” when the pagan is happy to talk their worldview down your throat at every turn.

Imagine you walk into the office,

“Hey Billy Bob, how are you?”

“I’m fine, hey did you see the Grammy’s last night? Sam Smith was dressed as the devil, what a thing he has done.”

You think to yourself, “I don’t have an inkling of interest in what some homosexual celebrity is doing. Why is this guy shoving his worldview and love of evil down my throat in conversation? I want to tell him that dressing up as Satan and being homosexual at the same time isn’t something God is pleased with, but I don’t want to upset him. I’m upset that he loves this blatant act of wickedness but he doesn’t seem to care. I’ll just not say anything.”

Do you see that he is subjecting you to his worldview? That he is allowed to bring up his love for wicked things but you can’t bring up your love for righteous things? How did we get to this point where wickedness goes unchallenged like this? That if we open our mouths we are told to shut it, yet they are allowed to open theirs. They don’t know God so there is no category in their mind for hypocrisy, yet they are hypocrites. They accuse you of what they themselves do. 

We need more Christian culture. We need more instances of saying out loud, in public places, our thoughts about noble things. They freely speak of evil, why don’t we freely speak of good? If you are out in public at a dinner table with your wife, have that very normal conversation about God’s word. Talk about our Father, in public places. Hum a hymn while you walk through the hallways. Let’s leaven the lump.

Antisemitism and physiognomy are two subjects I covered in my podcast, which have generated controversy. As such, I want to clear up exactly where I stand on both matters. I was accused of holding to the evil parts of these ideas and I would like to submit an apologetic concerning each. First, take note of these sweeping statements that distance me from the evil components of antisemitism and physiognomy.

Anti Semitism

1. Christianity is as opposed to every other worldview in the same way as it is against Judaism
2. Christianity recognizes one human race, and thus racism is not recognizable to the Christian.
3. Christianity does not evangelize through the sword. The Christian does not seek to physically fight those that are hostile toward the Christian faith. Christians do not incite violence against their enemies but rather “speak the truth in love” to them.

Physiognomy 

1. Christianity does not teach that one’s physical appearance determines moral character
2. Christianity does not require beauty as a prerequisite to follow Christ
3. Christianity recognizes one human race and thus racism is not recognizable to the Christian.

Further Explanation of each point

Explaining point #1 under antisemitism

Christianity makes exclusive claims about the world. A few of these are God as creator of all things, the universality of sin, Jesus as the son of God, God accomplishing his work of salvation through the Spirit, the infallibility of the holy scriptures, etc. Many of these truths are exclusive to Christianity. Due to this reality of objective truth in the Christian faith, Christianity is hostile to all other worldviews that challenge it. In the same sense that male lions wards off any challenge to their dominion, so does each worldview, including Christianity. This is the inescapable reality of truth in our universe. If the Atheist was right, then there would be no such thing as truth but unfortunately for them, truth remains. 

Following from this, it should not surprise ANYONE that Christianity preaches and asserts itself against all other worldviews. Jewish people deny that Jesus Christ is the messiah, the son of the living God. Therefore Christianity is and always will be at odds with Judaism. Christianity is against all immoral, evil teaching generated from any worldview. If you listen to Noah and I in our episode titled “Introduction: Zionism,” we claim that the Jews are wrong to assert their rights to the land of Israel. Not only is Christian Zionism wrong, but Zionism itself is also wrong and wicked. We also talk about the Talmud and the evil teachings that are inherent in that body of text.

What is a common thread through all of this? We never once tie our critique of Judaism to any conception of “race,” whatever that is. We consistently speak of the evil acts that Jewish people commit because of the teachings in the Talmud. We would do the same to the Koran, The Book of Mormon, the theory of evolution and any other worldview that raises its fist against God. So any person that accuses me of antisemitism based on racism is sorely mistaken and ought to repent of their slander.

Now if you accuse me being anti-Semitic in the sense of me opposing the Jewish religion based on its truth claims, then I am obviously guilty. I am as against the truth claims of Atheism, Mormonism, Catholicism, and Islam as I am of Judaism. Each are equally opposed to Christianity. However, you don’t hear the term “anti-Christian” thrown around often. This hardly seems controversial to me however, and anyone that tries to use a loaded term like “antisemitism” against me is just trying to discredit me and attach a term to me to tarnish my reputation. That’s fine, It’s what the losing team always does, but I will press on and proclaim the gospel to every creature under heaven even if they call me a neo-Nazi skinhead. More on that later…

Explaining Point #2 under antisemitism

Christianity maintains that all of humanity is of one common descent (Adam) and thus the human race is the only race in existence. Difference in race for the Christian is only fictitious. For instance, dwarf, elf, and orc would be the only difference in race the Christian would recognize. There is no difference in the world God made concerning race.

Therefore the Christian only recognizes the human race and does not emphasize the difference in skin pigmentation. The term racism is not an idea that Christianity can even recognize. We can recognize the sin of arbitrary partiality based on skin pigmentation but we cannot entertain the notion of racism because we would have to abandon the fundamental teaching of humanity as one race through Adam. 

The Christian does recognize ethnicity, however. Ethnicity is the idea of all “nations, tribes, and tongues,” a refrain used often in scripture. There are different ethnicities all over the globe, yet these are not tied to one’s skin pigmentation, despite how many people try to connect the two. Ethnicity is a beautiful gift. Each ethnic group will display Christianity while maintaining a unique cultural expression. Some foundational cultural ideas will be shaped by Christianity when it takes root in a society, but the basic categories of food, dress, language, and music will remain unique when Christianity takes over a region.

That being said, the evolutionary worldview actually supports racism, not Christianity. If humans are constantly evolving, it’s not a stretch to assume that some humans are more advanced than others. Per this worldview, there may be some humans that are so advanced that some of the more devolved portions of humanity will be persecuted. This is exactly the eugenic position that Atheism supports. Margaret Sanger explicitly taught this along with the Nazi’s and other evolutionary eugenicists. With all of this in mind, the Christian does not hold to antisemitism on the basis of racism.

Explaining point #3 under antisemitism 

Christianity does not teach that believers are to fight or incite violence against ANY other people group. Even if that group is opposed to Christianity, there is no precedent in the scriptures to pick up weapons and fight. The scriptures clearly teach in Romans 13 that the state has the power of the sword. There is no vigilante justice or a quasi church military. The scriptures DO teach the doctrine of self defense and the Christian has the right to personal proportional lethal force in a dangerous situation. The Christian is to only defend against attack but not to premeditate any lethal attack on any other human on behalf of the civil magistrate.

Concerning Anti Semitism, this means that no Christian ought to ever incite violence against Jews and neither do I. That is evil and wicked. Now, if a Jew commits a crime then there should be no partiality, regardless of his societal power. He ought to receive justice through the medium of the state. You can hardly call me a “dangerous” member of society thinking this way. As shown, Christians have a basis in the scriptures (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2) when considering retaliation and violence. Most other worldviews are not the same. An atheist thinking through his evolutionary worldview would be unable to create an apologetic against using violence whenever he sees fit. In nature, animals murder and attack one another whenever threatened. If we employed this ethic in our world then society would collapse. Atheism turns out to be the dangerous violent worldview, not Christianity.

Explaining point #1 under Physiognomy 

Christianity teaches that both beautiful and ugly people do godly upright things. Queen Esther was a beautiful woman that did godly things, yet Delilah, who was also a beautiful woman, deceived righteous Samson to cut off his hair whence his strength came from. There were many repulsive lepers that came to Christ and demonstrated great faith, yet there was a fat, nasty, king Eglon of the Moabites that was slain by Ehud.

These examples clearly demonstrate that scripture is replete with sagas of beautiful people doing good and bad, and ugly people doing good and bad. Beauty and ugliness does not determine whether one will be upright or wicked.

Explaining point #2 under Physiognomy

Christ himself had no physical beauty that would cause the people to look upon him (Isa. 53). There is no prerequisite of beauty to enter the kingdom of God and follow Jesus Christ, Again, there were many lepers that Jesus healed who possessed great faith. Jesus did not require them to be good-looking in order to enter the kingdom of God. We ought not create that requirement.

Explaining point #3 under Physiognomy 

See explanation of point #2 under antisemitism

Final Thoughts

I have been falsely accused over many subjects over the years. I attribute these accusations to my stance as a Christian that is consistent with my beliefs and uncompromising to the best of my ability. With Christianity’s principled position against other worldviews , Christians will most frequently be labeled many different terms. Neo-Nazi/ Fascist because we oppose Judaism and have a strong sense of Nationalism. Misogynistic and sexist because of our beliefs about hierarchy in the genders. Racist because… of some reason that escapes me. I’m really not sure why we get lumped in with that. It most likely has to do with our nationalistic tendencies which usually gets associated with racism. 

When we talked about Physiognomy on the podcast, we clearly presented it as a general correlative principle in the world. There is a vicious cycle of sin that creates ugliness. Beautiful people that do evil things are more likely to lose their beauty and become repulsive. As they harden their heart and lose their beauty they become more ugly. An unbelieving person who becomes a Christian will begin taking care of themselves and become disciplined. This produces very basic improvements in one’s physical appearance. 

We never explicitly stated this in the podcast but we were using beauty in a broader sense than some people may have previously considered. We were trying to demonstrate that if you are disciplined and put your sin to death you will most likely not succumb to sins that will result in a deterioration of your physical appearance. Things like laziness, gluttony, and belligerence. So if these things are not present in your life you will do the basic things that everyone ought to do to live a beautiful life. You may not become a supermodel but you will be basically beautiful in a broad sense. We wanted to show that sin has physical effects, not just gnostic spiritual ones. We in no way affirm physiognomy WHOLESALE, but we do believe there are aspects of it consistent with the Christian faith. I am open to any challenge you may have but I would like you to deal with the actual ideas presented in my podcast rather than lumping me in with a  group I do not stand with.

Christianity is its own unique worldview. There is nothing else like it, although it may share certain components of other ideologies. Christianity will frequently be tied to neo Nazism, fascism, sexism, racism, xenophobia, and oppression of sexual deviancy that is now accepted in our culture. However, this is an attempt to slander the name of Christ, and nothing more substantial than that. I hope to continue to write an apologetic of Christianity against those that would wickedly slander Christianity.

I just released an episode on the For The King podcast with Jeremy Collins from Theonomoney. In that episode Jeremy makes a statement along the lines of “presuppositionalism when applied to politics is theonomy”. I thought it may be helpful to address theonomy in a blog post so anyone keeping up with what I am putting out understands where I am at. Usually when someone claims to be a theonomist there are a lot of moves that go into a statement like that. Similar to someone seeing the ocean and knowing it as such without knowledge of the deeps. I have just started plumbing the depths of this subject but I do have some texts that are helping me think about God’s law. I will list them below and then interact with them shortly to give you something to think about.

Now before I go into this I want to remind anyone that would read this that every single law finds its root in a worldview. If you legalize abortion (which the supreme court cannot do), there is an entire worldview that corroborates attempting to derive rights from the 14th amendment in that way. If you legalize one law derived from a worldview you are by logical necessity outlawing another worldview’s laws. Any nonbelieving pagan that would get angry at this post would do so because their worldview is being attacked and the claim I am making is to legislate according to God’s revealed law and not according to man’s wisdom. The Atheist that would rebut with a statement, “what about my rights to abort my baby?” is not understanding that they are inherently oppressing Christians who believe completely opposite of them about the nature of reality. One worldview must dominate and one worldview must win. Worldviews cannot coexist. The worldviews that do coexist only do so because one dominates in legislation, power, and in totality, while the other worldviews in that society take a back seat in passivity. Those other worldviews would very much like to step up and take power and legislate the way they would like to. This is a necessary reality of any productive thought at all. Any other worldview that reads this article and is angered is feeling that way rightly so. I am positing that I want to legislate according to my worldview and force it upon them. It is not a matter of, will a worldview be legislated, but which worldview will be legislated. If you cannot understand that position and respond in pure anger at this blog post you are a fool and cannot think in basic categories. I implore you to rethink your position and to adopt mine, that Christ is King and there is no other.

6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

1 Timothy 1:6-11 NASB

This text includes Paul claiming that the law is for the unrighteous. Law shows the unrighteous their sin and restrains them in their evil. The implication for theonomy here is the question of who is the law for? Should nonbelieving pagans be obligated to follow God’s laws even if they are not Christians. Every Christian believes that God’s law is good. The question at hand is, is it good for everyone in a sense that all people should follow it and the civil magistrates should punish the unbeliever if they do not follow the law of God. This text seems to show that the law is to retrain the wicked who without the law would continue in their lawlessness. So the work to be done here is to figure out what Paul means by the law. Is it just the moral law? All the judicial law? The ceremonial law? Just the 2nd table of the law? Both the 1st and the 2nd table of the law? I won’t argue a position yet, I just want to get you the reader thinking.

42 It is a night to be observed for the LORD for having brought them out from the land of Egypt; this night is for the LORD, to be observed by all the sons of Israel throughout their generations.

    43 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44 but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. 45 A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. 46 It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. 47 All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. 48 But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. 49 The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”

    50 Then all the sons of Israel did so; they did just as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron. 51 And on that same day the LORD brought the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.

Exodus 12:42-51 NASB

This text in its context is commanding the foreigner in the midst of Israel to also celebrate the Passover with the people of God. The Passover is not to be celebrated with foreigners who are not circumcised. If a foreigner is to celebrate the positive law of the Passover in the covenant God has made with his people they were to be circumcised. The same law is to apply to the foreigner as to the sons of Israel. Now this command is tied to the land to keep it pure in this Covenant time. Now in the new covenant, the people of God have inherited the entire earth (Matt. 5:5). The kingdom of Israel was tied to a specific land, but now the Kingdom of Christ is for the entire creation. Therefore the laws of Israel only applied to them in the land and the nations were to look at the laws of Israel and see the wonders of Yahweh (Lev.20:24). Now after Christ has conquered (and is conquering) the entire world the ideal Christian society would be one where, if the sojourner in that Christian society is to remain and celebrate the covenant blessings of the people, they must be repent & believe and then be baptized. The ideal Christian society would also omit the outsider in their midst from celebrating the Lord with them and receiving the positive signs of the covenant. We see the atheist secularist doing the same thing by slowly disarming and purging the Christians from western society if they are not “baptized” into their (always changing) ideology. If we are not baptized into the secularist utopia then we are not to receive the “blessings” of their covenant relationship to wickedness. The scriptures here are picking up on the exclusivity of worldview. John Gill notes on this passage,

A proper Israelite, one that is so by descent: and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you;
that becomes a proselyte to the true religion; these were both bound by the same law, and obliged to observe the same rites and ceremonies, and partook of the same ordinances, benefits, and privileges; this was a dawn of grace to the poor Gentiles, and presignified what would be in Gospel times, when they should be fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, be fellow heirs of the same body, and partakers of the promises of Christ by the Gospel, ( Ephesians 2:19 ) ( Ephesians 3:5 Ephesians 3:6 )

John Gill’s Commentary

8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. 11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:8-12 NASB

Paul is here quoting from the old testament law, specifically Deuteronomy 25:4, in his discourse with the church in Corinth. Before I comment, Paul uses this same law in a similar fashion in 1 Timothy 5:18 if you are interested in looking at that as well. Paul in verse 9 poses the question, does God have JUST oxen in mind with the law laid out in Deuteronomy 25:4? His answer in verse 10 is that God is speaking mostly for our sake in that law for animal rights. He isn’t saying that the law about the rights of the oxen are not the point of the law, but that the general equity embedded inside of the law is that of plowing in hope, reaping what you sow. Paul claims that the apostles had this right to reap material things from the church in Corinth but they do not exercise this God-given right among them that there is no hindrance to the gospel. Paul has in mind something like an accusation of payment in exchange for the gospel. He doesn’t even want to entertain the possibility of that charge so he chooses not to exercise the right. Regardless, he, and the other apostles, have the right as well. What is Paul up to here? He is seeking the general equity of the law that is embedded in case laws throughout the old testament. He extracts the main principle (that of now plowing in vain but in hope) and applies to THAT case with the church in Corinth. Interesting right? Is there more work we can be done when deriving rights from the text of scripture and applying it to certain cases? This is the whole idea of the case law system (and common law) that has been conducted in the west for centuries. Rights do not precipitate out of thin-air, they are secured by God in his revealed law. It is our duty to apply them case by case in a godly way. We do not want to legislate man’s laws, but God’s law. That is at the heart of the theonomy discussion. From whence will you derive your laws? If you are a natural law whore you can derive them obscurely from creation. If you have natural law understood correctly you should see the natural law matching up with the more clear revealed law of God. So the claim is that we would do as Paul does here and look to God’s revealed law to derive a right that a laborer is due his wages rather thane exclusively by natural law, although you could get there from natural law. Listen to the confession here.

To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use. ( 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 )

London Baptist Confession of Faith Chapter 19 Article 4

This is the claim of the 1689 LBCF. This is the historic confession that I hold to and I agree with what it says here. I think this is the way Paul uses the judicial laws. God gave us the law in the OT for our good to determine the general equity of them that still apply today. I hope this is a good starting point for you. I hope to write more on this subject as I am still working through these issues but this should at least get the wheels turning brothers and sisters. My conclusions: I think you may be hard pressed to agree that God’s law is great, if you don’t seek to understand how the scriptures apply God’s law. Also, by necessary extension, YOU applying God’s law as Paul does.

For The King, Rocky

Daily repentance is a task every Christian must endeavor in. I set out in this post to make a biblical case for that exact idea. First, I would like us to listen to Christ’s words as he teaches his disciples to pray in the sermon on the mount. He tells his disciples to petition to God and this verse is included in those petitions.

“and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

Matthew 6:12

Jesus here includes in his model of prayer for us a petition of confession and repentance. Question 112 of The Baptist Catechism¹ shows us what is meant by this part of the model of prayer.

Q. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?
A. In the fifth petition, which is, And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors (Mt. 6:12), we pray that God, for Christ’s sake, would freely pardon all our sins (Ps. 51:1, 2, 7, 9; Dan. 9:17-19); which we are rather encouraged to ask because of his grace we are enabled from the heart to forgive others (Lk. 11:4; Mt. 18:35).

It is a good practice to rehearse repentance on a daily basis. We as God to forgive us our sins because we have confidence in the atoning work of Jesus Christ as the Catechism states. From this we are shown and encouraged to forgive others sins against us because God has so forgiven wretched sinners like us. Is it good to frequently forgive your brothers and sisters as we wrong one another? To forgive our family members or those in close vicinity to us as we are wronged in daily life? In a similar manner, and a more important one, Jesus Christ is teaching his disciples in the sermon on the mount to frequently seek reconciliation to God, having a clear conscious before him. Jesus is teaching a model of prayer so our prayers ought to be structured in a similar fashion as Jesus’ is here. Contained in that prayer is an asking of forgiveness to our father.

When we do this, we are not asking God to justify us again, hence why Christ starts the prayer with “our Father”. This predicates that we are children of God. See what the apostle Paul says in Galatians,

“I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.”

Galatians 4:1-7

If we have a Father in heaven then that means that we have been redeemed by Christ. This is the truth taught here in Jesus’ model of prayer. My reminder to all who may read this is the importance of daily repentance before God. We want to have a clear conscious before God. Although we may not have lost our salvation, we have grieved his spirit and we need to in a sense be reconciled back to God. This is a good practice to make. Catholics destroy this teaching by their doctrine of confession, that you come before a man to absolve you of your sin. They claim the priest is standing in the place of God and actually cannot pardon sin. Why did David then in Psalm 51 not go directly to the priests or Uriah’s family to repent but instead he says, ‘For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.’ David new that when he had sinned that he is first to go to God and be reconciled to him and then his fellow man later as a byproduct. This is what is taught in the Lord’s prayer here that because God has so forgiven us we can go forgive other. There is an ordering to the thing though and it starts with God and not a man (like a priest or a friend).

I will end with on of my favorite verses on the matter than and old man that discipled me would always remind me of. This is a wise one to write on the tablet of your heart friend,

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

1 John 1:9-10

For The King, Rocky

Sources:

(1) https://founders.org/library/the-baptist-catechism/

This Sunday, church leaders across the globe join our Canadian brothers and sisters in speaking the clear biblical truth about the church’s view on human sexuality. This is exactly what Christians should do in the midst of persecutions. They should preach the clear message of Jesus Christ from the pulpit being careful to teach the full council of God’s word.

“preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” -2 Timothy 4:2 ESV

If you have not heard then incline your ear to my words. Canada has passed a pagan bill outlawing the Christian worldview in Canada. This Sunday is dedicated to supporting our brothers and sisters in Canada by preaching God’s law against the sexual perversions of our modern day. There will be faithful pastors in Canada like James Coates and Joe Boot that will be preaching on the topic this Sunday. They will thus be criminalizing themselves and risk because arrested and taken away from their family. These are the kind of men we need in Christendom. I thank God for them but I also am apprehensive to see what takes place this Sunday. I am no pastor, so I am unable to deliver a sermon this Sunday. However, I do have my podcast and this platform. I intend to speak on the topic as well and condemn the perversion of sexuality in our modern day. I have already addressed the topic here and here and I continue to do so because this is what it means to love your neighbor. On page 33 of J Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism, he states

The Golden Rule furnishes an example. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”–is that rule a rule of universal application, will it really solve all the problems of society? A little experience shows that such is not the case. Help a drunkard to get rid of his evil habit, and you will soon Christianity & Liberalism come to distrust the modern interpretation of the Golden Rule. The trouble is that the drunkard’s companions apply the rule only too well; they do unto him exactly what they would have him do unto them –by buying him a drink. The Golden Rule becomes a powerful obstacle in the way of moral advance. But the trouble does not lie in the rule itself; it lies in the modern interpretation of the rule. The error consists in supposing that the Golden Rule, with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, is addressed to the whole world. As a matter of fact the whole discourse is expressly addressed to Jesus’ disciples; and from them the great world outside is distinguished in the plainest possible way. The persons to whom the Golden Rule is addressed are persons in whom a great change has been wrought–a change which fits them for entrance into the Kingdom of God. “¹

True love calls for a right-side upness to reality. Unfortunately, our society has turned things upside down and they beckon us to do the same. This has been a long time coming and our eyes, however, have been shut. We should not be surprised that the west has ended up in a place like bill C-4. We have utterly abandoned God’s word as the standard by which we live by and build civilizations on. However, there is nothing new under the sun and the world’s affront to God’s word has happened before and will happen again.

On page 59 of J Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism, he states,

“But the loss of the consciousness of sin is far deeper than the war; it has its roots in a mighty spiritual process which has been active during the past seventy-five years. Like other great movements, that process has come silently—so silently that its results have been achieved before the plain man was even aware of what was taking place. Nevertheless, despite all superficial continuity, a remarkable change has come about within the last seventy-five years. The change is nothing less that the substitution of paganism for Christianity as the dominant view of life. Seventy-five years ago, Western civilization, despite inconsistencies, was still predominantly Christian; today it is predominantly pagan.”²

This quote is quite revealing of what we have missed in the church in the present day. Machen was commenting on liberalism this way in 1923! Have we fallen asleep? There are two competing worldviews at war in the west. That of secularism and that of historic Christian values. There is no neutrality and we must realize we are in a war. We sit idly as God’s word is trampled upon and watch the loss of freedoms that Christians have enjoyed in the west for thousands of years. We send out missionaries in swathes, yet we haven’t evangelized our own house. Machen called the west pagan in 1923 and if you think things have gotten better then prudence would call for you to look around and wake up.

We have been given marching orders (Matt. 28:18-20). There is no peacemaking with evil. We go to battle every day, and now our Canadian brothers go to war this Sunday. We ought to wake up in the church and see what is happening. Christianity is outlawed in Canada and it most definitely can happen here. The enemy is on our turf, stand up or get stood on. Pray diligently for our brothers and sisters in Canada. May the Lord have mercy on us.

For The King, Rocky

(1) Machen, J. G., & Wilson, D. (2020). Chapter 2: Doctrine. In Christianity and Liberalism (pp. 33). essay, Canon Press.

(2) Machen, J. G., & Wilson, D. (2020). Chapter 3: God And Man. In Christianity and Liberalism (pp. 59). essay, Canon Press.

Recently on the For The King Podcast, we recorded an episode with an identical title to that of this blog. This topic is massively broad and an accompanying blog post may help flesh everything out. First lets define some terms

rel·a·tiv·ism/ˈrelədəˌvizəm/ noun

1. the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.¹

If you are familiar to the philosophical discussion on relativism, you often hear it talked about in relation to morality (cultural relativism). Cultural relativism purports that the reasoning for differences in cultural morality is because morality is actually up to cultures to decide and not transcendent above cultural attitudes. This is a tempting thought because it seems so empirically verifiable. Just look at all of these others cultures and they get along fine! Some cultures include cannibalism, polyamory, abortion, etc. These cultural differences are just unique to each culture and no one culture has a monopoly on morality. There are ,however, different forms of relativism. A more strict view would say that each society is entitled to its own relative cultural norms and practices that manifest in morality, and that no outside culture has a right to judge or speak into that morality. This would lead to being forced to accept the Nazi party’s justification for the holocaust and chalk it up to difference in thought based on cultural differences. This is obviously a silly thought as all people cry out for justice against such things and condemn the obvious evils of the Nazi party.

So what is another alternative view? Cultural relativism can try and save itself by saying that we must be critical of some practices in each society based on why that society is pushing such a practice. Such a view that actually makes a judgment on perspectives can hardly be called relative anymore. If there is ever a standard invoked by a thinker then that standard now becomes the final authority. To make a judgement is to appeal to a higher authority. Modernity proposed that truth is found in the individual, but post-modernity claims that there is no truth. That even the truth for oneself isn’t really capital T truth, but rather just what’s true for you. I hope you can see that slight difference. Modernity was characterized by rationality and whatever one could reach from reason is the final authority of truth, but indeed capital T truth itself. Post-modernity and relativism purports that there is no capital T truth that is binding on all people like rationality was binding for modernity.

The pitfall of relativism (in both forms laid out above) lies in its logical contradiction from its foundation. To say the statement such as “there is no truth” is a capital T truth, is it not? To say that it is absolutely true that there is no truth is in itself a truth. With such a contradiction present one is forced to change their worldview. Why must they change? Their starting assumption of something as basic as truth is flawed. Is there a way out for someone that holds such a position? Yes, however, the only way out is to admit absurdity and try your best to live life based on such foolish principles. Even to rebuttal with a statement such as “well, there is truth we just can’t understand it.” Well my friend, can you understand that statement of truth? If so then you have walked yourself into another contradiction.

This short polemic against relativism could have much more to say but I want to equip the Christian to push the antithesis of such foolish worldviews. There are professors, politicians, scientist, legislators, and many more of our societies leaders that think these thoughts. We must be quick to admit the supremacy of Christ and his Word as THE truth. Jesus says in John 14:6 that he is the truth. All epistemological² foundations are found in Christ and his Word. I hope to release another blog post soon expounding on the epistemological stronghold of Christ and the epistemological skepticism that comes with naturalism, relativism, post-modernity and the like.

In conclusion, do not let the unbeliever off the hook with such statements. If they commit logical fallacies hold them to that and don’t let them out of that until they give you a satisfactory answer. So many Christians give up in their apologetic when the unbeliever spouts such nonsense. We must be prepared to push the antithesis of their view (thesis). If they don’t except truth don’t give up but press them until they confess themselves consistent in their worldview or admit the folly of their views.

1.)https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100412717#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20that%20knowledge%2C%20truth,context%2C%20and%20are%20not%20absolute.

2.) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemology

epistemology

noun

epis·​te·​mol·​o·​gy | \ i-ˌpi-stə-ˈmä-lə-jē  \

Definition of epistemology

: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity