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 He has been replaced by some other character that has nothing to do with Him.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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)