Contra rebellem Christianismum

I wrote this post back in November of 2020. It remains unaltered. 

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see the kingdom of God." I used to think this was talking about being a person of valor or having really pure motives or intentions. Now I realize that it's talking about one's mindset and whether it is cleared of false and rebellious ideas. Only these people get to see the kingdom of God, both now and in the eschaton. They can see it because all of the eye goop in the sights of other men isn't there. They see the authority and rule of God now and they will live in that authority then. But Christianity in the West has become something else these days. It has become a religion of goop.

Remember when churches used to gather as a church because it was about cultivating a spirit of submission to God's authority rather than flipping the government off? It's all about the spirit that is being cultivated, whether one of submission or one of rebellion. I have to say that I don't see a whole lot of the submissive spirit displayed among the Reformed these days, and that was long before the COVID thing came into our lives. What I see instead is a lot of people using the guise of obedience to the Bible to unleash their disdain for authority and spew venom toward restrictions they don't like. We can't be upset with God directly for anything going on of course. That would be wrong. But we can flip off His messengers by saying that they don't really represent Him and that allows us to say that they can go take a long walk off a short peer when they attempt to exercise actual authority over us. 

What is very clear, I think, to most people, even the rebellious, is that we are in a season of judgment. But that means that God will be giving people over to chaos, not just by sending viruses and financial distress, but also by giving them over to their spirits of rebellion and deception. They are rebellious because they are miffed when authorities restrict their "freedoms" and they are deceived in thinking that they don't need to submit to these authorities, that government no longer has authority whenever it gets in the way of our God-given, Declaration of Independence, card-carrying egalitarian freedom to do as I choose as long as, in my own eyes, I am obeying the Bible. Not quite the argument of the early church or that of 1 Peter but then again this was never about obeying the Bible anyway. It's about satisfying the fleshly desire to rule as god of my life. If I was a slave, then slaves obey their masters, even when it gets tough, even when its harsh and I don't think the masters deserve my obedience; but since I'm a god, how dare anyone restrict my reign. I'll let God do that occasionally when He agrees with me, but I am not going to allow a lesser god, even if he represents God in His authority, to tell me what to do. Jesus died so that I could be a god without restriction by others. At least that's what the Mormons, New Agers, and Secular Humanists tell me. 

The one question I have is this, however, "When exactly did the conservative Reformed church that whines so much about critical race theory, adopt liberation theology and its attitudes toward government? Of course, I already know this answer. It was adopted when people started to adopt political theories of liberation. It was adopted with the Libertarian view of government, which oddly adopts with it, at least amongst theonomy types, a strange application of the permissive principle that limits government to whatever specific laws are mentioned in Scripture and allows people to govern themselves in everything else. 

Most will talk about general equity but not necessarily in terms of applying that general equity to what laws one can have. So for instance, one might argue that having a fence railing on one's roof in the ancient Near East is equivalent to putting a gate around a pool, but then completely fail to see that it should apply to speed limits on the roads. Government has a household. That household is the country. If it does not regulate how fast cars can go or how they can drive, it is not being responsible in governing potentially unsafe space. Yet, the is the very reason one must put a railing on the roof. I could argue it's the responsibility of each person who comes to my home to govern himself and his children and I have no obligation to babysit people and their actions, but as a good theonomist we all must say, "By what standard?" God obviously does think it's your responsibility to make safe space that could be potentially dangerous.

It's my responsibility to make sure the food I serve is not poisoned. It's government's responsibility to do the same for its household. Yet, how many libertarian theonomists argue that the FDA is overreaching? 

What this also means is that if my home is filled with sickness, I have an obligation to quarantine and ban people from meeting there. The government has the same obligation with its home, the country. It has the right, according to the application of the general equity of the law, to make potentially unsafe space safe. 

So what are we to conclude with these libertarian theonomists who only want the specific laws mentioned in Scripture to limit governmental authority? I would argue that (1) a general equity view of the law does not limit diddly squat unless one compartmentalizes and arbitrarily decides to limit the application of such laws (2) the disposition of one in subjection is, wait for it, subjection, regardless of whether one agrees with their authorities or not (that's the actual point of having that relationship--if you agreed with everything, there would be no need of said relationship), (3) it's all a very big excuse to satisfy the rebellious nature of the flesh in a way that one feels allowed, and even encouraged by God, to do so, (4) it tends to be Gnostic in that it wants me to care for souls and not bodies unless the Scripture makes me care about bodies too and then I have to, (5) it has conflated a bit of liberation theology which itself stems from Enlightenment egalitarianism with Christian duty so much that now a contradiction exists between hearing these guys make their arguments and listening to Paul and Peter on the matter. Paul, if by any other name, rather than twisted would simply be rejected, and Peter would be viewed as a cowardly Christian, again, if we weren't supposed to actually see him as an apostle of Christ. Since we have to see them as having God's authority, we try to find better excuses to consider what they say cowardly and reject it.

Our motto as a church has been, "Obey until you can't obey," but it is clear that many in Reformed circles have the opposite motto, "Disobey until you're forced by Scripture into admitting that you may have to obey a little bit in such and such an area." This has become the religion of rebellious men and infects the rest of the body like a cancer. But that is the test of God's judgment. No one gets to stand except those who pure of heart, for only they will see the kingdom of God in the kingdom of men.

Justification and Sanctification, the Image of God, and the Distinction in Genders

There seems to have been some confusion about my previous post concerning the image of God and how the woman partakes in the image, so I've opted to attempt to explain it as plainly as I can.

There is often a breakdown in an egalitarian understanding of genders due to antinomian assumptions of salvation. If salvation is nothing more than justification then when Paul says something like "there is neither male nor female but all are one in Christ" that describes the equality of men and women in their union with Christ then equality in Christ completely defines the identity of the man and the woman. "There is no" male or female, so genders are not distinct. Both have become the new man, the restored image of God, and that is the end of the story.

The problem is that justification via unification with Christ is not the sum total of salvation as though antinomianism was true. Those who have been created in Christ Jesus must now realize that they have been created in Him, united to Him, for the purpose of putting His character on like a new garment (Rom 13:14). 

In Ephesians 4:24 // Colossians 3:10, believers are exhorted to put on the new man, which is being renewed into the image of God. In other words, they have been restored as the image through Jesus Christ and His imputed righteousness, holiness, and true knowledge but they must now put this on, which implies that they do not have this character already. The new man is being conformed to it in sanctification, which assumes that the new man is only the image positionally but not practically. The image of God in Christ that has been imputed to both males and females must now become who they are not only positionally but practically. 

The question now becomes whether the character of Christ expresses itself differently through the male and female, and therefore, whether their sanctification, their Christ-clothes look different. In other words, does the positional image in a man work itself out in a different way than it does in a woman?

We see throughout the Bible that they do. The man and woman are created for different roles in the first work with which God tasks them, i.e., to be fruitful and multiply. Adam's role as husband and father is to govern as king and priest. Eve's role as wife and mother is to help him in submission to his role. She joins with him in order to participate in his work rather than assigned a separate task by God. 

Likewise, in the restoration of this created order in Christ, Paul tells us that the sanctification of the man in the family looks very different than the sanctification of the woman. He is to love and sacrifice himself for her. She is to acknowledge his God-given role and submit to him.

This means that she does not express the new man in the same way that he does. She is not sanctified the same way that he is. Although she is imputed the image of God through Christ positionally, as the man is, having positional equality with him in Christ, she does not practically become that image of God in the same way that he does, as this would be to argue that she is sanctified as a woman in the same way that he is sanctified as a man.

Hence, Paul argues that the woman should not take upon leadership roles in the church over men because she is to be saved/sanctified through childbearing, i.e., motherhood, the role of Eve, in submission to the men in authority over her life (1 Tim 2:11-15). Instead, the man is to take upon leadership positions because that is fitting to his role and how he is saved/sanctified. 

In both Ephesians and Colossians, we are told that the man's new man/person is conformed to the image of its Creator via loving his wife in a leadership role but the woman's new man/person is conformed to the image of its Creator via submitting to her husband, her federal head. 

What this means is that the woman's path of sanctification is through submission to her federal head, as this restores who she was created to be as a woman. Hence, if the image of God is not only relational but functional, she is restored to the image via unification with Christ relationally and in participation with her federal head functionally. She, therefore, allows him to function as the image of God practically, as one cannot be father without a mother nor husband without a wife. 

Both are the renewed human in Christ but that renewed human expresses itself through each human's respective gender and not in disregard of it. But this means that they do not participate in the work of the image of God in the same way, and hence, if the image of God is functional, and they do not function the same way, they are not the image of God in the same way. 

Although the woman is the image of God relationally through Christ, she now functions as the image through participation in the man's functional expression of the image. In other words, having been restored as the image of God, the man receives his task given to him in the garden back to him and so does the woman, which means that the woman is not the functional image of God by herself but must become his helper in her role in order to become/put on the image practically. The man, likewise, would not become the image of God practically if he shunned his role by rejecting the task God gave him in creation. Hence, as many theologians in history have argued, her practical function as the image of God is derivative of the man, as it requires her to be connected to a federal head in order to be practically conformed to the image of God. As many have described it, her glory is that of the moon's light that is dependent upon the sun's. She must join with a man (e.g., father, husband, elders) in order to work out her character in Christ.

This brings us back to the antinomianism of egalitarianism. It would be absurd to say that one was united to Christ and justified by Him if he or she rejected the role of the image given to him or her in the renewed human. Hence, sanctification is the sign of justification. To argue that one is the image of God due to unification with Christ but deny the need to express the image in the respective roles of each gender is to deny the necessity of sanctification that always follows justification. If the woman must participate in the functional image through a federal head then to reject this is to reject the biblical path of sanctification, and therefore, to give evidence of a lack of justification and unity with Christ. In other words, being restored to the image of God in Christ positionally will always lead to the differing expressions of the male and female roles whereby each engendered human becomes the image of God practically in different ways, i.e., each by applying him or herself to the task given to them in creation.

The Path to the Right Church

 I often get asked the question, "How do I know what church is the one teaching the truth when there are so many opinions everywhere?" People seem to want some sort of intellectual key to figure it out, and if they don't have it, they get scared and confused as to whether they are in the right church, hearing the right things, living out the truths of God or just religious fictions made up by men. But this is not the path to understanding.

The Bible teaches that the path to the truth is through humility. Not worldly humility where one acts like nothing can be known, as though God is incapable of leading His sheep to green pastures, but biblical humility that evidences that one is teachable to whatever God may have for him. 

Biblical humility is the assumption that one does not know until God, through the ecclesiastically interpreted Word, reveals the truth to him. He does not arrogantly assume his own feelings, experiences, and reason is any sort of measuring stick for what is true and what is not. Isaiah 66:1-2 says,

This is what the LORD says:

“Heaven is My throne,

and earth is My footstool.

What kind of house will you build for Me?

Or where will My place of repose be?

Has not My hand made all these things?

And so they came into being,” declares the LORD.

“This is the one I will look to indwell:

he who is humble and lowly in spirit,

who trembles at My word.

God's Spirit leads the one who is lowly in spirit, who does not lift himself up. But what does this look like? It looks like submitting to church leadership by deeply contemplating its biblical interpretations and not assuming that you know the truth on your own. It looks like seeking to understand from the authorities God has placed over you, even if those authorities might be wrong. It's coming with an open hand rather than a closed fist, an empty cup rather than a full one. That's because being led into the truth isn't about you figuring it out. You are fallen and not able to figure it out. Your flesh won't allow you to do so. It suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. It will not allow you to reason your way there, and God does not honor self-reliance but rather faith and reliance upon Him. It's about God leading you into the truth and God does not lead the rebellious, arrogant man, but the one who seeks Him with all his being and subjects himself to the process of learning through those placed over you. 

Because of this, God may have you in a church that doesn't have all of the right answers for a while. It is how you respond to that church that will show whether your self-assessment of humility is accurate. If you cannot submit to a local church body then you are not humble, and if you are not humble, you are not led by the Spirit into the truth. It's as simple as that. 

It is being teachable to where you are, seeking to learn what you can, questioning yourself and denying yourself within the times and places God has placed you. Many, and I do mean many, fail this test. Every man wants to believe he is teachable but so few are. 

Never would I believe that any of the pastors I was ever under were infallible or knew all the right answers but I sought to learn what I could from the churches I was under. I see the things I see today, not because I was smarter than anyone else but because God led me to see them, and I believe He led me to see them because I didn't assume that I knew already but always sought to understand, submit myself to where I was and under whom I was placed, and never stopped reforming because I wanted to know Him and His life-giving truths more. Always seeking, always asking, always knocking on the doors in front of me rather than always second guessing as to whether they were the right ones. I explored every question put in front of me and sought to listen to every answer that those who had authority to speak uttered to me. Whether they ended up being right or not wasn't the point. The point was to seek the truth from those God put over me rather than disregarding them to find it through my own religious experiences and reason.

My point to all of this is that one will never know enough to know whether he is in the right church. He may be fully convinced in his abilities to know but this is arrogance, and if this is his hope, he should be afraid. 

Instead, one needs to have his full confidence in God, that He is the Shepherd of His flock, and that if His sheep will follow the shepherds He places under Him in humility, no matter how imperfect their theology may be, He will guide them to green pastures. 

You want to know if you are in the right church? How submissive are you to its teaching? How much do you assume your inability to know versus your ability to rely on your own religious experiences, private biblical interpretations, traditions, knowledge, and reason? God casts down those who exalt their own abilities but He exalts the humble who trust in and seek Him with open arms toward those He has placed over them in various times and seasons of their lives. 

The path to the truth is the path of honest questions and a desire to listen to the answers no matter what they may be, but the one who assumes the truth before God has led him into it is lost. So if you want to know whether you are in the right church, do not ask what you need to know in order to evaluate it. Ask, instead, whether you are teachable enough for God to have guided you there.

When Is a Reformer Not a Reformer

 There are many claims as to what it means to be Reformed. To me, it means entering into a battle with tradition and human reason that conflicts with a solid exegesis of the Bible. In other words, it means the highest commitment to the banner of sola Scriptura as we march out to wage war with other ideas inside and outside the church.

I would strongly argue that the Reformers did not see their role as innovators but as discriminate preservers of orthodoxy. This means that when they came across ideas that were biblical, they attempted to keep them. When they came across ideas that stemmed from tradition or philosophy, they sought to be critical of them using the standard of sola Scriptura, i.e., Scripture as the ultimate judge, the norm that norms all other norms. 

When they innovated, and they did, they failed at their job, and it is my contention that it is our job to see where they failed and to correct it if we wish to take upon ourselves the role of reformers ourselves. 

They were wrong about divorce and remarriage. They were wrong about paedocommunion. They were wrong about the Sabbath. 

Interestingly enough, each of the above were all contrary positions to that of the church for the first 1000-1500 years. The reasoning as to why they took a contrary view to the historical understanding of the issue of divorce and remarriage was not on biblical grounds but human reasoning. The reason why it adopted a practice against the historic church's concerning paedocommunion was based upon a medieval tradition and the eisegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. The reason why it adopted a position contrary to the historic church's concerning the Sabbath was again based upon tradition and ignoring the biblical reasoning given by the early church concerning the day. 

In essence, it was tradition and human reason that led them to conclude contrary to the early church's positions on these issues, not a consistent commitment to sola Scriptura when it came to these. By their own job descriptions as Reformers, they have failed to fulfill their role. We must now do this for them. 

When is a Reformer not a Reformer? When he fails to decipher between what is tradition based upon the Bible and what is merely traditional. If sola Scriptura be not the highest banner in our theology, let our ideas lay slain upon the battlefield forever.

Federal Vision: A Critical Assessment, Part 1

 It's difficult to write much about the Federal Vision view, as one can say the same about it as has been said about many positions, "There are as many views of Federal Vision as there are Federal Visionists." But there are broad strokes one can make concerning what seems to be the main issue it seeks to address, namely, how one evaluates whether someone is a member of the covenant community and should fully partake in its spiritual life without any added restrictions that other regular members of the Body of Christ do not have placed upon them. 

Much of this boils down to its argument concerning whether we determine one's election by regeneration or by baptism. Baptism is the objective sign. Regeneration is the subjective sign, subjective in that it must be discerned subjectively via experience (individual repentance, individual profession of faith, individual good works).

Whereas many Presbyterians seem to want to say the latter confirms one's election, and therefore, grants access to the full spiritual life of the body, Federal Visionists want to argue that the sign of election is baptism, and therefore, if one is baptized, one should be granted full access to the spiritual life of the covenant community. 

Although I am appreciative of the corrections Federal Visionists seek to make, I think I would like to push back on both positions as being unbiblical. 

1. Federal Vision misses the mark when it characterizes the issue as one of objective and subjective signs of election. Most would say that regeneration is the result of election, and hence, if one is regenerate, he is elect. However, regeneration is invisible, as many Federal Visionists will point out. Something has to signify whether one is regenerate, and these signs are not objective, whether repentance, faith, good works on the one hand or baptism on the other. They are subjective because one can actually do these things and not be regenerate, which means that we are all relying upon the experience as a sign, regardless of whether we are arguing over what that experience should look like. The Bible is clear that one can be a part of the visible covenant community but be unregenerate. Hence, we cannot say that all are really in the covenant if being in the covenant is being a part of Christ's body. Christ's body will never undergo decay. Not one part of it. Hence, no part of Christ's body can perish. But in a Federal Visionist view, many parts of Christ's body fall off and perish. One may say that they are no longer Christ's body, but that misses the point. If they were at any time truly Christ's body, then what was His body has now perished having fallen away from it. Christ's truly loses what was once truly His.

2. On the other hand, Presbyterians who approach the covenant community with skepticism because they continually need reassurance that individuals are truly covenant members before they continue to grant full access to them to the life of the church have been sufficiently critiqued by Federal Visionists for failing to approach the covenant community the way that the Bible does, i.e., with an assumption that the entire community is elect and regenerate until individual members prove otherwise. In other words, I am fully on board with the critique of a position that holds baptized members of the covenant community guilty until proven innocent. There should be an assumption of election of the entire covenant community, of every member, as all of the biblical writers assume. To do otherwise is to play the guessing game in terms of who is really regenerate. One can say that he only uses faith and good works as the criteria, but the unregenerate man can claim faith and do good works in the eyes of men, so there is no fool-proof way to ever really know whether the person to whom you have administered communion, for instance, is truly regenerate and should partake of it. 

3. Although each group is flirting with the truth, both of missed the mark due to the fact that each seems to avoid addressing the issue of federal headship and how it relates to these things. 

A. First of all, Christ is the federal head of the household that is the church, and therefore, all who belong to that household are saved. Hence, the assumption of salvation should be given to everyone within it. This does not mean that everyone in the household will be saved, but only that those who are of the household are to be considered true members of it while in it, even if they are not really true members of that household secretly. 

B. Children or the disabled who are not able to express their own repentance, faith, and good works are a part of their believing parents' or parent's household, and therefore, do not need individual expressions of repentance, faith, and good works if their parents or parent already have/has them. 

Hence, I have come to a grant of full access to the spiritual life of the covenant community without having to get into the hairy details of whether each individual's election can be judged by his or her own separate expressions of it on top of a household's baptism and the repentance and faith assumed therein. 

This is why the only basis for excommunication is rebellion against the authority of Christ. It alone blocks access to the full life of the body. Until a baptized member is excommunicated, there should be no restriction to the body of Christ and its resources. In that regard, the Federal Visionists are right in their concern that access to the full spiritual life is being blocked by bad theology. My concern is that even more bad theology has been created to address it.

Much of this concern is likely somewhat related to the New Light controversy in Edward’s day and the subsequent revivalism, enthusiasm, and pietism that was inherited by modern Western Christianity. Does one need an experience on top of his baptism? Does one need to confirm that he has been converted beyond becoming a member of the church? And how does one discern this if no one can be infallible?

The answer is not to inherit an unbiblical declaration that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the invisible and the visible body of Christ but rather to assume the one-to-one correspondence of each until an individual or group within the visible community proves otherwise by their rejection of the faith either explicitly in a denial of Christ or through their unrepentant sin. This maintains both the integrity of texts that would indicate a reception of those who belong to the community into the full life thereof and the texts that indicate that not all Israel is Israel.

The Practical Denial of Sola Scriptura Despite the Logical Defeat of Relativism

We've all been bored enough to stack a house of cards. It's fun because it's so fragile it can come crashing down at once. Any movement of a single card, the whole thing falls. Our modern culture and church culture can be compared to a stack of cards, specifically in the area of certain knowledge. You see, if certain knowledge is impossible then there is a large amount of freedom to believe and do whatever I want. Who really knows what is true? Who really knows what is right? Doubt gives rise to autonomy, and I can have as much or as little of it as I choose. But pull out this idea and my entire autonomous house of cards comes crashing down. That's why relativism is such a useful tool for the rebellious and the fool.

Relativism, as discussed on this blog before, is not the denial of objective truth but rather the denial of certainty that one can know that objective truth. This is why certainty is seen as arrogance in our culture. Yes, there is an objective reality. No, one cannot know for certain what that is. 

The problem? That statement just made a claim that assumes a knowledge of reality with certainty. This is the problem of relativism. People have to make claims of certainty, and they therefore, often do so while denying that one can do so.

Humans must think in absolutes. The relativistic idea that somehow this is denying the reality that humans are subjective and are often limited in their knowledge of reality is itself an absolute knowledge claim about reality. It is the law of non-contradiction at play. As many times as people try to deny the law, they will simply prove it every time. 

This means one of two things. We all actually just live in delusion and can know nothing, not even that delusion that we know nothing, or we are able to actually know reality with certainty.

We all live in the latter, not the former. We all think in the latter, not the former. We all speak in the latter, not the former. Why? Because if we did not, life, thought, and communication would be impossible. It is part of the ordered system of the world to be certain about the nature of reality, to know things with certainty. 

The real issue is how we know those things and whether we can be wrong about what we believe to be true about reality, and when we can and cannot know that we are wrong when we use the wrong methods of knowing.

For instance, if I believe the moon is made of cheese because it looks like it, I've used a non-verifiable means of evaluating whether the moon is made of cheese. I've just gone on impressions comparing what the moon could look like with something with which I am familiar, i.e., cheese. 

Now, it is possible to believe something that is true about reality without verifying it in some way, but this is only a happy accident on my part. I don't actually know with certainty that something is true unless my belief is met with some form of verification, e.g., physical examination, reports of eyewitnesses, etc. Otherwise, I may believe what is true and can act upon it but it has a higher chance of my being deluded and believing what is not true.

All of this to say that the war on certainty is nonsense and it takes a whole lot of people who are really certain about their claims of reality to deny it.

This brings us to the practical denial of sola Scriptura. Note that. I said the "practical denial" not the "theoretical denial" of sola Scriptura. This is because most people who deny sola Scriptura do so while proclaiming very loudly and dogmatically that they believe in it. 

The practical denial of sola Scriptura often looks like one of two things: (1) The use of emotion, circumstance, tradition, popular opinion, etc. as an assumed (not explicitly stated) higher authority than Scripture when one reasons a position out despite there being a clear interpretation of Scripture to the contrary known through a robust exegetical methodology. (2) The claim that a text of Scripture is unclear, often making an appeal to the diversity in interpretation of that text despite there being exegetical factors in that text that would make it clear and refute those other opinions.

I want to talk mainly about the latter because I think it feeds the former. 

The statement that a particular Scripture cannot be known with any certainty is not unlike the claim of relativism above. In fact, it is the adoption of that very position applied to a biblical text. It is often concluded that this must be true because of the diversity of opinion held by various scholars or godly men (the false assumption of the latter having some sort of supernatural power given to them to interpret Scripture, a sentiment the Bible never supports) have disagreed about a particular passage, and therefore, it must be that the passage is not something that can be known with certainty.

It is objective truth, whatever it is, whatever it may say, but no one can be certain about what it says. Now, there may be passages that are like this, but one cannot know this fact about the text with certainty by just guessing that because there is a diversity of interpretation it must mean the passage is ambiguous. This is like saying the moon looks like cheese, and therefore, it must be.

Instead, one would only know it is ambiguous through a rightful means of knowing that fact. In other words, if there is no method that can be employed to affirm our belief about what the passage says, then one might conclude that given our current methods of knowing, we cannot know what the passage says with any certainty. This does not mean we cannot know what the passage says at all, as one belief about the passage may end up being true by virtue of our stumbling upon it in the dark. It just means that we cannot know whether we know it, and therefore, cannot know it with certainty.

Most of the passages that people argue over, however, tend to be over theological and ethical ideas, and ironically, those tend to have a diversity of interpretation about them, not because they are ambiguous, but because the interpreter has either unintentionally or intentionally employed a methodology that would lead him or her to the wrong conclusions. When confronted with a proper methodology of knowing, the interpreter will often appeal to relativism and accuse the one critiquing his methodology and conclusion with arrogance. After all, how can anyone claim certainty about what a biblical passage says when one cannot know what it says with certainty, and we know that one cannot know what it says with certainty because of the diversity of its interpretation.

It's quite interesting that one must be certain about what can and cannot be known about the passage when claiming this and still think of himself as humble, but one who claims certainty about the passage's ability to be understood is seen as arrogant. This really is a sleight of hand. Both are claiming certainty about the nature of the passage and its ability to communicate knowledge. One is simply using a fallacious methodology and then protecting that methodology by making a self-defeating claim about certainty and then using ad hominem to silence anyone who further protests that claim. 

This has made the Bible's authority to actually say anything that is contrarian to modern theology or ethics impossible, since every passage with which someone disagrees or dislikes will be disputed with some methodology, and then this cycle can begin all over again and bad interpretive methodologies can be guarded and sustained by the mere shaming of anyone who has the audacity to claim that he knows something with any certainty. It can be applied and taken away to each individual or group's liking. They can employ good exegetical methods where they want the Scripture to speak and bad ones when they want to shut it down. Rinse and repeat. In this way, the proclamation that one believes in sola Scriptura while believing this relativistic nonsense is just virtue signaling to other Christians, mainly Reformed Christians. 

In reality, the entire doctrine has been undermined, since one needs to know what Scripture says with certainty enough to reject that which opposes it and to act upon the authority of those truths. If I say the adults in Charlie Brown have supreme authority over everything else the kids say in that cartoon, but no one can ever make out what the adults are saying with any certainty then the claim that they have any overriding authority over the children is a worthless statement. It sounds real nice. It tickles the ears, but it denies in practice what it affirms in word. 

The committed practice of proper exegesis and hermeneutics is essential to affirm the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Don't just take the person's word for it. Don't just read it on signs and banners and think that you're at a church that affirms it. Watch how they argue. Watch how they view humility and arrogance when it comes to certainty and the Word of God, and the methodologies they employ to get there. That's where you'll see it affirmed or denied.

We live in a day when each person wants to be the god of their own lives. No one should tell them what to believe or do. Relativism is born out of that rebellion, not an intellectually sustainable argument that certainty cannot be known. The truth is that people just don't want their beliefs to be questioned, and that means they don't want the faulty methods they use to affirm those beliefs questioned. Pull that out and the stack of cards comes crashing down. 

The Race against Racism

 I'm just going to go through a few passages to lay out the facts so that the racist cult that has been gaining steam in Reformed circles has no excuse before God on judgment day.

1. The popular idea amongst racists that the mark of Cain was God making people black has no support in the text. And how exactly would his lineage look after marrying a white woman and having mixed children who then went on to marry white people? Black people don't come from Cain. This was an attempt by racist groups to stigmatize black people as murderers. It's purely eisegetical.

2. The popular idea amongst racists that Ham is cursed by being made black is not only without support in the text, it actually negates what the text says. Ham isn't cursed. Hence, all of his descendants aren't cursed. Only Canaan is cursed. Hence, only Canaan's descendant's are cursed, and they aren't black. The Canaanites are Middle Eastern. We know this from archaeology and from their depictions in Egyptian literature as the "Asiatics." Either way, the Hamites who may have made up Africa aren't the cursed ones. Given all of this, it's clear that the curse isn't making them black. That's not even a part of the curse in the text so to say that changing their skin color is part of it is, again, eisegetical.

3. Moses married an Ethiopian woman and the attempts to say that she probably belonged to the "other" Cush doesn't fit the context of Miriam and Aaron becoming made about it. First, it should be clear, they're not mad about racial differences per se. It's clear in the context that they are mad that Moses might be thinking he's a king, and they don't like him lifting himself up over them. Like all people who envy others in authority, they're arrogance detectors and so accuse him of arrogance because he married an Ethiopian. Why would this have anthing to do with him lifting himself up over them? Because Ethiopian women, both in appearance and in wealth, were often seen as exotic and women that only kings and extremely rich and powerful men in other countries would marry. This is consistent with their reaction. It's not because he married more than one wife, since that was common among lower class men too. It's not because she's a foreign woman because that was also common and he had already done that with Zippora who was a Midianite. Marrying a black woman signified wealth and power, and they didn't like him flaunting his power over them since they too were prophets of God.

4. Those who emphasize externals (skin color) over culture (the most important element being religious culture and values) don't have the Spirit of Christ in them. God looks at the inward person over the outward one. Blind men look to the outward so they worry a whole lot about how that cup looks and clean it constantly to hide the fact that cleanliness and filth matters far more on the inside. The Pharisees hated Christ on this point, as his dirty disciples didn't wash their hands before they ate and they could not stand anyone claiming to be godly doing such a thing. These people care much about appearances and think it's a tragedy if everyone were to return to a single color. You know, like Adam and Eve were, or weren't. 

And that brings up an interesting point. Were Adam and Eve both the same skin color? Is it possible that God actually made them genetically diverse? In fact, isn't it probable and even biblical to say that they had all the genes of all the races in them? If that's the case, aren't they a case of every race being married as God's original intent to every race? This brings us to another popular suggestion that isn't supported by the text.

5. God made the races when he divided the nations at Babel. Um, no, He didn't. He split people off linguistically. There is nothing in the text that supports the idea that He made them all different races. In fact, we know that it isn't true, as there are a lot of nations created here that are still made up of the same races. Also, God didn't make new humans at Babel, so every human being has the same genetics he had from Adam and Eve, which means that everyone could have taken upon the characteristics of everyone else given the same environment, time and genetic combination through procreation. The borders are given so that these people who speak the same language can have a homogenously linguistic society, not because Macedonians and Greeks are different races of people. And this isn't even talking about the entire world but the entirety of the land in the Ancient Near East which have a total of three groups involved, those who came from Shem, those who came from Ham, and those who came from Japheth. The lands mentioned are just within that sphere.

6. The fact that God tells them they can marry other women who are slaves or captured in battle from other nations means he has no problem with interracial marriage. What he does have a problem with throughout the Bible is interreligious marriage, daughters of a foreign god. He also allows men from other nations, like Caleb for instance, to marry Israelites wives. The host of Egyptians and Nubians and other slaves who went out from Egypt with Israel are never prohibited from marrying Israelite women as long as they were non-Israelite Israelites, religiously speaking.

7. This brings us to the final point I want to make here and that is that interracial marriage is never forbidden or even frowned upon implicitly in Scripture, and I would argue, it is actually encouraged implicitly through the principle of the incest laws. The further one gets away from one's own genetics, the healthier and stronger humanity becomes. The closer one gets, the more defects are multiplied. Now, of course, this can be accomplished with white people marrying white people and black people marrying black people but my point is that, if anything, it would more a sin to marry closer to one's genetic pool than further away from it. Obviously, it's only a stated sin to have relations to close within family units but the principle would show that the opposite has no similar principle governing it.

Like all cults, this one takes verses out of context to support it and then tries to mangle the texts that speak against it so that they silence the voice of God in opposition to them. 

I get that our culture is emotion and reactionary and most people condemning the movement have no credit since they react by their own brainwashing rather than with exegesis, but this movement really is unbiblical. It's not simply a virtue signal or cultural indoctrination. This is actually something our culture gets right because of its remnant Christian influence. What our culture gets wrong is the blending of religious races, sons of God and daughters of the devil, or vice versa, and the reverse racism and genocide they practice. But an overreaction is what the devil wants here. As I've said before, he doesn't lead conservative Christians astray by telling them to attend Drag Story Hour or ordain homosexual bishops. He drags them away from the importance of the gospel and the inward and eternal trajectory of our sights by causing us to overreact with another falsehood and immoral sentiment. 

I'm sure those forbidding marriage and the eating of certain foods were reacting against rampant sexual immorality and the celebrations of foods in honor of idols. Nonetheless, Paul also calls this the teaching of demons, and that's what we need to understand.