The Religion That Started in a Hat

Observations on the Scriptures                                                                   by Jack Kettler

In this study, we will answer the following questions:

1.            What are the Scriptures?

2.            Why are the Scriptures authoritative?

3.            What are the essential characteristics of Scripture?

4.            Why are the Scriptures to be written?

5.            Why should we search the Scriptures?

6.            Are the Scriptures complete?

7.            What about other sources of alleged revelations?

8.            How should we search the Scriptures?

Introductory Comments:

Today in the Post-Modern era, the experience is set-forth as a test for truth. Experiential testimonials, secular and religious, find use as recruitment techniques to gain members. Approaches such as these play upon human emotions. The Christian must not succumb to this erroneous approach to truth, namely letting experiences guide us. On the contrary, the Scriptures must always interpret and test experience, as well as traditions, spiritual leaders, and even the official theology of a church.

When Jesus said, “it is written,” in Matthew 4:10, He established beyond all doubt that the Scriptures are the authoritative and incorruptible Word of God.  The Old and New Testament is the Word of God, and the believer can be confident that the Scriptures are authoritative and sufficient. Thus, the Bible is the final court of appeal when seeking the truth.

A correct view of Scripture is fundamental to establish a system of sound doctrine. It is vital to have a theory of knowledge-based upon a correct view of Scripture. The Christian must build his foundation of knowledge upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

“A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” – John Calvin

1. What are the Scriptures?

They are a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative. The Bible also called Holy Scripture, Holy Writ, or the Scriptures the Old and New Testaments.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism:

Quest. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

Ans. 2. The Word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2Timothy 3:16)

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:20)

“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.” (1John 1:3-4)

Quest. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?

Ans. 3. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” (2Timothy 1:13)    

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2Timothy 3:16)

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession says the Scriptures are:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life…”

2. Why are the Scriptures Authoritative?

The authority of Scripture flows from the fact that it is God’s Word and declares itself God’s Word. It follows unavoidably that the Scriptures are binding upon the Christian as doctrine and for all of life.

The Prophet Isaiah declares the power of God’s Word when sent forth:

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

David, in the Psalms, further confirms this truth:

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. And, the counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.” (Psalms 33:6, 11)

Not only is God and His Word powerful and irresistible when sent forth, but it is also crucial to see just how closely God is identified with the Scriptures. A connection like this further establishes that it is the highest authority.

Consider this example from the book of Romans:

“For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 10:11)

Notice how the apostle Paul in the book of Romans, says, “For the Scripture saith.” It is significant to see when you consult Isaiah 28:16, whom Paul is quoting in Romans, and you find that it is God speaking.

To appreciate this connection of the wording the “Scripture saith” and “thus saith the Lord,” consider:

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 28:16)

Then in Romans, we read:

“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” (Romans 9:17)

Was God speaking or the Scriptures? If there is any doubt, we know for sure after reading:

“And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” (Exodus 9:16)

Exodus 9:16 that it is God that was speaking, whereas, Romans says, “the Scripture saith.” Therefore, it is clear that God and the Scriptures are so closely identified as to be synonymous. In essence, we learn from these examples, “thus saith the Lord God,” and the phrase “the Scriptures saith” are used interchangeably. 

As we have seen, the Scriptures are the Word of God. In addition, they reveal His thoughts, His will, and purposes. God is the author, and they rest on His authority.

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

3. What are the essential characteristics of Scripture?

The following five passages speak to this question:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalms 119:105)

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.” (Proverbs 13:13)

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

These five passages set God’s Word apart from the writings of men by the fact that God’s words are “pure,” “a lamp and light,” and are “eternal.” Despising the Word of God by rejecting or altering it, destruction awaits.

In addition, the Scriptures are infallible, they are holy, they are powerful, they are complete, they are understandable, and in them, we find the ordained means of salvation.

“For the scripture saith, whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 10:11)

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 28:16)

4. Why are the Scriptures to be written?

The inscription of God’s Word gives us an objective divine standard to determine the truth.

Consider the following passages in God’s Word about this:

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning…” (Romans 15:4)

“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord… And he [Moses] took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people…” (Exodus 24:4, 7)

“Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever.” (Isaiah 30:8)

“Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.” (Jeremiah 36:2)

“Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersover thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou have good success.” (Joshua 1:7-8)

“And the Lord answered me, and said, write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.” (Habakkuk 2:2)

“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, what thou seest, write in a book and send it unto the seven churches…” (Revelation 1:11)

God’s Word was to be written so that His people could know how to live in a way pleasing to Him and be able to know right from wrong. Apart from the objective written standard of Scripture, man is left with his own subjective opinions. In addition to the scriptural pattern just seen, there are numerous examples, by biblical writers, to the appeal to what had been previously written.

For example:

“Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.” (1Corinthians 4:6 NIV)

In the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on First Corinthians, Leon Morris makes the following comment about the above verse:

“‘Not beyond what is written’ was a catch-cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture.” (1)

5. Why should we search the Scriptures?

We search the Scriptures for the knowledge of God, for truth, to learn our responsibilities, for comfort, to learn how to advance in sanctification.

The testimony of the Scriptures is that they are sufficient. The Scriptures are entirely adequate to meet the needs of the believer. The believer can have confidence in the Scriptures. God’s Words are described as “pure,” “perfect,” “a light,” and “eternal.” Having this confidence is a conclusion drawn from or deduced from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence.

“For whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2Timothy 3:16)

6. Are the Scriptures Complete?

The Scriptures are complete, and divine Revelation has ceased. When the subject of “the closing of the canon” comes up, this is what is meant. As will be seen, the completion and ceasing of divine Revelation are in the Scripture itself. That is why the apostle restricts the believer to “…not go beyond what is written…” (1Corinthians 4:6 NIV)

The next verse from Daniel is of importance for the subject of the closing of the canon:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.” (Daniel 9:24)

The terminus or completion of this prophecy is in the 1^st Century. Verses in Daniel 9:25-27 say that when the seventy-week period begins, it will continue uninterrupted until the seventy-week period is over or complete. Christ’s death and resurrection made an end to the sins of His people. He accomplished reconciliation for His people. Christ’s people have experienced everlasting righteousness because of the fact that we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness, which is everlasting. The phrase “and to seal up the vision and prophecy” establishes the closing of the canon of Scripture.

E. J. Young in The Geneva Daniel Commentary makes the following observations concerning “vision” and “prophecy” in the Old Testament:

“Vision was a technical name for revelation given to the OT prophets (cf. Isa, 1:1, Amos 1:1, etc.) The prophet was the one through whom this vision was revealed to the people. The two words, vision and prophet, therefore, serve to designate the prophetic revelation of the OT period…. When Christ came, there was no further need of prophetic revelation in the OT sense.” (2)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers is in agreement with E. J. Young on Daniel 9:24:

“To Seal Up.—σϕραγίσαι, Theod.; συντελεσθῆναι, LXX.; impleatur, Jer.; the impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. (Comp. 1Corinthians 13:8.)” (3)                        

In a similar fashion, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary concerning this same phrase we read:

“To put an end to the necessity of any farther revelations, by completing the canon of Scriptures, and fulfilling the prophecies which related to his person, sacrifice and the glory that should follow.” (4)

Consider the biblical evidence for this:

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3:3)

“Which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3:3 NKJV)

This verse in Jude is speaking about the closing of the New Testament Canon. What does Jude mean by the phrase “the faith”? Also, notice how this “faith” was delivered (past tense) to the saints.

Simon J. Kistemaker, in the New Testament Commentary of the book of Jude, says the following what the “faith” that was delivered was:

“What is this faith, Jude mentions? In view of the context, we understand the word faith to mean the body of Christian beliefs. It is the gospel the apostles proclaimed and therefore is equivalent to the apostles teaching.” Acts 2:42 (5)

More on the phrase once delivered:

The phrase once [hapax] delivered is important. Hapax means once for all.

In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, we find this comment concerning hapax:

“Once for all, of what is perpetual validity, not requiring repetition.” (6)

A passage in 1Corinthians sheds even more light on the completion of Scripture:

“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (1Corinthians 13:9-10)

The passage says that something that is “in part” will be done away with when “that which is perfect is come.” What is the apostle referring to when he says that something perfect is coming?

Theologian Gordon H. Clark comments on this:

“There is one phase, not so far mentioned: “When the completion comes,” or “when that which is perfect comes.” This raises the question: Completion of what? It could be the completion of the canon. Miracles and tongues were for the purpose of guaranteeing the divine origin of apostolic doctrine. They cease when the revelation was completed. Even the word knowledge is better understood this way. Instead of comparing present-day extensive study of the New Testament with Justin’s [Martyr] painfully inadequate understanding of the Atonement, it would be better to take knowledge as the apostolic process of revealing new knowledge. This was completed when revelation ceased.” (7)

Clark is on track when connecting the coming perfection with the completion of the Scriptures. The tongues and prophecy of the apostolic era confirmed and bore witness to the truthfulness of that message. Nevertheless, tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge were lacking when compared with the written Scripture. The written Scriptures are far superior to spoken words.

Dr. Leonard Coppes also has relevant comments regarding this section of Scripture:

“This is a clear statement that when the knowledge being given through the apostles and prophets is complete, tongues and prophecy shall cease. Tongues, prophecy, and knowledge (gnosis) constitute partial, incomplete stages. Some may stumble over the idea that “knowledge” represents a partial and incomplete (revelational) stage. But is rightly remarked that Paul distinguishes between sophia and gnosis in 1 Cor. 12:8 All three terms (tongues, prophecy, knowledge) involve divine disclosure of verbal revelation and all three on that basis alone ceased when the foundation (i.e., the perfect) came (10). Verse 11 speaks of the partial as childlike (cf., 14:20) and the perfect as manly (the apostolic is “manly,” too, cf., 14:20). Paul reflecting on those who are limited to these childlike things describes this limitation as seeing in a mirror darkly (12). When the perfect (the apostolic depositum) is come, full knowledge is present.” (8)

Coppes, like Clark, connects the perfection with the completion of the canon.

The following verse provides vital information concerning the completion of Scripture:

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” (Ephesians 2:20)

This verse in Ephesians tells us that the apostles are part of the foundation of the church. The church has only one foundation. The Scripture in John 14:26 teaches that the apostles were taught “all things.” Paul commanded Timothy to “guard the good deposit” of truth in 2Timothy 1:14. This “deposit” was identifiable, or else Paul’s command to Timothy would not make sense. Furthermore, in order to guard it, this deposit could not have been a nebulous association of oral traditions.

“And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shown you, and have taught you publicly, from house to house… For I have not shunned to declare to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” (Acts 20:20, 27)

Since the apostles taught all the counsel of God, there would be no need for further revelation. What can you add to all of the counsel of God? The “good deposit” or the “all the counsel of God” was connected to the apostolic period at the foundation of the church. The authoritative apostolic writings became part of the New Testament canon.

The biblical conclusion is that, after their death, apostolic Revelation ceased. Why? Because of the fact that after the death of the apostles, their special office in the church ceased. The church has only one foundation, not layers of foundations on top of each other, as the “ongoing-apostolic-office” view would require.

Another verse is particularly relevant for the closing of canon during the 1^st Century at this point in redemptive history:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)

The book of Revelation is believed to be the last book written in the Bible. It was completed prior to 70 A.D. The passages in Revelation 1:3 and 22:6, 12 are time indicators that point to an early date to this book. Why? Someone may ask. The wording in these texts, such as “for the time is at hand” and “which must shortly be done” provide convincing evidence for an early date prior to 70 A.D. for John’s Revelation. This is because the 1^st Century fulfillment of the prophecies within the book are relevant to the dating of Revelation prior to 70 A.D. Therefore, the time-sensitive texts previously mentioned become important indicators pointing towards dating the book in the 1^st Century.

In addition, the temple in chapter eleven is shown to still be in existence, also supporting this early date prior to 70A.D. If an early date for the book of Revelation is accurate (which it is), then it allows the book to fit into the period of Daniel’s prophecy. Accordingly, the book of Revelation fits into the period and purview of Daniel’s “seventy weeks.” Therefore, those who argue for continued Revelation do so at the peril of their souls since they are urging men to violate this scriptural warning recorded in the last book of the canon.

Another passage that sheds important light on the penalty for giving false Revelation is in Zechariah 13. The context of this section of Zechariah places it in the 1^st Century. See Zechariah 11:13; 12:10; 13:1; 13:7 for proof of this 1^st Century setting.

Consider this warning not to add to God’s Word:

“It shall come to pass that if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who begot him will say to him; you shall not live, because you have spoken lies in the name of the Lord. And his father and mother who begot him shall thrust him through when he prophesies.” (Zechariah 13:3) (NKJ)

This passage supports the view that prophecy has ended in light of the fact that the death penalty is still to be carried out for false prophetic utterances and is in harmony with Daniel 9:24. The phrase “If anyone still prophesies” makes it clear that prophecy has ended. The death penalty is required for those who give new revelation. Why? Because it is false revelation since God has ceased giving revelation. This is the consistent theme of Scripture. Again, see Revelation 22:18-19; Galatians 1:8, 9; Deuteronomy 13:5 for the penalties and curses associated with violating this prohibition.

Consequently, since there is no fundamental difference between Old and New Testament Revelation, and the source of the revelation is identical, there is no reason to doubt that all giving of new revelation ceased in the 1^st Century.

7. What about other sources of alleged revelations?

The advantage of having an objective written Revelation:

There are other ideas about how God’s Revelation is communicated. In some religions, you have ideas like oral traditions that have been passed down through the centuries or a document that is constructed from memories of numerous individuals who lived over 100 years after the giver of the revelations had died. In other cases, you have revelations where the original revelations translated from an unknown language from “Golden Plates” have disappeared.  

Written documents can be studied to see if they are forgeries, whereas oral traditions, disappearing “Golden Plates” taken away by an angel called Moroni or the Uthmanic manuscripts, like the Samarqand Codex, or the Topkapi Codex that were originally memorized by various followers of Mohammad over 100 years after his death cannot be studied. In the case of the Koran, there are no original manuscripts, just the memories of men. In the case of the Mormons, Moroni, along with the “Golden Plates,” are still missing.

Memories may be reliable or not. How can you know? How can you research study and evaluate memories of men long since dead? What process was used to determine false from true memories? How were the memories transcribed, and by whom? Allah, in the Islamic religion, supposedly has the true Koran in heaven. Maybe the Mormon “Golden Plates” are there too. Meanwhile, back on earth, this is not much help.

What about oral sacred traditions?

In brief, in certain expressions of Christianity, there is a view that Christ passed on knowledge to the apostles that were never written, and this information was passed down orally by apostolic succession via bishops and patriarchs and declared valid and of equal authority with Scripture in Roman counsels like Trent. The Eastern Orthodox also have oral traditions similar to Rome.

Traditions may be good or bad. Are the traditions in agreement with Scripture, or do they contradict it or add to it is such a way as to change the meaning of the biblical text?

It is circumspect toward the Word of God to be on guard against tradition in light of what Jesus says:  

“Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” (Matthew 15:1-6)

Sacred Oral Tradition Churches uses John 20:30 as a proof text for oral traditions:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31 ESV)

Supposedly, the signs that were not written were maintained in a growing body of oral sacred traditions. Nothing in the text says anything like this happened. It is an assumption read into the text. Some people remembered some of the things and shared them with others. There is no guarantee that after time, everyone’s memories faded stories faded from everyone’s minds.

Do pictures and icons serve as a way to preserve the oral traditions? Many icons need some explanation. The question can be raised, it the explanation correct? A need for pictures and icons to preserve oral traditions is the admission of the weakness and inadequacy of oral traditions.

The Scripture commands us to remember Scriptures:

“You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.” (Deuteronomy 11:18 ESV)

We are to remember the Scriptures and the stories and events in Scripture.

More on the proof text of John 20:30. Does it provide Biblical evidence for a continuing body of revelations or traditions on a par with written Scripture? 

In his commentary on the Bible on John 20:30, John Calvin says no:

“30. Many other signs also Jesus did. If the Evangelist had not cautioned his readers by this observation, they might have supposed that he had left out none of the miracles, which Christ had performed, and had given a full and complete account of all that happened. John, therefore, testifies, first, that he has only related some things out of a large number; not that the others were unworthy of being recorded, but because these were sufficient to edify faith. And yet it does not follow that they were performed in vain, for they profited that age. Secondly, though at the present day we have not a minute knowledge of them, still we must not suppose it to be of little importance for us to know that the Gospel was sealed by a vast number of miracles.” (9)

Comments on the things “which were not written”:

The text in John 20:30 says certain things that Christ did, “which were not written.” To use this text for true Revelation not included in the canon but on par with Scriptures is an argument from silence (a fallacy). To say this text provides justification for the beginning of an oral scared tradition on par with the recorded Scripture is reading assumptions into the text. Unfortunately, when a representative from a Christian Church make these type of assumptions, (sloppy exegesis), it provides cover for aberrational religious groups as with the Mormons to follow with even more outlandish teachings.  

Another sloppy exegete may cite a passage like:

“And there are also many other things, which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen…” (John 21:25)

In John 21:25, hyperbole is being used as a rhetorical device; thus, the hyper-literalism fails.

Sloppy exegesis strikes again. In a similar way, John, 14:26 can be distorted. For example:

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you….” (John 14:26)

John 14:26, which deals with Christ’s message, is to the apostles exclusively. Hence, a fallacious interpretation seeks to open the door for continued revelation by leading people to believe that there is still more to the “all things.”

Limitations on the “all things”:

John 14:26 certainly does not mean that Jesus taught his apostles all about the occult and deviant sexual practices. Jesus said many words that are not recorded in Scripture. Jesus probably talked about the weather and thanked his mother for a good meal, and these instances are not recorded. There is clearly a limitation in the “all things” of the passage.

John 14:26 is understood in relation to passages like; “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2Peter 1:3)

And, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2Timothy 3:16-17).

It is true that not every Word of Christ and the apostles is recorded in the Bible? John even says this “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30). John follows up this statement in verse 20:30 with an important conclusion that: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name” (John 20:3, 12).

The phrase in the first part of the verse “are written” is expressing the same truth as “it is written.” If “it is written,” it is Scripture and has been canonized. If it is not recorded in the Bible, it is not Scripture. That is the implicit conclusion that cannot be overlooked.

How do we know if sacred oral traditions are true? Is it because the church says so? How do we know the Word of the church regarding a particular sacred tradition is true? Is it because it is in agreement with sacred tradition? If this were the case, then we would seem to be going in a circle. A circular argument is fallacious and self-refuting.

In Eastern Orthodoxy and Romanism, sacred oral tradition is elevated on a par equal with Scripture. It can be asked, has God revealed all this sacred oral Revelation now? Is oral Revelation complete or not? If not, is this body of Revelation, i.e., “sacred tradition” still expanding? If it is still expanding, how long will these alleged traditions continue to expand or grow? If the sacred oral traditions are written down, what becomes of them? Are they now considered equivalent to the Old and New Testament writings? If so, should the Scriptures be revised by adding them to the Bible as an appendix? Is there a sacred book of traditions? Are there commentaries that explain these “sacred traditions”? If so, are these commentaries inspired? Can every-day men read them? Do we need a special leader to decipher the meaning?

Does this expanding body of revelations or traditions ever contradict each other? It may be said, yes. For instance, the development of Mariology is an example of this. One would have to be dishonest to deny that there are contradictions between the different traditions. For example, Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics have traditions that contradict each other at various points. The role of “feasts,” “fasts,” “festivals,” the “filoque,” “papal claims,” “original sin,” “purgatory,” the “immaculate conception,” and the use of “icons” are examples of divergent, contradictory traditions. Furthermore, there is much debate and disagreement upon exactly what some traditions mean in the first place.

These examples, by their very nature, are open to endlessly differing accounts and interpretations. Remember a grade school exercise where the teacher gives a sentence to the first student and then that student repeats the sentence to the next and so on until the last student get the sentence and repeats it to the class only to find it is completely different from the start? Oral traditions or stories dependent on memories are inferior and are no more reliable than the child-hood exercise.

What about 2Thessalonians 2:15?

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions, which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2Thessalonians 2:15)

In this passage from Thessalonians, Paul is referring to his apostolic message, which was heard and received by the disciples as the “Word of God.”

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word, [teaching, preaching] or our epistle [written letter]. (2Thessalonians 2:15)

Paul’s apostolic teachings are described as “traditions” in this passage. Not always, but in this case, the context requires, and Paul wants us to understand that the “traditions” he is mentioning are the Word of God. For an example of traditions that are not Scripture, consider how Jesus mentions the tradition of the elders in Mark 7:3. Christ goes on in the gospel of Mark 7:9 to say that the Pharisees had substituted the commandments of God with the traditions of men.

Evaluating Ancient Documents:

Is it possible to make a final decision on an ancient manuscript being reliable if only one source is available?

In the Christian tradition, there are thousands of manuscripts of the Bible. These manuscripts can be studied and compared with other manuscripts and through conservative textual criticism, eliminate scribal copying errors. The agreement of multitudes of manuscripts is an advantage over a one-source revelatory document. Multiple witnesses that agree are more reliable than one witness is. See Deuteronomy 19:15, and Matthew 18:16. While these two Scriptural references are dealing with criminal conviction and discipline, the underlying principle is valid in ancient manuscript research. As a rule, more copies are better than one. In New Testament textual criticism, the numerous extant manuscripts have always been a recognized advantage.  

As Christians, we have the Bible with centuries of textual criticism and very few disputes. Multiple manuscripts that agree is a strong point. In other traditions, ultimately, you must have faith in the word of men since there are no primary source documents. In the end, you have the word of men or the Word of God.  

8. How should we search the Scriptures?

Reverently and submissively, with diligence and dependence on the Holy Spirit.

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

“Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)

Some human observations:

The strength of the Christian position enumerated above to paraphrase Gordon H. Clark regarding what is known as “Scriipturalism” (all knowledge must be contained within a system and deduced from its starting principles, in the Christian case, the Bible).

“The existence of the Bible, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity.”  – Immanuel Kant

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures…[and] are found upon comparison to be part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” – Sir William Blackstone

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.” – Patrick Henry

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure; its examples are captivating and noble. In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.” – Fisher Ames

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison

“By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime.” – Benjamin Rush

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” – Daniel Webster

“Education is useless without the Bible,” “The Bible was America’s basic textbook in all fields,” “God’s Word, contained in the Bible, has furnished all necessary rules to direct our conduct.” – Noah Webster

“It is impossible to enslave, mentally or socially, a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” – Horace Greeley

“The Bible is the only force known to history that has freed entire nations from corruption while simultaneously giving them political freedom.” – Vishal Mangalwadi

“For doctrine.” For thence we shall know, whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false, thence we may be corrected and brought to a right mind, may be comforted and consoled, and if anything is deficient, we may have it added to us. “That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us! Thoroughly furnished unto all good works”, not merely taking part in them, he means, but “thoroughly furnished.” – John Chrysostom, Homily 9, commentary on (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

“Knowledge of the Bible protects us and ignorance of it results in a multitude of evils. “This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how are we to come off safe?” (Homily IX On Colossians) “But if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.” – John Chrysostom, (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles)

“What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” – Basil, (Letter 189, 3)

In closing, may we always be able to say with the Psalmist and Apostle:

“How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.” (Psalm 119:103, 105)

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).

“To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen” (Romans 16:27).

Notes:

1.            Leon Morris, The Tyndale New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Inter-Varsity Press, and Eerdmans, 1983), p. 78.

2.            E. J. Young, Daniel, (Oxford: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988), p. 200.

3.             Charles John Ellicott, A Bible commentary for English readers, Vol. 5, (London: Cassell, 1882), p. 387.

4.            Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary Vol. 4, (Nashville: Abingdom Press, 1956) p. 602.

5.            Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary Jude, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 371.

6.            W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls: Riverside, 1952), p. 809.

7.            Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians, (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1991), pp. 212-213.

8.            Leonard J. Coppes, Whatever Happened to Biblical Tongues? (Chattanooga, Tennessee: Pilgrim Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 59-60.

9.            John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, John, Volume XX, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), p. 280. Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

Eaten by two She (sow) Bears (2Kings 2:23-24)?                                                by Jack Kettler

This study will look at a seemingly difficult passage in the Bible. How is this passage to be understood? Is this too cruel a fate for little children?

“And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children (נַעַר) out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood and tare (בָּקַע) forty and two children of them.” (2Kings 2:23-24 KJV)

From Strong’s Concordance on “children.”

Naar: a boy, lad, youth, retainer

Original Word: נַעַר

Part of Speech: Noun Masculine

Transliteration: naar

Phonetic Spelling: (nah’-ar)

Definition: a boy, lad, youth, retainer

In the New American Standard Bible, naar is translated young men 38 times.

Strong’s Concordance on “tare.”

baqa: to cleave, break open or through

Original Word: בָּקַע

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: baqa

Phonetic Spelling: (baw-kah’)

Definition: to cleave, break open or through

This “taring” is best understood as a mauling.

Observations:

Little children: The Hebrew word naar does not mean little children. Its range can include teenagers or young men.

Old enough to mock: In addition to the meaning of word naar itself, the context of the text demands that naar be translated as teenagers, not little children.

Together in a large group: Little children do not congregate in large groups and chase people.

The mocking Elisha because he was a prophet.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the text clears up any confusion about the age of these youth and the mocking of God’s prophet:

“He went up from thence unto Beth-el, to the other school or college of prophets, to inform them of Elijah’s translation and his succession into the same office; and to direct, and comfort, and stablish them, as he saw occasion.

Little children; or, children, or young men; as this Hebrew word oft signifies, as Genesis 22:5,12 Ge 41:12 2 Chronicles 13:7 Isaiah 11:6. It is more than probable they were old enough to discern between good and evil as their expression showeth.

Out of the city; Beth-el, which was the mother city of idolatry, 1 Kings 12:28,29 Ho 4:15 5:8, where the prophets planted themselves, that they might bear witness against it, and dissuade the people from it; though, it seems, they had but small success there.

Mocked him, with great petulancy and vehemency, as the conjugation of the Hebrew verb signifies; deriding both his person and ministry, and that from a profane contempt of the true religion, and a passionate love to that idolatry which they knew he opposed.

Go up; go up into heaven, whither thou pretendest that Elijah is gone. Why didst not thou accompany thy friend and master to heaven? Oh, that the same Spirit would take thee up also, that thou mightest not trouble us nor our Israel, as Elijah did!

Thou bald-head; so they mock his natural infirmity, which is a great sin.

Go up, thou baldhead: the repetition shows their heartiness and earnestness, that it was no sudden nor rash slip of their tongue, but a scoff proceeding from a rooted impiety and hatred of God and his prophets.” (1)

Sin Summarized:

These young people were mocking God’s prophet. These young people knew who Elisha was and mocked him nonetheless. These young hooligans were consciously sinning against God. These hooligans knew how to distinguish good and evil. Their sin was overt and a transgression of God’s law. These hooligans held God’s prophet in contempt. Furthermore, to mock Elisha was to scoff at the Lord, who called him.      

Deuteronomy provides an interpretive key in understanding the principle, which undergirds God’s judgment upon the young hooligans in 2Kings, 2:24:

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

The rebellious youth in 2Kings 2:24 were seemingly incorrigible like the stubborn son in Deuteronomy who experienced judgment by God through the hands of the men of the city. In 2Kings, God used two she bears to bring His punishment.   

A modern translation that clears up the ambiguity in 2Kings 2:23-24:

“From there, Elisha went up to Bethel, and as he was walking up the road, a group of young men came out of the city and jeered at him, chanting, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24Then he turned around, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Suddenly two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the young men.” (2Kings 2:23-24 Berean Standard Bible)

In closing:

The King James Version Bible has beauty because of its literary style. However, as seen in 2Kings 2:23-24, a more current translation avoids the obscurity and misunderstanding often generated by the older King James translation. The newer translation correctly translates the Hebrew naar as “young men” and baqa as “mauling.”  

Considering their sin, the hooligans in 2Kings got off with unwarranted mercy. The evil of mocking God and His prophet was worthy of the death penalty. Thus the passage rather than generate a question like “how could God do something like that?” to how could God not judge them with a more substantial penalty?  

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) And “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1.      Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2Kings, vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 719.

2.       
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

The Tactics of and The Theology of Christian Resistance A review                 by Jack Kettler

The Tactics of Christian Resistance and The Theology of Christian Resistance

Tyler, Texas Geneva Divinity School Press, both books published in1983

Christianity & Civilization Series

Edited by Gary North

A two-book review by Jack Kettler

The Editor’s Bio:

“Gary Kilgore North is an American paleo-libertarian writer, Austrian School economic historian, and leading figure in the Christian reconstructionist movement. North has authored or co-authored over fifty books on topics including Reformed Protestant theology, economics, and history.” – Wikipedia

About these books, John W. Whitehead’s comments are apropos:

“Conflict between Christ and Caesar is not inevitable: in fact, Jesus specifically commanded His disciples to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ (Matt. 22:21). Conflict becomes inevitable when the secular authority – Caesar – demands for himself honors that belong only to God…. In modern America, the state does not openly claim divine worship; but in effect, it is seeking to make itself the center of all human loyalties, the goal of all human aspirations, the source of all human values, and the final arbiter of all human destiny. In so doing, without using the language of revelation, it is claiming to be divine…” – John W. Whitehead, “Christian Resistance in the Face of State Interference”

The Editor’s introduction:

“THE question of resistance to a lawfully constituted authority is a very difficult one today, and it has been from the beginning. The New Testament unquestionably establishes the fact that disobedience to political authority is valid under those conditions where the civil government is attempting to suppress the preaching of the gospel (Acts 5:29). To deny this is to deny the history of the church. On the other hand, obedience to the authorities (plural) is required by Paul. Christians from the beginning have had to answer questions like these:

What constitutes a lawfully constituted authority?

Who are “the powers that be” (plural)?

Must we obey every command of “Caesar”?

May we disobey an authority “unilaterally” (autonomously)?

What constitutes the gospel, which must always be preached?

What constitutes unlawful infringement on preaching? Lawful?

What are the lawful modes of disobedience? Unlawful?

What if these authorities are not unanimous?

Is a victorious invading army to be obeyed?

How long does it take for an invader to become legitimate?” (Second, vol. page vii)

Reviewer’s comments:

A review of these two books from 1983 is necessary in light of the recent intrusion of the state into the domains of the church, family, and business. The present interference by the state is ostensibly warranted in the name of preventing the contraction of the almost yearly flu/virus. Citizens who question the state of emergency are denounced; churches are deemed none essential and closed. How is the Church to respond, submit, or resist?

The issue of Christian resistance and how and when it can be applied has been a Biblical issue since Abraham misled Pharaoh in Genesis chapter 12. Abraham was justified in tricking Pharaoh in Genesis. Are Christians today justified in resisting the state’s unbiblical solutions to a supposed health care emergency? If so, on what grounds? Hence, there is a need for a fresh look at the two volumes in review to explore the Biblical parameters of resistance.

These two books are a symposium of Christian scholars and thinkers in many ways is timeless. Their relevancy has not diminished. These two volumes should be seen as a whole, not two separate symposiums, but one. Today as many times, the Church and State clash.

Some of the notable Reformed scholars who participate in this symposium are:

Francis Nigel Lee; Louis DeBoer; Rousas John Rushdoony; Douglas F. Kelly, Francis A. Schaffer; Alan Stang; Michael R. Gilstrap; and Pieter Jongeling.

Other notable contributors are Paul M. Weyrich, Lawrence D. Pratt; Otto J. Scott; and Herbert Schlossberg, Archie P. Jones; and John W. Whitehead.

These contributors and others not listed in this review are not to be classified as cultural quietistic pietists. With its head in the sand approach, the ostrich has never been much of a deterrent to political tyranny. God ordains the end of all things and the means to bring about the end.

For example, someone may say God will provide all my needs, therefore sitting at home and watch as God provides. “How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?” (Proverbs 6:9). In most circumstances, God ordains that you work, and this is how God provides.

Thus, working at a job is the ordinary means to bring about God’s end, of providing your needs. The same is true in the cultural sphere. Sit quietly and wait or be proactive to bring about the desired end. The cultural quietist may be the cause of an unintended self-fulling prophecy of defeat.

You can be an ostrich, or you can use the Bible in resistance against tyrants. “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” – John Knox.

Thankfully, the men participating in this two-volume symposium are in the tradition of John Knox.

The goal of a reviewer is to get the reader to read the book. There is probably no better way than to list the contributors and the chapter titles. This reviewer would purchase the two books under review from just looking at the chapter titles and authors.

The First Volume, The Tactics of Christian Resistance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION By Gary North ix

PART I: FUNDAMENTAL STRATEGIES OF CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE

THE CHRISTIAN MANIFESTO OF 1984

By Francis Nigel Lee – 1

THE FUNDAMENTAL BIBLICAL TACTIC FOR RESISTING TYRANNY

By Louis DeBoer – 13

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY VERSUS RELIGIOUS TOLERATION

By Rousas John Rushdoony – 32

REBELLION, TYRANNY, AND DOMINION IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS

By James B. Jordan – 38

THE NEW COMMUNITY

By Herbert Schlossberg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. – 81

APOLOGETICS AND STRATEGY

By Gary North and David Chilton – 100

 

PART II: DEFENSIVE TACTICS OF CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE

THE ESCALATING CONFRONTATION WITH BUREAUCRACY

By Gary North – 141

TERMITE TACTICS; OR, HOW TO BE A 98-POUND SAMSON

By Wayne C. Johnson – 191

RESISTANCE TACTICS OF AZARIAH AND OF PAUL

By Wayne C. Sedlak – 201

COMPUTER GUERRILLAS

By A. Richard Immel – 210

MISSION: UNDERCOVER RADIO

By Harry Caul – 223

WHO MAKES CHURCHES TAX-EXEMPT?

By Douglas F. Kelly – 229

CITIZENS’ PARALEGAL LITIGATION TACTICS

By Michael R. Gilstrap, – 233

 

PART III: OFFENSIVE TACTICS OF CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE

A CHRISTIAN ACTION PLAN FOR THE 1980s

By Pat Robertson – 304

THE CHURCH AS A SHADOW GOVERNMENT

By Ray R. Sutton – 313

TITHING: FINANCING CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION

By James B. Jordan – 355

TACTICS OF RESISTANCE USED BY THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS

By Otto J Scott – 371

THE USE OF MONEY: A Sermon

By John Wesley – 390

LEVERS, FULCRUMS, AND HORNETS

By Gary North – 401

TOOLS OF POLITICAL RESISTANCE

By Lawrence D. Pratt – 432

POLITICAL RESISTANCE TACTICS

By Paul M. Wryrich – 449

HOW TO LOBBY

By Connie Marshner – 459

Dr. Nigel Lee sets forth the ultimate objective of resistance, and this objective may sum up the goal of both books as a whole:

“Consistent Christians are truly human and seek to oppose Satan and all his inhuman works. They do not seek to form a separate party opposed to the rest of mankind, but when they stand up for the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, while the progressive non-Christians are converted and become Christians, the remnant, the non-progressive non-Christians, reactionarily cling to their sins and sink even deeper into their Satanic alienation from true humanity. Consistent Christians are the vanguard of the true humanity, the new creation, and seek to persuade all men to become consistent Christians. Non-Christian men are inconsistent men. Only by becoming consistent Christians do inconsistent men become consistent men. Only by dedicating their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ, that most human of all men, can humanistic men become truly human.” (First, vol. page 3)

In the next volume, The Theology of Christian Resistance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

By Gary North – vii

PART I: THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIANITY WITH HUMANISM

CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE IN THE FACE OF STATE INTERFERENCE

By John W Whitehead – 1

CONFLICTING WORLD VIEWS: HUMANISM VERSUS CHRISTIANITY

By Francis A. Schaeffer – 14

WHAT THE WAR IS REALLY ABOUT

By Alan Stang – 24

 

PART II: PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE

‘CONFIRMATION, CONFRONTATION, AND CAVES

By Gary North – 40

RAHAB’S JUSTIFIABLE LIE

By Jim West – 66

PACIFISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT (an extended

Review of four recent books)

By James B. Jordan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . – 75

NATURAL LAW AND CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY

By Archie P. Jones – 94

WHAT’S WRONG WITH HUMAN RIGHTS?

By T. Robert Ingram – 133

THE COUNTERPRODUCTIVITY OF NOT LINKING CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICS:

A REPLY TO SENATOR MARK HATFIELD

By Joseph C. Morecraft III – 148

 

PART III: THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN RESISTANCE

THE EARLY CHURCH AND PACIFISM (an extended review

Of Jean-Michel Hornus’s It is Not Lawful For Me To Fight)

By Allen C. Guelzo – 161

THE LESSER MAGISTRATES from Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559)

By John Calvin – 170

JOHN CALVIN’S THEOLOGY OF RESISTANCE

By Michael R. Gilstrap – 180

DEFENSIVE WAR IN A JUST CAUSE SINLESS, A Sermon (1775)

By David Jones – 218

AND GOD DEFEND THE RIGHT: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE LIMITS OF CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE

By M. E. Bradford – 233

THE DUTCH-AMERICAN GUERILLAS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

By William Marina and Diane Cuervo – 242

THE DEBATE OVER FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY, A Selection from the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 – 266

ON RECONSTRUCTION AND THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC

By Tom Rose – 285

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE HEART OF THE DUTCH NATION

By Pieter Jongeling – 311

Unless the reader is so heavenly minded to be any earthly good, the chapter titles and authors should put these two volumes at the top of a must get book list.

In the conclusion of this review, and the first essay, the second volume, John Whitehead’s analysis of what is at stake is spot-on:

“ONE sure sign of judgment-upon both the church and society – is increasing state interference in the affairs of the church and Christian institutions. We see it everywhere today. It is as if the church is on the eve of being carried off into Babylon. Clearly, in the face of such government entanglement, we need to consider Christian resistance; that is, the proper Christian response to illegal acts of the state.

The Church Is At War

It is definitely time to shed the naive idea that the modern humanistic state exists to perpetuate good government. It is there to perpetuate itself at all costs. No bureaucracy works itself out of a job.

It is also time to shed the idea that Christians can simply go about their business looking neither to the left nor to the right, and somehow be freed from the woes to come. Every true Christian is on an eventual collision course with the modern technological state, and he should be prepared for it.

It must also be realized that the technological state has no need for an active church. Indeed, it requires a silent church. There is no room for God in such a state. Certainly, Christians are not here on earth to work out a peace pact with Satan. At a time when men are crying “peace, peace” we are assured that there is no peace.

Christianity, it must be remembered, is at war even in a world of peace. Christ said He came to bring not peace but a sword (Matt. 10:34). Much too often, the modern church has sought peace and compromise with the world. As a consequence, the church has compromised and allowed the tide of humanism to roll over society and encompass it. Nowhere has this been more true than in the Christian community’s silence and acquiescence to the ever growing power and unconstitutionality of the federal and state governments and their agencies. The state is abusing its power. It is up to the Christian community, which knows that the state is not absolute, to stop it.” (Second, vol. page 1, 2)

During the Protestant Reformation, there was much political turmoil. Tyrannical leaders like Mary Queen of Scots were resisted. Tyrants were not unique to the time of Protestant Reformation leader John Knox. Some of the world’s worst tyranny happened during the Twentieth Century. Professor R. J. Rummel labeled the Twentieth Century the century of “democide” in his book “Death by Government.” Contrary to the interpretation of Romans 13:1, 3-4 by some, governments do not always bring judgment against evildoers.

Today, state governments are forcing churches to jump through silly meaningless inconsistent hoops, interfering in worship services, outright banning church services. All because of the election flu, not a pandemic as it is still called in the media, but rather, a psychological warfare operation (PSYOP).

The Scripture warns us in the Ninth Commandment not to lie, nor to receive, or countenance a lie, including falsehoods propagated by the governing authorities. The two volumes under review do an extraordinary job of contrasting the humanistic state’s agenda over and against the Church’s mission. The two volumes do a remarkable job of mapping out strategies of resistance.

These books are particularly relevant to John MacArthur; the pastor of Grace Community Church is fighting back against this political (PSYOP). As said earlier, God has ordained to the end of all things, but also the means to bring about the end. MacArthur could sit there looking at Christ’s closed down Church or fight back. Pastor MacArthur is fighting back with the President’s attorney, a devout Christian, and Colorado girl, Jenna Ellis. John MacArthur heroically is fighting back in order to be a means to achieve an end. Unfortunately, other Christian leaders have chosen to hunker down rather than reprove the state for violating King Jesus’s domain.

In volume, one, in the Editor’s introduction, on pages xii – xxiii chronicles many examples from the recent history of shocking abuse by wicked governing authorities of Christians and other minorities.

Unless one is asleep at the wheel, you will want to have these books in your library. Do not be a cultural quietist. The freedoms we have for political dissent came with a price. In the U.S., the constitution, while not perfect, nevertheless, is a product of Christian civilization. Let us not squander this product while quietly awaiting an end to an authoritarian crackdown on the Church.

The cultural quietist approach almost certainly will allow abortion on demand, the eventual overrunning of private and Christian homeschooling, and the possible taxation to the destruction of many churches. The origin of the word Protestant appears in the16th century; thru German or French from Latin protestant – (protesting), from Latin protestari (protester). Historically, Protestants have resisted tyranny by holding up Scripture as the law they will submit too.

Thankfully, the Christian men who participated in this symposium were not culturally quietist neo-Protestants.

These two books are more relevant than ever. As a special bonus for reading this review, the reader will find below two links to download both books in PDF format. –end of review.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: http://www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

The Tactics of Christian Resistance https://www.garynorth.com/TACTICS_OF_CHRISTIAN_RESISTANCE.pdf

The Theology of Christian Resistance

http://garynorth.com/TheologyCR.pdf

A Biblical Geocentric challenge to Heliocentrism                                          By Jack Kettler

The challenge to heliocentrism in this study rests on two prongs or pillars. The first pillar is lengthy and builds an important and necessary case of Biblical sufficiency. The second pillar is short and follows from the first pillar. If Biblical sufficiency is successfully defended, then the burden of proof that heliocentrism must meet is likewise upheld.

In this study, it is maintained that Biblical cosmology is geocentric. Historically until after the lifetime of John Calvin and Martin Luther, geocentrism was the norm. The challenge to heliocentrism is that its case must be made from the Bible.

First prong:

The Sufficiency of Scriptures

“The self-evident testimony of the Scriptures is that they are sufficient. The Scriptures are completely adequate to meet the needs of the believer. This teaching is all over the face of the Scriptures. The believer can have confidence in the Scriptures. God’s Words are described as “pure,” “perfect,” “a light,” and “eternal.” This conclusion is one that can be drawn from or deduced from the Scriptures by good and necessary consequence.

For example, consider the testimony from the following passages:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalms 119:89)

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (Psalms 119:105)

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. (Psalms 19:7-9)

Because the Scriptures are true, they are “righteous altogether.” Moreover, if the law of God were incomplete, the conversion of the soul would be tenuous at best. The necessary biblical conclusion is that the Scriptures are complete. And, as will be seen, Mormonism teaches that believers can become unconverted.

The Scriptures have more to say along this line of reasoning:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

This promise of Christ to his apostles tells us that the Holy Spirit will teach them “all things,” and bring to their remembrance all things that he said unto them. This is a promise by God to the apostles that important information (i.e., revelation) would be given to them. It is a justifiable biblical conclusion that this revelation would be complete and sufficient because Jesus said “all things.” The wording “all things” is used in a qualified sense, but admitting this in no way contradicts the conclusion that this apostolic revelation (now Scripture) would be anything less than complete and sufficient. The “all things” pertain to whatsoever God intended to reveal, including His revelation necessary for salvation.

Along this same line of thinking, consider Paul’s ministry to the church. Did Paul leave anything out of his words to the church?

Listen to the apostle:

And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shown you, and have taught you publicly, from house to house… For I have not shunned to declare to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:20, 27)

Paul did not believe that God’s Word was insufficient. This is proved by his use of the phrase “all the counsel of God.” Paul believed that he had this counsel for the Church. This whole “counsel of God” was the same message that Moses and the prophets spoke. See Acts 26:22 for proof of this; “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come…” The Scripture tells us that what is written will lead us to God that we might have life. This would again be tenuous at best if parts of Scripture have been lost, corrupted, or were insufficient.

Consider the further testimony of Scripture:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever, And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:25)

It is clear that Peter had confidence in God’s Word. The Scriptures were given so that we might obtain life, and they endure forever. The believer does not need anything more than the written Word of God. In the next verse notice how God says; “All Scripture is given that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

The implications of this for the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures are enormous:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The Greek word translated “inspiration” means “God-breathed,” or that God is the source of the Scriptures. God’s inspiration of the Scriptures sets them apart from all other writings of men. They came from him. God used men to write His Word in the Bible. He did it in such a way as to make sure that what was written was exactly what He intended or designed. This means the Scriptures are divinely inspired.

What if the Scriptures were incomplete? If the Scriptures were incomplete, the “man of God” would never be able to “be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Paul’s instruction here would not be true if portions of the Scriptures were lost or some other standard needed. That is because the Scriptures are connected to this process of the perfecting of the man of God.

In a similar fashion, the next verse clearly sets forth the sufficiency of Scripture:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus said that the least part of the law would not pass away. One implication is that nothing would be lost. If the least is to be preserved, then surely, the weightier things will not be lost. Consequently, we can have confidence that God’s Word is complete. There are not books missing from the Bible nor do we need some kind of nebulous oral tradition interpreted exclusively by church leaders.

The next passage from Isaiah warns us about those who will go beyond Scripture:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

Isaiah sets God’s word forth as the standard. In preparation for the close of the apostolic era, like Isaiah, Paul sets forth the Scriptures as the objective source that must be the final court of appeal.

By apostolic command, believers are bound to the written word:

Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, Do not go beyond what is written…. (1 Corinthians 4:6) (NIV)

In the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on First Corinthians, Leon Morris makes the following comment about the above verse:

“not beyond what is written” was a catch-cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture.

Leon Morris, The Tyndale New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Inter-Varsity Press, and Eerdmans, 1983), p. 78.

The above passage in First Corinthians clearly condemns all forms of extra-biblical revelation including an oral tradition that is allegedly on par with the written Word of God. There is no need to go beyond Scripture. Why? Because it is, complete.

The biblical tests of a prophet found in Deuteronomy 12:32 – 13:4; Deuteronomy 18:20-22; and Isaiah 8:20 clearly set forth Scripture as the standard and a sufficient guide. Remember, Jesus used this standard to stop the mouths of His adversaries when He said, “Have ye never read” in Mark 2:25 regarding David’s actions. What did the Pharisees say in response to this? Nothing! Some religions actually teach that you are supposed to pray about the purported prophet and his message, then see if it rings true by getting a confirming sensation after prayer. The Old Testament believer in contrast was to compare the purported prophet and his message with what had been revealed and written by God in His Word.

In the book of Galatians, Paul continues this same pattern for testing purported revelation:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you that that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Expectantly the reader has discerned the clear pattern in Scripture. This pattern is appealing to what has been written. As mentioned previously, when Christ said, “It is written” this denotes finality and certainty because there was nothing more authoritative than God’s Word. It should be noted that Christ’s commentary on the Scriptures is infallible; ours is not.

The Apostle Paul follows this same pattern of appealing to Scripture:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

The written word is the standard and it has not changed. Consider the importance of the following verse:

…which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15) (NIV)

The church is very important. How is this so? The church today, like a pillar or foundation, defends and supports the gospel. How does the church do this? (1) By “Holding forth the word of life…” Philippians 2:16; (2) by “…rightly dividing the word of truth” 2 Timothy 2:15; (3) by “teaching all nations…” Matthew 28:19; (4) and by “guarding the good deposit” 2 Timothy 1:13-14 (NIV).

The church should do these things with all the resources in its power. These tasks would be impossible if Scripture were incomplete or corrupted. Why? Because you could not know if you were “holding forth the word of life” or the word of men. God commands us to “rightly divide the word of life.” God would not command us to rightly divide something, which we did not possess. Why? If we did not possess the Scriptures, it would be an impossibility to rightly divide them. The biblical conclusion is that Scripture has been preserved. Listen to the apostle Peter:

…by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

Can anything be clearer? Peter is not talking about anything other than the written Scriptures.

Peter goes on to say:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. (2 Peter 1:3)

As Peter instructs us, there are a great number of spiritual blessings that God has given us. We can have confidence that “all things” would have to include Scripture as one of those things. There is not any limitation expressed here because the passage is dealing with what God has given us for salvation. Consequently, we have confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture.

Consider the following examples on Jesus’ view of the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures and their prophetic fulfillment concerning himself, Matthew 26:31; Matthew 26:54; Mark 9:12, 13; John 13:18 John 17:12. Jesus referred to Old Testament individuals in the following verses: John 8:56 (Abraham); Luke 17:26-32 (Noah and Lot); Matthew 3:3 (Isaiah); and in Luke 4:24-27 (Elijah and Elisha). The case is irrefutable: Jesus believed in the reliability of the written Word of God. Consequently, the believer can have confidence in the reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture. Reliability and sufficiency go hand in hand. An insufficient or incomplete document is not reliable.

There is no evidence that Jesus believed the Scriptures to be anything less than complete. The tremendous spiritual corruption of Israel in Christ’s day, which culminated in the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 A. D. (Matthew 23:34-36) did not affect the Old Testament canon. The canon was intact in Christ’s day, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms the accuracy of the Hebrew Masoretic Text used by the King James translators many centuries later. In reality, there is virtually no difference between the First Century copies of Old Testament Dead Sea copies and the Masoretic text that is one thousand years older.

The New Testament books were brought into the canon of Scripture as the church bore testimony to the fact that our present New Testament books claimed to be by their very nature the Word of God. The testimony of the Holy Spirit bore witness by and with the Scriptures in the hearts of men in this process. This was not a process where the church, as a divinely inspired entity, determined what the canon of Scripture would be. The Scriptures themselves bore this testimony of their inspiration.

Some teach that the church in and of itself made this decision. However, the Word of God does not depend upon man or the church. The Scriptures do not come from the church. They come from God. The Scriptures do not need our confirmation to be true. Their truthfulness is independent of man and even the church. There is more manuscript evidence for New Testament revelation than any other writing from antiquity. Therefore, we can have the same confidence that alleged corruption during the New Testament Church Age did not alter the New Testament canon of Scripture in any way. God is LORD of heaven and earth. He is Sovereign and “none can stay his hand…” (Daniel 4:35). Preserving His Word is a small matter for Him.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the infallible Word of God and a sure rule of faith. In addition, they are the final court of appeal to settle religious disputes, and the Bible includes everything we need to know to receive salvation and to live a godly life.” (1)

Second prong:

Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. And, the plain statements of Scripture is the best explanation of a text.

Hermeneutical Principles by R. C. Sproul:

“Sacra Scriptura sui interpres

Scripture is to interpret Scripture. This simply means that no part of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture. For example, if a given verse is capable of two renditions or variant interpretations and one of those interpretations goes against the rest of Scripture while the other is in harmony with it, then the latter interpretation must be used.

Since it is assumed that God would never contradict Himself, it is thought slanderous to the Holy Spirit to choose an alternate interpretation that would unnecessarily bring the Bible in conflict with itself. The analogy of faith keeps the whole Bible in view lest we suffer from the effects of exaggerating one part of Scripture to the exclusion of others.

Interpreting the Bible Literally

The literal sense offers restraint from letting our imagination run away in fanciful interpretation and invites us to examine closely the literary forms of Scripture. The term literal comes from the Latin litera meaning “letter.” To interpret something literally is to pay attention to the litera or to the letters or words being used. To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret it as literature. That is, the natural meaning of a passage is to be interpreted according to the normal rules of grammar, speech, syntax and context.” (2)

The challenge to heliocentrism is similar to other challenges:

1. The Mormon example:

When talking with Mormons, who want to convert someone, it can be said, to surrender sincerely held beliefs and adopt theirs, the case will have to come from the Bible since that is the standard.

2. The Darwinian example:

Likewise, the Darwinian must prove their case from Scripture.

3. The challenge to Heliocentrism:

The heliocentric case must be proved from Scripture. No outside interpretive grid can be imposed upon Scripture.

Objections to this challenge:

Some may say the Bible is not a textbook on science, and because of this, the proponent of heliocentrism must be free to bring in outside sources to interpret the Bible. The Bible may not be a textbook on science, but everything it says relevant to science is correct. The Scriptures present a geocentric cosmology, as attested to by John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many others. Heliocentrism is read into Scripture rather than exegeted from the Scripture.

Has accommodation or compromise happened before?

The accommodation to science happened and led to a reinterpretation of Scriptures when it came to Darwinism. Accommodation occurred in such areas as the gap theory, debates on the length of Biblical days, the different theories regarding the interpretation of Genesis account of creation such as the Literary Framework Interpretation, or the Revelatory Day Interpretation, etc.

Today, unless one believes in heliocentrism, they are ridiculed and blacklisted. Geocentrism, young-earth creationism take the Scriptures literally, and surrendering this approach to an extra-biblical interpretive scheme have enormous world-view consequences.

If heliocentrism cannot be proven from the Scriptures, what does that say? The ball is in the heliocentric court; their case is waiting to be proved.

The following is an exercise in questioning assumptions:

The only proof of planetary motion is one of assumptions.

A selection from The Problem of Motion by Gordon H. Clark:

“Newton, as has been said, failed to extricate science from the difficulty because he assumed that the meaning of motion was known to all. On this assumption he proceeded to discuss particular forms of motions. The futility of this procedure is clear enough to philosophers, but perhaps scientists wonder why ancient puzzles should be allowed to hinder modern science. For the reason something, as brief as possible, should be said about two important Newtonian laws, the law of inertia and the law of gravitation. The first of these asserts that a moving body continues indefinitely in a straight line unless subjected to an impressed force; and the second is an attempt to explain the curvilinear motion of the planets.

Now, the best known of all Newton’s pronouncements is the one that reveals his failure to explain planetary motion. The law of gravitation expresses with mathematical accuracy the forces necessary to change the rectilinear or inertial motion of a planet into an elliptical path. But when one asks the question, what impresses these forces? Newton replies, Hypotheses non fingo. Cajori, Newton’s recent editor, has collected some of Newton’s letters (Principia, Appendix, not 6, pp. 632-635) in which he clearly expresses the limitations of his mathematical law. Gravity, newton declares, is not a property of bodies; if it were, one body would act on another at a distance, and this is manifestly absurd; indeed, “We are ignorant of the essential properties of matter.” Mathematics only measures the quantity of the force; it says nothing about what impresses the force. Newton himself thought it possible that God impresses this force; but this theological opinion is obviously not a part of experimental science. Therefore, science has failed to show what forces the planets out of a rectilinear path.

Now, finally, what is the value of the law of inertia? This law states that a moving body continues in a straight path unless compelled to change by an impressed force. The difficulty with this law is well known. To determine a straight line a fixed point is needed. If a hawk in search of a meal flies always toward another bird, and the other bird is darting hither and yon, the hawk obviously does not fly in a straight line. And if a rocket could be fired so as always to be pointing to the moon, it would not describe a rectilinear path. The determination of a rectilinear path requires a fixed objected in absolute space. But there are no fixed objects. The “fixed” stars are not fixed. Hence, the law of inertia has no application. It is completely impossible to discover a body moving in a straight line.” (3)

As Clark has noted, “Newton himself thought it possible that God impresses this force; but this theological opinion is obviously not a part of experimental science.”

Therefore:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21)

Geocentric cosmology was clear enough to John Calvin:

“[The Christian is not to compromise so as to obscure the distinction between good and evil, and is to avoid the errors of] those dreamers who have a spirit of bitterness and contradiction, who reprove everything and prevent the order of nature. We will see some who are so deranged, not only in religion but who in all things reveal their monstrous nature, that they will say that the sun does not move, and that it is the earth which shifts and turns. When we see such minds, we must indeed confess that the devil possess them, and that God sets them before us as mirrors, in order to keep us in his fear. So it is with all who argue out of pure malice, and who happily make a show of their imprudence. When they are told: “That is hot,” they will reply: “No, it is plainly cold.” When they are shown an object that is black, they will say that it is white, or vice versa. Just like the man who said that snow is black; for although it is perceived and known by all to be white, yet he clearly wished to contradict the fact. And so it is that they are madmen who would try to change the natural order, and even to dazzle eyes and benumb their senses.” (4)

While not using the word heliocentrism, Calvin said that it is the devil who is it.

In addition, Calvin said:

“The heavens revolve daily and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion–no disturbance in the harmony of their motion…. How could earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand?  By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” (5)

Calvin’s cosmology was based upon the Bible its self, not extra-Biblical smuggled in to interpret the Bible.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 says:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

Therefore, the Mormon quest for godhood, Darwinism, and Heliocentrism are nothing more than “traditions of men.”

A review from a previous study. Inconvenient observations for heliocentrists:

“Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved.” – Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

“If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations.” – Paul Davies in Nature, an English physicist

“The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect” – Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Yale University, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University

“When you look at CBM map, [cosmic microwave background (CMB)] you also see that the structure is…correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” – Lawrence Krauss (2006) Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis

“Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“In other words, assuming the cosmological red shift hypothesis, the quasars…are arrange on 57 spherical shells with Earth in the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.

(1) Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups show that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.

(2) Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.

(3) The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” – Henri Poincare, French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer, and philosopher of science

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” – Henrick Lorentz, Dutch physicist

“No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” – Lincoln Barnett, editor at Life Magazine

“This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort.” “We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.” “Such a favored position is intolerable.” – Edwin Hubble, American astronomer

“The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle.” – Max Tegmark, physicist, cosmologist and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Also, consult https://thereligionthatstartedinahat.org/2020/07/31/did-the-sun-stand-still-in-joshua-1013-14/

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Notes:

1. Jack Kettler, The Religion that Started in a Hat, (Maitland, Florida, MCP Books.20160, pp. 45-48.
2. R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, Abridgement is from Chapter 3: Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpretation, (Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP 2009) pp. 41.
3. Gordon Clark, The Problem of Motion, The Gordon Review Winter 1958.
4. John Calvin, “Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24”, Calvini Opera Selecta, Corpus Refomatorum, Vol 49, 677, trans. by Robert White in “Calvin and Copernicus: the Problem Reconsidered,“ Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), p233-243, at 236-237.
5. John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms 93:1 Vol. VI, see also Commentary on Joshua 10:12, Vol. IV and Psalm 148:3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979).

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

The Problem of Motion by Gordon H. Clark

http://gordonhclark.reformed.info/the-problem-of-motion-by-gordon-h-clark/

Science and Truth by Gordon H. Clark

http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19

The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God by Gordon H. Clark

https://sheepishdiscernments.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/gordon-h-clark-the-philosophy-of-science-and-belief-in-god/

The Bible and the Idolatry of Science by Ronald L. Cooper http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=344

Did the Sun stand still in Joshua 10:13-14?                                                                               By Jack Kettler

“Then spake Joshua to JEHOVAH in the day when JEHOVAH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it that JEHOVAH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for JEHOVAH fought for Israel.” (Joshua 10:12-14)

What does this passage mean? Is it literal? If so, is modern cosmology wrong? This study is not for one easily offended or governed by emotions. The purpose is to challenge prevailing theories.

John Calvin on Joshua 10:13:

“13. And the sun stood still, etc. The question how the sun stood in Gibeon, is no less unseasonably raised by some than unskillfully explained by others. For Joshua did not subtlety place the sun in any particular point, making it necessary to feign that the battle was fought at the summer solstice, but as it was turning towards the district of Ajalon as far as the eye could discern, Joshua bids it stay and rest there, in other words, remain above what is called the horizon. In short, the sun, which was already declining to the west, is kept from setting.

I do not give myself any great anxiety as to the number of the hours; because it is enough for me that the day was continued through the whole night. Were histories of that period extant, they would doubtless celebrate this great miracle; lest its credibility, however, should be questioned, the writer of this book mentions that an account of it was given elsewhere, though the work which he quotes has been lost, and expounders are not well agreed as to the term Jazar. Those who think Moses is meant, insist on referring the example, which is here given to general predictions. As Moses applies this name to the chosen people, it is more congruous to hold that commentaries on the events in their history are meant. I, for my part, understand by it either God or Israel, rather than the author of a history.”

14. And there was no day like that, etc. We read in Isaiah and in the Sacred History, that the course of the sun was afterwards changed as a favor to King Hezekiah. (Isaiah 38:5-8) For to assure him that his life was still to be prolonged fifteen years, the shadow of the sun was carried back over ten degrees on which it had gone down. It is not, therefore, absolutely denied that anything similar had ever been conceded to any other person, but the miracle is extolled as singular. The rendering of the word sm, by obeyed, as adopted by some, I reject as too harsh. For although it is said in the Psalm, that the Lord does according to the desire of his servants, which may be held to be equivalent to obeying, it is better to avoid anything which seems to give a subordinate office to God. Simply, therefore, the excellence of the miracle is praised, as nothing like it had been seen before or had happened after. The second clause of the verse celebrates the kindness and condescension of God in hearing Joshua, as well as his paternal favor towards the people, for whom he is said to have fought.” (1)

There is nothing in Calvin’s comments that indicates he did not take the passage as anything but literal. The cosmology in Calvin’s time was different from modern cosmology. The modern commentator has to import a different cosmology and try to reinterpret the text accordingly.

There are verses that refer to the Sun as rising and setting every day while not one verse that ever refers to the Earth as moving. Has modern cosmology become an interpretive grid imposed upon biblical cosmology?

As we look at the following passages, are they nothing more than figures of speech? In the following survey of Scriptures, there are examples of historical, poetical, and didactic genera’s of literature. An interpreter needs to be aware of the rules for different genera. If, for example, the following list of Scriptures were all-poetical, it would be easier to say that figures of speech account for what is seen. However, three genera’s are covered, making it problematic for a speech figure to be a solution to all the passages.

The following passages have a literal way to interpret them. If they are purely figurative, what insights does the reader gain for not taking them as literal? How would one rephrase these Scriptures to represent heliocentric cosmological truth? Why would God not solve the problem of interpretation by using a heliocentric model? If cosmology is geocentric, there is no problem in not taking the passages as anything but literal.

A small sampling of Scriptures relevant to Joshua 10:12-14:

“The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.” (Genesis 19:23)

“But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.” (Exodus 17:12)

“And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.” (Leviticus 22:7)

“And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.” (Numbers 2:3)

“Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.” (Deuteronomy 4:41)

“And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, what is sweeter than honey? And what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them, if ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.” (Judges 14:18)

“And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, so do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down.” (2 Samuel 3:35)

“And there went a proclamation throughout the host about the going down of the sun, saying, every man to his city, and every man to his own country.” (1 Kings 22:36)

“And Hezekiah answered, it is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.” (2 Kings 20:10)

“So we laboured in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared.” (Nehemiah 4:21)

“He can command the sun not to rise.” (Job 9:7)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“A Psalm of Asaph. The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.” (Psalm 50:1)

“For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” (Isaiah 13:10)

“Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.” (Isaiah 38:8)

“So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isaiah 59:19)

“She that hath borne seven languisheth: she hath given up the ghost; her sun is gone down while it was yet day: she hath been ashamed and confounded: and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword before their enemies, saith the LORD.” (Jeremiah 15:9)

“And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.” (Amos 8:9)

“And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, it is better for me to die than to live.” (Jonah 4:8)

“Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.” (Micah 3:6)

“Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy captains as the great grasshoppers, which camp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are.” (Nahum 3:17)

“The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.” (Habakkuk 3:11)

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1:11)

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:45)

“And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.” (Mark 1:32)

“Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.” (Luke 4:40)

“Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” (Ephesians 4:26)

“For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.” (James 1:11)

A small sampling of theologians relevant Joshua 10:12-14:

Augustine:

“Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies.” (2)

“For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun’s course.” (3)

“This he said either of those things of which he had just been speaking–the succession of generations, the orbit of the sun, the course of rivers, –or else of all kinds of creatures that are born and die.” (4)

“What is there so arranged by the Author of the nature of heaven and earth as the exactly ordered course of the stars? What is there established by laws so sure and inflexible? And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to “Turn rivers backward to their source, and make the stars forget their course.” (5)

Chrysostom:

“For He not only made it, but provided also that when it was made, it should carry on its operations; not permitting it to be all immoveable, nor commanding it to be all in a state of motion. The heaven, for instance, hath remained immoveable, according as the prophet says, “He placed the heaven as a vault, and stretched it out as a tent over the earth.” But, on the other hand, the sun with the rest of the stars, runs on his course through every day. And again, the earth is fixed, but the waters are continually in motion; and not the waters only, but the clouds, and the frequent and successive showers, which return at their proper season.” (6)

John Calvin:

“The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” (7)

God “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed, forever” (Psalm 104:5). “Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.” (8)

“I beseech you to tell me what the foundation of the earth is. It is founded both upon the water and also upon the air: behold its foundation. We cannot possibly build a house fifteen feet high on firm ground without having to lay a foundation. Behold the whole earth founded only in trembling, indeed poised above such bottomless depths that it might be turned upside down at any minute to become disordered. Hence there must be a wonderful power of God to keep it in the condition in which it is.” (9)

Martin Luther

“Luther called Copernicus an upstart astronomer and referred to him as a fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.” (10)

“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or ‘man’] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” (11)

Matthew Poole:

“Eccl. 1:5: “The sun is in perpetual motion, sometimes arising, and sometimes setting, and then arising again, and so constantly repeating its course in all succeeding days, and  years, and ages; and the like he observes concerning the winds and  rivers, ver. 6,7.” (12)

John Owen:

“Ps. 19: “The visible heavens are thus a revelation of God, the sun bringing by His circlings successive day and night in turn.” (13)

A.W. Pink:

“Writing on Joshua 10:13, John Gill said, ‘How this is to be reconciled with the Copernican system or that with this, I shall not inquire.’ Wise man not to pretend to understand what has not been divinely revealed. Wiser still in refusing to allow the theorizing’s of a Prussian astronomer to cast doubt on what He has made known, or to suggest an interpretation which ‘harmonizes’ the same with the hypothesis of ‘science falsely so called’ (1 Timothy 6:20).” (14)

Definitions:

The geocentric model is a description of the Universe with Earth at the center. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbited Earth. – Wikipedia

Heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Solar System. Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the Earth at the center. – Wikipedia

Questions:

 What triggered the literal interpretation of the above verses to change to non-literal interpretation? Could scientific and social acceptability be a factor?

For example, when the scientific community accepted the theory of evolution, many Bible teachers accommodated this theory and adjusted their Bible interpretation to find social acceptance. Did this same type of accommodation happen in the area of cosmology?

Is the Bible without error in all that it teaches? In the above verses regarding the Sun and Stars moving and the Earth not moving. Is God using human language in such a way to accommodate how humans, in their limited understanding, understood the creation? If so, why would God not correct human misunderstanding and set forth the heliocentric view if it is correct? If the Holy Spirit moved the writers of Scripture when they wrote the Word of God, why would God allow them to write false or misleading information to accommodate human ignorance?

The preponderance of the totality of Scripture sets forth a geocentric cosmology along with the Earth being the center of God’s creation. Was it an accommodation to science that led to a reinterpretation of the above Scriptures? The learned doctors of the Church cited above understood poetic literature and rules for its particular genera of allowing for the use of figurative language.

In addition, geocentrists would ask, “How deceptive of God to speak in such a manner unless He meant what he said.” Calvin and others got their understanding of the simple reading of Scripture. Are the Scriptures in error? Since Calvin and other church leaders got their understanding of the Sun moving and the Earth stationary from the Bible, was God teaching falsehood? Were Calvin and Luther deceived or ignoramuses in the area of biblical teaching and science?

How can one be sure of cosmology? Inconvenient quotes:

“I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. … Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting.” – Dean Turner, editor of Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers

“Whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments…all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.” – Albert Einstein, German-born theoretical physicist, developed the theory of relativity

“I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.” – George Ellis (1995) George Ellis is a famous astronomer who has authored books with Stephen Hawking.

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, for instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” W. Wayt Gibbs, Profile: George F. R. Ellis, Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.” – Einstein, theoretical physicist

“Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved.” – Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

“If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations.” – Paul Davies in Nature, an English physicist

“The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect” – Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Yale University, Arizona State University, Case Western Reserve University

“When you look at CBM map, [cosmic microwave background (CMB)] you also see that the structure is…correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” – Lawrence Krauss (2006) Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis

“Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“In other words, assuming the cosmological red shift hypothesis, the quasars…are arrange on 57 spherical shells with Earth in the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.

(1) Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups show that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.

(2) Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.

(3) The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.” – Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” – Henri Poincare, French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer, and philosopher of science

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” – Henrick Lorentz, Dutch physicist

“No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” – Lincoln Barnett, editor at Life Magazine

“This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort.” “We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.” “Such a favored position is intolerable.” – Edwin Hubble, American astronomer

“The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle.” – Max Tegmark, physicist, cosmologist and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” – Arthur Eddington, English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician

Is modern science logical?

“Science and a simple syllogism:

Major Premise: It is self-evident the Earth moves around the sun.

Minor Premise: No interferometer has ever measured such movement.

Conclusion: Earth moves, matter shrinks, time dilates, and neither ether nor absolute motion exist. Everything is relative. Case closed.” – Robert A. Sungenis

Consider the movie “The Principle?” “The Principle” is a 2014 American independent film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis. “The Principle” rejects the Copernican principle and supports the long-superseded notion that Earth is at the center of the Universe.

Anyone who wants to make some money?

This challenge is simple. Anyone who can provide qualified experimental proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun will be paid $100,000.

Dismissing this challenge or laughing this off is not proving the heliocentric theory.

The $100,000 Heliocentric Challenge

“The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.” – Nikola Tesla, Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer

“Thus, general relativity brings about its own downfall by predicting singularities.” – Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist

Watch the movie trailer “Journey to the Center of the Universe.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CbR06vDYPWg

Watch the movie trailer “The Principle.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg

Order both films here!

It is time for Occam’s razor:

William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. How does his philosophical razor work? The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Alternatively, amid opposing suppositions, the one with the least assumptions should be selected.

What does this have to do with gocentricity? Can anyone understand or explain Einstein’s special theory of relativity? What about Einstein’s idea of curved space? Did Einstein make up the Special Theory of Relativity as a mathematically theoretical construct to cover up the fact that no known empirical experiment could prove that the Earth is moving?

Experimentations that disprove Einstein are Airy’s experiment, the Michelson-Gale’s experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiments and Sagnac’s experiment are observational experiments that show every time they are done that the Earth is not moving and that there is a substance called aether that moves. Light travels as a wave. This means that light is moving through something that generates the waves, hence aether.

How far does Einstein’s theory of relativity go? Does it displace absolutes? In regards to Occam’s razor, biblical teaching is simply straightforward and true. Moreover, after considering the many quotes for top physicists, can one be certain of heliocentricity? Why are many Christians opposed to the Earth’s unique place in the Universe? Why is it that non-Christians scientists are talking about things like the so-called “axis of evil,” (proving the Earth is the center of the universe) and lack of observational experiments proving that the earth supposedly moves?

A simple man’s questions:

For the heliocentrist, what empirical evidence can be provided that contradicts the Sun, Moon and Stars not moving and the Earth is stationary? Pictures from books or movies are not empirical scientific evidence. What were the results of Sagnac’s experiment? What were the results of Airy’s starlight experiment, or Michelson-Gale’s interferometer experiment and the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment? Why are these experiments absent from textbooks on physics?

The heliocentric theory alleges that the Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour and the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour. Suppose the Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to cancel centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces perfectly. Why do we not feel any evidence of this rapid motion?

Is gravity a solution?

How is it that gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds, smoke, flying kites and planes to travel freely undiminished in any direction? If gravity is so strong to keep water from coming out of the oceans, why can one swirl a glass of water around at substantially less than 1,000 miles per hour, and why does not gravity keep the water from spilling out of the glass? If the Moon’s gravity is strong enough to act upon the Earth’s oceans and cause the tides, then why does it not act upon our atmosphere in the same way?

If the Earth is traveling around the Sun, why do the constellations not change over the course of thousands of years? Why do we always see Orion’s belt and the Big Dipper? Does not this prove that the stars are fixed in their course?

How does air travel work with an Earth spinning 1,000 miles an hour from East to West? How would North to South military artillery or sniper shots work with the Earth spinning at this speed? At 1,000 miles per hour, 16 miles per minute, ¼ mile per second airplanes would crash on North to South runways.

If the Earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way Galaxy moving even faster, why is there no observable stellar parallax, (A stellar parallax is a parallax on an interstellar scale: the apparent shift of position of any nearby star or another object against the background of distant objects) specifically bearing in mind that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well.

Links for more study:

Almagest Ephemeris Calculator

GEOCENTRICITY’S CRITICS REFUSE TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK

A Special Chalcedon Position Paper by Martin G. Selbrede

Scientists know that Earth is the center of the Universe! Part 1

Scientist know the Earth is at the center of the Universe Part 2

In conclusion:

“He can command the sun not to rise.” (Job 9:7) Can God do this? What does this mean if modern cosmology is true?

Special bonus feature:

NASA ADMITS WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Notes:

1. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, Joshua, Volume IV, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House Reprinted 1979), pp. 153-155.
2. Augustine, City of God, (New York, Modern Library), Bk XIII, Chapter 18 p. 425.
3. Augustine, Chapter 15 p. 88.
4. Augustine, Chapter 13 p. 394.
5. Ibid. Chapter 8 p. 776.
6. John Chrysostom, Homilies to Antioch, Homily XII (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans publishing, vol. 9 Reprinted 1978), p. 418.
7. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries Volume V1, Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), pp. 6-7.
8. John Calvin, pp. 148-149.
9. Ibid. p. 469.
10. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, (Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958), pp. 30, 42, 43.
11. Helmut T. Lehmann and Theodore G. Tappert, Luther’s Works Table Talk, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publ., 1967), pp. 358-359.
12. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Ecclesiastes, Vol. II (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publ., reprint), p. 279.
13. John Owen, Biblical Theology: The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publ., 1994 reprint), p. 38.
14. A.W. Pink, Gleanings in Joshua, 13. (Chicago, Moody Press), Joshua 10:1-43. p. 974.3 (EPUB)

 

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

What about the Regulative Principle of worship and wearing masks? An Opinion     by Jack Kettler     

 

What is the regulative principle of worship?

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 21.1 says:

“But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”

In everyday language, the church may not require the members to do anything not authorized by Scripture. Unusual requirements may not be forced upon Christians in the public worship of God. Scripture limits the church’s power. Meaning, the church cannot command what Scripture does not command. The imposition of humanly devised requirements is forbidden. Where is the wearing of masks mandated in Scripture? Nowhere. Therefore, a church cannot require members to wear masks during worship services.

What about the state, can it impose requirements for worship that the church cannot?

In Colorado, for example, the state legislature handed the governor virtually unlimited dictatorial powers during the current state of emergency, almost impossible to rescind. With the current one-party state rule in the state, there is no chance that this will change in the near future. The churches in Colorado suffer under an unrepentant homosexual who is drunk with power, classifying pot shops as essential and churches non-essential.

As stated, on the starting question, a church that bound by the regulative principle cannot impose the wearing of masks during worship. How ironic, the church cannot, yet the state can. This is a quagmire of shocking proportions. The only way out of this quagmire for a church is outright non-compliance. There are churches who have taken this course of action and have not been molested by the state, probably because of the bad optics of arresting pastors and church members.

The current COVID-19* psychological operations (PSYOP) have neutralized most churches coming to the November elections. Instead of talking about biblical election issues, church members are cleaning hymnbooks, door handles, and jumping through endless compliance hoops with no end in sight. The virus state of emergency, like the on-going time-share industry fees for assessments and maintenance, this will probably never end. Now that the precedent has been set, the next flu or virus will allow the government to launch into action.

* The COVID-19 is a real virus. The national panic is completely unjustified since the average age of death from the virus is 80 years of age and usually involves underlying health issues. One doctor said that at this point, the virus is all about politics.

The majority of pastors cannot be faulted for not recognizing how the initial virus emergency has been highjacked and turned into a (PSOP) against the Republic. The efficacy of face masks, the manipulation of detection tests for the virus, and death counts have all been exposed by presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh. He makes the case the test counts are being manipulated and exploited for political purposes and, most parts are outright fraudulent. For example, 300 hundred testing sites in Florida have turned in 100 percent positive tests for the virus. This was hundred percent positive testing was exposed an independent news channel. In addition, the majority of so-called news sites are participating in this scandal.

On the church front, pastors are starting to awaken to the exploitation of this virus, leading to the destruction of the church. John MacArthur, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church in California, has said his church will reopen. MacArthur said, “The State Does Not, Should Not Have the Authority to Close Churches.” In addition, the governor of California who is also drunk with power has banned singing in churches.

MacArthur said regarding the current state virus over-reach:

“As pastors and elders, we cannot hand over to earthly authorities any privilege or power that belongs solely to Christ as head of His church. Pastors and elders are the ones to whom Christ has given the duty and the right to exercise His spiritual authority in the church (1 Peter 5:1–4; Hebrews 13:7, 17)—and Scripture alone defines how and whom they are to serve (1 Corinthians 4:1–4). They have no duty to follow orders from a civil government attempting to regulate the worship or governance of the church. In fact, pastors who cede their Christ-delegated authority in the church to a civil ruler have abdicated their responsibility before their Lord and violated the God-ordained spheres of authority as much as the secular official who illegitimately imposes his authority upon the church.”

MacArthur continues:

“Therefore, in response to the recent state order requiring churches in California to limit or suspend all meetings indefinitely, we, the pastors and elders of Grace Community Church, respectfully inform our civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction, and faithfulness to Christ prohibits us from observing the restrictions they want to impose on our corporate worship services.”

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

Does Romans 13:1, 3-5 contradict Isaiah 5:20?                                 By Jack Kettler

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:1, 3-4)

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Romans 13:1, 3-4, teaches that believers submit to rulers who punish evil. Many times, rulers are promoters of evil deeds and often persecute the righteous. Did Hitler, for example, punish evil? Are believers unwittingly calling evil rulers who promote evil, good? If so, how can this contradiction be resolved? Is an individual who says the Hitler punished evil, when in reality, he punished good, fall under Isaiah’s woe?

A survey into the thoughts of various leaders in hopes to shed light on this dilemma: 

An example of how one tyrant exploited what can be called the quiet submission view Romans 13:

“The Protestants haven’t the faintest conception of a church. You can do anything you like with them – they will submit. These pastors are used to cares and worries…

They learnt them from their squires….

They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them. They have neither a religion that they can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome.” (1)

During the time of this tyrant, there was a small confessing Church, but for the most part, the vast majority of Christians remained in a quiet posture of submission, hoping things would eventually get better. In this historical case, things went rapidly from bad to worse as the Church of that day withdrew from culture and hunkered down, hoping they would not be noticed.

Historical quotations that are relevant to the submission of ungodly magistrates:  

Martin Luther:

“Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments… I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen.” (2)

Martin Luther was a German professor of theology, composer, priest, Augustinian monk, and a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation. Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. -Wikipedia

John Calvin:

“The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When He opens His sacred mouth, He alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity, which they possess as magistrates – a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God.” (3)

“… [the Apostle] speaks here of the true, and, as it were, of the native duty of the magistrate, from which however they who hold power often degenerate.” (4)

John Calvin was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation. – Wikipedia

In Calvin, there is seen a distinction of the magistracy in general and individual magistrates. Calvin makes this distinction when he speaks of the “native duty of the magistrate.” Calvin makes it clear that “We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity they possess as magistrates.”

John Knox on Romans 13:

“First, the Apostle affirms that the powers are ordained of God [for the preservation of quiet and peaceable men, and for the punishment of malefactors; whereof it is plain that the ordinance of God] and the power given unto man is one thing, and the person clad with the power or with the authority is another; for God’s ordinance is the conservation of mankind, the punishment of vice, the maintaining of virtue, which is in itself holy, just, constant, stable, and perpetual. But men clad with the authority are commonly profane and unjust; yea, they are mutable and transitory, and subject to corruption, as God threateneth them by His Prophet David, saying: ‘I have said ye are gods, and every one of you the sons of the Most Highest; but ye shall die as men, and the princes shall fall like others.’ Here I am assured that persons, the soul and body of wicked princes, are threatened with death. I think that so ye will not affirm is the authority, the ordinance and the power, wherewith God endued such persons; for as I have said, as it is holy, so it is the permanent will of God. And now, my Lord, that the prince may be resisted and yet the ordinance of God not violated, it is evident; for the people resisted Saul when he had sworn by the living God that Jonathan should die….

“And now, my Lord, to answer to the place of the Apostle who affirms ‘that such as resists the power, resists the ordinance of God,’ I say that the power in that place is not to be understood of the unjust commandment of men, but of the just power wherewith God has armed His magistrates and lieutenants to punish sin and maintain virtue. As if any man should enterprise to take fromt he hands of a lawful judge a murderer, an adulterer or any malefactor that by God’s law deserved death, this same man resisted God’s ordinance, and procured to himself vengeance and damnation because that he stayed God’s sword to strike. But so it is not if that men in the fear of God oppone themselves to the fury and blind rage of princes; for so they resist not God, but the devil, who abuses the sword and authority of God.” (5)

John Knox was a Scottish minister, theologian, and writer who was a leader of the country’s Reformation. He was the founder of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. – Wikipedia

Knox is likewise clear that an ungodly “prince may be resisted and yet the ordinance of God not violated.”

George Buchanan on Romans 13:

“Paul, then, is not concerned here with those who act as magistrates but with magistracy itself, that is, with the function and duty of those who are set over others; and he is not concerned with any particular type of magistracy, but with the form of every lawful magistracy. His argument is not with those who think that bad magistrates ought to be restrained, but with those who reject the authority of all magistrates….In order to refute their error Paul showed that magistracy is not only good but also sacred, the ordinance of God, indeed, expressly established to hold groups and communities of men together in such a way that the would recognise the blessings of God towards them and refrain from injuring one another.”

Buchanan goes on and says concerning the magistrate of Romans 13:

“But of a true and lawful magistrate, who is the earthly representative of the true God.” (6)

More from Buchanan on Romans 13:

“Paul wrote this in the very infancy of the church, when it was necessary not only to be above reproach, but also to avoid giving any opportunity for criticism to those looking even for unjust grounds for making accusations.  Next, he wrote to men brought together into a single community from different races and indeed from the whole body of the Roman Empire.” (7)

George Buchanan was a Scottish historian and humanist scholar. According to historian Keith Brown, Buchanan was “the most profound intellectual sixteenth century Scotland produced.” His ideology of resistance to royal usurpation gained widespread acceptance during the Scottish Reformation. – Wikipedia

Buchanan also says regarding Romans 13 “Paul, then, is not concerned here with those who act as magistrates but with magistracy itself.” The idea that Paul is speaking of is how the magistracy should be, not how a magistrate may be.

The Westminster Confession of Faith on submission to the state:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word… So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

Because the powers, which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. (8)

The confession is clear; the believer “shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical…”

As the progressive reign of Christ unfolds in history, believers must call magistrates to repentance. 

“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25)

How does 1 Corinthians 15:25 and Roman 13:1-7 work together?

That question can be answered by considering the book Messiah the Prince: Or, The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ by William Symington. Consider this description of Symington’s work:

“Often Christians focus on Jesus’ role as Prophet or Priest but leave unaddressed his role as King over all men and nations. William Symington, a 19th century Reformed Presbyterian, and Scottish pastor, wrote Messiah the Prince to examine the particular significance of Jesus Christ as King.

Revelation 1:5 says that Christ is the “prince of the kings of the earth.” What obligations does this place upon the civil magistrate? What obligations might this place upon the people who are governed, including those people who vote for their civil magistrate? Of what significance is the truth that the One who was the atoning sacrifice for His people (the Priest) and the one who spoke and taught the Word in its fullness (the Prophet) is also the Ruler of all (the King)? What might it mean when Jesus said, “Make all nations My disciples”?

Symington answers these questions is a way that will push some modern Christians past their comfort zone. He makes that case that Christ is reigning now and that all nations must answer to Him, and it is the Church’s responsibility to make that call on the nations, their governors and their governed.” – Description by Goodreads

Comments:

According to Symington, it is the “Church’s responsibility to make that call on the nations, their governors and their governed.” How does this work out with the prevailing view of quiet submission to authorities’ view of Romans 13? In contrast to the quiet view, William Symington argues in his “Messiah the Prince…” that Christ is Head of the Church, and Lord of all creation, including civil governments. Symington makes the case that Christ’s authority encompasses all men and nations. Therefore, civil magistrates can be challenged, resisted, and called to repentance.

If Symington is correct, Christ is the King of the nations; all magistrates must bow before Him!

Paul essentially says in Romans 13, because the magistrate does good to you, and is a terror towards evil-doers, you owe them obedience. The obedience is conditioned upon three things that are inescapable in the text:

1. For [because] rulers are not a terror to good works, but the evil. (verse 1)
2. For [because] he is the minister of God to thee for good. (verse 3)
3. For [because] he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (verse 4)

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance:

And, as, because, for

A primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles) — and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

The participle “because” is a legitimate substitution in lieu of “for.”

If Paul did not condition his argument on the state’s prosecution of evil, why did he bring this subject into the argument?

If the Church is to make that call on the nations, the quiet submission view of Romans 13 must be false. The standard quiet submission view of Romans 13 cannot possibly be true because this would mean, according to that view, the government situation in pagan nations says they are fulfilling Paul’s description of a government that prosecutes evil. Therefore, Romans 13 must be telling us how civil government optimally should be, not how it is. If this is true, then there are limits upon the believer’s submission to wicked rulers. Obedience in Romans 13 is conditioned. John Knox made this clear in his tirade against tyrants. See The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Therefore, Romans 13:1, 3-4 tells us how a God-fearing government should work, not how many pro-homosexual, pro-child killing governments operate. Romans 13 sets forth the standard. It does not endorse governments that do evil or argue that a government doing evil is doing good. To believe that a government that promotes abortion on demand, sexual deviancy, theft and redistribution, and idol promotion (statism) does good is to believe in contradictions and fall under the condemnation of Isaiah’s woe.

Did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot execute wrath against evil-doers, were they a terror against evil? To maintain so is to believe Scripture is contradictory. All that can be said is that even an evil government is better than complete anarchy or no government. However, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, complete anarchy may have been better and is very different from contradictorily saying that an evil government is doing good and opposing evil when it is not.

Can the state be a false god?

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:3, 5-6)

To answer the above question, of course, the state can. Trust the government from the cradle to the grave is statist idolatry. Submitting children to forced indoctrination in government schools and forced vaccinations have always been exempt on the ground of a conscience submitted to Scripture. This exemption did not appear out thin air, battles had to be fought, and ungodly magistrates had to be opposed. The quiet submission view does not win battles.

In conclusion, consider William Symington’s thoughts on the limits of Romans 13:

“Without confounding all moral distinctions it is impossible to suppose that the lawfulness of a power depends solely on the fact of its existence. People say, if a government exists them it must be of God. The Bible says no such thing, and if the Bible did say such a thing, it would be contradicting its own principles of purity, equity and judgment?” – William Symington (9)

Symington is in agreement with the conclusion of this study, namely, that, wicked, unjust laws and statues can be resisted without doing violence to Romans 13.

John Knox’s position on Romans 13 was in agreement with Symington. Would Knox be kicked out of the Presbyterian Church today for his theology of resistance to tyrants?

To repeat Luther:

“Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments… I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen.”

Thankfully, Luther and Calvin were not quiet submission men! If they were, the Protestant Reformation and the American War for Independence would never have happened.

To back this up about the American War for Independence:

It is no wonder that King James I once said: “Presbyterianism agreeth with a monarchy like God with the Devil.” In England, the War for Independence was referred to as the “Presbyterian Rebellion.”

A Hessian captain (one of the 30,000 German mercenaries used by England) wrote in 1778, “Call this war by whatever name you may only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scots-Irish Presbyterian rebellion.”

In contrast, today, it appears that many evangelical leaders “are insignificant little people… and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them.”

We need more men like John Knox!

Are Romans 13:1, 3-4, and Isaiah 5:20 contradictory? If Paul’s argument in Romans 13 is qualified, then no. However, if it were maintained that the magistrate who does evil and does not execute wrath against evil-doers is still supposedly doing good, this would fall under Isaiah’s woe.

As seen from the quotes, like those of our forefathers in the faith of old, Christians today can resist unbiblical laws that violate Scripture.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29)

Notes:

1. Adolf Hitler as quoted in Herman Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, (London, 1940); cited in Joseph Carr, The Twisted Cross, (Huntington House Inc., 1985), p. 202.
2. Martin Luther, quoted by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), Volume VII, pp. 304-305.
3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989), Book IV, Chapter XX: 32.
4. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, (Baker Book House, reprinted 1993), pp. 478-479.
5. John Knox as quoted In Roger Mason, ed., On Rebellion, pp. 191-92.
6. Buchanan, A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship Among the Scots, ed. Roger Mason, p. 113.
7. Buchanan, A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship Among the Scots, ed. Roger Mason, p. 121.
8. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX: 2, 4.
9. William Symington, as quoted in Unconditional Obedience to Government? By Ronald Hanko, Protestant Reformed Church

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com

For more study:

William Symington, D.D., Messiah the Prince or The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ, (Edmonton, Canada, Still Waters Revival Books, Reprint Edition January 1990 from the 1884 edition) online addition https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2017/8/15/messiah-the-prince-or-the-mediatorial-dominion-of-jesus-christ

BIBLICAL CIVIL GOVERNMENT VERSUS THE BEAST; AND, THE BASIS FOR CIVIL RESISTANCE By Greg Price, Copyright Oct., 1996 http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/bibcg_gp.htm

The Christian and Civil Government By Pastor John Weaver

The Christian and Civil Government, by Pastor John Weaver, is a theological treatise on Romans 13. It explains the Christian’s responsibility and relationship to civil government. It sets forth civil government as it has been ordained by God. Likewise it exposes corrupt, unbiblical and ungodly civil government. The book emphasizes obedience to God in the realm of civil government. The chapters include:

1. The Institution of Government
2. The Covenantal Nature of Government
3. The Purpose of Government
4. Are We Bound to Obey Government When Contrary to the Word of God?
5. Is Usurped Authority Legitimate?
6. The Degrees of Resistance to Tyranny
7. The Pastor as Magistrate
8. Statism is Idolatry
9. A Friend of Christ or Caesar?

Although primarily a Biblical textbook on government, there are many historical facts and perspectives interwoven throughout The Christian and Civil Government. $11.00 Post Paid: Pastor John Weaver P. O. Box 394, Fitzgerald, Ga. 31750 This book is also available at Amazon.

Introduction to the Marriage Covenant                                                           by Jack Kettler

This study will look at the biblical basis of marriage and the divine plan for marriage. As will be seen, there is significant development of the marriage institution in redemptive history. This study is merely an introduction to the subject of marriage.

Old Testament Scriptures:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)

“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:22-24)

The first thing to note is that God is the creator of male and female. Secondly, it is God’s plan for them to multiply or reproduce. Third, God creates the woman out of the man.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers perfectly explain verse 24 of Genesis 2:

“(24) Therefore shall a man leave . . . These are evidently the words of the narrator. Adam names this new product of creative power, as he had named others, but he knew nothing about young men leaving their father’s house for the wife’s sake. Moreover, in Matthew 19:5, our Lord quotes these words as spoken by God, and the simplest interpretation of this declaration is that the inspired narrator was moved by the Spirit of God to give this solemn sanction to marriage, founded upon Adam’s words. The great and primary object of this part of the narrative is to set forth marriage as a Divine ordinance. The narrator describes Adam’s want, pictures him as examining all animal life, and studying the habits of all creatures so carefully as to be able to give them names, but as returning from his search unsatisfied. At last, one is solemnly brought to him who is his counterpart, and he calls her Ishah, his feminine self, and pronounces her to be his very bone and flesh. Upon this, “He who at the beginning made them male and female “pronounced the Divine marriage law that man and wife are one flesh.” (1)

New Testament Scriptures:

“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on Matthew 19:6:

“5. And said, for this cause—to follow out this divine appointment.

shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?—Jesus here sends them back to the original constitution of man as one pair, a male and a female; to their marriage, as such, by divine appointment; and to the purpose of God, expressed by the sacred historian, that in all time one man and one woman should by marriage become one flesh—so to continue as long as both are in the flesh. This being God’s constitution, let not man break it up by causeless divorces.” (2)

“Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it… So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Ephesians 5:25; 28)

The Pulpit Commentary on Ephesians 5:25:

“Verse 25. – Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for her. The husband’s duty to the wife is enforced by another parallel – it ought to correspond to Christ’s love for the Church. This parallel restores the balance; if it should seem hard for the wife to be in subjection, the spirit of love, Christ-like love, on the part of the husband makes the duty easy. Christ did not merely pity the Church, or merely desire her good, but loved her; her image was stamped on his heart and her name graven on his hands; he desired to have her for his companion, longing for a return of her affection, for the establishment of sympathy between her and him. And he gave himself for her (comp. ver. 2), showing that her happiness and welfare were dearer to him than his own – the true test of deep, real love.” (3)

There is a clear parallel between husbands and wives and Christ and His Church. This parallel alone makes the marriage covenant more than a mere social contract.

“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.” (1Timothy 3:2 ESV)

One notable development in the New Covenant is the abandonment of polygamy that was seen in the Older Covenant. In some instance in church, history polygamy has been tolerated depending on unique situations.

Comments on contracts and covenants:

A deal or contract is between two humans and agreed upon with legal measures to enforce such agreements.

In contrast, marriage is far more than a human social contract; it is a divinely instituted covenant.

What is a covenant? It is a contract between two parties with God as a witness.

In light of this, Christian marriage does not make two people mere associates like business partners; they are joined together and recognized as one with God and His Church are the witnesses.

Since marriage is a covenantal agreement, in many ways, it mirrors a church membership or baptismal covenant.

The following entry on marriage provides much-needed material on marriage and development in redemptive history.

Marriage from Fausset’s Bible Dictionary:

“The charter of marriage is Genesis 2:24, reproduced by our Lord with greater distinctness in Matthew 19:4-5; “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain, shall be one flesh.” The Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch reads “twain” or “two” in Genesis 2:24; compare as to this joining in one flesh of husband and wife, the archetype of which is the eternally designed union of Christ and the church, Ephesians 5:31; Mark 10:5-9; 1 Corinthians 6:16; 1Corinthians 7:2. In marriage, husband and wife combine to form one perfect human being; the one is the complement of the other. Christ makes the church a necessary adjunct to Himself. He is the Archetype from whom, as the pattern, the church is formed (Romans 6:5). He is her Head, as the husband is of the wife (1Corinthians 11:3; 1Corinthians 15:45). Death severs bridegroom and bride, but cannot separate Christ and His bride (Matthew 19:6; John 10:28-29; John 13:1; Romans 8:35-39).

In Ephesians 5:32 translated “this mystery is great,” i.e. this truth, hidden once but now revealed, namely, Christ’s spiritual union with the church, mystically represented by marriage, is of deep import. Vulgate wrongly translated “this is a great sacrament,” Rome’s plea for making marriage a sacrament. Not marriage in general, but the marriage of Christ and the church, is the great mystery, as the following words prove, “I say it in regard to (eis) Christ and in regard to (eis) the church,” whereas Genesis 2:24 refers to literal marriage. Transl. Ephesians 5:30, “we are members of His (glorified) body, being (formed) out of (ek) His flesh and of His bones.” Adam’s deep sleep wherein Eve was formed out of His opened side, symbolizes Christ’s death, which was the birth of the spouse, the church (John 12:24; John 19:34-35). As Adam gave Eve a new name, ‘ishah, “woman” or “wife” the counterpart of iysh, “man” or “husband,” so Christ gives the church His new name; He, Solomon, she, the Shulamite (Song of Solomon 6:13; Revelation 2:17; Revelation 3:12).

The propagation of the church from Christ, as that of Eve from Adam, is the foundation of the spiritual marriage. Natural marriage rests on the spiritual marriage, whereby Christ left the Father’s bosom to woo to Himself the church out of a lost world. His earthly mother as such He holds secondary to His spiritual bride (Luke 2:48-49; Luke 8:19-21; Luke 11:27-28). He shall again leave His Father’s abode to consummate the union (Matthew 25:1-10; Revelation 19:7). Marriage is the general rule laid down for most men, as not having continency (1Corinthians 7:2; 1Corinthians 7:5, etc.). The existing “distress” (1Corinthians 7:26) was Paul’s reason then for recommending celibacy where there was the gift of continency. In all cases his counsel is true, “that they that have wives be as though they had none,” namely, in permanent possession, not making idols of them.

Scripture teaches the unity of husband and wife; the indissolubleness of marriage save by death or fornication (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Romans 7:3); monogamy; the equality of both (iysh) and (ishah) being correlative, and she a “help-meet for him,” i.e. a helping one in whom as soon as he sees her he may recognize himself), along with the subordination of the wife, consequent on her formation subsequently and out of him, and her having been first to fall. (1Corinthians 11:8-9; 1Timothy 2:13-15.) Love, honor, and cherishing are his duty; helpful, reverent subjection, a meek and quiet spirit, her part; both together being heirs of the grace of life (1Peter 3:1-7; 1Corinthians 14:34-35). Polygamy began with the Cainites. (See LAMECH; DIVORCE; CONCUBINE.) The jealousies of Abraham’s (Genesis 16:6) and Elkanah’s wives illustrate the evils of polygamy. Scripture commends monogamy (Psalm 128:3; Proverbs 5:18; Proverbs 18:22; Proverbs 19:14; Proverbs 31:10-29; Ecclesiastes 9:9).

Monogamy superseded polygamy subsequently to the return from Babylon. Public opinion was unfavorable to presbyters and women who exercise holy functions marrying again; for conciliation and expediency sake, therefore, Paul recommended that a candidate should be married only once, not having remarried after a wife’s death or divorce (1Timothy 3:2; 1Timothy 3:12; 1Timothy 5:9; Luke 2:36-37; 1Corinthians 7:40); the reverse in the case of young widows (1Timothy 5:14). Marriage is honorable; but fornication, which among the Gentiles was considered indifferent, is stigmatized (Hebrews 13:4; Acts 15:20). Marriage of Israelites with Canaanites was forbidden, lest it should lead God’s people into idolatry (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3-4). In Leviticus 18:18 the prohibition is only against taking a wife’s sister “beside the other (namely, the wife) in her lifetime.”

Our Christian reason for prohibiting such marriage after the wife’s death is because man and wife are one, and the sister-in-law is to be regarded in the same light as the sister by blood. Marriage with a deceased brother’s wife (the Levirate law) was favored in Old Testament times, in order to raise up seed to a brother (Genesis 38:8; Matthew 22:25). The high priest must marry only an Israelite virgin (Leviticus 21:13-14); heiresses must marry in their own tribe, that their property might not pass out of the tribe. The parents, or confidential friend, of the bridegroom chose the bride (Genesis 24; Genesis 21:21; Genesis 38:6). The parents’ consent was asked first, then that of the bride (Genesis 24:58). The presents to the bride are called mohar, those to the relatives’ mattan. Between betrothal and marriage all communication between the betrothed ones was carried on through “the friend of the bridegroom” (John 3:29). She was regarded as his wife, so that faithlessness was punished with death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); the bridegroom having the option of putting her away by a bill of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 1:19).

No formal religious ceremony attended the wedding; but a blessing was pronounced, and a “covenant of God” entered into (Ezekiel 16:8; Malachi 2:14; Proverbs 2:17; Genesis 24:60; Ruth 4:11-12). The essential part of the ceremony was the removal of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom or his father. The bridegroom wore an ornamental turban; Isaiah 61:10, “ornaments,” rather (peer) “a magnificent headdress” like that of the high priest, appropriate to the “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6); the bride wore “jewels” or “ornaments” in general, trousseau. He had a nuptial garland or crown (Song of Solomon 3:11, “the crown wherewith His mother (the human race; for He is the Son of man, not merely Son of Mary) crowned Him in the day of His espousals”); and was richly perfumed (Song of Solomon 3:6). The bride took a preparatory bath (Ezekiel 23:40). This is the allusion in Ephesians 5:26-27; “Christ loved … gave Himself for the church, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot.”

The veil (tsaip) was her distinctive dress, covering the whole person, so that the trick played on Jacob was very possible (Genesis 24:65; Genesis 29:23); the symbol of her subjection to her husband’s power, therefore called “power on her head” (1Corinthians 11:10). (See DRESS.) Our “nuptials” is derived from nubo, “to veil one’s self.” She also wore girdles for the breasts (“attire,” kishurim) which she would not readily forget (Jeremiah 2:32). Also a gilded or gold “crown” or chaplet (kullah), a white robe sometimes embroidered with gold thread (Revelation 19:8; Psalm 45:13-14) and jewels (Isaiah 61:10). Late in the evening the bridegroom came with his groomsmen (“companions,” Judges 14:11; “children of the bride chamber,” Matthew 9:15), singers and torch or lamp bearers leading the way (Jeremiah 25:10), the bride meantime with her maidens eagerly awaited his coming.

Then he led the bride and her party in procession home with gladness to the marriage supper (Matthew 25:6; Matthew 22:1-11; John 2:2; Psalm 45:15). The women of the place flocked out to gaze. The nuptial song was sung; hence in Psalm 78:63 their maidens were not praised in nuptial song (Hebrew) is used for “were not given in marriage,” margin. The bridegroom having now received the bride, his “friend’s joy (namely, in bringing them together) was fulfilled” in hearing the bridegroom’s voice (John 3:29). Song of Solomon 3:11, the feast lasted for 7 or even 14 days, and was enlivened by riddles, etc. (Judges 14:12.) The host, not to wear was an insult to him that provided wedding garments. Large water pots for washing the hands and for “purifying” ablutions were provided (Mark 7:3).

These had to be “filled” before Jesus changed the water into wine; a nice propriety in the narrative, the minor circumstances being in keeping with one another; the feast being advanced, the water was previously all emptied out of the water pots for the guests’ ablutions (John 2:7). Light is thrown upon Egyptian marriages by a translation of an Egyptian contract of marriage, by Eugene Revillout. It is written in the demotic character upon a small sheet of papyrus, No. 2482, Cat. Egyptien, Musee du Louvre. It is dated in the month of Choiach, year 33 of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and the contracting parties are Patina, son of Pchelkhous, and the lady, Ta-outem, the daughter of Rehu. The terms of the deed are singular as to the dowry required on both sides, together with the clauses providing for repudiation.

After the actual dowry is recited, the sum being specified in shekels, the rights of the children which may hereafter come from the marriage, as well as the payment of the mother’s pin-money, are secured by the following clause: “thy pocket money for one year is besides thy toilet money which I give thee each year, and it is your right to exact the payment of thy toilet money and thy pocket money, which are to be placed to my account, which I give thee. Thy oldest son, my oldest son, shall be the heir of all my property, present and future. I will establish thee as wife.” Practicing in marriage law in Egypt was one of the priestly functions; for at the conclusion the contract states that, “the writer of this act is … the priest of Ammon Horpneter, son of Smin.” The bridegroom was exempted from military service for a year (Deuteronomy 20:7; Deuteronomy 24:5).

Women in Scripture times were not secluded as now, but went about married and single with faces unveiled (Genesis 12:14; Genesis 24:16; Genesis 24:65). Some were prophetesses, as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and took part in public concerns (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6-7; Abigail, 1Samuel 25:14-25). The duties of husband and wife are laid down (Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; Titus 2:4-5; 1Peter 3:1-7). Brawling wives stand in contrast to the model wife, God’s gift (Proverbs 19:13; Proverbs 21:9; Proverbs 21:19; Proverbs 27:15; Proverbs 31:10-31). (On the spiritual harlot, see BEAST and ANTICHRIST.) Woman, harlot, bride, and ultimately wife, i.e. Christ’s church in probation, the apostate church, and the glorified church, form the grand theme of the Bible from first to last. Israel had God for her “husband,” she became a harlot when she left Him for idols (Isaiah 1:21; Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:1; Jeremiah 3:6; Jeremiah 3:8; Jeremiah 3:14).

Again, Jehovah is to reunite Israel to Him as His earthly bride, as the elect church is His heavenly bride (Isaiah 54:5, etc.; Isaiah 62:4-5; Hosea 2:19; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7; Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:9; Revelation 22:17). The Father prepares for His Son the marriage feast (Matthew 22:1-14). The apostate church, resting on and conformed to the godless world is the harlot riding on the beast and attired in scarlet as the beast. God’s eternal principle in her case as in Israel’s and Judah’s shall hold good, and even already is being illustrated in Rome’s being stripped by the world power; when the church sins with the world, the world the instrument of her sin shall be the instrument of her punishment (Ezekiel 23; Revelation 17:1-5; Revelation 17:16-18).” (4)

KJV Dictionary Definition: marriage:

“MAR’RIAGE, The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his Church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIV:

“SECTION I:

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time. [1]

Scripture Proof Texts 1. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 7:3; Prov. 2:17.”

This section of the confession represents New Covenant redemptive history development and is the doctrinal position of conservative Reformed Churches.

In closing:

In light of recent ungodly trends in the society and the courts, churches should twice before performing marriages for those who are not members of the church. Doing this may put a church in an untenable position if refusing to perform same-sex marriage contracts.

“To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27) And “heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28, 29)

Notes:

1. Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Genesis, Vol.1, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 22.
2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 935.
3. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Ephesians, Vol.20., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 212.
4. Fausset, Andrew Robert M.A., D.D., Marriage, Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, 1878

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at: THERELIGIONTHATSTARTEDINAHAT.COM

For more study:

Something Greater Than Marriage; A Response to the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/something-greater-than-marriage/