It's that time of year again where we watch all of the movies and TV shows that even remotely have anything to do with Christmas. As we watch these shows about Santa Claus, magical reindeer, magical snowmen, Christmas trees and elves, I am reminded that the celebration of Christmas by our culture is not a celebration of Christ in a Christian framework, but rather the celebration of Enlightenment religious principles and philosophies.
For instance, Christ is nowhere in most of these movies. He has been replaced by some other character that has nothing to do with Him. The movies, of course, are not about these characters either though. The story of the character is simply the means to promote ideas of general, inclusivist, egalitarian religion.
The spirit of Christmas can be seen in everyone who appeals to their inner intuitive knowledge of goodness, which echoes either Kant or Schleiermacher, i.e., a human ability to know via reason or belief what is good and loving through experience. The latter way of knowing through trusting in one's heart seen much more in these movies.The movie "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," and "The Year without a Santa Claus" are all about believing in one's heart to find the good/Christmas spirit within. Love is directed by seeking this good through belief and feeling. The same goes for shows like "Twas the Night Before Christmas," "Elf," "Arthur Christmas." etc.
The general goodness of all humanity is promoted by movies like "Fred Clause," which argues that people just act bad because of their environment, but are all good.
Egalitarianism that logically accompanies the Enlightenment version of inclusion can be seen in movies like Disney's new "Noelle," where even a woman should be allowed to be Santa.
Love is always inclusive. In fact, many of these shows are about inclusivism. "Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer" is all about accepting anyone who is different. All should be included. This is perhaps the central tenet of Enlightenment religion. Of course, Christianity would agree that all should be accepted in Christ, but Enlightenment religion argues for a generic inclusivism because it argues for a generic religion that is sought by all men, since all men, regardless of whether they believe in Christ, are to be included. God is everyone's Father and all are therefore brothers. So one need not only include everyone of any race, gender, and station in life in Christ when he has repented of his sin and turned to Christ, but regardless of creed or moral lifestyle as well.
Hence, shows that depict a general loving and good spirit, defining those terms within the framework of Enlightenment inclusivism and egalitarianism dominate the Christmas season, a season that originally taught us something very different than inclusivism, a season that originally taught that all humanity was under the condemnation of God, and through the birth of Jesus Christ, hope was kindled for anyone who might believe, but none was given to those who did not. The Christmas message is beautiful and very much a message of God's love, but that love is exclusively found in Christ, and apart from Him, it is not to be found.
Enlightenment religion seeks to bring people together by denying the uniqueness of Christ and the different stations of serving Him in life. Christianity brings people together by calling them to repent and believe in Christ and to become one body with different stations that all seek to serve Him in their uniqueness. It is not their sameness in partaking of the same things that bind them, but Christ as they retain their differentness from one another in their genders, ethnicities, and stations. They are the same in terms of the One to whom they belong. He uniquely is good and they are made right with God and one another in Him, not in ignoring Him and collapsing all differences into some human commonality.
So as you're cuddling up in a blanket, sipping some hot cocoa, and eating a Christmas cookie, think about using the watching of these shows as an opportunity to speak to your children about the necessity of Christ. Teach them to be critical of what they watch, knowing that the world is not neutral, but a preacher of Satan's religions that attempts to convince you and your children of their truths over and against Christ. Teach them the Scripture that is a light that shines in a dark place. That's better than any shiny nose to see through the fog.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Sunday, December 15, 2019
The Religion of the Enlightenment: Exhibit A
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/annehelenpetersen/jubilee-baptist-church-debt-forgiveness-lgbtq-socialism?utm_source=pocket-newtab
I love how journalists like to present this as groundbreakingly new and going against the trend of our religious culture, but the truth is that this is the trend and has been for the past three hundred years.
I love how journalists like to present this as groundbreakingly new and going against the trend of our religious culture, but the truth is that this is the trend and has been for the past three hundred years.
Cuckoo for Egalitarianism
The Cuckoo bird lays its egg in another bird's nest so that it is warmed and nurtured by the other bird. Little does the bird know that their babies are often killed and pushed out of the nest to make room for another's. It's sort of one of those things in nature that would make for a horror movie if applied to humans. But we are living out this horror movie right now in the church as we speak.
There are many discussions about what the Reformation got right, but few concerning what it got wrong. What it got wrong tends to be the things that are changed from the early church, not on the basis of biblical teaching, but largely due to cultural shifts that take place with the acceptance of various philosophies.
One of these shifts was the tendency of the Rennaisance to adopt Greco-Roman philosophies and culture, which, coupled with a severe reaction against the tyranny of popes and monarchs, led to the adoption of more egalitarian ideas concerning political and ecclesiastical government.
It is no mere coincidence that Luther's challenge of the pope and various rulers was followed by the Peasant Revolt and numerous other revolts carrying the spirit of Luther's defiance. The message of the Reformers carried with it a disdain for existing authorities if those authorities disagreed with it, and this is true even of the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to keep biblical authority structures in place.
What is often called the "Religious Wars" that followed, I would argue, is actually a misnomer. These were wars fought by different religious groups to be sure, but they were not fought because of religion, but rather because of the secular idea that the people fighting should have a say in government, and it was thought that the other side was either not allowing it, or that it would not allow it if they gained power. In other words, these wars should really be named "Wars of Inclusion," or rather "Wars of Egalitarianism." The idea that everyone should be included in the decision making or in who made the decisions led to republics and democracies in and outside the church.
In one of the great ironies of history, the type of inclusivism that produces egalitarianism was vindicated as the right trajectory for the new society because the "Religious Wars" proved that religion was divisive and led to war and the break up of society.
To be sure, egalitarianism slowly moved in and out of various traditions, many of which kept its full expression at bay. In many circles, only white men were elected to office, only white men voted, etc., but in other circles, women began to assert themselves as leaders, particularly in movements where lay leaders relied upon what they considered to be new movements of the Spirit that superseded anything the Bible might have to say. The debate of the Continental Congress in 1776 as to whether slaves should be set free and eventually considered equal shows the early signs of egalitarianism's shared biblical idea that all men should be included in being given the opportunity to partake in all stations of life.
The churches that did well in America were largely churches that had an egalitarian structure, since the Enlightenment was largely suspicious of any authority that did not find its origin and checks and balances in the people. Kings had been and would be executed in Europe. Replaced by parliaments that would represent the people, the inclusive egalitarian model had won the day, not because anyone made a biblical argument for it, but precisely because the Enlightenment had set the Bible aside and replaced it with the Spirit leading the masses through prayer, personal revelations, or just plain natural intuition.
Presbyterianism looked more like the political structure of England (a king // pastor, lay elders // parliament, the session // the voting masses). Baptists installed their elected pastors so that he looked more like a president than an elder to whom the people must submit and obey. The congregation decided whether he would have his job and so also retained the power for themselves. In the same way, Congregationalist churches hired and fired their pastors and so kept the power for themselves, a shared power where everyone was included.
Some Anabaptist groups, Quakers, the Holiness Movements, etc. left church leadership open to laity, so that everyone shared in it. It is not a coincidence that women also many times took part in these groups where the egalitarian spirit had come to a more advanced fruition.
This inclusive assumption is largely why these same groups tend to shift with the cultural tides. It is why the church struggles with whether women should be pastors or function as pastors without the title. It is why it often tends toward inclusion of homosexuals and transgendered groups. It's why laymen are often teaching Sunday Schools in churches and even take the pulpit. Everyone must have a say. Everyone must be included. Authority must be shared with the masses. There can be no taxation without representation, and if I pay my tithe I am paying for my say. It is why membership is oh so important to these churches as they still exclude people just walking in off the street deciding what the church will spend its money on.
None of this is biblical. The Bible forbids men to abdicate their responsibility to guard the garden from the serpent. Women are to be loving wives and mothers who are workers at home. The transatlantic slave trade could have been wiped out by just obeying the Scripture and executing anyone who either kidnaps a man to sell him into slavery or buys a man who is kidnapped. Racism is destroyed by the gospel for all Christians since all men are new creatures and made one in Christ. Laymen are not qualified to be elders or even function as elders, so they do not rule or have a vote in any way. Elders rule the household of God as fathers of the household, and fathers may get input from their children but they are not subject to their desires. Lay authority actually makes it impossible for a congregation to obey their elders. Instead, they just obey the majority vote of the masses. They are leaderless or often led by aggressive laymen who are largely unqualified to lead.
The church is a nation that should become the standard for the nations. It is what the nations should be doing. Hence, the church is ruled by a king. Monarchy in a secular society best represents this. The rule of the masses is a rebellion against God in the Bible, which is why the Enlightenment tried and tries hard to get rid of it as the primary source of revelation to man. The Bible is exclusive, not inclusive. It excludes all men from salvation outside of Christ, it excludes unqualified men from church leadership, and all women from that leadership. It rejects the unrepentant, sexually immoral from fellowship. It is exclusive when it comes to theology and ethics through and through. It includes all genders, races, and classes who repent in salvation, but excludes all genders, races, and classes who don't. God elects some and excludes others. Christ prays for His disciples and those who believe through them, but not the world in John 17. He chooses 12 men as apostles and not other men and no women. Exclusion, exclusion, exclusion. And this is the problem. The religion of the Enlightenment that had its roots in the Reformation is the opposite of the religion of the Bible, which essentially means that the Reformers both adopted biblical religion and its complete opposite depending upon what ideas were advanced. The great irony of the Reformation may be that it carried with it both the potential to transform the world with the gospel and the assumption that would undermine the gospel at the same time.
The river of egalitarianism, of course, eventually flows into the sea of Marxism. It is no coincidence that the social gospel and social justice have often moved to eclipse the church's message and set aside the authority structures set in place to guard the household of God with that message.
It is perhaps the greatest feat of Enlightenment cult that the church was and is convinced that its intuitive, natural religion of inclusion that is accessed through the Spirit is true Christianity at its core.
So the Bible is not egalitarian. Egalitarianism. and the Inclusivism that produces it, is the religion of antichrist. And to claim that the religion of antichrist is somehow Christianity is just plain Cuckoo.
There are many discussions about what the Reformation got right, but few concerning what it got wrong. What it got wrong tends to be the things that are changed from the early church, not on the basis of biblical teaching, but largely due to cultural shifts that take place with the acceptance of various philosophies.
One of these shifts was the tendency of the Rennaisance to adopt Greco-Roman philosophies and culture, which, coupled with a severe reaction against the tyranny of popes and monarchs, led to the adoption of more egalitarian ideas concerning political and ecclesiastical government.
It is no mere coincidence that Luther's challenge of the pope and various rulers was followed by the Peasant Revolt and numerous other revolts carrying the spirit of Luther's defiance. The message of the Reformers carried with it a disdain for existing authorities if those authorities disagreed with it, and this is true even of the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to keep biblical authority structures in place.
What is often called the "Religious Wars" that followed, I would argue, is actually a misnomer. These were wars fought by different religious groups to be sure, but they were not fought because of religion, but rather because of the secular idea that the people fighting should have a say in government, and it was thought that the other side was either not allowing it, or that it would not allow it if they gained power. In other words, these wars should really be named "Wars of Inclusion," or rather "Wars of Egalitarianism." The idea that everyone should be included in the decision making or in who made the decisions led to republics and democracies in and outside the church.
In one of the great ironies of history, the type of inclusivism that produces egalitarianism was vindicated as the right trajectory for the new society because the "Religious Wars" proved that religion was divisive and led to war and the break up of society.
To be sure, egalitarianism slowly moved in and out of various traditions, many of which kept its full expression at bay. In many circles, only white men were elected to office, only white men voted, etc., but in other circles, women began to assert themselves as leaders, particularly in movements where lay leaders relied upon what they considered to be new movements of the Spirit that superseded anything the Bible might have to say. The debate of the Continental Congress in 1776 as to whether slaves should be set free and eventually considered equal shows the early signs of egalitarianism's shared biblical idea that all men should be included in being given the opportunity to partake in all stations of life.
The churches that did well in America were largely churches that had an egalitarian structure, since the Enlightenment was largely suspicious of any authority that did not find its origin and checks and balances in the people. Kings had been and would be executed in Europe. Replaced by parliaments that would represent the people, the inclusive egalitarian model had won the day, not because anyone made a biblical argument for it, but precisely because the Enlightenment had set the Bible aside and replaced it with the Spirit leading the masses through prayer, personal revelations, or just plain natural intuition.
Presbyterianism looked more like the political structure of England (a king // pastor, lay elders // parliament, the session // the voting masses). Baptists installed their elected pastors so that he looked more like a president than an elder to whom the people must submit and obey. The congregation decided whether he would have his job and so also retained the power for themselves. In the same way, Congregationalist churches hired and fired their pastors and so kept the power for themselves, a shared power where everyone was included.
Some Anabaptist groups, Quakers, the Holiness Movements, etc. left church leadership open to laity, so that everyone shared in it. It is not a coincidence that women also many times took part in these groups where the egalitarian spirit had come to a more advanced fruition.
This inclusive assumption is largely why these same groups tend to shift with the cultural tides. It is why the church struggles with whether women should be pastors or function as pastors without the title. It is why it often tends toward inclusion of homosexuals and transgendered groups. It's why laymen are often teaching Sunday Schools in churches and even take the pulpit. Everyone must have a say. Everyone must be included. Authority must be shared with the masses. There can be no taxation without representation, and if I pay my tithe I am paying for my say. It is why membership is oh so important to these churches as they still exclude people just walking in off the street deciding what the church will spend its money on.
None of this is biblical. The Bible forbids men to abdicate their responsibility to guard the garden from the serpent. Women are to be loving wives and mothers who are workers at home. The transatlantic slave trade could have been wiped out by just obeying the Scripture and executing anyone who either kidnaps a man to sell him into slavery or buys a man who is kidnapped. Racism is destroyed by the gospel for all Christians since all men are new creatures and made one in Christ. Laymen are not qualified to be elders or even function as elders, so they do not rule or have a vote in any way. Elders rule the household of God as fathers of the household, and fathers may get input from their children but they are not subject to their desires. Lay authority actually makes it impossible for a congregation to obey their elders. Instead, they just obey the majority vote of the masses. They are leaderless or often led by aggressive laymen who are largely unqualified to lead.
The church is a nation that should become the standard for the nations. It is what the nations should be doing. Hence, the church is ruled by a king. Monarchy in a secular society best represents this. The rule of the masses is a rebellion against God in the Bible, which is why the Enlightenment tried and tries hard to get rid of it as the primary source of revelation to man. The Bible is exclusive, not inclusive. It excludes all men from salvation outside of Christ, it excludes unqualified men from church leadership, and all women from that leadership. It rejects the unrepentant, sexually immoral from fellowship. It is exclusive when it comes to theology and ethics through and through. It includes all genders, races, and classes who repent in salvation, but excludes all genders, races, and classes who don't. God elects some and excludes others. Christ prays for His disciples and those who believe through them, but not the world in John 17. He chooses 12 men as apostles and not other men and no women. Exclusion, exclusion, exclusion. And this is the problem. The religion of the Enlightenment that had its roots in the Reformation is the opposite of the religion of the Bible, which essentially means that the Reformers both adopted biblical religion and its complete opposite depending upon what ideas were advanced. The great irony of the Reformation may be that it carried with it both the potential to transform the world with the gospel and the assumption that would undermine the gospel at the same time.
The river of egalitarianism, of course, eventually flows into the sea of Marxism. It is no coincidence that the social gospel and social justice have often moved to eclipse the church's message and set aside the authority structures set in place to guard the household of God with that message.
It is perhaps the greatest feat of Enlightenment cult that the church was and is convinced that its intuitive, natural religion of inclusion that is accessed through the Spirit is true Christianity at its core.
So the Bible is not egalitarian. Egalitarianism. and the Inclusivism that produces it, is the religion of antichrist. And to claim that the religion of antichrist is somehow Christianity is just plain Cuckoo.
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Christ Is Lord over All Things, but Not All Things Are Subject to Christ
There is a common argument given by Postmillenials that they believe Christ is Lord of all things but other eschatologies are somehow rejecting this. What I want to show here is that this is a case of category confusion. Everyone believes that Christ is Lord over all things. He is given all authority in heaven and earth. He has inherited all things.
This really is not the difference between the eschatologies. The difference is what one thinks Christ claims before He returns versus what He claims afterward. In other words, all things belong to Him, but not all things are subject to Him by His choice. And that statement, btw, is believed by all, including Postmillenials, since Christ did not choose to immediately take hold of His inheritance by removing all of the wicked from the earth, resurrected all believers and destroying the last enemy, i.e., death, transforming the world into its everlasting state, etc. In other words, Christ has chosen to take hold of His inheritance first through the spiritual transformation of God's elect and sometime after He begins this process in the first century AD, He will take hold of the physical aspects of the kingdom.
The difference between the eschatologies is when He does this, i.e., before or after He returns.
Until then, whether one believes that He will take hold of everything in the future before He comes, or one believes that He will take hold of everything in the future when He comes, everyone believes He takes hold of the physical in the future.
Now, one can say that He was doing it right away, since Christ takes hold of it through a necessary invisible process that begins at the cross and the work of Christ from the first century on will one day manifest itself in the political and natural takeover of the world, but all must agree that what it looks like, at least for now, is that Christ is successful in taking hold of the spiritual kingdom through the gospel, but has decided not to manifest the fruit of all of that physically for the past 2000 years.
If that is the case, then how exactly does proclaiming that Christ is Lord of all things have anything to do with the idea that all is being subjected to Christ right now? These seem to be two very different claims. Christ as Lord of all things in Scripture seems to mean that He sits on the throne, subjecting what He desires to subject to Himself in the "already" and saving other things to subject to Himself in the "not-yet." How is this different than any other eschatology?
This really is not the difference between the eschatologies. The difference is what one thinks Christ claims before He returns versus what He claims afterward. In other words, all things belong to Him, but not all things are subject to Him by His choice. And that statement, btw, is believed by all, including Postmillenials, since Christ did not choose to immediately take hold of His inheritance by removing all of the wicked from the earth, resurrected all believers and destroying the last enemy, i.e., death, transforming the world into its everlasting state, etc. In other words, Christ has chosen to take hold of His inheritance first through the spiritual transformation of God's elect and sometime after He begins this process in the first century AD, He will take hold of the physical aspects of the kingdom.
The difference between the eschatologies is when He does this, i.e., before or after He returns.
Until then, whether one believes that He will take hold of everything in the future before He comes, or one believes that He will take hold of everything in the future when He comes, everyone believes He takes hold of the physical in the future.
Now, one can say that He was doing it right away, since Christ takes hold of it through a necessary invisible process that begins at the cross and the work of Christ from the first century on will one day manifest itself in the political and natural takeover of the world, but all must agree that what it looks like, at least for now, is that Christ is successful in taking hold of the spiritual kingdom through the gospel, but has decided not to manifest the fruit of all of that physically for the past 2000 years.
If that is the case, then how exactly does proclaiming that Christ is Lord of all things have anything to do with the idea that all is being subjected to Christ right now? These seem to be two very different claims. Christ as Lord of all things in Scripture seems to mean that He sits on the throne, subjecting what He desires to subject to Himself in the "already" and saving other things to subject to Himself in the "not-yet." How is this different than any other eschatology?
The Rotten Fruit of a Prosperous Idolater
Jesus once said that it is difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. We often think of this statement as though Jesus had said it is difficult for a rich person to become a Christian or believe the gospel, but that is not what He was saying in context. He was actually saying that it difficult for a rich person to be saved because He won't let God rule over him. He never enters into the dominion of God because his eye is on what he has, and often, what he doesn't have. A man who secures and comforts himself in physical prosperity is not likely to give it up in order to exalt Christ as his king.
And this is something we experience on a daily basis. If one does not exalt Christ with the many physical gifts that Christ has given him, then those physical gifts are his love, not Christ. What often happens in such cases is that what is loved is desired, and because it cannot ever meet humanity's need for true security and comfort, what is desired is more of whatever the physical blessing might be. If money, more money. If sex, more sex. If human praise, more praise. If a high position at work, a higher position. If food, more food. If good health, perfect health. The person who exalts his physical blessings as a god craves more because such things are no gods and can never satisfy.
It is the ungrateful, idolatrous, prosperous man who usually drives in luxury who complains about his seat on the plain. It is the privileged woman who complains she is not being given her due respect at the store. It is the rich man who complains the most about having to give money to the poor. It is the overall healthy person who who complains about a cold. It is the guy for whom everything usually goes well who often believes himself to be short-ended. Complaining is the fruit of discontent with Christ's gifts as inadequate and unfulfilling that is itself the fruit of rejecting Christ as king, which also then rejects the kingdom over which that king rules.
What this ends up doing, therefore, is that it creates false expectations of what Christ should give the needy person. These people supposedly become Christians and then when Christ does not provide more of these things to them, they complain, grow bitter, and become angry toward Christ and others. Then, in bitterness, their worlds grow dark, they become depressed, and it becomes a vicious cycle where they must then seek out these false gods as their securities and comforts all the more.
A little idolatry begets a lot of idolatry. These gods heal nothing. They bring the person to absolute ruin. Such a one cannot be saved because their gods cannot save.
Hence, after saving a people out of Egypt, God then destroys a huge amount of them for their idolatry and sexual immorality that, lo and behold, is accompanied by a whole lot of complaining.
And yet, when the disciples are disheartened by this, realizing that this describes so many people, they ask, "Who then can be saved?"
To which Christ responds with a word of hope, "With men it is impossible," meaning if these people were left to themselves it is not possible for them to be saved. However, "with God all things are possible," meaning that God can grant them true repentance and a mind that exalts Him as their God and Christ as their true king. And He is able to do this because He is the real God. Christ is the real Lord and King. He is able to save to the utmost, and as Augustine said long ago, "You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until we find rest in You."
And this is something we experience on a daily basis. If one does not exalt Christ with the many physical gifts that Christ has given him, then those physical gifts are his love, not Christ. What often happens in such cases is that what is loved is desired, and because it cannot ever meet humanity's need for true security and comfort, what is desired is more of whatever the physical blessing might be. If money, more money. If sex, more sex. If human praise, more praise. If a high position at work, a higher position. If food, more food. If good health, perfect health. The person who exalts his physical blessings as a god craves more because such things are no gods and can never satisfy.
It is the ungrateful, idolatrous, prosperous man who usually drives in luxury who complains about his seat on the plain. It is the privileged woman who complains she is not being given her due respect at the store. It is the rich man who complains the most about having to give money to the poor. It is the overall healthy person who who complains about a cold. It is the guy for whom everything usually goes well who often believes himself to be short-ended. Complaining is the fruit of discontent with Christ's gifts as inadequate and unfulfilling that is itself the fruit of rejecting Christ as king, which also then rejects the kingdom over which that king rules.
What this ends up doing, therefore, is that it creates false expectations of what Christ should give the needy person. These people supposedly become Christians and then when Christ does not provide more of these things to them, they complain, grow bitter, and become angry toward Christ and others. Then, in bitterness, their worlds grow dark, they become depressed, and it becomes a vicious cycle where they must then seek out these false gods as their securities and comforts all the more.
A little idolatry begets a lot of idolatry. These gods heal nothing. They bring the person to absolute ruin. Such a one cannot be saved because their gods cannot save.
Hence, after saving a people out of Egypt, God then destroys a huge amount of them for their idolatry and sexual immorality that, lo and behold, is accompanied by a whole lot of complaining.
And yet, when the disciples are disheartened by this, realizing that this describes so many people, they ask, "Who then can be saved?"
To which Christ responds with a word of hope, "With men it is impossible," meaning if these people were left to themselves it is not possible for them to be saved. However, "with God all things are possible," meaning that God can grant them true repentance and a mind that exalts Him as their God and Christ as their true king. And He is able to do this because He is the real God. Christ is the real Lord and King. He is able to save to the utmost, and as Augustine said long ago, "You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until we find rest in You."
Monday, December 9, 2019
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Ephesians 2:1-10
Καὶ ὑμᾶς
ὄντας νεκροὺς
τοῖς παραπτώμασιν
καὶ ταῖς
ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν,
2 ἐν αἷς
ποτε περιεπατήσατε
κατὰ τὸν
αἰῶνα τοῦ
κόσμου τούτου,
κατὰ τὸν
ἄρχοντα τῆς
ἐξουσίας τοῦ
ἀέρος, τοῦ
πνεύματος τοῦ
νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος
ἐν τοῖς
υἱοῖς τῆς
ἀπειθείας· 3 ἐν οἷς
καὶ ἡμεῖς
πάντες ἀνεστράφημεν
ποτε ἐν
ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις
τῆς σαρκὸς
ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες
τὰ θελήματα
τῆς σαρκὸς
καὶ τῶν
διανοιῶν, καὶ
ἤμεθα τέκνα
φύσει ὀργῆς
ὡς καὶ
οἱ λοιποί·
4 ὁ δὲ
θεὸς πλούσιος
ὢν ἐν
ἐλέει, διὰ
τὴν πολλὴν
ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ
ἣν ἠγάπησεν
ἡμᾶς, 5 καὶ ὄντας
ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς
τοῖς παραπτώμασιν
συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ
Χριστῷ, - χάριτι
ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι
- 6 καὶ συνήγειρεν
καὶ συνεκάθισεν
ἐν τοῖς
ἐπουρανίοις ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
7 ἵνα ἐνδείξηται
ἐν τοῖς
αἰῶσιν τοῖς
ἐπερχομένοις τὸ
ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος
τῆς χάριτος
αὐτοῦ ἐν
χρηστότητι ἐφ᾿
ἡμᾶς ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
8 Τῇ γὰρ
χάριτι ἐστε
σεσῳσμένοι διὰ
πίστεως· καὶ
τοῦτο οὐκ
ἐξ ὑμῶν,
θεοῦ τὸ
δῶρον· 9 οὐκ ἐξ
ἔργων, ἵνα
μή τις
καυχήσηται. 10 αὐτοῦ γάρ
ἐσμεν ποίημα,
κτισθέντες ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐπὶ ἔργοις
ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν
ὁ θεὸς,
ἵνα ἐν
αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν.
And you, being dead in your trespasses
and sins in which at one time you walked according to the pattern of this
world, according to the ruler of the lower invisible realm, the spirit which
now works in the sons of disobedience, in which we all also once dwelt in the
desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and the mind, and we by
nature were children of wrath as also the rest. But God, being rich in mercy,
through His abundant love with which He loved us, even while we were dead in trespasses,
made us alive together with Christ Jesus—by grace you have been saved—and together
with Him raised us up and enthroned us in the upper heavenly realm in Christ Jesus, in
order that He might show in the ages to come the unsurpassable treasure of His
grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been
saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not
from works, in order that no one may credit himself for it. For we are His
work, created in Christ Jesus for the purpose of good works in which God prepared
beforehand in order that we would live them out.
Antinomian Nihilism toward Sanctification and the Misuse of Isaiah 64:6
“All our righteousness is as filthy rags.” This is from
Isaiah 64:6. It is quoted often to mean that even a righteous act is not
righteous before God. Hence, how could we ever really do anything good that
pleases God. This leads often to an antinomian tendency among Evangelicals who think that it really doesn't matter what they do because they cannot please God anyway.
This verse, of course, is ripped out of context. The text is not
saying that even a really righteous act is filthy before God. It is speaking to
the religious community that is in sin and has a pseudo-righteousness in
maintaining the cult of YHWH.
The larger text states:
You [i.e.,
God] assist those who delight in doing
what is right,
You have favor upon those who observe
Your ways.
You were angry because
we violated them continually.
Will we be saved?
We are all
like one who is unclean,
all our so-called righteous
acts are like a menstrual rag
in Your sight.
We all wither
like a leaf;
our sins carry
us away like the wind.
No one invokes Your name,
or makes an effort to take
hold of You.
For You have rejected
us
and handed us over
to our own sins. (64:5-7)
So this is not talking about truly
righteous deeds. It is talking about performing a false righteousness as a
replacement of observing God’s ways.
It is true that we may never have
perfect works in this life. Perhaps, our works are tainted with selfishness and
other wickedness. But that is not what this verse is saying. Isaiah’s context
is people who have replaced true righteousness with cultic rituals (the same
type of righteousness the Pharisees have in the Gospels). Hence, Christ often applies
Isaiah to them.
It is important to note that
righteousness is possible in Jesus Christ. They are works of Christ through the
believer. This sort of nihilistic idea that a redeemed man can never do
anything truly righteous because all of his righteousness is filthy menstrual
rags, so why try is based on a false understanding of this passage.
As John says, the one who does
righteousness is righteous and born of God. As Paul says, we are God’s workmanship
created anew in Christ Jesus for the purpose of doing good works. We are predestined,
regenerated, and saved in order to become holy and blameless, truly righteous.
And that isn’t filthy in God’s sight. It is pleasing and beautiful because our works
of love are His works of sanctification that adorn His work of justification.
And these works are described in Revelation as pure and clean robes that adorn
the saints. There are no filthy rags about them.
Friday, November 1, 2019
I Agree with Beth Moore
Beth Moore has called out misogyny in evangelicalism, and I want to say a hardy, "I agree!" So she should stop promoting it. Egalitarianism and Feminism are misogyny. That is the entire point that complementarians are trying to make. In fact, that is the entire crux of the whole issue. Answering the question, "What does misogyny believe and look like?" is where everyone divides. The issue then is what or who can tell us which view is correct.
I would argue that God is the only One who knows the correct position and has revealed it in both His creation (general revelation) and the Bible (special revelation) that any views that argue a woman is honored by becoming something other than a woman is misogyny. If someone models a role for women, for instance, that goes against the role laid out for the woman by her biological creation and God's creational work for her as it is revealed in Scripture, it is antiwoman, replacing the woman with some other role meant for some other creature, and displays, therefore, a hatred for true womanhood and the women it seeks to convince. In essence, a woman who takes upon the role of a man or an animal/object has erased her womanhood and has become something other than what God named as a woman. It is absolute hatred for what is truly a woman. Our culture loves women when they are either prostitutes or gender neutral/men in terms of their roles, but actual women are hated by the culture. They are continually viewed as lesser than anyone who is a sex symbol or anyone who aspires to something greater (i.e., to do what the man does) than that banal existence of womanhood as wife and mother or those in the process of becoming wife and mother.
As such, all feminists, all egalitarians, such as Beth Moore, are misogynists. They hate women because they are not content in keeping to the natural role that defines a woman. They think it to be lesser for themselves to have to be "chained" and "imprisoned" to such an existence. They are Gnostics in their understanding of gender, which explains their hatred for women, since Gnostics disdained women and did not believe that they could ascend to be a better individual unless they became like a man or gender neuteral.
Indeed, many misogynists still say they cherish and value women, and even partake in some of the role that is womanhood, but their disdain for what it means to be "just a woman" in terms of staying within the lane of what her biology and the Bible dictate is repudiated by seeking to become "more" than what God would desire her to be by taking upon the role God desires exclusively for a man to take upon himself.
Misogyny is rampant in our culture because the idea that what the men do is better than what the women do has been advocated by pop-Feminism for years now. It's time that women were honored as women, and for Evangelicals to stop lying about their exaltation of women when they exalt those who evidence a disdain for the idea that being only a woman in all that womanhood calls her to be, and nothing else, is to be honored and desired by women more than any desire to be like the man. It's time to start exalting wives and mothers and the roles in the church that support womanhood rather than diminish it.
Let's put an end to misogyny in the church, therefore, and tell Beth Moore to love God by obeying His revealed will for women, and to love the gendered humans he has made in the fullness thereof.
I would argue that God is the only One who knows the correct position and has revealed it in both His creation (general revelation) and the Bible (special revelation) that any views that argue a woman is honored by becoming something other than a woman is misogyny. If someone models a role for women, for instance, that goes against the role laid out for the woman by her biological creation and God's creational work for her as it is revealed in Scripture, it is antiwoman, replacing the woman with some other role meant for some other creature, and displays, therefore, a hatred for true womanhood and the women it seeks to convince. In essence, a woman who takes upon the role of a man or an animal/object has erased her womanhood and has become something other than what God named as a woman. It is absolute hatred for what is truly a woman. Our culture loves women when they are either prostitutes or gender neutral/men in terms of their roles, but actual women are hated by the culture. They are continually viewed as lesser than anyone who is a sex symbol or anyone who aspires to something greater (i.e., to do what the man does) than that banal existence of womanhood as wife and mother or those in the process of becoming wife and mother.
As such, all feminists, all egalitarians, such as Beth Moore, are misogynists. They hate women because they are not content in keeping to the natural role that defines a woman. They think it to be lesser for themselves to have to be "chained" and "imprisoned" to such an existence. They are Gnostics in their understanding of gender, which explains their hatred for women, since Gnostics disdained women and did not believe that they could ascend to be a better individual unless they became like a man or gender neuteral.
Indeed, many misogynists still say they cherish and value women, and even partake in some of the role that is womanhood, but their disdain for what it means to be "just a woman" in terms of staying within the lane of what her biology and the Bible dictate is repudiated by seeking to become "more" than what God would desire her to be by taking upon the role God desires exclusively for a man to take upon himself.
Misogyny is rampant in our culture because the idea that what the men do is better than what the women do has been advocated by pop-Feminism for years now. It's time that women were honored as women, and for Evangelicals to stop lying about their exaltation of women when they exalt those who evidence a disdain for the idea that being only a woman in all that womanhood calls her to be, and nothing else, is to be honored and desired by women more than any desire to be like the man. It's time to start exalting wives and mothers and the roles in the church that support womanhood rather than diminish it.
Let's put an end to misogyny in the church, therefore, and tell Beth Moore to love God by obeying His revealed will for women, and to love the gendered humans he has made in the fullness thereof.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Argumentum ad Consequentiam
I often hear the attempt to refute my argument concerning the image of God with rebuts like, "That sounds dangerous," or "That's alarming?" or "If we all believe that then we have no reason to treat other people with respect," etc. These are all types of arguments that fit under the category of the argument from consequence fallacy. To use one website's definition.
Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition. This comes in two forms: the positive and negative.
Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition. This comes in two forms: the positive and negative.
Logical Forms:
X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
To put it in the current context, it is to argue that if one holds that fallen humans are not the image of God, then there is no reason not to murder them, no reason to treat them with respect, etc.
Of course, even if this were true, it still is not an argument against the idea. It just means that one may not like the consequences thereof. However, it of course is not true. Strange that I have not killed or kicked around my dog yet, since I do not consider her to have the image of God, or that I have not blown up the world because the earth is not God's image. There are many other reasons why you would still treat fallen people with respect and not murder them, one of which is that the image of God seeks to create and preserve covenant human life, and that means that a life saved through the gospel is part of the work of the people of God as God's images.
But imagine arguing against other doctrines this way, as some do. Calvinism is dangerous and alarming because if we believe it, no one will evangelize, it means that God does not love everyone the same, and it will lead to an antinomian lifestyle.
All of these have been true consequences of someone believing Calvinism; and yet, they are misapplications of it, as the above argument against the image of God would be.
In fact, Christianity itself is/was seen as dangerous and alarming. If one believed in the Roman Empire, for instance, all of society, rooted in paganism, would fall apart. To the Jews it was dangerous and alarming because they thought if grace was preached, the Mosaic Law would be thrown out. None of this was the logical consequence of Christianity, but one could argue that it could be used to do all of this.
I would argue that even now genuine Christianity is exclusive, which is part of the imago Dei discussion, and one could be very alarmed that it will destroy the unity of the American zeitgeist.
Arguments from the consequence aren't real arguments because they only showcase the fears and comfort with the traditions of the individual. They don't attack the arguments at all, and so they leave the arguments untouched in perfect condition.
As the people of God, we are to do better than this, since one who attacks an argument he does not like with such fallacies one day will be attacked with those same fallacies the next. And that's a consequence I would rather avoid.
Monday, October 28, 2019
If You Have Nothing Nice to Say, Speak the Truth in Love
Here we go again. It's time to pull 2 Timothy 2:24-26 off the shelf again so that those extremely concerned about expressing love through tone can condemn anyone that says anything harshly. I didn't listen to Macarthur's rebuke of the FILL IN THE BLANK woman being disobedient because egalitarian ignorance says she can this particular week, but I'm familiar with the usual "your tone is unloving" card played. It's kind of the Christian equivalent of calling someone racist or a Nazi. If your tone is off then you are an immature, unloving, judgmental, no good, lousy leader (apparently insinuating all of that is not unloving because it's just implied as truth in righteous anger). As the old adage goes, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all," unless you're critiquing the person saying un-nice things, then say all of the mean things you want.
Now, I'm actually split on the tone issue. From one standpoint, it is true that tone can convey a demeaning of another Christian. If it is snarky, implies the other person is stupid, indicates a lack of concern for the other person, etc. (you know, the type of tone you get when you go in a Reformed chat room or Facebook page), then I do think it falls under the condemnation of Jesus in Matthew 5 of calling your brother Raca or "You Fool." Our tone toward one another should be one of honor and love.
However, it needs also to be understood that our culture cares more about tone than truth because it holds to relativism when it comes to religious truth. Since no one necessarily knows the truth, what becomes important is how we treat one another (I'm not sure how anyone knows that truth, but oh well). The truth is unattainable, but how I make someone feel as a person is what is really important. This is why we often read tone into any challenge we don't like. It's not that it is true or false, but that it must by default be bad because I don't like it. Hence, your tone sounds arrogant and judgy. How dare you put your truth, i.e., speculative conclusions of your subjective experience, over my truth, i.e., speculative conclusions of subjective experience. It's already snarky to begin with. No added condescension is needed.
The former concern for tone is a good one, but it should be understood that harsh speaking and sarcasm employed, not to degrade a brother but to drive home a point, is included in the list of biblically acceptable tones of love.
The latter disposition, however, would also condemn Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, etc., but of course, everyone makes an exception for them. Maybe their tone was acceptable in that day and seen as loving? Yeah, that's why everyone baked them a cake when they rebuked them (see that's a use of the former loving tone--you needed that and love delivers).
Having said all of that, let's not use God's Word as a handmaiden to our cowardly ethics. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 does not apply to someone in sin and unrepentantly disobedient. Let's look at the whole passage that starts actually in v. 23.
But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient. correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.
Notice that this is talking about people who argue over speculative nonsense. It isn't talking about someone in unrepentant sin. The Lord's servant must be patient with such a one because they may still be trying to learn, they may yet repent of their stirring up disputes over unbiblical issues, etc. This has zero to do with someone in direct violation of the commands of Scripture.
Now, I do think I would apply this to even people who were in sin by being in violation of direct teachings of Scripture, if they were just struggling with understanding, etc., but this does not apply to the heretic/apostate who continues to do evil even after rebuked and taught otherwise.
The heretic gets a sharp rebuke, even with evidence of disdain from Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles. There is no Mr. Rogers' tone for such a one. In fact, it is commanded to harshly rebuke rebellious heretics of this nature (ἐλέγχειν Titus 1:9) like their Master and His apostles do throughout their ministries.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't practice being nice where we can be, but it does mean that we shouldn't confuse the term "nice" with the term "kind." "Kind" is giving what is needed. "Nice" is giving respect, and that means that one might be giving respect when shame should be brought instead. They can be combined, but one can also cancel out the other. Kindness is an expression of love. Niceness may or may not be. In fact, niceness can be an expression of self-love and therefore hatred for the other instead because it withholds what is needed to receive honor from the other person (if you're nice, people will be nice to you // if you give honor, you will receive it from them). But love is always kind, but not always nice. So if you have nothing nice to say, speak the truth in love, and if necessary, do it harshly.
Now, I'm actually split on the tone issue. From one standpoint, it is true that tone can convey a demeaning of another Christian. If it is snarky, implies the other person is stupid, indicates a lack of concern for the other person, etc. (you know, the type of tone you get when you go in a Reformed chat room or Facebook page), then I do think it falls under the condemnation of Jesus in Matthew 5 of calling your brother Raca or "You Fool." Our tone toward one another should be one of honor and love.
However, it needs also to be understood that our culture cares more about tone than truth because it holds to relativism when it comes to religious truth. Since no one necessarily knows the truth, what becomes important is how we treat one another (I'm not sure how anyone knows that truth, but oh well). The truth is unattainable, but how I make someone feel as a person is what is really important. This is why we often read tone into any challenge we don't like. It's not that it is true or false, but that it must by default be bad because I don't like it. Hence, your tone sounds arrogant and judgy. How dare you put your truth, i.e., speculative conclusions of your subjective experience, over my truth, i.e., speculative conclusions of subjective experience. It's already snarky to begin with. No added condescension is needed.
The former concern for tone is a good one, but it should be understood that harsh speaking and sarcasm employed, not to degrade a brother but to drive home a point, is included in the list of biblically acceptable tones of love.
The latter disposition, however, would also condemn Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, etc., but of course, everyone makes an exception for them. Maybe their tone was acceptable in that day and seen as loving? Yeah, that's why everyone baked them a cake when they rebuked them (see that's a use of the former loving tone--you needed that and love delivers).
Having said all of that, let's not use God's Word as a handmaiden to our cowardly ethics. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 does not apply to someone in sin and unrepentantly disobedient. Let's look at the whole passage that starts actually in v. 23.
But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient. correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.
Notice that this is talking about people who argue over speculative nonsense. It isn't talking about someone in unrepentant sin. The Lord's servant must be patient with such a one because they may still be trying to learn, they may yet repent of their stirring up disputes over unbiblical issues, etc. This has zero to do with someone in direct violation of the commands of Scripture.
Now, I do think I would apply this to even people who were in sin by being in violation of direct teachings of Scripture, if they were just struggling with understanding, etc., but this does not apply to the heretic/apostate who continues to do evil even after rebuked and taught otherwise.
The heretic gets a sharp rebuke, even with evidence of disdain from Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles. There is no Mr. Rogers' tone for such a one. In fact, it is commanded to harshly rebuke rebellious heretics of this nature (ἐλέγχειν Titus 1:9) like their Master and His apostles do throughout their ministries.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't practice being nice where we can be, but it does mean that we shouldn't confuse the term "nice" with the term "kind." "Kind" is giving what is needed. "Nice" is giving respect, and that means that one might be giving respect when shame should be brought instead. They can be combined, but one can also cancel out the other. Kindness is an expression of love. Niceness may or may not be. In fact, niceness can be an expression of self-love and therefore hatred for the other instead because it withholds what is needed to receive honor from the other person (if you're nice, people will be nice to you // if you give honor, you will receive it from them). But love is always kind, but not always nice. So if you have nothing nice to say, speak the truth in love, and if necessary, do it harshly.
Only Christ Is True Humanity
If God's goal in creation is to fill up the earth eternally with humans, then this means that only those humans who will fill up the earth for eternity are true humans. In other words, whenever God completes His creation of humanity, the end result of what humans are is what a true human looks like.
Part of this stems from my understanding that God did not complete creation, but rather He began His creation and continues to create until all chaos is beneath the feet of humanity by being under Christ's feet. In other words, the creatures He initially creates are not the creatures that will be when completed. The creation He makes is not the creation that will be when completed. They, and it, will all be changed. This is the work of God through Christ in us, making us into what God purposed humanity to be, and what humanity is purposed to be, what it looks like in the end, is true humanity. Anything else that does not reach this goal is not truly human. So what does a true human look like?
We are told that they are imperishable, incorruptible, undefiled, immortal, etc., as they partake of the divine nature. They are perfected in every way, without sin, and glorified in union with their Creator through Jesus Christ. They are, therefore, called a "new creation," implying that they are no longer of the older state they were before.
What this means is that they are different from the unbeliever, as they are different from their former selves. And what that means is that the believer is a different creature even now than he was before, which further means that he is a different creature than unbelievers are. And if that creature is more human, since it is closer to that end result of the true humanity God is making and with whom He will communion with for all eternity, then that means that believers have entered into true humanity through Jesus Christ, and unbelievers, not being at all what true humanity will be, are not.
This also means that Jesus Christ, now glorified, is the only true human who exists at the present time. He alone is what He will be in His humanity for all eternity. He alone, therefore, is what God intended to make in His creation of humans. He alone is what defines true humanity. He is the one true human.
In the already-not yet, we have received true humanity in our spirits, having been regenerated/reborn/recreated in His likeness, and in sanctification, we seek to become like Him as we reach out in our race toward our resurrection, the completion of our humanity in the glorification of the body. We find our true humanity, therefore, in Him, and apart from Him, all is lost, including our humanity.
He is our one true hope. He is everything. He is our value, our life, our created purpose, the final destination of God's creation, and the completion of our very human nature.
Those who wish to say that all humans are equally human, whether believer or unbeliever, and ignore the division the Scripture sets between them, have neither understood the creational goal of the gospel nor the exclusivity of Christ in its glorious depth.
The believer therefore cries out, "O Wretched Man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?" The unbeliever should cry out, "Who will save us from existing as a entire being, spirit and body, of death?" The answer, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Part of this stems from my understanding that God did not complete creation, but rather He began His creation and continues to create until all chaos is beneath the feet of humanity by being under Christ's feet. In other words, the creatures He initially creates are not the creatures that will be when completed. The creation He makes is not the creation that will be when completed. They, and it, will all be changed. This is the work of God through Christ in us, making us into what God purposed humanity to be, and what humanity is purposed to be, what it looks like in the end, is true humanity. Anything else that does not reach this goal is not truly human. So what does a true human look like?
We are told that they are imperishable, incorruptible, undefiled, immortal, etc., as they partake of the divine nature. They are perfected in every way, without sin, and glorified in union with their Creator through Jesus Christ. They are, therefore, called a "new creation," implying that they are no longer of the older state they were before.
What this means is that they are different from the unbeliever, as they are different from their former selves. And what that means is that the believer is a different creature even now than he was before, which further means that he is a different creature than unbelievers are. And if that creature is more human, since it is closer to that end result of the true humanity God is making and with whom He will communion with for all eternity, then that means that believers have entered into true humanity through Jesus Christ, and unbelievers, not being at all what true humanity will be, are not.
This also means that Jesus Christ, now glorified, is the only true human who exists at the present time. He alone is what He will be in His humanity for all eternity. He alone, therefore, is what God intended to make in His creation of humans. He alone is what defines true humanity. He is the one true human.
In the already-not yet, we have received true humanity in our spirits, having been regenerated/reborn/recreated in His likeness, and in sanctification, we seek to become like Him as we reach out in our race toward our resurrection, the completion of our humanity in the glorification of the body. We find our true humanity, therefore, in Him, and apart from Him, all is lost, including our humanity.
He is our one true hope. He is everything. He is our value, our life, our created purpose, the final destination of God's creation, and the completion of our very human nature.
Those who wish to say that all humans are equally human, whether believer or unbeliever, and ignore the division the Scripture sets between them, have neither understood the creational goal of the gospel nor the exclusivity of Christ in its glorious depth.
The believer therefore cries out, "O Wretched Man that I am, who will save me from this body of death?" The unbeliever should cry out, "Who will save us from existing as a entire being, spirit and body, of death?" The answer, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Why the Imago Dei Is Not a Characteristic of the Unbeliever
There are those who believe in the functional/relational view of the image (in fact, I would say most of modern OT scholars who have studied the issue), but think that it merely has to do with having children, covenant or otherwise. I want to lay out why this is not the case, and why I continually say that it is about filling up the earth with covenant children/human beings.
1. If one becomes the image merely by having children or being open to it, then that automatically means that homosexuals, women having abortions, and people using birth control are not the image of God. I would agree that they are not, but this destroys the attempt at making the term inclusive of all mankind.
2. It is important to note that the role of the image is to be fruitful and multiply and fill up the earth, ending in the rule of the earth and over chaos. The problem is that not only is anyone who works against this not the image of God (e.g., murderers, homosexuals, people who use abortion and birth control, etc.), but anyone who teaches their children a false religion or worldview (i.e., all unbelievers).
The reason why this is the case is that everyone outside of Christ, all who follow false religions and worldviews, which is every unbeliever, will eventually be removed from the earth. This means that the teaching of false religion and worldviews, and the following thereof, is an anticreational act of murdering any children one has, and many other people as well. In other words, it does not fill up the earth with humans. It removes them from the earth.
The unbeliever cannot fulfill the role of the image because only one in covenant with God can raise up covenant children who will fill up the earth for all eternity. What the unbeliever does is place more chaotic agents in the world who one day must be removed.
Of course, this is every man outside of Christ. Once Christ places these chaotic agents/unbelievers in Him, He redeems them to true humanity and the image, both via imputation of His righteous image in justification and via infusion as they are conformed to His image through sanctification.
This is largely why marrying an unbeliever was considered such an act of apostasy, since, as Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi both argue, God's purpose of making the two become one flesh was to acquire "holy/godly offspring" (Ezra 9:1-2; Mal 2:15), not just offspring.
Hence, as the second Adam, He accomplishes the work of the image by forever filling up the earth with covenant human beings, and all who are in Him are the means through which He does it. Everyone else works against God's creational work, and therefore, empty the world rather than filling it in the end.
One is the work of God tasked to His image who reflect Him in their work, and the other the work of Satan tasked to unbelievers by their god who they reflect in their work.
So the work of the image is in the creation and preservation of covenant children/human beings, which explains why the Bible is exclusive in terms of God's covenant people, privileges them over unbelievers, and makes all of creation about them. In that regard, although the believer can be an image of either due to his two natures, the unbeliever cannot be anything but the image of the devil, working toward the emptying of the world of covenant children/human beings who would dwell in it forever. For the unbeliever it is non posse non peccare, and this is due to his status as a murderer via the falsehood he preaches with his words and his life.
1. If one becomes the image merely by having children or being open to it, then that automatically means that homosexuals, women having abortions, and people using birth control are not the image of God. I would agree that they are not, but this destroys the attempt at making the term inclusive of all mankind.
2. It is important to note that the role of the image is to be fruitful and multiply and fill up the earth, ending in the rule of the earth and over chaos. The problem is that not only is anyone who works against this not the image of God (e.g., murderers, homosexuals, people who use abortion and birth control, etc.), but anyone who teaches their children a false religion or worldview (i.e., all unbelievers).
The reason why this is the case is that everyone outside of Christ, all who follow false religions and worldviews, which is every unbeliever, will eventually be removed from the earth. This means that the teaching of false religion and worldviews, and the following thereof, is an anticreational act of murdering any children one has, and many other people as well. In other words, it does not fill up the earth with humans. It removes them from the earth.
The unbeliever cannot fulfill the role of the image because only one in covenant with God can raise up covenant children who will fill up the earth for all eternity. What the unbeliever does is place more chaotic agents in the world who one day must be removed.
Of course, this is every man outside of Christ. Once Christ places these chaotic agents/unbelievers in Him, He redeems them to true humanity and the image, both via imputation of His righteous image in justification and via infusion as they are conformed to His image through sanctification.
This is largely why marrying an unbeliever was considered such an act of apostasy, since, as Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi both argue, God's purpose of making the two become one flesh was to acquire "holy/godly offspring" (Ezra 9:1-2; Mal 2:15), not just offspring.
Hence, as the second Adam, He accomplishes the work of the image by forever filling up the earth with covenant human beings, and all who are in Him are the means through which He does it. Everyone else works against God's creational work, and therefore, empty the world rather than filling it in the end.
One is the work of God tasked to His image who reflect Him in their work, and the other the work of Satan tasked to unbelievers by their god who they reflect in their work.
So the work of the image is in the creation and preservation of covenant children/human beings, which explains why the Bible is exclusive in terms of God's covenant people, privileges them over unbelievers, and makes all of creation about them. In that regard, although the believer can be an image of either due to his two natures, the unbeliever cannot be anything but the image of the devil, working toward the emptying of the world of covenant children/human beings who would dwell in it forever. For the unbeliever it is non posse non peccare, and this is due to his status as a murderer via the falsehood he preaches with his words and his life.
Friday, October 25, 2019
The Devil's Images
An image/likeness is a representative of a being, usually of a deity or a king. In functional terms, it stands in for the deity or king. Through it, the deity or king does his or her will, and the image exists in a place to express the domain of the one it represents to others.
When we discuss humanity as an image, we must keep this biblical and ancient Near Eastern view in mind. Image has nothing to do with ontological characteristics of the image, as an image can literally be any likeness and sometimes just an object with no likeness (e.g., an Asherah pole). An image has to do with its function. Who does it represent? What domain is it claiming for its deity or king? These questions have to do with its role.
This is why the image in the Bible has to do with joining God in His work as Creator. His creation is not complete until the world is full of human images who have overcome chaos. The first humans are made to begin to fulfill this role and other humans after them were meant to continue it.
So if humans rejected that role and decided to go with the one offered to them by the devil, what are they now but images, not of God, representatives not of His rule over their domain, but the devil's.
Hence, the Scripture tells us that the god of fallen humanity and its world is not YHWH, but the devil (2 Cor 4:4). We were in his domain, the kingdom of darkness, in his rule, representing his rule, until we were transferred from his kingdom to the kingdom of the Son (Col 1:13). Ephesians 2:1-2 states:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience”
The devil is the prince who rules from the invisible realm through the sons of disobedience. Hence, as he is a destroyer/murderer/liar, all mankind in him are described the same way (Rom 3:10-18). Those who are outside of Christ are his children (Matt 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10). They are federally linked to the devil as their father, and so they represent him in everything they do. That is what the image does, and that is why they are the image of the devil, and not of God.
Christ must restore us to the image or we are without God and without hope in the world. He is our only hope, the true image of the invisible God, the Son of God who makes us sons of God, and restores to us the representative role of the image that was lost when we rejected God's work for the adversary's.
Hence, Luther concluded that fallen man is Satan's image, not God's, and the Reformed confessions conclude likewise.
Large Emden Catechism (1551):
Q. 81. How should I understand this?
R. Indisputably, the image and likeness of God, in which man was created in the beginning, along with all inclinations for good, was lost in him.
Q. 82. How should I understand this?
R. This image of God was in Adam in the beginning, by virtue of which he was immortal, holy, wise, and lord of the entire world, and thus was endowed with the freedom and ability to either completely execute or disregard the commandment of God. However, the image of God in himself and in all of us he so destroyed by his sin, that henceforth, all offerings intended for goodness were utterly destroyed both in himself and in all of us (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008], vol. 1, p. 607).
Scottish Confession (1560):
3. By which transgression, commonly called original sin, was the image of God utterly defaced in man; and he and his posterity of nature, became enemies of God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin.
Confession of the Spanish Congregation of London (1560/61):
4:1. We confess that, man, at his creation, having received from the hand of God the powers of wisdom and the ability and will to know, love, and serve his Creator, persisting in his obedience (which is commonly called free will), received also a law (Gen. 2), in the obedience of which he exercised these admirable gifts; which, breaking by his own free will (Gen. [3]), at the same time was marred from the image of God, and all the benefits that make him like God. And from the state of being wise, good, just, truthful, merciful, and holy he was rendered ignorant, evil, impious, a liar, and cruel, clothed in the image and likeness of the devil toward whom he moved as he departed from God, with the loss of that holy liberty with which he was created (Eccl. 7; 2 Peter 2), and thus was made a slave and servant of sin and of the devil (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010], vol. 2, p. 376).
Belgic Confession (1561):
14. We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will, agreeably to the will of God. But being in honour, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death, and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not: where St. John calleth men darkness ...
Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567):
First, since the image of God was lost by Adam, it was restored through the image of the infinite God, consubstantial and equal with the Father, i.e., Christ was made to us righteousness, life, truth, and sanctification; that is, He restored our lost virtues (1 Cor. 1; Col. 1-2; Eph. 1, 3; 1 Cor. 15). “Day by day, we are renewed more and more to His image through the Spirit of God” (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). “Put on the new man, who has been created in accordance with God” (Eph. 4:24) ... Therefore Christ, by the power of His deity, has restored the image of God, the lost virtues (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012], vol. 3, pp. 17-18).
Craig's Catechism (1581):
Q. In whose image made He them? (Gen. 1:26)
A. In His own image.
Q. What is the image of God? (Eph. 4:24)
A. Perfect uprightness in body and soul.
...
Q. What was the craft of Satan here?
A. He persuaded them that good was evil and evil was good.
Q. How could they be persuaded, having the image of God?
A. They had the image, but not the gift of constancy.
Q. What things did they lose through their fall? (Gen. 3:17)
A. The favor and image of God, with the use of the creatures.
Q. What succeeded the loss of the favor and image of God? (Gen. 3:14)
A. The wrath of God and original sin.
Q. What is original sin? (Rom. 5:19; 7)
A. The corruption of our whole nature
...
Q. In what did their salvation stand?
A. In the remission of their sin and repairing of God's image.
Q. What followed upon the repairing of God's image? (Rom. 7:5)
A. A continual battle both within and without.
Q. From whence does this battle proceed?
A. From the two contrary images in mankind.
Q. What are these images?
A. The image of God and the image of the serpent (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012], vol. 3, pp. 545, 546, 549).
Canons of Dordt (1618-1619):
III/IV:1. Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright; all his affections pure; and the whole man was holy; but revolting from God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and on the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity and perverseness of judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.
When we discuss humanity as an image, we must keep this biblical and ancient Near Eastern view in mind. Image has nothing to do with ontological characteristics of the image, as an image can literally be any likeness and sometimes just an object with no likeness (e.g., an Asherah pole). An image has to do with its function. Who does it represent? What domain is it claiming for its deity or king? These questions have to do with its role.
This is why the image in the Bible has to do with joining God in His work as Creator. His creation is not complete until the world is full of human images who have overcome chaos. The first humans are made to begin to fulfill this role and other humans after them were meant to continue it.
So if humans rejected that role and decided to go with the one offered to them by the devil, what are they now but images, not of God, representatives not of His rule over their domain, but the devil's.
Hence, the Scripture tells us that the god of fallen humanity and its world is not YHWH, but the devil (2 Cor 4:4). We were in his domain, the kingdom of darkness, in his rule, representing his rule, until we were transferred from his kingdom to the kingdom of the Son (Col 1:13). Ephesians 2:1-2 states:
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience”
The devil is the prince who rules from the invisible realm through the sons of disobedience. Hence, as he is a destroyer/murderer/liar, all mankind in him are described the same way (Rom 3:10-18). Those who are outside of Christ are his children (Matt 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10). They are federally linked to the devil as their father, and so they represent him in everything they do. That is what the image does, and that is why they are the image of the devil, and not of God.
Christ must restore us to the image or we are without God and without hope in the world. He is our only hope, the true image of the invisible God, the Son of God who makes us sons of God, and restores to us the representative role of the image that was lost when we rejected God's work for the adversary's.
Hence, Luther concluded that fallen man is Satan's image, not God's, and the Reformed confessions conclude likewise.
Large Emden Catechism (1551):
Q. 81. How should I understand this?
R. Indisputably, the image and likeness of God, in which man was created in the beginning, along with all inclinations for good, was lost in him.
Q. 82. How should I understand this?
R. This image of God was in Adam in the beginning, by virtue of which he was immortal, holy, wise, and lord of the entire world, and thus was endowed with the freedom and ability to either completely execute or disregard the commandment of God. However, the image of God in himself and in all of us he so destroyed by his sin, that henceforth, all offerings intended for goodness were utterly destroyed both in himself and in all of us (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008], vol. 1, p. 607).
Scottish Confession (1560):
3. By which transgression, commonly called original sin, was the image of God utterly defaced in man; and he and his posterity of nature, became enemies of God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin.
Confession of the Spanish Congregation of London (1560/61):
4:1. We confess that, man, at his creation, having received from the hand of God the powers of wisdom and the ability and will to know, love, and serve his Creator, persisting in his obedience (which is commonly called free will), received also a law (Gen. 2), in the obedience of which he exercised these admirable gifts; which, breaking by his own free will (Gen. [3]), at the same time was marred from the image of God, and all the benefits that make him like God. And from the state of being wise, good, just, truthful, merciful, and holy he was rendered ignorant, evil, impious, a liar, and cruel, clothed in the image and likeness of the devil toward whom he moved as he departed from God, with the loss of that holy liberty with which he was created (Eccl. 7; 2 Peter 2), and thus was made a slave and servant of sin and of the devil (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010], vol. 2, p. 376).
Belgic Confession (1561):
14. We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will, agreeably to the will of God. But being in honour, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death, and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not: where St. John calleth men darkness ...
Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567):
First, since the image of God was lost by Adam, it was restored through the image of the infinite God, consubstantial and equal with the Father, i.e., Christ was made to us righteousness, life, truth, and sanctification; that is, He restored our lost virtues (1 Cor. 1; Col. 1-2; Eph. 1, 3; 1 Cor. 15). “Day by day, we are renewed more and more to His image through the Spirit of God” (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). “Put on the new man, who has been created in accordance with God” (Eph. 4:24) ... Therefore Christ, by the power of His deity, has restored the image of God, the lost virtues (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012], vol. 3, pp. 17-18).
Craig's Catechism (1581):
Q. In whose image made He them? (Gen. 1:26)
A. In His own image.
Q. What is the image of God? (Eph. 4:24)
A. Perfect uprightness in body and soul.
...
Q. What was the craft of Satan here?
A. He persuaded them that good was evil and evil was good.
Q. How could they be persuaded, having the image of God?
A. They had the image, but not the gift of constancy.
Q. What things did they lose through their fall? (Gen. 3:17)
A. The favor and image of God, with the use of the creatures.
Q. What succeeded the loss of the favor and image of God? (Gen. 3:14)
A. The wrath of God and original sin.
Q. What is original sin? (Rom. 5:19; 7)
A. The corruption of our whole nature
...
Q. In what did their salvation stand?
A. In the remission of their sin and repairing of God's image.
Q. What followed upon the repairing of God's image? (Rom. 7:5)
A. A continual battle both within and without.
Q. From whence does this battle proceed?
A. From the two contrary images in mankind.
Q. What are these images?
A. The image of God and the image of the serpent (Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012], vol. 3, pp. 545, 546, 549).
Canons of Dordt (1618-1619):
III/IV:1. Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright; all his affections pure; and the whole man was holy; but revolting from God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and on the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity and perverseness of judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Story Wars: Return of the Junk-Fi
The older I get, and the more I watch Star Wars movies, the more I root for the Empire. What exactly are the rebels bringing to the table anyway? Disorder and a couple of argumentative droids?
If you're a stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder like me, then you probably have seen the new Star Wars trailer. And unlike every other stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder out there, I am not going to guess what the movie is about having never seen it. But then again, since Star Wars is filled with so many contradictions, why not its fans as well?
However, it does make me wonder, Are Rey and Ben uniting to defeat the emperor reflections of J. J. Abrams' hopes about Democrats and Republicans uniting to take down the President? Is this meant to be another preachy attempt to force modern sentiments on the masses like the last movie was? Could this movie really be about the impeachment of Emperor Palpatrump?
Maybe I'm just too cynical with modern Disneywood, but Star Wars has become just so dumb it does make me wonder. What ever happened to the good ol' days of the Star Wars' Holiday Special when all of the writers were on major drugs and couldn't put two coherent sentences together, and we all forgave them because they did the best that they could under the influence of a massive amount of crack cocaine? Have no illusions, they're still on drugs but apparently the ones that make you hallucinate that the modern political atmosphere actually has something meaningful to contribute to the Star Wars universe. The attempt to interject vacuous morality in Sci-Fi lately has caused me to think that a new category should be created called, "Junk-Fi." Junk-Fi is any Sci-Fi movie that prioritizes its message over the quality of the medium through which it is communicated. So far, the last movie was the best example of Junk-Fi I can think of. It may be that this next one will be the same. That message, of course, is that humanity must unite to overcome its adversaries, which are all essentially physical manifestations of death. Both the lack of reality of the message itself, but also the poor quality of the story used to convey that message, sadly, seems to be the future of these movies.
Oh well, at least they have lots of lightsabers and explosions while they attempt to show us that we must all unite as one big brotherhood of man if we are to defeat our greatest foe, i.e., another man. I love the hypocritical contradictions in this series. It reminds me of Obiwan saying, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." LOL. That's an absolute statement followed by numerous absolute statements about good and evil there, Yoda. Did I mention I'm rooting for the Empire?
This is a common theme lately. Let's all unite against our common enemy. Togetherness. We can be heroes. There are two prominent narratives at play in our stories: "the narrative of the hero" and "the narrative of the heroes." The narrative of the hero works well in a Christian context where Christ is the hero who engages the enemy and saves humanity. The narrative of the heroes is where humanity unites to save itself. Christ isn't needed. Humanity uniting is the key to defeating the darkness. I see this narrative in most of my kids' shows now. It has taken over the narrative of the hero. The Avengers becomes a bigger hit than any of the single hero movies, although they are still there, since down deep, we all know that humanity uniting isn't going to cut it. But it's a fantasy that is pervasive among modern stories that doesn't really appear all that much, if at all, in past stories of the world throughout history. Maybe the story of the heroes is a modern invention of the positivity movement, or an illusion of an activist culture that has come to believe that they can change things for the better by holding sit-ins and yelling really loud together. But after the marches are over, the darkness still remains, and all that is left is a monument of garbage that litter the streets, memoralizing their involvement in the movement to make things better. Death still comes for us all, and every human who has ever lived, lives now, or ever will live, cannot escape it by joining hands. Every last one of them will be overcome by it. Only "the Hero" has prevailed, and so only "the narrative of the hero" is accurate to real life. "It's an older code, but it checks out." So I hope if this is another, "Let's all unite" narratives that feature heroes instead of the hero, the Empire wins because that is what will truly happen in reality without Christ. Now that's a movie I'd give up an afternoon of bulls-eyeing womp rats in my T-16 for.
If you're a stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder like me, then you probably have seen the new Star Wars trailer. And unlike every other stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder out there, I am not going to guess what the movie is about having never seen it. But then again, since Star Wars is filled with so many contradictions, why not its fans as well?
However, it does make me wonder, Are Rey and Ben uniting to defeat the emperor reflections of J. J. Abrams' hopes about Democrats and Republicans uniting to take down the President? Is this meant to be another preachy attempt to force modern sentiments on the masses like the last movie was? Could this movie really be about the impeachment of Emperor Palpatrump?
Maybe I'm just too cynical with modern Disneywood, but Star Wars has become just so dumb it does make me wonder. What ever happened to the good ol' days of the Star Wars' Holiday Special when all of the writers were on major drugs and couldn't put two coherent sentences together, and we all forgave them because they did the best that they could under the influence of a massive amount of crack cocaine? Have no illusions, they're still on drugs but apparently the ones that make you hallucinate that the modern political atmosphere actually has something meaningful to contribute to the Star Wars universe. The attempt to interject vacuous morality in Sci-Fi lately has caused me to think that a new category should be created called, "Junk-Fi." Junk-Fi is any Sci-Fi movie that prioritizes its message over the quality of the medium through which it is communicated. So far, the last movie was the best example of Junk-Fi I can think of. It may be that this next one will be the same. That message, of course, is that humanity must unite to overcome its adversaries, which are all essentially physical manifestations of death. Both the lack of reality of the message itself, but also the poor quality of the story used to convey that message, sadly, seems to be the future of these movies.
Oh well, at least they have lots of lightsabers and explosions while they attempt to show us that we must all unite as one big brotherhood of man if we are to defeat our greatest foe, i.e., another man. I love the hypocritical contradictions in this series. It reminds me of Obiwan saying, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." LOL. That's an absolute statement followed by numerous absolute statements about good and evil there, Yoda. Did I mention I'm rooting for the Empire?
This is a common theme lately. Let's all unite against our common enemy. Togetherness. We can be heroes. There are two prominent narratives at play in our stories: "the narrative of the hero" and "the narrative of the heroes." The narrative of the hero works well in a Christian context where Christ is the hero who engages the enemy and saves humanity. The narrative of the heroes is where humanity unites to save itself. Christ isn't needed. Humanity uniting is the key to defeating the darkness. I see this narrative in most of my kids' shows now. It has taken over the narrative of the hero. The Avengers becomes a bigger hit than any of the single hero movies, although they are still there, since down deep, we all know that humanity uniting isn't going to cut it. But it's a fantasy that is pervasive among modern stories that doesn't really appear all that much, if at all, in past stories of the world throughout history. Maybe the story of the heroes is a modern invention of the positivity movement, or an illusion of an activist culture that has come to believe that they can change things for the better by holding sit-ins and yelling really loud together. But after the marches are over, the darkness still remains, and all that is left is a monument of garbage that litter the streets, memoralizing their involvement in the movement to make things better. Death still comes for us all, and every human who has ever lived, lives now, or ever will live, cannot escape it by joining hands. Every last one of them will be overcome by it. Only "the Hero" has prevailed, and so only "the narrative of the hero" is accurate to real life. "It's an older code, but it checks out." So I hope if this is another, "Let's all unite" narratives that feature heroes instead of the hero, the Empire wins because that is what will truly happen in reality without Christ. Now that's a movie I'd give up an afternoon of bulls-eyeing womp rats in my T-16 for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)