Biblical Versus "Christian" Nationalism, Part II: What Is the Role of God-Ordained Governments?

 If the purpose of God is to express His dominion through a world filled up of His images then His command to His images, as we have seen, is to be fruitful and multiply, i.e., to participate in the creation of those individuals. But what of preserving them? 

Obviously, preservation is needed to a degree since the images have to exist in order to create other images. Hence, God lays down in Genesis 9 principles of preservation that become the building blocks for familial and national governments. 

Genesis 9:1-7 reads as follows:

               וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־נֹ֖חַ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לָהֶ֛ם פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֖וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

     וּמוֹרַאֲכֶ֤ם וְחִתְּכֶם֙ יִֽהְיֶ֔ה עַ֚ל כָּל־חַיַּ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ וְעַ֖ל כָּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם בְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּרְמֹ֧שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה וּֽבְכָל־דְּגֵ֥י הַיָּ֖ם בְּיֶדְכֶ֥ם נִתָּֽנוּ׃

              כָּל־רֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל׃

   אַךְ־בָּשָׂ֕ר בְּנַפְשׁ֥וֹ דָמ֖וֹ לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ׃

    וְאַ֨ךְ אֶת־דִּמְכֶ֤ם לְנַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶם֙ אֶדְרֹ֔שׁ מִיַּ֥ד כָּל־חַיָּ֖ה אֶדְרְשֶׁ֑נּוּ וּמִיַּ֣ד הָֽאָדָ֗ם מִיַּד֙ אִ֣ישׁ אָחִ֔יו אֶדְרֹ֖שׁ אֶת־נֶ֥פֶשׁ הָֽאָדָֽם׃

                       שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם׃

    וְאַתֶּ֖ם פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֑וּ שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ וּרְבוּ־בָֽהּ

Then God blessed Noah and his sons when he said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, and fill up the earth. Your fear and terror will be over every animal of the earth, over every bird of the sky, over everything which scurries on the ground, and over every fish of the sea. They have been given as your responsibility. 

Everything that scurries which is living belongs to you. It will be for eating.  As I gave you the green vegetation, I give to you everything. Only the meat! You are not to eat it with its life, it's blood. 

Surely, your blood which contains your lives I will most certainly prosecute as the responsibility of any animal or as the responsibility of a man, the responsibility of each man his brother, I will prosecute the life of a man. 

He who spills the blood of a man by a man his blood must be spilled because as the image of God He made the man. 

So you will be fruitful, multiply, swarm upon the earth, and multiply on it."

There are so many things that are often missed in this passage but I will stick to what pertains to our subject. First, the passage exists in the framework of the original command and is therefore a continuation of that original command. Preservation cannot work against creation, as preservation is subservient to creation. Hence, the original command remains as the governing principle. So preservation exists that the image's participation in the creation mandate might continue. 

These preservational elements include two new commands. The first is the expansion of food sources. Since dominion in the original command was a command, not over other humans, but over the animals, God now gives them the right to eat the animals over which they rule in order to preserve their lives.

The second command now includes a dominion over other humans who take the lives of other humans. This is the sole reason given over other people, i.e., to execute murderers. In this context, it can be assumed that to let murder go unchallenged would work against the creation mandate as it would reduce rather than multiply possible images of God upon the earth. Hence, it is the job of the image to be fruitful, to expand his food sources by killing animals, and to execute those who take human life.

This is the job of governmental authority. Whether that governmental authority is a small family like Noah's or that small family grows into a giant family we refer to as a nation. The government is given no other role here. It must promote the preservation of human life by expanding food sources and the preservation of human life that is under the threat of demise from criminals who would take that life. That's it.

Now, as many of you may know, murder is not simply defined in the Bible as when some guy with a hockey mask knifes a bunch of college girls at a sorority house. To reject the original creation mandate in one's sexuality is murder. To steal the food (or other life-giving) sources from someone is murder. To dishonor authorities like parents is murder. Anything that takes the physical life of a civilly innocent human being is murder.

If this is true, and it is the sole job of government to oversee this, then we would expect God to only require this of the nations of the world, as we will see in the upcoming post, only Israel functions as God's priests to preserve human life spiritually and eternally, but the nations are required to preserve the physical life of its people. There is no command here for the nations to function as priests in any way.

In fact, this is what Paul is talking about in Romans 13. Notice, as here in Genesis 9, the authority that God gives over to Noah and to "you" (plural, not singular so that the reader might know that this command is for all humans, not just Noah) to have a "fear and terror" over all of the animals, and now criminals. 

Paul states in Romans 13:1-7:

⸂Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω⸃*. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ⸀ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ⸆ ὑπὸ ⸇ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν*. 2 ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται. 3 οἱ γὰρ ἄρχοντες οὐκ εἰσὶν φόβος ⸂τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κακῷ⸃*. θέλεις δὲ μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν· τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, καὶ ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς· 4 θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν °σοὶ εἰς °1τὸ ἀγαθόν. ἐὰν δὲ τὸ κακὸν ποιῇς, φοβοῦ· οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ τὴν μάχαιραν φορεῖ· θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν ⸂ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν⸃ τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι. 5 διὸ ⸂ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι⸃, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν*. 6 διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε· λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ εἰσιν εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο προσκαρτεροῦντες. 7 ἀπόδοτε πᾶσιν τὰς ὀφειλάς*, τῷ τὸν φόρον τὸν φόρον, τῷ τὸ τέλος τὸ τέλος, τῷ τὸν φόβον τὸν φόβον, τῷ τὴν τιμὴν τὴν τιμήν*. 

Every soul is to be in submission to the governing authorities. For there is no authority if not by God. But the authorities that exist are set up by God. Therefore, the one who resists authority, rebels against God's order, and those who resist will receive condemnation. For those who rule are not a fear for [those doing] good deeds but for [those doing] bad deeds. Do you want that fear of authority to not be there? Do good and you will have praise from it. For it is a servant of God for you resulting in the good work. But if you do what is bad, fear! For it does not bear the sword for no reason. For it is the servant of God as an avenger resulting in wrath for those who practice what is bad. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to be in submission, not only because of that wrath but also because of the conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are administers for God to perform this very governing work. Give to everyone what is owed, whether tax to whom tax is due, revenue to whom revenue is due, fear to whom fear is due, honor to whom honor is due.

It is difficult to imagine that Paul did not have the Genesis 9 text in mind, as he begins by saying "Let every ψυχὴ be in submission." The word ψυχὴ is used throughout the Genesis 9 passage and is an unusual way to start. Why not say "Let everyone" or "Let every man/human"? Secondly, he refers to governmental authority as "fear," which is also the way authority is described in the passage. Finally, the larger idea is that the government exists to preserve civilly innocent human life. It is a servant of God, like the image, to promote "good" [see the use in Genesis 1 as that which creates and preserves human life] and to bring vengeance with the sword, i.e., execution, upon the one who does "bad," the opposite of good. 

This is why Paul has no problem saying this of a pagan government. It is because a pagan government, as long as it performs this role, is functioning as God's servant. In other words, it's a government functioning how God wants it to function, Christian or not, because it is preserving innocent human life, which is its role. It's not a priest of God saving people or pushing them toward Christianity. That isn't its function. That is the function of Israel and then spiritual Israel, the church, as we see throughout the Bible. As long as the government is preserving innocent human life, it is a biblical government and must be honored as such. And the preservation of that human life has to do with temporal preservation upon this earth, not eternal or spiritual preservation which, again, is the job of God's priests, the church.

This is why Paul tells Christians to pray for government that they might lead a quiet and godly life. He also tells them to pray that they might be saved but there is no indication that this is because the government needs to become Christian in order to bring in a utopian society. Instead, he expresses that it is because God desires that all sorts of people in all kinds of stations in life be saved (1 Tim 2:1-8).

If this is all true, then we would expect God to judge the nations for failing to function in this specific way, and not because they are not worshiping YHWH or obeying Sabbath laws or anything specific to God's priests but not generalized to all nations. Let's briefly look at a few of those judgments that represent the larger corpus of God's expressed wrath upon the nations.

For instance, God tells us the reason He destroyed Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50.

‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominations before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

This text says they were judged, not for worshiping other gods or ignoring the Sabbath but because they lifted themselves up over what God had tasked them to do, which was to share their food with the poor (i.e., physically preserving human life by expanding food sources with those in need) and practiced תֹועֵבָ֖ה "abomination," the word used to refer to sexual practices that are not fruitful and do not multiply. In other words, they not only did these things but openly ("before Me") promoted them in their arrogance. Hence, they were doing the opposite of what God had tasked them to do, so He "did away with them."

Even Rome in Revelation 18, which is being judged because it propped itself up as a priest to the nations that spread false religion rather than kept its falsehoods to itself, is also being judged for attacking God's people, and making itself rich by murdering other nations. For "In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people, of all who have been slaughtered on the earth" (v. 24).

Those who attack Israel and other nations or try to replace God for Israel by promising to protect Israel when they cannot are going to have a unique judgment given to them because they have become the murderers rather than the avengers of those murders. Hence, God becomes the avenger instead upon them. These are not judgments because these nations are not fulfilling the Mosaic law code in their national practices. Almost all of these have to do with these nations attacking God and His people. For instance, in Isaiah 14, God is judging Babylon and Assyria because they oppressed and murdered, not only other people, including God's people, but even their own people.

    "You will not be buried with them, 

    because you destroyed your land 

    and killed your people." (14:20)

In other words, rather than preserve innocent human life by executing murderers, they became murderers of others and their own people. A nation that has continually does things like this is described consistently in the Bible as "arrogant" because they have lifted themselves and their purposes to gain resources through bribery and murder over God's purpose to preserve human life. This is the main reason they are judged.

It must be understood that God speaks about destroying their idols and making fun of the fact that they think these things will save them because they have brought havoc to His and other peoples, so according to lex talionis, He will bring the same upon their gods and temples. It is not because they are breaking some law He gave them concerning worshiping other gods. Instead, when the biblical text talks about the evil of wicked nations, it refers to their oppression, injustice toward the widow and the orphan, promoting sexual immorality (i.e., sexual acts that do not fulfill the creation mandate of being fruitful and multiplying), and allowing the wicked to thrive instead of the innocent. In other words, He judges them for not doing their one job as a governing authority. They are not preserving innocent human life.

There is also a judgment upon the nations when Israel is judged because Israel functioned as the priesthood of the world. When the priest is removed, the world is judged, as the existence of God's priests keep the wrath of God from coming upon the nations. Again, none of these judgments are specifically for idolatry or things that are specific to Israel's law code. 

Hence, the false dichotomy between a wicked nation and a "Christian" nation is unbiblical. The Biblical dichotomy is between a wicked nation and a righteous nation that fulfills its mandate to physically preserve innocent human life. A biblical nationalism, therefore, is one that looks to its government to perform the biblical duty of physically preserving its people by expanding life-sustaining sources and executing justice upon those who would take away that life, Christian prince or not.

Perhaps, we should take our key from Luther (or at least what is attributed to him) who, when talking about what he wanted in a shoemaker stated that he would rather have an excellent shoemaker than a Christian one who was not so excellent and made bad shoes. Of course, he was exhorting Christians to make good shoes but as I reflect upon that I think of all of the horrible governments that claimed to be Christian throughout the history of Christendom who did not fulfill this biblical model, and then I look at nations that have sought to fulfill it and think how much better of a job they have often done than these Christian nations ever did. I would like a Christian prince to rule but not to demand what was demanded by Christ of His people, but that he might know and understand the biblical model of government and execute it in a way that allows the images of God to fulfill the creation mandate.

We'll pursue what relationship Christians are to have with governments like those of Rome that may not be fulfilling the command in times of persecution or in various ways toward people in the next post.

Biblical Versus "Christian" Nationalism, Part I: What the Bible Actually Says about the Cultural Mandate

There is a saying that goes something like, "One day, you'll only be a memory for some people. Be a good one." But we should be more than just good memories. We should actually do the good God has set us to do. So what is our part to play in all of this? What is the good God has set us to do?

In the new world of internet revivalism, where the cultural mandate is anything from influencing the town council in order close bars on Sunday to painting pretty pictures because your art is going to change the world, I thought it might be helpful to actually look at the cultural mandate. "Why?" you might ask. Because it isn't what you think it is. In fact, it's actually the opposite emphasis of what many consider the cultural mandate.

Many people think that the cultural mandate, as they call it, is the building up of material culture through dominion in the areas of hierarchical structures in empires, the arts, entertainment, the ritualistic expressions that dominate a society.

The irony is that the people in Genesis who are doing all of the art, architecture, and cultural influence through those types of externals (craftsmanship, music, physical infrastructure, etc.) are the bad guys. They're in the line of Cain, which in Genesis 4, is framed with an inclusio that presents these people as the murderers, the destroyers, those who are the seed of the serpent and have wandered far afield from God's true cultural mandate. They've emphasized this development of material culture, as Genesis implies, because they believe they are doing good by pursuing the preservation of society through these things. 

But this isn't the cultural mandate that God gave to His images in Genesis 1. Instead, the Hebrew text reads as follows:

 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃  וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃  וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

"Then God said, "Let Us make man as our image, according to our likeness; and he will rule over the fish of the sea, over the bird of the sky, over the domesticated animals, over the earth, and over all the scurrying animals which scurry upon the land. So God created the man as his image, as the image of God, He created him, male and female He created them. Then God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill up the earth, take dominion, and rule over the fish of the sea, over the bird of the sky, and over every living thing that scurries upon the earth."

So the image of God is linked to the mandate but what is the mandate? To build magnificent buildings, sculpt beautiful statues, and obtain the mandate through the influence of material culture? 

Let's take a look at the actual command because it's often read as though it is a series of multiple commands where I would suggest that it is actually a single command. 

This is easier to see when we go backward, so let's do that. "Rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the sky, and the animals that scurry upon the land." How does the image rule over it? By fulfilling the imperative that comes before it. By subduing the land. What is the means the image is to take to subdue it? By fulfilling the imperative that precedes it as well. By filling up the land. How does the image fill up the land? By fulfilling the imperative that precedes it. By multiplying. How does the image multiply? By fulfilling the imperative that precedes it. By being fruitful.

Hence, the singular command is, "Be fruitful in order to multiply. Multiply in order to fill up the land. Fill up the land as the means to subdue it. Subdue it in order to rule over it."

In other words, the means the image is to take to subdue and rule over the earth is to have children, to multiply God's image upon the earth through childbirth. Not painting pretty pictures. Not building fortresses. Not craftmanship and weaponry and ingenuity and innovation. Not in commanding great armies and building empires. But by having children.

Children are the influence we are to leave upon the world. When you die, your memory will fade, your material accomplishments may or may not be remembered, but it does not matter, as that was not your task to begin with. How do we rule the world? Not by might. Not by prestige. Not by impressing the world through empires. Rather, by having godly children, images of God, multiply in the world, filling it up. 

Every invention will be replaced by another. Every city will be buried in the dust. Every attempt at preserving life will fail. All die. There is nothing we can do about that. That is an accomplishment only one can achieve, and has achieved, for us. Our role is not to eternally preserve our children as it was not our parents' role to eternally preserve us. Our role is to have and raise godly offspring so that Christ will eternally preserve them. 

Empires will not save them. They will not save the world. It is not how we take over it. My encouragement is to invest in your family, not as a means, but as THE means through which God will fill up the world to come. 

The reason why the destroyers focus on preservation through material culture is because they are still under the lie of the devil that they are God, that they can do what only God can do, which is to not only to decide whether they will have children (something God just commanded them to do), but also to use their divine powers to preserve them. They bring only death who play God. But they who are the image of God, who subjugate their lust to rule as God rules, and instead, submit to God's rule, will bring forth God's dominion over the earth by multiplying godly children. Their role is one of participation, not in ultimate preservation, but in creation. It is not through aggression, political or physical or cultural, that  the meek shall inherit the earth but through the humble means God has laid out for them. One day, neither you nor your children will be remembered but you and your children will be preserved and brought back into not only memory but life, not through your work but through His and His Son's. We who have this hope pursue His means of dominion and not that of Cain's world, and so we seek to obey the biblical mandate and though our lives are temporary here, and though they look as though they are unaccomplished, we present our bodies as living sacrifices to God and gladly receive children in whatever number He chooses. And though we and our children may be lost for a moment, we look for the world to come, where every child in Christ is restored and every tear of loss wiped away. "And they will rule upon the earth" (Rev 5:10).

Please Pray and Consider Donating

My old Moody Bible roommate’s daughter has been diagnosed with bone cancer. Please pray and consider giving toward her medical expenses.

https://www.givesendgo.com/SBehimer?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=SBehimer&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwOlfwhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeoftC6vNshekD6fT2vD9yp82PPUm1aBQsmrwRSZOdCkzQ58kI7m-suRoKIjs_aem_o5VY6rgOWOevtcfTGRq5HA

Where Two or Three Are Gathered? Why Elders Need More than Just the Right Number

 If you've ever watched a fantasy movie where some mixture of collected elements is needed in order for some magical effect to take place, you know that most of the time it never works the first go-around. It's a common trope used for anticipation for when it does work. Usually, it's because there is some missing element or some tainted element. In one of my favorite movies, Army of Darkness, the clueless protagonist must repeat the right words in order to receive the reward and avoid waking the army of the dead. Of course, you see by the title of the movie, he doesn't quite get it right. He says some words to make a good show, but the act doesn't work. The dead come forth. His attempt to cover it up with other words that are not the same is just smoke and mirrors and hocus pocus. It doesn't work.

I don't say this because I mean to imply that there is some magical equation that will make sure that Christ is speaking through the elders in Matthew 18. However, I do want to note that I think a major component that Christ mentions here has been very much misunderstood, and without that component, we have no assurance that Christ is speaking through a group of elders.

The passage is as follows:

15 Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ ⸋[εἰς σὲ]⸌ ὁ ἀδελφός σου,* ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου. ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου· *16 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, παράλαβε ⸂μετὰ σοῦ ἔτι ἕνα ἢ δύο⸃, ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος ⸄δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν⸅ σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα· 17 ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν,* εἰπὲ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ,* ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ⸆ ὁ τελώνης. *18 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν ⸀οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν ⸁οὐρανῷ. *19 Πάλιν ⸀[ἀμὴν] λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν δύο ⸂συμφωνήσωσιν ἐξ ὑμῶν⸃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται,* γενήσεται αὐτοῖς παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς.* 20 ⸂οὗ γάρ εἰσιν⸃ δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα,* ⸀ἐκεῖ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν. 

Now, if your brother sins [against you], go, speak to him just between yourselves. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two people, so that upon the testimony of two or three witnesses every spoken word will be established. But if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. But if he refuses to listen to the assembly, he is to be to you as a pagan and a tax gatherer. I tell you an absolute fact, Whatever you bind on earth is in the state of boundness in heaven and whatever you release upon the earth is in a state of release in heaven. Again, I say this to you [as an absolute fact], If two among you are in agreement concerning any matter about which they ask, it will be brought about for them by My Father who is in heaven, because where two or three are gathered together in My Name, I am there in their midst.

Now, this passage has been used by every contradictory group to place everyone else on church discipline, excommunicate the other, justify sins, and condemn all sorts of things that are not sin. Why? Well, because if you can just get two or three elders together to agree then you can claim that Christ has spoken through you and you just have to trust that.

However, that's not what this text says. It doesn't say if you just get two or three elders to agree. The Lord adds to what He says with a qualifier that is often ignored. You need elders, as it is made clear throughout Matthew that this is a reference to the apostolic authority that is given to elders/pastors from the apostles. What it actually says is that you have to have two or three elders who are gathered together, agree, and are in Christ's Name.

Now, let me make it really clear that this phrase is completely misunderstood. People think that if they pray and say, "in Jesus' name," this somehow fulfills the element needed here. They think if they believe in their heads that the meeting is "in the name of Jesus," this is all that is needed. 

However, what it actually means is found in the understanding of what Jesus means by "My Name." I've talked about this a bit in other circles but someone's "name" used in this manner is a synecdoche for the entire person and character of the person who has that name. The name represents who Jesus is. His person and character. So what this is actually saying is that the two or three have to have the person and character of Jesus Christ within them.

What this means is twofold. 1. One must actually be a Christian. 2. One must actually have the character of Christ, not just the claim to be a Christian. Any elders who fail either to be genuine Christians or to claim to be Christians but lack the actual mind and character of Christ have no promise here that their decisions are Christ's decisions.

There goes a whole lot of claims made by ecclesiastical authorities from Popes to paupers. It's easy to do evil and then form a church and then declare yourselves innocent by claiming that you're now two or three that has the authority of Christ to do so, but that's not the case. Christ demands that those who would take this authority are actually true, proven representatives of Christ in their decisions, and they prove this through their confessions and character, i.e., by having Christ's Name upon them.

This doesn't mean that everything said by a nonchristian or sinful Christian leader in the church is false. The devil can quote Scripture too, and the Scripture is true. The issue is simply that there is no assurance and not much need to quake at the pronouncements of men who are outside the identity and character of Jesus Christ if they conflict with representatives of Christ who do have His identity and character evident within them. Even Christian elders can be in sin, and this is enough to cast doubt on any of their disciplinary decisions.

A church really needs elders who have both the Spirit of Christ within them as Christians and a mature mind and character that is Christ's mind and character so that it may have assurance that it is being led by Christ Himself through its elders. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors and a bunch of hocus pocus.

My Prayer

 May You, O God, be glorified in justice and mercy.

May all who hate You in their blindness be convicted and turn. 

Let all who have done evil to me, if they cannot see it, be pardoned.

Let no man go to judgment for his sins against me. 

Let all who have purposely sinned against me and yet repent, although their repentance does not reach my ears, let them be pardoned. Let them be restored to You, O God, and be exalted with Your glorious Son. 

Turn all to you. Let your people be forgiven and saved that they may yet praise you and do good upon the earth. May all who call upon your name be blessed.

Now may the love of You, O God, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all, evermore. Amen

Evaluating the Council of Trent, Part IVa

 Session Six is the council's declaration of the nature of justification and its anathemas toward those who would teach otherwise. 

First, I want to note that the council seems to be bolstering its claim to authority at the beginning of this session as this is the first time it references so many higher ups in the church including the pope. It just seems like an appeal to authority, which is why authorities were declared as both the Scripture and the Church in earlier sessions.

Second, the very first claim made about justification is one that acknowledges and affirms the previous session's declaration concerning original sin but now adds to it the claim that "although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them." It seems clear, then, that Trent is attempting to argue that free will is not a part of Adam's fallenness "when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted." I can only imagine that "free will" here must be the ability to make a choice between good and evil since the previous statement declared that neither Gentiles with natural law nor the Jews with revealed law were able to move themselves out of the state that Adam put them in. If that is the case, there would be no disagreement at this point on the nature of "free will," since "free will" would just mean that one can choose, and cannot mean "one has the spiritual and willful ability to do good." If it means the latter, it contradicts the other statements made thus far by Trent.

The council states that Christ died for all, so it rejects limited atonement (although it may be anachronistic to say that), but only those who have his merit transferred to them receive the benefit thereof of course. "So, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins."

Hence, Trent's definition of justification is as follows:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Again, Protestants should agree with this. Some might say that justification is merely a declaration of all of these things that have not actually taken place but this would contradict Scripture. Justification may be a declaration of these things but because they have actually taken place. The believer is now in a state of grace (Rom 5:1-3). He has been adopted as sons of God (Rom 8:15-17). He has been regenerated by grace (Eph 2:4-6).

I would add to this that Trent has already stated on its declaration concerning original sin the following:

"If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

Now, if baptism stands in for faith then this statement is essentially a statement that justification is by grace through faith alone. I only say this because the soteriological system that Trent is going to assume contradicts these statements. 

"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God."

Here is where the heresy of the semi-Pelagianism condemned in the Council of Orange is established as official, and here is where I would argue is the beginning of Roman Catholicism. The Church before was one that rejected semi-Pelagianism, and even the council here expressly condemns it, and yet it now sneaks it in the backdoor. Not only does it refer to some prevenient grace that makes one alive, with which Reformed Protestants would agree, but it refers to this grace as non-effectual without the assistance of the individual's free assent and cooperation with this grace. Hence, God's grace that is said to be necessary for salvation is not the deciding factor in justification but rather the free will decision of the individual. As Luther rightly noted in his work The Bondage of the Will this is the crux of the issue in Roman Catholic soteriology as the statement that one can gain justification through no merit of one's own is contradicted by the act of "doing" something, which is cooperating with this grace, making his actions more meritorious, having gained Christ's merit through it than that of one who does not cooperate with said grace. Hence, this grace moves but is not the sole cause of the individual's faith and subsequent justification.

Yet, by the council's own words in Session Five, those who argue that the remedy of original sin is through any human merit other than the merit of Christ alone, are anathema. 

"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, –is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema."

Roman Catholics may think my pushback means that man is forced into salvation but that is not at all the case. The will of the individual is simply and completely changed by God alone to submit to Christ in faith. This makes it both the individual's joyful will to receive Christ and God's work alone in saving the individual. Hence, no merit is attributed to the individual since the change of the will is effectual, leading to faith and justification. This is consistent with the Council of Orange, and in this regard, Trent here has not only instituted an innovation but a heretical one according to the church's tradition itself.

Orange stated in Canons 5-8:

"CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3)."

Trent makes faith and justification dependent upon the free will of the individual who must cooperate with it, giving credit not simply to the Holy Spirit and His grace but to the individual for having cooperated with the Spirit and said grace. This simply contradicts the statements in Scripture that we were made alive and seated with Christ while we were dead in our sins (Eph 2:4-6), that all who the Father gives the Son come to Him and are raised up on the last day to glory (John 6:37-45), and that those who are predestined and called are both justified and glorified (Rom 8:29-30). There is no other group that is given and called that is not justified and glorified. In Ephesians 2:8, Paul states that Christians "have been saved by grace through faith and this not of yourselves." The demonstrative τοῦτο this in the phrase τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν this not of yourselves is neuter but χάριτί and πίστεως are feminine and σεσῳσμένοι is masculine. What this means is that the this that is not of themselves is the entire thing, including each of its elements. So none of the salvation that is by grace through faith is of them. They had no part in it. They had not part in the grace, the salvation, or the faith. Both Scripture and church tradition rejects Trent's understanding of faith as dependent upon the individual's cooperation with some prevenient grace.

Trent attributes justification as something "whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation." 

The problem now is that if the human will is involved in receiving justification, Trent will now go on to argue that the human will must cooperate with the Spirit to maintain that justification, and thus, the entire Roman Catholic system of soteriology is born. We'll discuss that next time.

Evaluating the Council of Trent, Part III

 The fifth session deals with original sin and its effects upon all of humanity, both adults and children. The first couple statements reject Pelagianism with which all of orthodox Protestantism agrees. They anathematize anyone who rejects the idea that Adam lost his holiness and glory (image?) and that he obtained for himself, and for all of humanity after him, a transfusion of sin, the wrath of God, judgment of death and transferred himself and his posterity to the empire of the devil. It also states that the only remedy for this is the merit of Jesus Christ and not any merit obtained by human beings through any other means.  

Now, of course, Protestants would very much agree with this statement thus far but Trent's soteriology will explain this in a particular way that is very much not Protestant. 

The means of applying Christ's sacrifice to both adults and infants is baptism into the church and these doctrines, apart from which, as this session states in its very first statement, "it is impossible to please God."

Hence, the idea that baptism is the means through which imputation occurs carries with it an entrance into the Catholic Church. It is through baptism that one is made completely innocent before God, having completely removed all of the sin and guilt obtained by Adam, in whom there is now "nothing that God hates" is "immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

However, Trent argues "that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

In other words, there is a sin inclination that remains that is not sin itself but rather leans toward sin and must be countered by those who have entered into Jesus Christ. 

Again, no disagreement from Protestant theology per se, although I personally would explicitly differentiate between the water of baptism itself and what it represents, which is one giving his allegiance to Jesus Christ by entering into His church, which I don't identify as Rome itself. But there are Prots who would see the act of baptism as faith itself. This may be the way Peter is using it in both his epistle and in Acts 2:28, so this sort of language of synecdoche isn't really the problem some may make it out to be. Both RC's and Prots agree that it is allegiance to, and unification with, Christ that regenerates an individual and removes all sin and condemnation from him, and Trent would agree with us that this includes children. Hence, it argues for the Augustinian position of baptizing infants against Pelagius. This is not to say that Augustine had it correct but simply that this is not necessarily a Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issue or an innovation of the sixteenth century.

Of course, the biggest disagreements here would be over the fact that after all of this is said, Trent makes sure to state that Mary is not included in these statements concerning original sin. Mary herself declares herself as needing a Savior and at one time we even see her doubt Christ as she and others in his family seek to come get him because they think he has gone crazy (Mark 3:20-32). She is included in the "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" with Jesus alone identified by Paul as the sinless one upon whom everyone else's sins, and the sin of Adam, have been placed. 

The final word of the session is actually the longest and deals with reforming the churches so that only qualified teachers within churches, monasteries, and schools are employed. In other words, only teachers who are going to teach what Trent views as consistent with its decrees are to be supported financially and recognized by the church. I don't really have any pushback here as if a church thought they were in the right, theologically speaking, then this would be a proper course to take. 

The council ends by setting the text session date.