Like John the Baptist, Whitefield was a bight and shining light. His message was the simple gospel of man’s ruin in sin and God’s power in grace. Where sin does abound, grace does much more abound. God is able to save even the most wretched through the shed blood of Christ.

His doctrine was the apostolic doctrine of man’s helplessness in his depravity and God’s sovereignty in the washing of regeneration. He preached an open invitation for all men of all nations to repent and come to Christ in faith. He preached with confidence in knowing that the work of redemption was complete in Christ and that all the redeemed would come to their Redeemer. Christ will have His purchased possession because His grace is effectual.

Whitefield relied not on the autonomous wisdom of men, but in the hidden wisdom of God revealed in Christ. He spent his life’s energy in proclaiming to the lost world the perfection of Christ’s great salvation freely given to His people. The lost message of Whitefield is the lost message of the Gospel.

Christianity is foremost of the heart because in the heart of man is the corruption of sin. The power of Christ’s kingdom is manifest when sin is put to death in the heart. The renewed heart delights in the Law of God and is freed from the outward conformity to the commandments of men. This is the message of liberty that Whitefield came to proclaim in the name of his Master.

That Christ has all authority and has purchased with His own blood dominion over sin and death and that there is nothing outside His dominion and that He is full of mercy for all who will turn to Him: This was the message of Whitefield and Edwards and the other men of the Awakening.

We know that the elitists are tyrants at heart. They do not see the citizen as self determining and responsible for his actions as one accountable before God. By promoting the policies of dependency, they would see us as wards of the state to increase their political power and promote their warped ideas that are contrary to liberty and responsibility. When autonomous wisdom becomes opposed to conscience, it becomes lawless and increases lawlessness.

What is more fundamental than the right to self defense? And where does that right originate? God has clearly spoken and revealed His morality such that men are without excuse. Our conscience bears witness to the command that men are not to murder and God has given the state the authority for capital punishment against those who do. In these things God has forever communicated the sacredness of human life.

The right of self defense is implied in the command to preserve life. This is the Higher Law that is the foundation of the Constitutional guarantee to bear arms. Those who aim to circumvent the Constitutional guidelines despise the Natural Law because it is about individual liberty and responsibility while restricting the powers of the state.

“God gave to Adam a law…by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience…This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness…Beside this law, commonly called moral, there are the ceremonial and judicial laws.” [1689 London Baptist, chapter 19 Of the Law of God]

Equity of the moral law is 1) embodied in a natural law binding upon all men as creatures under the authority of the Creator, and 2) common to moral teaching found in the Scriptures as a whole. Calvin and the Puritans did not allow the judicial laws to define equity; rather conformity to the moral law was the standard against which the Reformers reviewed the judicial laws and isolated the elements of perpetual equity in them.

The following are statements of this hermeneutical perspective given by Calvin in his Institutes, which was of great influence in the rise of Western thought and culture…

"It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.”

"Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves."

“The judicial law, given to [Israel] for civil government, imparted certain formulas of equity and justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably. . . . . The form of their judicial laws, although it had no other intent than how best to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God's eternal law, had something distinct from that precept of love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.”

“But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose…”

"What I have said will become plain if in all laws we examine, as we should, these two things: the constitution of the law, and the equity on which its constitution is itself founded and rests. Equity, because it is natural, cannot but be the same for all, and therefore, this same purpose ought to apply to all laws, whatever their object. Constitutions have certain circumstances upon which they in part depend. It therefore does not matter that they are different, provided all equally press toward the same goal of equity” [Institutes of the Christian Religion].

 

Credits: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/a-godly-society/the-divine-law-of-political-israel-expired-general-equity.php

 

Constitutionalism: Reformed vs Progressive

The American Founders appealed to the authority of Natural Law in the Declaration of Independence. Our Constitution is rooted in the Reformed tradition of general equity. What does this say about the current views of Constitutional Law being espoused at the Kagan hearings? Our law schools have long ago abandoned the Reformed view of law as having its authority in the moral Law of the Creator of heaven and earth. The Progressive view has no such authority to rest on and therefore the arbitrary and the relative are replacing the absolute. In general the Progressive view is opposed to the Natural Law and therefore opposed to the moral Law of God.

Individual liberty is inherent in the Christian world view that sees men as image bearers and responsible moral agents before their Creator. A world view based on atheistic materialism and anti-theistic naturalism operates from a totally different presupposition.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2010/06/25/marriage_petition_case_was_not_a_defeat_for_traditional_marriage

The goal of American constitutionalism is the liberty to pursue righteousness without fear of intimidation. Unalienable rights are those given to men as image bearers to obey the Law of the self-revealed God. To secure these rights is the purpose of the state. That is why a return to righteousness must precede a return to constitutionalism.

Now what can be said of a state that exchanges righteousness for unrighteousness? In a lawless state the goal is to enthrone autonomous wisdom in the place of divine Law and to exchange liberty for tyranny. Liberty is found in the pursuit of righteousness defined by the Law of liberty. Tyranny always opposes righteousness and intimidates those who stand for righteousness.

(Revelation 6:15-17 NKJ)

Is it any surprise that men who deny the first flood of water will also detest the second flood of fire? Shouldn’t we expect that reasonable men who scoff at the stories of a worldwide flood will also despise the descriptions of a second? Those who hide themselves from the truth of the first flood will try to hide themselves from the second.

The acknowledgment of the truthfulness of scripture that describes the past overthrow of the earth’s systems would require, for the sake of consistency, the acknowledgement of the promises of a second overthrow found in that same document. Overthrows of this earth and its systems over issues of sin and righteousness prove to be too disconcerting for many. Personal accountability under a perfect and unyielding justice is a disturbing contemplation for honest people, but a temporary relief can be contrived through denial. To deny judgment provides the denier a temporary measure of relief. If there is no divine judgment against the recalcitrant transgressors of God’s law then transgressors, mild or violent, are soothed. Life as they want it can go on without those nagging thoughts of ultimate accountability.

But what if there really was a previous destruction of the earth? What if that flood was an act of divine wrath against unbelievers? What if that flood was but the first of two great floods of destruction? The 19^th century missionary and pastor James Ramsey, compares the first and second displays of wrath and offers good things for both unbelievers and believers to consider. In this quote Ramsey is considering the words of Revelation 6:15-17.

“We regard it [the wrath of the Lamb] as a description of the utter overthrow of all the world’s powers and organizations, in order to the eternal triumph of this spiritual kingdom. Such a triumph as that here described involves the completest possible revolution in all earthly things, the utter demolition of the whole frame work of society, certainly in all its moral aspects and tendencies, from the highest pinnacles of its power and splendor, to its deepest foundations, and its obscurest recesses. It involves just such a revolution in the social and moral world as geologists say took place at some former period in the physical.

Untold ages ago, they tell us, our whole planet, then filled with those huge vegetable growths, and those mammoth and monstrous animal forms, whose remains still preserve, in their deep beds, their mysterious history, was shaken by the most fearful convulsions, and its whole surface shattered to pieces, and submerged, upheaved in chaos and darkness, in floods and fire, and contorted into entirely new forms and systems, making it, not only in these respects, but in all its productions, too, a new world.

Now, it is here and elsewhere in Scripture clearly revealed, that a revolution equally complete in the whole moral condition of human affairs, and in every thing affected by this, is to be produced by the triumph of the church of Christ, resulting in an order of things as different from the present administration of human governments, the spirit and working of social institutions, the habits of social intercourse, and especially the whole relations of man toward God, as that which some great geologic change would produce on the earth’s physical surface and productions. That such is the certain result of the triumph of the spiritual kingdom on the earth, is the strongest conceivable evidence that all these things, in their whole spirit, and aims, and instrumentalities, and arrangements, are inconsistent with the gospel of the kingdom, and opposed to the reign of Christ so entirely as to require a complete overthrow and transformation. This is indeed making out a bold and broad indictment against the world; and if it can be made good, it must stamp with the guilt of apostacy, or hypocrisy, or rebellion, those who, professing to be Christ’s followers, conform themselves to its maxims, habits, and pursuits; and must prove the folly of those who are looking to the power and the wisdom of the world, in any of its forms, for substantial help in advancing the interests of Christ’s kingdom.”

James Ramsey, Revelation, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995, p. 330-331.

‘I am no Christian, never have been. But even a God denier can't alter history. Though some of us tend to focus on the ugly aspects of religion (and there are plenty), it would be difficult not to concede that liberty, tolerance, basic rights of women, education, free inquiry, free speech and freedom of religion thrive in predominantly Christian nations.’ – David Harsanyi

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2010/06/25/onward,_christian_soldier

It is rare to find an atheist that will acknowledge the truth that liberty is associated with the Law and the Gospel. Most men not only deny God, but also the correlation of the history of redemption with the history of liberty.

It is Biblical Christianity with its view of man in his depravity and the power of the self-revealed God in the gospel that has given rise to the American Bill of Rights. American freedom and prosperity is an anomaly in the history of nations. The French started with human rights in their revolution, but the so called Enlightenment had an insufficient foundation for law and rights based on autonomous reason.

Human rights must be defined in terms of the Natural Law which is a reflection of the moral Law of God revealed in the Ten Commandments. Men have a right of religious liberty because they are image bearers and commanded to worship God in the way He has revealed in the Bible. Men have a right to their own property because the Law commands all men not to murder or steal. Men have a right of conscience because they are commanded not covet or lie. They have a right for honorable marriage because the Law commands sexual purity.

The Law restricts lawlessness, but frees men in their pursuit of righteousness. We are free to do good to all men according to the Law. We honor their conscience in freedom of religion and in truth telling; we honor their life and their property and their marriage by holding these things as sacred.

If design implies purposefulness, then it follows that anything that is without design is also without purpose. Design requires an intelligent designer. We would think that all men would agree with this basis premise. So why do some men disagree by denying that there is design? What is the power behind macro-evolution theory that men would willingly give up basis principles of science and logic to embrace or accommodate a world view that has no design or designer?

There is only one answer that provides an adequate explanation. It is found in the following quote from Jesus Christ in one of His kingdom parables…

“…we will not have this man to reign over us” [Luke 19:14].

There is such enmity between the men of this world against their Sovereign that they will believe a lie in their attempts to suppress the truth of the knowledge of God that is evident in what He has made.

Our cultural decline is consistent with the doctrine of Romans 1. The suppression of truth through godless philosophy is the root cause of lawlessness, including the acceptance of abortion and sodomy.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2010/06/19/from_esther_to_evolution

It is noble of all men and a Christian virtue to help our fellowman from the abundance of our own resources. It is lawlessness for the state to attempt to provide the same help from other men’s resources [after Walter Williams].

The welfare state demonstrates its immorality not only in the thief of another man’s property, but in creating a climate of dependency that holds multiple generations in bondage.

The Christian can challenge the non-Christian approach to interpreting human experience "only if he shows the non-Christian that even in his virtual negation of God, he is still really presupposing God.” He puts the point succinctly in saying: "Anti-theism presupposes theism.” The intellectual achievements of the unbeliever are possible only because he is "borrowing, without recognizing it, the Christian ideas of creation and providence." The non-Christian thus "makes positive contributions to science in spite of his principles" because he is inconsistent.

The first objection that suggests itself may be expressed in the rhetorical question "Do you mean to assert that non-Christians do not discover truth by the methods they employ?" The reply is that we mean nothing so absurd as that. The implication is that non-Christians are never able and therefore never do employ their own method consistently.... The best and only possible proof for the existence of God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world.... Thus there is absolutely certain proof for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism in order to account for their own accomplishments.

The sense of deity on the basis of Paul’s doctrine in Romans 1 provides us with an account of how those who disclaim any belief in God can know much about most subjects. The knowledge of God which every man has as the image of God and as surrounded by God's clear revelation assures us, then, that all men are in contact with the truth. Not even sin in its most devastating expressions can remove this knowledge, for "sin would not be sin except for this ineradicable knowledge of God.” It is this knowledge of God that all men have in common that guarantees that every man can contribute to the progress of science, and that some measure of unity in that task can exist between believers and unbelievers.

The apostle Paul speaks of the natural man as actually possessing the knowledge of God (Rom. 1:19-21). The greatness of his sin lies precisely in the fact that "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God." No man can escape knowing God. It is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever.... We have at once to add Paul's further instruction to the effect that all men, due to the sin within them, always and in all relationships seek to "suppress" this knowledge of God (Rom.1:18).... Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Every man, at bottom, knows that he is a covenant breaker. But every man acts and talks as though this were not so.

Unbelievers have faith as well as believers. But that is due to the fact that they too are creatures of God. Faith therefore always has content. It is against the content of faith as belief in God that man has become an unbeliever. As such he tries to suppress the content of his original faith.... And thus there is no foundation for man's knowledge of himself or of the world at all.... When this faith turns into unbelief this unbelief cannot succeed in suppressing fully the original faith in God. Man as man is inherently and inescapably a believer in God. Thus he can contribute to true knowledge in the universe.

Since self-consciousness presupposes God-consciousness there are no real atheists, only some that make a false profession. Unbelievers are suppressing what they believe about God the Creator. Self-deception involves deception of the self, by the self, about the self, and for the sake of the self. The analysis of self-deception in terms of iterated beliefs, corrigible disavowals, motivated rationalization of evidence, and self-covering intentions can help us better appreciate what Paul says in Romans 1, namely, that "knowing God," all men "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" and that unbelievers culpably deceive themselves about their Maker.

All men know and hence believe that God exists. The revelational evidence is so plain that nobody can avoid holding the conviction that God exists, even though they may never explicitly assent to this belief. We are justified in ascribing such a belief to men on the basis of their observed behavior in reasoning (e.g., relying on the uniformity of nature), in morals (e.g., holding to ethical absolutes in some fashion), and in emotion (e.g., fearing death). Nevertheless, all men are motivated in unrighteousness and by fear of judgment to ignore, hide, and disavow any belief in the living and true God, either through atheism or false religiosity.

"We too insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again," he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100611/D9G9260G0.html

If the Bible is the rule of faith and practice of the New Covenant Church, then what should be said of a church that exchanges the authority of the Bible for the autonomous wisdom of men? Tradition has instituted the priesthood of men over the holy saints who are themselves a royal priesthood with direct access to their Great High Priest. The priesthood of Rome is a mockery of the office of Christ who is the only mediator between God and man. In Christ the veil was rent. The humble saint now has access to the throne of grace in heaven to find mercy in time of need. Rome has reinstituted their unholy veil here on earth, separating men from their real Priest.

And more tradition has produced the celibate priesthood. Here the mockery is compounded with more error, and error always results in the propagation of sinful behavior. In the New Covenant there is no prohibition against a married pastor, but Rome has established its extra-biblical requirements on an unbiblical office. Is their any wonder of the disastrous outcome?

Now it is good when anyone humbles themselves and asks for forgiveness, but this has to be done on a personal level. The pope cannot ask for forgiveness for those who are unrepentant. He nor his priesthood has power to forgive sins. Such an implication is blasphemy. And when he promises “to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again”, he is being insincere. He cannot reform the unbiblical practices in the Roman Church because Rome can never admit error. But the only remedy for this ungodly practice is reform.

Q. Why are you turning to anti-Catholic doctrines?

A. Let’s be clear. Roman Catholicism is opposed to Biblical Christianity and therefore is anti-Christ. Now what greater deception is there for millions to be held captive in an anti-Christian church, while thinking that their church is ordained of God as the only way to Christ, and that all others are outside the fold and need to return, not to God, but to Rome?

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2010/06/09/who_killed_scholarship

Most scientific disciplines have been given English names compounded from two Greek roots, one meaning “organized study,” the other referring to the object of study. Biology is the study of life; geology is the study of the earth, and so on. The ending of each of these words is from the Greek logos, meaning “word.” As a proper name, it is identified in Scripture with the Lord Jesus Christ, as the living Word of God, the Creator of all things (John 1:1–3).

It is providential that Christ should be thus indirectly identified with the study of His creation. Biology is the science of life, and Christ himself is “life” (John 14:6). Geology is the science of the earth, and He is the Creator of the ends of the earth (Isa. 40:28). We could speak of the many others sciences, but all must ultimately be ascribed to Christ, for in Him “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). “By Him were all things created” (Col. 1:16), and He “upholds all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3).

So it follows inescapably that true knowledge of any component of the creation must depend ultimately on the knowledge of Christ and His Word.

Re:  http://townhall.com/columnists/MarybethHicks/2010/06/09/who_would_jesus_offend

Darwinism is the religion of the Leftists. They have erected their idols throughout the culture; it is assumed in the national and state park displays, ad nauseam. The disciples of Darwin indoctrinate the state sponsored religion to a captive audience through the use of government school textbooks.

Challenge this practice from the perspective of religious liberty and observe how tolerance is practiced among the darwinites. The first amendment did not originate with them, nor will it long stand under their influence. If possible, they would remove all crosses, everywhere, because they do not want to retain God in their knowledge.

Q. Why do you call Darwinism a religion rather than science?

A. Science builds on the foundation of existing science. Darwinism would have us tear down the first things of science in order to sustain its theories. Therefore, it is really a vain philosophy disguised as science in order to intimidate its critics.