Jared Longshore's Blog, page 32

Why Stand Ye Gazing Up Into Heaven?

It would have been glorious to stand with the apostles on the Mount of Olives and behold our Lord’s ascension. As wonderful as the moment must have been, the apostles did eventually lose sight of Him. Then, two men in white apparel asked them, “Why are you standing here gazing up into heaven?”

It’s as if you can almost hear a faun or some other Narnian creature approaching the Pevensie children, just after they lost sight of Aslan, “Yes, yes, quite a sight that was. But no sense in standing around here looking at the sky. Better be getting on with it.”

There is nothing like our Lord’s ascension into heaven to set a man living right on earth. Deuteronomy 29:29 says, “the secret things belong to God and the things revealed belong to us and our children.” Why are you standing here saints, trying to peer into the secret things? You know where Christ is. He revealed that much to you. Get on with living accordingly. 

Apply this principle all the way through. Why are you standing here, peering into your fickle emotions considering whether you’re a Christian or not? He has already revealed that you are by placing His triune name on your heads. Better be getting on with obedience. Your children? He has already revealed that His Word and Spirit will not depart from them. Better be getting on with raising them in the Lord. Your remaining sin? He has already revealed it is doomed. Better be getting on with killing it. Will God’s promises really manifest themselves down here? Friend, the virgin’s belly has already swollen with the Promised One. Why are you standing around gazing at the sky with silly questions? Enough of that. It’s time to be getting on with it.

The post Why Stand Ye Gazing Up Into Heaven? appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

A Meal with God

After Moses took blood and sprinkled the altar, the book of the covenant, and the people at Mount Sinai, he went up the mountain with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel (Exodus 24:9). There, on that mountain, they saw God, and they ate and drank. The covenant had been cut. The sacrifices offered. And a meal with God followed.

The same is true for us today. Here we are on Mount Zion. Through worship, we have offered ourselves to God as living sacrifices. He has announced His covenant promises to us. And now we sit down to a meal with Him as Moses did many years ago.

As you eat and drink, do so by faith. That “by faith” means that you lay hold of everything God has revealed. Is this meal just like any other? No. Paul had strong words for the Corinthians who were selfishly coming to this table, neglecting each other in the process. His rebuke was, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” They sinned by considering the church of God a little, insignificant thing. They had grown to treat this table as if it were just another Tuesday night spaghetti dinner on paper plates.

Learn from their mistake. Steady yourselves. Prepare yourselves. You have come to eat and drink with God. God gives us many signs in creation. The trees remind us of Christ’s cross. The dove reminds us of the Holy Spirit. But this table does more than remind us. This table is a sacrament through which we, by faith, commune with the living God. Come, renewing your love to Him. Come, renewing your love for one another. Come in faith and welcome to Jesus Christ.

The post A Meal with God appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Do Christian Nations Need Christian Rulers?

The post Do Christian Nations Need Christian Rulers? appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Sin of Trying to Save Your Life

It is natural for a man to want to save his life. And it is no sin to try to do so. But it is a sin to try to save your life in the wrong way. Not only is it a sin to go about trying to save your life in the wrong way, but you will also find out in the end that your attempt has been unsuccessful. Trying to save your life, you will end up having lost it. When Jesus was headed toward the cross, He told his disciples, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 9:35). 

We must renounce any and all attempts to preserve our lives apart from the cross. Your life will not be saved by scheduling more “me time” into your calendar. You will not preserve yourself by an abundance of riches, or hedging all of your bets, or following what the world would call reasonable plans. Far from it.

Life is found through Calvary. Strength is found through weakness. Glory through humility. The preservation of your life is found through dying, and only through dying. 

So lay your life down for Christ and His gospel. Do not avoid your responsibilities. Do not pass the buck to the next guy in line. Train your children. Show hospitality to the saints. Forgive one another. Confess your sin to one another. Love your wives. Respect your husbands. Honor your parents. Pray for those who persecute you. Work with your hands so that you have something to give to the poor. And if it seems that the performance of any more good works like these may just leave you knocking at death’s door, then praise the Lord. Because that is where your life is found.

The post The Sin of Trying to Save Your Life appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

He Has Shown Us The Way

When our Lord offered Himself up on the cross, He did so once for all. We do not need the continual offering of bulls and goats as Israel did, for the Lamb of God Himself has come. So we reject the teaching by some that this meal involves Christ being offered up as a sacrifice to the Father. Even so, this meal is a commemoration of that once for all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. We remember here what Christ has done for us.

As you come to this table, recall that you do not have faith in an idea. You have faith in a man, a Godman. He was like you in every way. He sweat. He sorrowed. Nails hurt Him. Thorns caused Him pain. It took true manhood to face Golgotha. Many men may have undergone crucifixion in this world. But none of these men laid down their lives willingly on that Roman device of torture. He could have come down from the cross. He chose not to.

Then there is the cup of God’s wrath and all of the guilt, the heavy weight of shame that has driven many men to despair of life itself. Christ took all of that for His people. His righteous shoulders bore up that weight of gloom, wickedness, and suffering. 

We commemorate His glorious work now with bread and wine. Through His death, death itself suffered a deathblow. As we remember, resolve to die with Christ. You have already been crucified with Him. Go on laying down your life for one another as He did. Come proclaim His death, and as you do, proclaim what the disciple Thomas once did, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” So come in faith and welcome to Jesus Christ.

The post He Has Shown Us The Way appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

But Baptists Can Dance the Mere Christendom Shuffle: A Reply to Scott Aniol

I have enjoyed the recent exchanges between Doug Wilson and Scott Aniol so much that I couldn’t help but put my oar in to give us one more swoosh down Mere Christendom River. Recently, Scott said that he doesn’t think Baptist theology is compatible with the Mere Christendom project. I lean toward thinking that Baptists can get down with Mere Christendom. But I understand where Scott is coming from. If we accept the way Scott has structured the matter, it is not hard to see that the Baptists could not dance the Mere Christendom shuffle. But I would like to reframe the matter, hopefully opening the door for the Baptists to join team Mere Christendom.

Here is Scott in his own words:

“As I have been stressing since the initial tweet that sparked the recent debate, the bottom line comes down to which comes first: (a) public and formal acknowledgment of Christ’s Lordship or (b) internal acknowledgement of Christ’s Lordship” (Scott Aniol, What if We Win?).

“I’ll summarize the key theological difference again: Paedobaptists want children of believing parents to formally and publicly acknowledge Christ’s Lordship before they personally and internally acknowledge his Lordship; credo Baptists do not believe anyone should formally and publicly acknowledge Christ’s Lordship until after they believe it. The Christian Nationalism/Mere Christendom project fits within the former framework, but not the latter. This is why I continue to insist that Baptist theology isn’t compatible with the project” (Scott Aniol, What if We Win?).

While I can understand how some might think Paedobaptists want children of believing parents to formally acknowledge Christ before internally doing so, that indeed is not the case. There’s something quite different in the Paedobaptist water. What is in that Paedobaptist water? That’s a good question. We need to establish that so that we bring the right principle to bear on the Mere Christendom project, not the wrong one.

My argument here is that Scott has wrongly described what Paedobaptists are up to with infant baptism and then he brought that wrong standard to the Mere Christendom project. I aim to describe the true situation with Paedobaptists regarding infant baptism, and then bring that true principle to bear on Mere Christendom. Now, Credobaptists will still disagree with what is really going on with infant baptism. But when the true principle is established and translated from infant baptism to Mere Christendom, I think Credobaptists will find it far more palatable than the faulty principle Scott has attributed to Paedobaptists and thus Mere Christendom.

I should note briefly that I like Scott and his G3 compatriots Josh Buice and Virgil Walker. When I went from Credobaptism to Paedobaptism, you might say I went from being a Separatist Puritan to being a Regular Puritan. I always loved the saints. But the shift to Paedobaptism was a heart enlarging experience where I discovered that we saints are all in the same visible church together, the same—dare I say quite tangible—house with different rooms. So Scott is not only my brother, but we are in the same house. This is just me leaning out of a room saying, “Hey hey, it’s a little different than you described and this Mere Christendom thing is worth a shot.” Let me explain.

What are Paedobaptists Up To with the Water?

Scott says the central thing is which comes first. The internal and personal or the formal and public? But I say that the central thing is: Has God said anything about the person in view? Does the person (be that a Christian’s child or a civil magistrate) have any previously established relationship to God?

In the case of infant baptism, the answer is yes. The water is not an arbitrary, strictly external, or merely physical declaration. But it is a sign and seal from God himself to the party baptized. As the Westminster Confession of Faith says, 

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world. (WCF 28.1)

This idea of baptism as God’s sign to the party baptized is not lost on the Credobaptists. The Second London Baptist Confession says, 

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (2LBC 29:1).

Baptism, according to the Paedobaptist paradigm, is not administered to the infant without warrant. The Credobaptist says the warrant for baptism is personal faith and credible profession in the Lord Jesus Christ. But it does not follow that, because the Paedobaptist rejects that particular warrant, that they are without any warrant at all. The Paedobaptist looks to what God has said as the warrant. For example, God said to Abraham, 

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you (Genesis 17:7-11).

Now, the Credobaptists and Paedobaptists have different takes on the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant just cited. Many Credobaptists believe the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. They believe the Abrahamic Covenant was a merely physical covenant that promised physical land to physical offspring. The Paedobaptists take the Abrahamic Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace in which God offers eternal life. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision and it was given to Abraham’s children because God included them in the covenant that he made with Abraham. Likewise, Paedobaptists claim the Christian’s children, like Abraham’s, are included in God’s Covenant of Grace and warranted the covenant sign.

Now, concerning Aniol’s claim that Paedobaptists want a formal acknowledgement before internal, my response is that you don’t have to hold to presumptive regeneration to know that David trusted at his mother’s breast and John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb. Both Credobaptists and Paedobaptists can talk past each other because they’re bringing their own presuppositions to bear on the other’s position. Scott seems to say, “Since the Credobaptists’ paradigm insists on the internal before the formal, then Paedobaptists must insist on the opposite, the formal before the internal.” But the truth is that Paedobaptists simply aren’t working from the same framework. Paedobaptists say, “Has God said anything regarding the covenantal status of this child?” They answer in the affirmative which is the warrant for the sign of that covenant, baptism. We hope, pray, and trust God for the internal from the outset.

So Aniol is right that there is something present in Paedobaptism that informs Mere Christendom. That much I grant. But I believe he is wrong about what that thing is and thereby makes the Mere Christendom thing more difficult for folks than necessary. To recap:

Aniol says:

A: Paedobaptists want the Christian’s children to formally and publicly  acknowledge Christ’s Lordship before doing so internally and personally.

B: Mere Christendom involves this same principle, insisting that magistrates formally and publicly acknowledge Christ’s Lordship before doing so internally and personally.

The truth of the matter:

A: Paedobaptists baptize the Christian’s infants because God has sworn an oath regarding them, bringing them into covenant with himself.

B: Mere Christendom involves recognizing that the Triune God has ordained civil magistrates as His very own servants and ministers who thereby must acknowledge Him internally and externally, personally and formally.

Baptists Come On In, the Water Is Fine

Credobaptists need not agree with point A under “the truth of the matter” just above in order to agree with point B under the same heading. In other words, Credobaptists don’t have to become Paedobaptists to see that Mere Christendom involves recognizing what God has said about magistrates. 

Basically, Aniol muddies the waters a bit such that some may think Mere Christendom involves requiring magistrates to externally acknowledge Christ before internally doing so. When in truth, Mere Christendom involves acknowledging that civil magistrates belong to God. They are His servants and they must obey their Master. If they don’t, then they are not fit to be His servants.

That seems like a tune to which many Baptists can shake a leg. Granted, Russell Moore would likely not be able to cut this particular rug:

The post But Baptists Can Dance the Mere Christendom Shuffle: A Reply to Scott Aniol appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

The Blessed Art of Self-Forgetfulness

One of the goals we aim at is a blessed self-forgetfulness. Man is all too familiar with the annoying sin of self-infatuation. One man thinks of himself too highly, the other thinks of himself with loathing. But both of these men are simply spending too much time in the mirror. The first man has regular old pride. The latter has the ugly underbelly of pride. But it is the love of self just the same. You can even find a man in the middle of these two who knows he is not all that, and he knows he is not the worst creature to roam the planet. He says, “Well, I’m not much but I’m all I ever think about.” All three of these men are tempted to gaze at their own reflection forever and aye.

 This temptation to self-infatuation is doubled when you find yourself around others who are ahead of you on sanctification road. When David goes to battle Goliath like a man, two options press upon you. Trust God, forget yourself, and follow David to battle or don’t trust God, make the event about yourself, and go to feeling like a loser because you didn’t man up like David.

 

Christ came to deliver us from the love of self and baptize us in the waters of self-forgetfulness. One way to get on enjoying those waters is to sacrificially love the people around you, especially the members of your household and the saints. Spend yourself doing the work love requires and you will discover that you don’t have any energy left for all of that life-sucking self-centeredness. That kind of sacrificial love is something that only the Spirit of God can supply. And that love is exactly what the Father has given us through Christ.

The post The Blessed Art of Self-Forgetfulness appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Polygamy Rising? A Conversation with Scott Yenor

Scott Yenor, Professor of Political Science at Boise University and Fellow at the Claremont Institute, wrote an insightful article at Public Discourse on the rise of Polygamy in the United States. We sat down to discuss why this is not surprising and what can be done about.

The post Polygamy Rising? A Conversation with Scott Yenor appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

8 Reasons America Should Be a Christian Nation

We should begin with a quick recap of just how exciting our times are. We’re living amid the collapse of secularism and the Christian Church in the United States is starting to work out what to do about it. Before long our civil magistrates in the states will be walking around in pink high heels like the Canadian law makers. So the Reformed Evangelicals in this here land of the free and home of the brave better get to working out this Christian Nation thing fast and quick.

So where are we?

Stephen Wolfe wrote a very fine book through Canon Press that has caused quite a stir. In part, because it stoked the woke. In part, because he has some dualism going on in that book and the Postmillennial Reformed brethren simply aren’t going to dance to that song. In part, (yes there is yet another part), because some rock-ribbed religious liberty American evangelicals started to get heart palpitations when they heard talk about a Christian Prince. We now have chatter about a Protestant Pope and my name has evidently been thrown in the hat for this position. It should be known that my first act as the Protestant Pope will be to excommunicate whoever nominated me and my second act as Pope will be to not be Pope.

We have several developments in the wake of Wolfe’s book. And I am not yet sharing my opinions on these developments. I’m simply sketching the map with a “you are here” sign on it.

Scott Aniol, an online and friendly acquaintance, and Executive Vice President of G3 ministries is going hard in the paint Baptist style, saying that the Mayflower Compact founding their colony “for the glory of God and the Advancement of the Christian Faith” was Unbiblical. He also underscores that “Baptist and magisterial are inherently incompatible.”

My friend James White has thrown another iron in the fire with concern about sacralism. Timon Cline, who has recently accepted an invitation to next year’s New Saint Andrews College Lectureship, keeps spilling more ink than one can read on the Christian faith, civil law, and government. While Jeff Shafer, director of the Hale Institute, continues to display the genius of the common law tradition. You might find the recent Hale event Reconsidering Religious Establishment to move the Overton window a smidge. To top things off, Pastor Doug Wilson has now published a book entitled Mere Christendom. 

Much more detail could be added to this map. The main point is, buckle up and say your prayers, sing a psalm while you are at and know that this is going to be fun for a while particulars get hammered out.

Amid all of this excitement, I’d like to make what I think is a modest and unifying proposal, a claim that is straight-forward enough. Here it goes: America should be a Christian nation. What do I mean by Christian nation? Well, let me borrow from Doug Wilson’s recent book. He describes Mere Christendom as “a network of nations bound together by a formal, public civic acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental truth of the Apostle’s creed. I mean a public and formal recognition of the authority of Jesus Christ that repudiates the principles of secularism, and that avoids both hard sectarianism and easy latitudinarianism both” (pg. 69).

So my claim is simply that America should be one of those Mere Christendom nations. To narrow the point even a bit more, America should formally acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ and have leaders who do the same. Yes, this shocks modern American man. But I have not lost my wits. I’m an all-around common American guy. Think blue jeans, apple pie, Ford trucks, and consider the following points while you do.

These are not the 8 biblical arguments just yet. They are simply some long-range artillery to soften up the beach before we storm it.

Some Long-Range Artillery to Soften the Beach

Referring to the US Constitution, John Adams wrote in 1798, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Adams also said, “Religion and morality alone . . . can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” 

What’s more, Article 7 of the United States Constitution reads: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” Now, if the Lord Jesus Christ is named in the constitution, then maybe we are on to something here with this Christian nation thing. Note, he is not only named, but designated “our Lord.” 

The plot thickens as you take a look at the Treaty of Paris which ended the war for Independence and officially recognized the US as an independent nation. It opened with these words, “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.” Our Declaration of Independence likewise says that our rights come from our Creator. They do not pop up out of thin air.

The Supreme Court in 1892, in a case called Holy Trinity v. the United States, stated that we were a Christian Nation. And it is at this time I would like to remind all of my COVID-friendly evangelical friends that this is a Romans 13 moment and we should get on board with what these judges have handed down to us. Going back to the Constitutional Convention, we find that of the 55 men present, 50 of them were orthodox Christians.

Then there is our dollar bills. All of them still read, “In God We Trust” which is a terribly exclusionary statement. The poor polytheists want “In Gods We Trust” but nothing doing. The Secular Humanists want “In Man We Trust” but they’re outsiders around here apparently. Those given to C. S. Lewis’ Scientism want “In Tools We Trust.” The Religious Pluralists want, “Shhhh, We Can’t Say Who We Trust on the Money?” But, there it is, right on the money in our pockets, “In God We Trust.” Take a close look at that We. I mean, how dare they? How dare they with the plural. Who is responsible for this corporate identifier that fails to recognize me as a person, as an individual who objects to this God whom some say I must trust in if I am going to be a part of this nation? Come to think of it, that is dirty money. There was quite a movement back in the days of President Donald Trump in which some said, “Not My President.” I wonder if these same people might take a look at the back of their Benjamins, behold that slogan in which we swear faith in God, and say, “Not my dollar bills.” 

The reason this Christian nation thing is a live question right now is because our society has experienced a genuine ungodly revolution. Amid this revolution, we have come to discover that it is not whether our nation will be religious but rather which religion we will have. I propose the Christian religion and I will defend this proposal with clear Bible verses. While there will be many details to work out, the basic claim I’m making in this post aims to unify many Christians and go ahead and nail down something objective as a line in the sand: If you are not for a formal and civil acknowledgement of the Lord Jesus Christ and civil leaders who do the same, then you are quite simply not for a Christian Nation or Mere Christendom. But I really think this is a reasonable position for Bible-loving Christian to adopt. Here’s 8 reasons why.

8 Soldiers Go Forth Valiantly

First, America should formally acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ because the Triune God has created our nation just as he has created every nation in the earth. Acts 17:26, “And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” If the Triune God is the One responsible for the existence of the nation, is it not our duty to acknowledge him?

Second, America should be a Christian nation because the Triune God has resolved to bless our nation. Genesis 22:18 says, “In you shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Look around America, you have been highly favored. I don’t hold that America is God’s chosen nation. But I am willing to say, “Golly, He has been good to us.” And He has been good to us through His promised seed, the Lord Jesus Christ. Where do we think all of this wealth and power has come from? If God has blessed us, then how could we not acknowledge Him formally and establish leaders who call Him Lord?

Third, Jesus must be acknowledged as Lord in the United States because God rules these United States. Now I’ve made people uncomfortable. But, Daniel 4:17 says, “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” The United States is one of the kingdoms of the earth. It is ruled by the Triune God.

Fourth, America must swear allegiance to Christ because America must be baptized and observe all that Christ has commanded. Matthew 28:18-20 says, “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Fifth, the leaders of America must call Him Lord because America’s civil authorities are servants of the Triune God who must do his will. Romans 13:1-4 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God . . . For he is the minister of God.” Now would we truly say that the civil magistrate is a minister of God, but this minister does not have to acknowledge His Master? He is a minister of God who can refuse to take God’s name upon his head?

Sixth, America must acknowledge the Lord Jesus because, as Proverbs 14:34 says, “righteousness exalts a nation.” We need only look back at our Christian history to see that this is true. And we need only look at our recent history to see that the following is true.

Seventh, our nation must confess Jesus as Lord for, as Proverbs 14:34 says, “sin is a reproach to any people.” Now, someone is going to come along and insist that I’m stretching Proverbs 14:34. We can neglect to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ formally, we can ignore His law as a nation, and still avoid the sin which brings reproach. To such a nation, Abraham Kuyper, replies, “Popular sovereignty does not say in its heart: ‘I take the place of Christ; rather, it says something far different: ‘I identify my own heart as the heart of God. I will be my own god.’ A nation that acknowledges: ‘Our king rules over us by the grace of God,’ is therefore at least a Christian nation; a nation that cries out: ‘Away with that prince who rules by the grace of God!’ does not thereby cast off its Christian garment, but becomes entirely godless.”

Eighth, America should be a Christian nation because all of the civil authorities in America must kiss the Son. Psalm 2:10-12 says, “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: Be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, And ye perish from the way, When his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” Kings of the earth are not given the option of kissing the Son. It is a moral necessity. Any king who refuses to do so is refusing to do what the God who placed him in his office requires of him.

But You Protest

Objection 1: Someone will say, “If we formally acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as a nation, then certain citizens will be excluded.” I’d simply respond that we already do this. Our buildings already say, “One Nation Under God.” So the Polytheists, Secular Humanists, and those rising Atheistic Noneswe keep hearing about are already excluded.

Objection 2: It will be said that I’m taking a compartment of religion and stretching it over the whole of life. Religion and Civil Government need to stay in their appropriate, designated, and separate lanes. The man who makes this objection has an erroneous conception concerning the spiritual and the physical. Civil government should only concern itself with the physical and not the spiritual. But what do you do with the worshiper of Molech who insists that his worship practice of sacrificing his son is spiritual. Would this objector say that the Molech worshiper could worship Molech all he wanted, but he can’t do so physically? He can worship Molech in his heart, but he cannot do so with his body? He can worship Molech in his home, but he cannot build a Molech Sanctuary on Main Street? If so, then this objector is no objector at all and sounds much like a Christian Nationalist.

Objection 3: Your proposal sounds like a domineering one that will suffocate people who think differently and strip people of their liberties.

This final objection signals the real trouble with our thinking and our hearts. The Lordship of Christ is not tyranny, but freedom. If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. This proposal in no way contradicts the doctrine of Christian Liberty, albeit it does transgress the doctrine of Religious Liberty modernly conceived. 

This modest proposal does not contradict or distract from the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the inevitable fruit of that gospel. America as a Christian Nation does not replace the central or primary thing, Christ crucified. It is the result once we get serious about that central thing. 

America will continue over the cliff she is heading for unless she repents and calls upon the name of Jesus Christ. This Christ is the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hades and has risen from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father Almighty. 

There is no hope apart from him. There is salvation in no other name. Would you be free? Bow to him. Would you be forgiven of the sins that condemn you and rule over you? Look to Christ, call upon His name. Call Him Lord because He is Lord, Lord of all.

The post 8 Reasons America Should Be a Christian Nation appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.

Look Your Sin in the Eye

Those outside of God’s covenant love are doomed to go on from bad to worse. Like Nineveh, they don’t know their right hand from their left. All is dark for them, seeing they don’t know the Father of lights. But even more significant than the fact that they cannot see their sin, is the truth that they don’t want to. They’re afraid. Sin is a monster. It is a cancer and man doesn’t want the diagnosis.

But when Christ comes to a man and wakes him up from death, that man has eyes to see. And not only eyes to see, but he has the freedom and courage to look his remaining sin in the eye. He knows, by faith he knows, that sin will not have dominion over him. That promise gives him the strength to face his shortcomings, confess them, and put on the new man.

You are God’s covenant people. When you fall, the Lord shall be light to you; when you fall, you shall rise. So look your sin square in the face and tell it not to rejoice over you. Then hunt it down. Find your laziness, your attitude that smells like molding cheese in the back of the refrigerator, track down your pride, and that yearning for the admiration of other men, go find your despair and choke it with both hands, choke it until your despair despairs. And when the little demon begins to weep and asks you for mercy with puppy dog eyes, show it none.

You can’t hunt down and kill sin by the flesh. That work can only be done by the Spirit. And we are those who have received that Spirit, and He is not a spirit of fear, but of power, love and a sound mind.

The post Look Your Sin in the Eye appeared first on REFORMATION & REVIVAL.