Well, then: what does that mean?
Bottom line: every man does that which is right in God’s eyes!
Immediately, one expects to hear cries of “Anarchy”!
I personally find it strange when folk cry “anarchy” while at the same time holding to Romans 2:14,15 AND Common Grace.
Admittedly, Adam’s Stain is deep and pervasive.
Still, the goodness of God is such, IMO, that ADAM never completely governs creation. If such were the case, i.e. Adam’s stain completely obtained, it ought to be “hell on earth”.
Irrespective of the awfulness of sin’s impact in time, it cannot be compared with the horrors of Hell, how long those horrors obtain!
Believers are never, can never, be managed by “anarchistic” tendencies. Believers are ever and always subject to “…the law of Christ…”.
The question needing to be addressed is: how does the Law of Christ manifest itself in the life of a believer living under Mao, Benito, Adolph, Margaret, Ronald, GW. Hugo C, or whomever?
Typically, IMO, Evangelicals have trumpeted “passive submission” to authority, with the implication of servile obedience. This mind-set, IMO, only served the advance of evil, however well intentioned.
Pearcey Report
Monday, October 10, 2011
The believer and Government
Passive Obedience and the New Covenant.
Does the New Covenant inculcate a mind-set of passive obedience on the part of the believer as it pertains to the issue of submission to “the powers that be”?
Under the Old Covenant administration, obedience was the watchword since God was the Ruler of an ethnic entity under His divine tutelage administered via Covenant Document, King, Priesthood and His servants, the prophets.
But, all this changed that last evening when the Lord Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant; a Covenant distinctly different from the Old Covenant. This difference was signaled in Jeremiah’s prophecy, Jeremiah 31:31-34 and during Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7: but I say unto you…).
One suspects this change, its impact and associated implications were not immediately apparent to “the twelve” when uttered by the Lord, Jesus and their subsequent understanding grew during the unfolding years following Pentecost.
One might be justified in recognizing the cautionary admonitions of Paul (Romans 13:1ff), Peter (1 Peter 2:13), and Titus (Titus 3;1ff) given the developing conflict with Rome on the part of the Jewish nation. I say cautionary in that none of the three explicate the implications of “submission” vs. “obedience”.
At that historical moment I suspect the typical auditor would equate the two as synonymous.
Yet, they are not.
For nearly two millennia, “Passive submission” has been the prevailing mindset of not only the believing community, but that of the non-believing community as well.
Might I be so bold as to suggest “passive submission” is not an aspect of a “leavening influence”?
“Passive submission” might also be known as conformity, compromise, adaptation?
I readily acknowledge the value of conformity, compromise and adaptation but only to the degree that truth precedes. If truth does not precede, then error, in its multitudinous forms obtains or holds the day.
“Incrementalism”, as a political strategy is legitimate, IMO, insofar as Truth leads error or Pragmatism.
But, in almost every instance where Truth has yielded to Pragmatism, Truth has been lost.
Does the New Covenant inculcate a mind-set of passive obedience on the part of the believer as it pertains to the issue of submission to “the powers that be”?
Under the Old Covenant administration, obedience was the watchword since God was the Ruler of an ethnic entity under His divine tutelage administered via Covenant Document, King, Priesthood and His servants, the prophets.
But, all this changed that last evening when the Lord Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant; a Covenant distinctly different from the Old Covenant. This difference was signaled in Jeremiah’s prophecy, Jeremiah 31:31-34 and during Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7: but I say unto you…).
One suspects this change, its impact and associated implications were not immediately apparent to “the twelve” when uttered by the Lord, Jesus and their subsequent understanding grew during the unfolding years following Pentecost.
One might be justified in recognizing the cautionary admonitions of Paul (Romans 13:1ff), Peter (1 Peter 2:13), and Titus (Titus 3;1ff) given the developing conflict with Rome on the part of the Jewish nation. I say cautionary in that none of the three explicate the implications of “submission” vs. “obedience”.
At that historical moment I suspect the typical auditor would equate the two as synonymous.
Yet, they are not.
For nearly two millennia, “Passive submission” has been the prevailing mindset of not only the believing community, but that of the non-believing community as well.
Might I be so bold as to suggest “passive submission” is not an aspect of a “leavening influence”?
“Passive submission” might also be known as conformity, compromise, adaptation?
I readily acknowledge the value of conformity, compromise and adaptation but only to the degree that truth precedes. If truth does not precede, then error, in its multitudinous forms obtains or holds the day.
“Incrementalism”, as a political strategy is legitimate, IMO, insofar as Truth leads error or Pragmatism.
But, in almost every instance where Truth has yielded to Pragmatism, Truth has been lost.
The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization
My first experience with Vishal’s work and am prompted to explore more.
Having just completed for the 3rd time Carey’s bio by his grandson, I was encouraged to read the author’s observations and will read his personal work on Carey.
The book is well written, each section promoting a thesis and illustrated with personal experiences. I felt as if I were reading Barzun, Stark, Paul Johnson with a touch of Schaeffer lurking in the background. Certainly, non-evangelicals will bristle as they read but, for me, an enjoyable experience on my birthday.
Sat down to read and continued to the end. Will obviously recall this birthday experience among the decades of others.
Having just completed for the 3rd time Carey’s bio by his grandson, I was encouraged to read the author’s observations and will read his personal work on Carey.
The book is well written, each section promoting a thesis and illustrated with personal experiences. I felt as if I were reading Barzun, Stark, Paul Johnson with a touch of Schaeffer lurking in the background. Certainly, non-evangelicals will bristle as they read but, for me, an enjoyable experience on my birthday.
Sat down to read and continued to the end. Will obviously recall this birthday experience among the decades of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)