Wait... I'm not done...
6/06/08 - 6th Day - After Breakfast. Preparation of the Sabbath. I've been on a string of rants and I'm far from done, so stay tuned. Hey, thanks to Herrick Kimball for linking to my beard articles. Funny thing, in the same post Herrick mentions that his chicken plucking blog had been commended in Slate Magazine (Congrats Herrick!). In his next blog post, Herrick mentions that the Slate mention had gotten him over 2,500 hits on his chicken plucking blog (WOW!). Well Herrick, what Slate did for your traffic, you do to mine. Just think - when you linked to my beard articles it really increased my hits on this blog! See... we can call it trickle down blogonomics. When I link to some smaller blogs, their hits sometimes double. Someday we ought to get a good chain link fence going... We'll get Time Magazine or someone to link to Herrick, Herrick links to me, I'll link to the Sifford Sojournal or some other great blog, and we'll see how far we can keep it going. So Herrick, you are the Slate Magazine for us radical/extremist separatist-agrarian bloggers. By the way, everyone should buy Herrick's Whizbang Chicken Plucker Book.
Thank you also Herrick for actually reading or listening to my sermons on The Beard before commenting on it. Some folks don't feel they need to do that. Frankly, the "I prefer the 'Christian' freedom of 1st Corinthians" comments and emails from people who didn't bother to read the sermons just make me sad and disgusted. But, the topic gives me a good place to continue my rant...
So... did you all know that, apparently, the whole book of 1st Corinthians is a "trump" card that eradicates any moral requirements or Godly commands in the Old Testament? A "trump" card is a card you can pull out and it automatically beats any other card. There is this opinion in modernist "christianity" that the Bible is contradictory and that some parts need to be "trumped" by other parts. I know that Paul said "God forbid", but let's run with this theory for a minute. The regulation that Godly men not trim or mar their beards is found in Leviticus the 19th Chapter...
Anyway, so the regulation on the beard is found in Leviticus the 19th Chapter. Modernist religionists now say that "Christian freedom" (what they mean is Christian license) allows them to throw out any of these old rules and regulations if they don't particularly like them. Historic Christianity taught that all of the MORAL laws of the Old Testament were binding unless particularly abrogated in the New Testament, therefore only the laws concerning the priesthood and the sacrifice - the ceremonial and sacrificial law - were abrogated in the NT. I ran into this "trump card" theology most blatantly one day when I was debating a homosexual in Dallas. According to him, homosexuality is acceptable and the laws against it were all "Old Testament" and therefore didn't apply. I know, you're thinking "but Romans surely condemns it", but you have to know that Homosexuals don't choose to read it that way. It doesn't mean that to them. Besides, if you can use 1st Corinthians to trump one part of the Bible, you can use it on Romans too... right? So, the theory is that homosexuality is now permissible because of "Christian freedom". The same argument, based on the same foundation, is now used to "trump" the plain and blatant regulations on the man's beard.
So, since this very recent "trump card theology" has reared its ugly head, I'm trying to figure out how to use it to my advantage...
SARCASM ALERT (you have to picture this portion as an infomercial for the new BIBLE TRUMP CARD)
There is this verse only a couple of verses after the beard verse in Lev. 19 that has caused me some trouble. You see, I've been wanting to prostitute out my 15 year old daughter (Lev. 19:29), but something kept telling me that it would be wrong. This commandment against that kind of thing kept hindering me from doing whatever the hell I want to do. Thanks to the new "trump card theology" of 1st Corinthians, I now have a clear conscience in doing many things I once mistakenly thought would be wrong! Thanks Trump Card! Here are some other things I've been wanting to do, but from which I have hitherto been hindered:
I've been wanting to... disobey my parents (vs. 1), make a couple of idols to worship (vs. 2), defraud some Christians (vs. 11), swear falsely on the Lord's name (vs. 12), cheat my neighbors and withhold the pay of employees (vs. 13), curse some deaf folks and put stumblingblocks in the path of the blind (vs. 14), mistreat the poor (vs. 15), spread some lies and gossip (vs. 16), hate my neighbor and get revenge (vs. 17,18), get some tattoos for the dead (vs. 28), use some enchantments and witchcraft (vs. 26), etc...
Man... THANKS 1st CORINTHIANS TRUMP CARD!!!!
Now, the modernist free "christian" will say, "But... but... but... if I am a TRUE Christian, I won't WANT to do those things". They will say, "God doesn't work through law anymore (that was the Old Testament 'god'), he uses our wants now. What? You won't WANT to have other gods and have idols, but you will WANT to violate the sabbath, mar your beard, and observe false holy days? Is that right? So the 1st Corinthians trump card only covers those things that we want to do? An aside: I really, truly had a friend tell me this, and I have heard it hundreds of times since then. I was asking him if the Ten Commandments were now abolished in Christ, and he said, "You see, if you are a true Christian, you won't WANT to do those things". I said, "then why don't you WANT to keep the Sabbath?", and he said, "Well, that one was abolished". "Where? I asked." He said, "You don't get it... If I am a Christian, I won't WANT to murder, I won't WANT to steal, I won't WANT to covet". I said, "Yes, but there are TEN commandments in that section, why can you violate one (the sabbath) just because you WANT to?". He had no answer. He said I just didn't get it. But what if I really WANT to prostitute my daughter? Does Christian freedom allow that? I agree with the Apostle Paul... GOD FORBID.
Lord give us the wisdom to reject modern antinomianism and lawlessness and to rightly divide the Word of Truth so that we might keep your Word by your power and strength - and honor and obey you to your glory before men and angels.
Anyway, again Herrick... thanks for the link. My warning to you though, brother. If you keep calling me your friend, and linking to my articles and sermons, you are going to rankle some of the folks in your readership. I would be surprised if you weren't already receiving warnings and hate mail. I do thank you for considering me your friend, and as always I look forward to reading your blog every day.
By way of clarity, so someone doesn't waste his time emailing me and telling me how I am cursed now to continue in ALL of the law. As we have said, Historic Christianity teaches that the laws pertaining to the sacrifice and to the priesthood (the ceremonial and sacrificial law) were abrogated in Christ who is our sacrifice and our Great High Priest (after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron and Levi). The moral law, according to all of Historic Christianity until the Antinomian heresy, is and has been perpetually binding on the true Church, for our good and for the glory of Almighty God.
More to come....
Michael Bunker
.Thank you also Herrick for actually reading or listening to my sermons on The Beard before commenting on it. Some folks don't feel they need to do that. Frankly, the "I prefer the 'Christian' freedom of 1st Corinthians" comments and emails from people who didn't bother to read the sermons just make me sad and disgusted. But, the topic gives me a good place to continue my rant...
So... did you all know that, apparently, the whole book of 1st Corinthians is a "trump" card that eradicates any moral requirements or Godly commands in the Old Testament? A "trump" card is a card you can pull out and it automatically beats any other card. There is this opinion in modernist "christianity" that the Bible is contradictory and that some parts need to be "trumped" by other parts. I know that Paul said "God forbid", but let's run with this theory for a minute. The regulation that Godly men not trim or mar their beards is found in Leviticus the 19th Chapter...
(break for second: Listen, I know that this is repeat information for those of you who actually read or listened to the sermon, I know that there is an enormous section in Part 2 of the beard sermon where I answer objections to the very literal and plain command concerning the shaving of the beard. But many people don't like to read the actual material before they comment on it, thus they missed the very important information)
Anyway, so the regulation on the beard is found in Leviticus the 19th Chapter. Modernist religionists now say that "Christian freedom" (what they mean is Christian license) allows them to throw out any of these old rules and regulations if they don't particularly like them. Historic Christianity taught that all of the MORAL laws of the Old Testament were binding unless particularly abrogated in the New Testament, therefore only the laws concerning the priesthood and the sacrifice - the ceremonial and sacrificial law - were abrogated in the NT. I ran into this "trump card" theology most blatantly one day when I was debating a homosexual in Dallas. According to him, homosexuality is acceptable and the laws against it were all "Old Testament" and therefore didn't apply. I know, you're thinking "but Romans surely condemns it", but you have to know that Homosexuals don't choose to read it that way. It doesn't mean that to them. Besides, if you can use 1st Corinthians to trump one part of the Bible, you can use it on Romans too... right? So, the theory is that homosexuality is now permissible because of "Christian freedom". The same argument, based on the same foundation, is now used to "trump" the plain and blatant regulations on the man's beard.
So, since this very recent "trump card theology" has reared its ugly head, I'm trying to figure out how to use it to my advantage...
SARCASM ALERT (you have to picture this portion as an infomercial for the new BIBLE TRUMP CARD)
There is this verse only a couple of verses after the beard verse in Lev. 19 that has caused me some trouble. You see, I've been wanting to prostitute out my 15 year old daughter (Lev. 19:29), but something kept telling me that it would be wrong. This commandment against that kind of thing kept hindering me from doing whatever the hell I want to do. Thanks to the new "trump card theology" of 1st Corinthians, I now have a clear conscience in doing many things I once mistakenly thought would be wrong! Thanks Trump Card! Here are some other things I've been wanting to do, but from which I have hitherto been hindered:
I've been wanting to... disobey my parents (vs. 1), make a couple of idols to worship (vs. 2), defraud some Christians (vs. 11), swear falsely on the Lord's name (vs. 12), cheat my neighbors and withhold the pay of employees (vs. 13), curse some deaf folks and put stumblingblocks in the path of the blind (vs. 14), mistreat the poor (vs. 15), spread some lies and gossip (vs. 16), hate my neighbor and get revenge (vs. 17,18), get some tattoos for the dead (vs. 28), use some enchantments and witchcraft (vs. 26), etc...
Man... THANKS 1st CORINTHIANS TRUMP CARD!!!!
Now, the modernist free "christian" will say, "But... but... but... if I am a TRUE Christian, I won't WANT to do those things". They will say, "God doesn't work through law anymore (that was the Old Testament 'god'), he uses our wants now. What? You won't WANT to have other gods and have idols, but you will WANT to violate the sabbath, mar your beard, and observe false holy days? Is that right? So the 1st Corinthians trump card only covers those things that we want to do? An aside: I really, truly had a friend tell me this, and I have heard it hundreds of times since then. I was asking him if the Ten Commandments were now abolished in Christ, and he said, "You see, if you are a true Christian, you won't WANT to do those things". I said, "then why don't you WANT to keep the Sabbath?", and he said, "Well, that one was abolished". "Where? I asked." He said, "You don't get it... If I am a Christian, I won't WANT to murder, I won't WANT to steal, I won't WANT to covet". I said, "Yes, but there are TEN commandments in that section, why can you violate one (the sabbath) just because you WANT to?". He had no answer. He said I just didn't get it. But what if I really WANT to prostitute my daughter? Does Christian freedom allow that? I agree with the Apostle Paul... GOD FORBID.
Lord give us the wisdom to reject modern antinomianism and lawlessness and to rightly divide the Word of Truth so that we might keep your Word by your power and strength - and honor and obey you to your glory before men and angels.
Anyway, again Herrick... thanks for the link. My warning to you though, brother. If you keep calling me your friend, and linking to my articles and sermons, you are going to rankle some of the folks in your readership. I would be surprised if you weren't already receiving warnings and hate mail. I do thank you for considering me your friend, and as always I look forward to reading your blog every day.
By way of clarity, so someone doesn't waste his time emailing me and telling me how I am cursed now to continue in ALL of the law. As we have said, Historic Christianity teaches that the laws pertaining to the sacrifice and to the priesthood (the ceremonial and sacrificial law) were abrogated in Christ who is our sacrifice and our Great High Priest (after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron and Levi). The moral law, according to all of Historic Christianity until the Antinomian heresy, is and has been perpetually binding on the true Church, for our good and for the glory of Almighty God.
"But some may ask, "Has not the Law been fully abrogated by the coming of Christ into the world? Would you bring us under that heavy yoke of bondage which none has ever been able to bear? Does not the New Testament expressly declare that we are not under the Law, but under Grace; that Christ was made under the Law to free His people therefrom? Is not an attempt to overawe men’s conscience by the authority of the Decalogue (ten commandments) a legalistic imposition, altogether at variance with that Christian liberty which the Savior has brought in by His obedience unto death?" We answer thus: So far from the Law being abolished by the coming of Christ into this world, He Himself emphatically stated, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets (the enforcers thereof): I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17, 18) . True, the Christian is not under the Law as a Covenant of Works nor as a ministration of condemnation, but he is under it as a rule of life and a means of sanctification." (A.W. Pink - The Ten Commandments)Boy, and I haven't even gotten started yet.
"The black devil of antinomianism is just as wicked and destructive as the white devil of legalism." (Charles Spurgeon)
More to come....
Michael Bunker
posted by Michael Bunker at 6/06/2008 05:31:00 AM
8 Comments:
Like most everyone else, I had never been taught that the OT law had both moral and sacrificial/ceremonial components. Actually, the OT law was always confusing, until I learned to think of it in this light. I'm looking forward to learning and studying more in this area.
BTW, I'm headed over to Slate magazine to see what kind of a hornet's nest Herrick has stirred up. LOL
Judy
Tell us what you REALLY think, Michael.
;-)
The trump card seems to turn up a lot these days. Trouble is, this is not a game we're in. Great illustration and Great post Michael! By the way, I love a good rant!
The antinomians are a confusing group of people, for sure. I liked your sarcastic example, I have tried variations of it with many of my neighbors. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that they never get it, most of them hate the real doctrine of Grace as much as they hate the idea obeying God's Law.
I have found your thoughts very interesting and it has definitely given me something to think about. But how does all this fit in with what Paul said about circumcision? Wasn't that doing away with a significant part of the law? I am merely posing the question as I will have to go back and do some reading on what Paul says and how it pertains to everything else.
Wade,
Thanks for your question. Circumcision was never a moral commandment. Neither was Paul's exposition of circumcision ever a discussion of whether circumcision was wise or binding as a moral law. The Judaizers were requiring circumcision as a requirement for salvation and for "membership" in the Body. Paul's point is that a) circumcision was never given as a command to the gentiles, it had never been a moral commandment, and that it was fulfilled completely and blatantly in the NT where it is contrasted with the circumcision of the heart. Paul's argument for the headcovering is contrasted with his argument against the legalistic requirement for circumcision. I believe that circumcision is wise and intelligent, but I would never require circumcision, beards, headcoverings, etc. as a legalistic requirement for salvation, which is what the Jews were trying to do. Paul says, as it relates to salvation, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything at all. Neither does headcovering or the beard. However, we must learn to differentiate between the moral commandments that Christ required of us (and that John reiterates are the basis by which we show we love God, etc.) and those commandments that were ceremonial types or part of the Levitical sacrifice.
I hope this helps,
Michael Bunker
I havn't read your case on the beard as of yet, however, I have a mustache and goatee kind of thing going that I keep trimmed, etc. Is that 'ok' or do I need to just 'let it go'?
Hi Michael-
I'm a little late reading this entry. Glad to hear that my recommendation of your site got you some extra traffic. As for negative e-mails about you from people who read my blog, that hasn't happened. If it does, however, I will immediatly disassociate myself from you...
I'm kidding. ;-)
You're my brother in the Lord and, though we've not met, I consider you a friend, even if you have more than the usual number of detractors.
What you write often leads me to think about things that need to be thought about, and that's a very good thing. I'm not sure I agree with everything you've advocated in your writings but most of what you've taught is, I believe, entirely scriptural.
You and I have different personalities and a different "tone" when communicating ideas through our writings. You are more direct and forceful while I tend to be more of an observer and storyteller. Both styles can and do serve to teach, inspire, and encourage people who have an ear to hear.
Your friend,
Herrick Kimball
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home