Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The Great Bible Reset aims to restore the original intent of the Mosaic Covenant, including the Ten Commandments and specific ordinances. It is not limited to Israel, as even the nations around Israel were to observe and recognize the righteousness of God's law. The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution have replaced God's law, leading to rebellion. The church must preach the gospel and apply God's law to all areas of life, including the state, to avoid tyranny. Luther's teachings on individual freedom were misapplied by the peasants' revolt, and he did not endorse Christian Communism. Luther acknowledged the right of armed resistance against tyranny. Calvin believed the civil magistrate should enforce both tables of the law. However, New Testament writers relaxed some Old Testament Sabbath laws. Luther believed a common Christian government over the whole world was not possible due to the prevalence of wickedness. Welcome, everybody, to the Great Bible Reset. This is a reset to the original intent of the Mosaic Covenant in Exodus 20-24, which includes the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, followed by three chapters of specific ordinances that God calls the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 24. And that's what the people of Israel swore to obey when they said, all that the Lord has spoken, we will do, and we will be obedient. Well, you might object, that was just for Israel, you say. It has nothing to do with the Gentile nations around Israel or the Gentile nations today, for that matter. Well, no. When we look at Deuteronomy 4-8, or verse 8, we learn that the nations around Israel were to observe and say, what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law, which I am setting before you today? Nowhere does the Bible tell us to follow some imaginary natural law or natural theology. Romans 1 is talking about natural revelation, not some undefined natural law which gives us license to make things up. Like when Omri and Ahab in Micah 6-16 said, the statutes of Omri and all the works of the house of Ahab are observed, and in their devices you walk, therefore I will give you up for destruction, says the Lord. We are not innocent victims of the globalists. God has raised up these globalists to chastise us for replacing his law with the modern equivalent of the devices of Omri and Ahab. In our case, unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and we'll look at that in more detail. But what about the Abrahamic covenant of faith, where Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness? And the whole idea of sole fide, faith alone. What we learn from Galatians 4-19, it asks the question, why didn't the law? And it answers, it was added because of transgressions, which must be restrained in society by a lawful use of the law, according to 1 Timothy 1. There are no neutral zones in the universe exempt from the rule of Christ. A natural man may not retreat, cross his fingers, and declare an autonomous king's acts from God. This includes especially the civil realm. Psalm 47 says, quote, He shall subdue the people under us and the nations under our feet. End of quote. Now this refers to godly rule under the law of God, the perfect law of liberty and justice for all, not to a so-called tyranny of the saints. In fact, in the book of the covenant, we're talking about in Exodus 20-24, there's a passage that specifically forbids the people of God to persecute the stranger, or the atheist, or the non-believer within the Christian commonwealth. And if they do so, God will bring the Christian under judgment and even death. So this is not a tyranny of the saints as is commonly opposed. It's a perfect law of liberty, a perfect justice, perfect liberty and perfect prosperity will result from obedience to the law of God. Excuse me, at the national level. Now Luther's student, Melanchthon, led a trend toward statism in Lutheran nations, rejecting Luther's stand on God's total control. If God is reduced as sovereign with total control over his creation, the state rises to fill that social vacuum. It's a rogue state without God's law or antinomian. When men pursue this brand of folly, God gives them over to tyranny. Tyrants must rule men who will not be ruled by God. And Israel proved this when she rejected God as king in 1 Samuel 8. And we are proving it again by rejecting the law of God as a higher law under the U.S. Constitution, where it declares in Article 6 that, quote, this Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land. Now when something is supreme, it allows for no other thing to be supreme. And that includes the law of God. It's excluded by... I mean, it's excluded. And so we're in rebellion from the law of God because of that. So what can we do about this? Well, the church must preach the primitive gospel as the foundation. And that is the faith in the death and rising again of Christ for salvation. And then, moving on from there, apply God's law to all areas of life, including the state. Failure to do this results in tyranny. Luther's Germany was sadly home to biblical higher criticism, a non-biblical government school system, and then Nazism in the 20th century, and even in Luther's own lifetime. When Luther's failure to develop a clear biblical doctrine of civil government led almost immediately to a civil calamity. Luther's successful resistance to the Pope inspired a new spirit of liberty throughout northern Europe, in Germany in particular. The German peasants were living under oppressive conditions because of abuses of the feudal system by the German and Austrian nobles. After the Battle of Hastings and the Papal Revolution, we find what is termed the second phase of the feudal system, which was more top-down, more top-heavy, more harsh towards the peasants in many ways. And so this led to their revolt in what is known as the Peasants' Revolt. The serfs used Luther's teaching on the independence of the conscience in the example of his break with the Pope to rise in rebellion and achieve a measure of temporary success in 1524-26. However, the revolt was finally quelled and thousands of peasants were killed. Luther sympathized with their plight, but he was adamantly opposed to their violent revolt against authority. Modern democratic theory encourages a similar spirit of radical independence, which can lead only to anarchy, as in the French Revolution. Luther sympathized with the plight of the peasants, but he could not endorse the violent and lawless approach they took to gain relief. This was an unfortunate misapplication of Luther's teaching on the individual's freedom in Christ and individual conscience. Luther was alarmed by the emergence of anarchy and the threat of the authority of the German magistrate, whose support was necessary for the continuance of the Reformation. In general, Luther's advice was in keeping with the pattern modeled in the book of Judges. He advised the peasants to keep still, suffer, and make your complaints known to God alone. Then God would raise up a deliverer. He instructed the princes to offer the mad peasants an opportunity to come to terms, even though they are not worthy of it. And if that does not help, then swiftly grasp the sword." So what then was Luther's attitude toward Christian Communism, which had found expression during this era? Luther did not endorse Christian Communism in either its community of goods or the radical leveling required of its egalitarian demands. He stressed the fundamental inequality among men due to their diversity of giftings, which suited each to fill his unique role in society. And this implied inequality of station and the necessity of accepting one's lot in life with thanksgiving and an attitude of service. Quote, The gospel does not make goods common, he said, except in the case of those who of their own free will do what the apostles and disciples did. And here he was referring to that so-called Christian Communism in Acts 5, noting that it was a voluntary response to the exigency of the times in Jerusalem, where Jesus had predicted that the Roman army would surround Jerusalem and not a single stone of the temple would be left standing on another. So disposing of property was then a natural response to Jesus' prediction that Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed by the Roman armies. But did Luther then contradict himself in his later writing regarding self-defense against tyranny? After the revolt, Luther reacted to the harsh measures of the princes against the peasants. Then he condemned the, quote, furious, raving, and senseless tyrants who, even after the battle, cannot get their fill of blood. End of quote. So later, when the battle between the papacy and the Protestant princes heated up, he acknowledged the right of armed resistance against tyranny. And this appears to be a rounding out and completing of his doctrine of resistance rather than a contradiction. Well, was Luther then correct in asserting that the temporal power has nothing to do with the first three commandments of God and the Ten Commandments? And what did Calvin have to say about that? Well, from the example of Nehemiah, we learn that the civil magistrate was responsible for enforcing the Sabbath observance with regard to the buying and selling of merchandise. And this he proclaimed to be a profaning of the Sabbath, and he took steps to enforce the law physically via his deputies. And we may assume by extension that if the civil magistrate has authority to enforce the fourth commandment, he also would have authority to uphold the majesty of God by enforcing the other three commandments related to the worship of God. And thus this would make Luther incorrect. In chapter 20 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin taught that the magistrate to enforce both tables of the law, pointing to verses such as Judges 21, 25. And yet, Jesus and other New Testament writers seem to relax Old Testament Sabbath prohibitions, including the death penalty, most likely because the Sabbath had ceremonial aspects unique to the Jewish covenant. The Jewish Sabbath is replaced by the Lord's Day celebration of the resurrection. Likewise, God requires that believers not force the conscience of unbelieving strangers in the land. That's in Exodus 22 through 21 that we referred to earlier. And that would seem to preclude their forced worship or taxation to support worship of the saints. And was Luther correct in saying, therefore it is out of the question that there should be a common Christian government over the whole world, nay, even over one land or a company of people, since the wicked always outnumber the good. Hence, Christ's rule does not extend over all. Well, on this point, Luther was permitting his fleshly vision to supersede his eyes of faith. The Great Commission of Matthew 28, 19 through 20 emphatically contradicts Luther in its assertion where Jesus said, All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Thus, Christ's rule does not in fact extend over all. I'm sorry, does in fact extend over all. Moreover, in that same Great Commission, Jesus laid down as a fundamental requirement that the nations or the cultures be taught to observe, observe all things whatsoever I have commanded thee. Thus, it's very clear that Jesus expects the eventual establishment of Christian government over all the world during the New Testament era. That's the Great Commission. He's not going to come back until the Great Commission is fulfilled. So Luther's assertion that the wicked always outnumber the good is a flat denial of the power of the gospel to convert the world. And I'm forgetting the name of the Baptist pastor in England who said that to not deny this like Luther was to deny the power of the Holy Spirit to convert the world. So what is the two kingdom theory that we often hear related to Luther? Was Luther correct in denying that Christ's kingship extends to the world under the civil magistrate? Well, this two kingdom theory is that form of dualism which assigns the secular realm of the world to the authority of natural law and human reason while leaving only the so-called spiritual realm of the church and the family and individuals subject to the Bible. This is not only a denial of the Great Commission as noted above, but it's an emphatic contradiction of the Bible's declaration that, quote, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. It does not belong to Satan. If it did before, Jesus took it away from him in his death, resurrection and ascension as we learn in the book of Colossians and elsewhere. Thus Luther was emphatically incorrect in denying that the authority of the king of kings extends to the world under the civil magistrates. So related to that, was Luther rightly interpreting scripture when he concludes there is to be no secular sword among the Christians referring to Romans 13, 1-4. Romans 13 says that the magistrate is a deacon of God, he's a deacon, servant of God, to wield the sword of God's justice against the evildoer. So he's talking here about a godly magistrate. In other words, the secular sword is a spiritual ministry that would be best administered by Christians. This is not to say that a non-believer cannot and will not occupy that position at some point in history due to the disobedience of the Christians. However, it is to say that a non-believer is severely handicapped and dangerous because of his lack of commitment to the law of God. And thus it is patently observed for Luther or anybody, for that matter, to assert that the secular sword may not be yielded by Christians. In fact, Daniel teaches that the sovereignty, the dominion of all the kingdoms will be given to the people of the saints of God. And that's immediately after the ascension of Christ to rule at the right hand of God. He rules through his saints on earth until every opposition, every opponent is put under the dominion of Christ before the second coming. Daniel 7.27 Isaiah 2.1-4 Many other passages. Does Luther open the door then for subjective interpretation of the law when he says, I know of no law to prescribe for a prince but will simply instruct him what the attitude of the heart and mind ought to be with respect to all laws. 1 Timothy 1.11-12 Luther translated the entire New Testament. So he knew the New Testament very well. It sounds like he should have paid a little more attention to the Old Testament because the 1 Timothy 1.10-12 passage says it is a lawful use of the law of God to restrain the unjust man from crimes such as murder, sodomy, perjury, kidnapping. This is in the New Testament era. This is a political use of the Old Testament laws taught by the other reformers who followed in Luther's footsteps. Thus Luther shows his ignorance of the whole counsel of God sadly by stating, I know of no law to prescribe for a prince. Not only does he steer the prince away from the source of all just law in the Bible particularly in Exodus 20-24 but he directs him instead to the authority of his own sinful heart and mind. Unfortunately, this contempt for the law of God has reaped a harvest of lawlessness in the abject surrender of Christians to a secular juggernaut in the civil realm. We're going to get into that in more detail tomorrow when I'm evaluating a podcast by two of our leading pastors in this area. Pastor Douglas Wilson and Pastor Joel Wesson. So please don't miss that tomorrow. And please visit us at greatbiblereset.com for a library of these short podcasts and then related to the Civil Magistrate and in particular the Law of the Covenant in Exodus 20-24 and check out our sponsors kingswayclassicalacademy.com and boomers-alive.com and any of your purchases at those two websites 15% will go to tuition scholarships for low-income families and check out especially my book on Keys to the Classics A History of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization and we'll see you tomorrow for that podcast. Until then. Peace.
