Here's why I am an eschatological universalist (postmillennial + idealist + eschatological universalist):
Why idealism?
Revelation is a book of symbols. Simply put, placing Revelation's timeline to try to fit and match the signs here and there with historic events leads to baffling inconsistencies in my estimation.
Is the beast:
Nero? (preterism)
Islam? (historicism)
The Pope/Papacy? (historicism, reformed confessions)
One particular man who appears to have power over death, but is in fact an impostor antichrist? (futurism)
Or does it make more sense to take the beast symbolically like we do the rest of Revelation? In which case, the "beast" need not refer to a particular person or office, but particular types of persons and offices (making the beast a typology, not one particular man). The office of antichrist may belong to those who unlawfully claim lordship over God's creation, which would indeed include people like the above mentioned; but I have the advantage because typologies are not historical. I don't need to work to fit all the puzzle pieces together to identify the beast, who appears in different moments of the symbolic timeline of Revelation. The other advantage? I can take much more scripture literally than the other camps, so long as I let symbolic books remain symbolic and not try to apply a historical hermeneutic to them to make sense.
This also allows me to make sense of the "little season" mentioned so often in scripture. Heaven is timeless -- little seasons cannot be timeless, for else they could not be little. Therefore, little season refers to those on the earth, where they must pass through their "little season". That also means that Satan's binding in Revelation 20:3 is not referring to his disability to deceive the nations. Satan is unbound on the earth for a little season, which little season is referring to the history of the church age. What does that mean for the gospel? I'll explain that later.
Revelation clearly describes a symbolic 1000-year period that transpires in heaven. Revelation 20:4-6 (note that this is immediately after Satan is "released" for a little while): "Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."
Those John saw in the vision are those saints who had passed through the "little season" -- they lived on the earth, then died and then went up into the first resurrection -- to reign with Christ. Christ's reign is from heaven. He is seated by the Father's right hand (1 Corinthians 15:25 "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet") and from there he reigns with the saints, where indeed Satan IS bound.
Why postmillennialism?
We are told that Christ must reign until all enemies have been made his footstool: Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 66:1, Luke 20:43, Acts 2:35, Acts 7:49, Hebrews 1:13, Hebrews 10:13, 1 Corinthians 15:27, Ephesians 1:22 Hebrews 2:8.
Where is Christ sitting? Look back at 1 Corinthians 15:
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
(1 Corinthians 15:20-26 ESV)
Where is Christ sitting? At the Father's right hand,
How long does Christ sit there? UNTIL all his enemies are made his footstool.
When will Christ no longer sit there? When he destroys ALL his enemies. The LAST enemied to be destroyed is death.
What happens when Christ destroys death: Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father.
Christ cannot sit at the Father's right hand if he returns before the millennium, during which time people will still die and death has not been destroyed.
Any amillennialist and postmillennialist will agree here. So why "postmil" instead of "amil"?
While the above is in agreement with both the post- and a- camps, I take "postmillennialism" to refer to the general state of the creation: the restoration of the whole world. Amillennialism tends to be mildly pessimistic about the end results of most men. Most amils are inclined to believe that the majority of mankind will end up in hell. Postmils believe that the majority of mankind will be saved.
Why do I believe that the majority of mankind will be saved?
There is no prayer of Jesus that goes unanswered, and the answer is always "yes" (2 Cor 1:18-22), therefore:
The Lord's Prayer will be fulfilled. (Matthew 6)
The Great Commission is now being and will be fulfilled (Matthew 28:18-20) -- "make disciples of all nations"
Jesus has been given the nations as his heritage (Psalm 2:7-9)
The kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our God (Rev 11:15)
The blood of the unrighteous are symbolically numbered in Revelation 14:20. -- This limitation (1600 stadia) is not set upon those who are righteous in Christ.
Ezekiel 37 describes an "exceedingly great army", something which has never been attributed to unbelievers. Too many to count, we are left with the descriptor "exceedingly great army".
Abraham's offspring, rightly understood, was blessed with multiplication, and we are inheritors of that promise, being grafted into Israel through Christ. How many? "as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore" (Genesis 22:15-19)
Bringing things back to the millennium, during which time, the gospel sees success, people turn to the Lord, and learn from his ways, and his law. The word of the Lord judges between the nations, and the result of this? War ends. Swords are beaten into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks, and nations no longer learn war. This is a peaceful period, in the "latter days", which describes the millennium (Isaiah 2:2-5, Joel 3:10, Micah 4:3).
There will be a period of time, when the infants do not die young, and old men do fill out their days, and those who die at the age of 100 will be considered "young", and yet at the same time, unrighteous sinners and unbelievers will experience this effect as well, though they will be "accursed". Our labor won't be in vain, our children will not be borne for calamity, and those who experience this will be the "offspring of the blessed of the Lord, and their descendants with them". Even better? "The wolf and lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food". -- this describes the millennial period, during which time the lifespan of humanity in general is increased, and mankind flourishes because of the blessing of the Lord, yet people still die, because we are not in resurrected bodies (Isaiah 65) -- This will be an untold period of prosperity and peace for the church and the whole earth, because "they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, says the Lord".
-- ad nauseum.
Why eschatological universalism:
Jesus returns to a saved world (all enemies are under his feet) to deliver it to the Father. (1 Cor 15:25-26)
The final apostasy (an amillennial notion) requires that Satan be "bound" for the gospel to have success, and that when Satan is "unbound" to "deceive the nations", the gospel will then fail. The Great Commission fails. This makes the success of the gospel contingent on the binding and loosing of Satan, not on the power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the gospel cannot succeed where Satan is loosed -- rather than the gospel succeeding even though Satan IS loosed! -- which is why the theologian B.B. Warfield said thusly (read at https://www.monergism.com/millennium-and-apocalypse):
"Of course the passage (xx. 1-10) does not give us a direct description of "the intermediate state." We must bear in mind that the book we are reading is written in symbols and gives us a direct description of nothing that it sets before us, but always a direct description only of the symbol by which it is represented. In the preceding vision (xix. 11-21) we had no direct description of the triumph and progress of the Gospel, but only of a fierce and gruesome war: the single phrase that spoke of the slaying sword as "proceeding out of the mouth" of the conqueror alone indicated that it was a conquest by means of persuading words. So here we are not to expect a direct description of the "intermediate state": were such a description given, that would be evidence enough that the intermediate state was not intended, but was rather the symbol of something else. The single hint that it is of the condition of the "souls" of those who have died in Christ and for Christ that the seer is speaking, is enough here to direct our thoughts in the right direction. What is described, or rather, to speak more exactly - for it is a course of events that is brought before us - what is narrated to us is the chaining of Satan "that he should deceive the nations no more"; the consequent security and glory of Christ's hitherto persecuted people; and the subsequent destruction of Satan. It is a description in the form of a narrative: the element of time and chronological succession belongs to the symbol, not to the thing symbolized. The "binding of Satan" is, therefore, in reality, not for a season, but with reference to a sphere; and his "loosing" again is not after a period but in another sphere: it is not subsequence but exteriority that is suggested. There is, indeed, no literal "binding of Satan" to be thought of at all: what happens, happens not to Satan but to the saints, and is only represented as happening to Satan for the purposes of the symbolical picture. What actually happens is that the saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan's assaults. The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on. This is indicated, indeed, in the very employment of the two symbols "a thousand years" and "a little time." A "thousand years" is the symbol of heavenly completeness and blessedness; the "little time" of earthly turmoil and evil. Those in the "thousand years" are safe from Satan's assaults: those outside the thousand years are still enduring his attacks. And therefore he, though with respect to those in the thousand years bound, is not destroyed; and the vision accordingly requires to close with an account of his complete destruction, and of course this also must needs be presented in the narrative form of a release of Satan, the gathering of his hosts and their destruction from above."
In other words, the "millennium" in question refer to believers in heaven, and therefore, to take the "unbinding" of Satan and apply it to the nations of the "world" is contra-contextual to the rest of the vision, especially in the preceding context in which Revelation is referring to the "rest" of believers in the heavely state.
This, of course, denies the notion of the apostasy by referring Revelation 20's "binding" and "loosing" back to the context in which John wrote it. And if there is no "final apostasy" that occurs literally prior to the second advent, then we can take the above verses for postmillennialism to their literal and consistent meaning -- when Christ returns to the earth, he returns to a saved earth.
Friday, August 19, 2016
Friday, July 29, 2016
Why Wayne Grudem Is Wrong About Trump
Grudem wrote this article.
http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564
Some quick thoughts and rebuttals of mine below:
\\As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years, I think their analysis is incorrect. Now that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice.\\
Falsely conflating "GOP nomination" with "morally good choice". This only holds if you believe that the GOP is the "morally good" party. I think it has been clear for many years that this is not the case.
\\A good candidate with flaws
I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.
I did not support Trump in the primary season. I even spoke against him at a pastors’ conference in February. But now I plan to vote for him. I do not think it is right to call him an “evil candidate.” I think rather he is a good candidate with flaws.
He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.\\
I feel like Grudem is deliberately avoiding the scriptures speaking against this.
Egotistical - Jeremiah 17:5
Bombastic - Ephesians 5:1-6
Brash - Jeremiah 9:23-24
Adultery - Matthew 19:4-6, Exodus 20:17, Matthew 15:19, Hebrews 13:4, Proverbs 6:28-29, Proverbs 6:32-33.
Why would anybody want a person who has proudly exhibited the above sins to be leader of a country? If he cannot stay faithful to his wife, what makes us think he will stay faithful to God as a national leader?
\\On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made. I think he is deeply patriotic and sincerely wants the best for the country. He has been an unusually successful problem solver in business. He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for the nation.\\
Aha! The pragmatic argument! The policies that will do the most good for nation are the sort of policies that will put the U.S. into willing submission unto Christ and his laws. Grudem's "a good candidate with flaws" argument falls short because his basis for Trump's "good candidate" status is not based upon the Word of God, but based on his own political presuppositions.
\\Seek the good of the nation
Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely. The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1). Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?\\
Grudem takes this verse out of context. This section of scripture has to deal with God's people continuing to obey the dominion mandate: "Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce" (vv. 5). "Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there and do not decrease" (vv.6). This is the same Genesis 1:28 command. God is reminding his people that they have been given dominion over the earth. The welfare of Jeremiah 29:7 is the RESULT of that dominion being worked out in verses 5 and 6. They are not separate. Grudem should know better than to produce such sour eisegesis. The entire context of this "welfare-seeking" has to be seen in the Gospel; being fruitful and multiply includes marriage, family, and children. It also applies to the church. To seek the welfare of the city (or nation) as a Christian, the best thing you can do is to preach the gospel and to seek God's name glorified. Transformation of society starts with transformation of the church. The welfare of a nation hinges on the welfare of the church.
\\If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?\\
Fallacious reasoning. The reason "liberals like Hillary Clinton win" has nothing to do with those not voting for her, but with those voting FOR HER. To place the blame on third-party voters is to redirect the blame off one group of people. This is another "wasted" vote fallacy. It also presupposes that voting for a write-in candidate is an act that helps Hillary win. Grudem assumes this but cannot prove it. There is good evidence that disaffected voters from both camps are looking at third parties. Grudem is asking people to vote against their consciences by trapping them into a defeatist mindset. No, the only people helping Hillary win are the people VOTING for Hillary. Canvas them if you must, but don't put the blame on third-party voters.
\\Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).\\
If Trump is not interested in outlawing abortion, he is pro-abortion. That is the issue. If Trump is not interested in defending marriage from biblical bounds, he will get no further on the marriage debate because he has no basis. Everybody says he has changed his mind. I don't think he has. There is no true exhibition of any mind-changing taking place. Trump is likely either lying or confused. But his track record should tell us that voting for him means voting for somebody who can and will change his mind on a whim.
Trump's government will still be "big" even if he calls it "conservative". The issue is the "big", not the "liberalism", for to increase government oversight is to increase liberalism. Grudem is right to say that "defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action". but he is wrong to conclude that the means don't matter. He is still being pragmatic, not biblical. Taking James 4:17 to conflate "voting for Trump" with "the right thing to do" is wrong.
\\Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton election, and perhaps not even vote. But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing. The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.” (Obadiah 1:11).\\
Grydem also forgets the basis for political dissent. I'm a reconstructionist, not a covenanter, but here's a good link on why political dissent is a godly option.
https://mintdill.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/why-political-dissent-among-reformed-covenanters/
Here's the meat:
“WE find the Word of God speaks Woe to them that decree unrighteous Decrees, as well as to them that obey and walk willingly after the same [Isa. 10.1; Hos. 5.11]; and therefore we think Magistrates making bad Laws, are to be witnessed against, as well as Ministers or People who obey and follow the same.”
Additional such passages would be,
Is. 8:12, “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy.”
Psalm 94:20-21 “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.”
2 Chronicles 19.2, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?”
Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Based on the fruit that Trump has exhibited, do we believe he is commended by these verses? Or is he condemned by these verses?
\\I am writing this article because I doubt that many “I can’t vote for Trump” Christians have understood what an entirely different nation would result from Hillary Clinton as president, or have analyzed in detail how different a Trump presidency would be. In what follows, I will compare the results we could expect from a Clinton presidency with what we could expect from a Trump presidency.\\
Grudem appeals to an assumed ignorance of those who are #NeverTrump. Very patronizing. I will not work through Grudem's comparison of a possible Clinton presidency vs the possible Trump presidency. But I will say that the appeal to consequences does not make his proposition any better. It's fallacious to say "here are the bad alternatives; therefore, my view is correct". The appeal to consequences is a fallacy and distracts from his ultimate thesis. It does not PROVE that voting for Trump is the morally-right choice.
\\Does character matter?
“But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.
In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.\\
It is not reductionism to stand on the word of God and dissent from the political process or to vote your conscience. When "reductionism" is used against biblical principles, you need to re-think your eisegesis.
\\To my friends who tell me they won’t vote for Trump because there is a chance he won’t govern at all like he promises, I reply that all of American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it is ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a result that is unlikely to happen.
Consider instead the most likely results. The most likely result of voting for Trump is that he will govern the way he promises to do, bringing much good to the nation.\\
Holy circular reasoning, Batman!
\\But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations, thousands of the poor who will never again be able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation’s only healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny.\\
Grudem really thinks that Trump will fix:
abortion,
religious freedom for businesses,
the economy (what with his dismal business record),
social welfare (which the government was never designed to promote! This is a church function!!!),
good education (unsubstantiated; it does not require a degree to have good education),
good healthcare (another church function, which requires more than just "freeing the market" but also requires gospel initiative, which Grudem has shown little in his arguments),
an unchecked ISIS (unsubstantiated; also assumes that the U.S. is the world's watchdog and defender, because we have seen just how much good futzing around in the middle east has been for everybody, especially the orthodox community!!),
millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies (which has not changed since the 1940s; and Hillary herself has stated multiple times that Israel is an ally, so this point is even less substantial)
He is beyond mistaken and decieved. And he will blame you for not voting for his candidate. Isn't that funny? And he will bear the weight of his decision should Trump win and fail to do the above.
Wayne Grudem is wrong about voting for Trump. He is wrong about those who decide not to vote for Trump.
That is all.
http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564
Some quick thoughts and rebuttals of mine below:
\\As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years, I think their analysis is incorrect. Now that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice.\\
Falsely conflating "GOP nomination" with "morally good choice". This only holds if you believe that the GOP is the "morally good" party. I think it has been clear for many years that this is not the case.
\\A good candidate with flaws
I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.
I did not support Trump in the primary season. I even spoke against him at a pastors’ conference in February. But now I plan to vote for him. I do not think it is right to call him an “evil candidate.” I think rather he is a good candidate with flaws.
He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.\\
I feel like Grudem is deliberately avoiding the scriptures speaking against this.
Egotistical - Jeremiah 17:5
Bombastic - Ephesians 5:1-6
Brash - Jeremiah 9:23-24
Adultery - Matthew 19:4-6, Exodus 20:17, Matthew 15:19, Hebrews 13:4, Proverbs 6:28-29, Proverbs 6:32-33.
Why would anybody want a person who has proudly exhibited the above sins to be leader of a country? If he cannot stay faithful to his wife, what makes us think he will stay faithful to God as a national leader?
\\On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made. I think he is deeply patriotic and sincerely wants the best for the country. He has been an unusually successful problem solver in business. He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for the nation.\\
Aha! The pragmatic argument! The policies that will do the most good for nation are the sort of policies that will put the U.S. into willing submission unto Christ and his laws. Grudem's "a good candidate with flaws" argument falls short because his basis for Trump's "good candidate" status is not based upon the Word of God, but based on his own political presuppositions.
\\Seek the good of the nation
Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely. The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1). Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?\\
Grudem takes this verse out of context. This section of scripture has to deal with God's people continuing to obey the dominion mandate: "Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce" (vv. 5). "Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there and do not decrease" (vv.6). This is the same Genesis 1:28 command. God is reminding his people that they have been given dominion over the earth. The welfare of Jeremiah 29:7 is the RESULT of that dominion being worked out in verses 5 and 6. They are not separate. Grudem should know better than to produce such sour eisegesis. The entire context of this "welfare-seeking" has to be seen in the Gospel; being fruitful and multiply includes marriage, family, and children. It also applies to the church. To seek the welfare of the city (or nation) as a Christian, the best thing you can do is to preach the gospel and to seek God's name glorified. Transformation of society starts with transformation of the church. The welfare of a nation hinges on the welfare of the church.
\\If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?\\
Fallacious reasoning. The reason "liberals like Hillary Clinton win" has nothing to do with those not voting for her, but with those voting FOR HER. To place the blame on third-party voters is to redirect the blame off one group of people. This is another "wasted" vote fallacy. It also presupposes that voting for a write-in candidate is an act that helps Hillary win. Grudem assumes this but cannot prove it. There is good evidence that disaffected voters from both camps are looking at third parties. Grudem is asking people to vote against their consciences by trapping them into a defeatist mindset. No, the only people helping Hillary win are the people VOTING for Hillary. Canvas them if you must, but don't put the blame on third-party voters.
\\Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).\\
If Trump is not interested in outlawing abortion, he is pro-abortion. That is the issue. If Trump is not interested in defending marriage from biblical bounds, he will get no further on the marriage debate because he has no basis. Everybody says he has changed his mind. I don't think he has. There is no true exhibition of any mind-changing taking place. Trump is likely either lying or confused. But his track record should tell us that voting for him means voting for somebody who can and will change his mind on a whim.
Trump's government will still be "big" even if he calls it "conservative". The issue is the "big", not the "liberalism", for to increase government oversight is to increase liberalism. Grudem is right to say that "defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action". but he is wrong to conclude that the means don't matter. He is still being pragmatic, not biblical. Taking James 4:17 to conflate "voting for Trump" with "the right thing to do" is wrong.
\\Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton election, and perhaps not even vote. But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing. The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.” (Obadiah 1:11).\\
Grydem also forgets the basis for political dissent. I'm a reconstructionist, not a covenanter, but here's a good link on why political dissent is a godly option.
https://mintdill.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/why-political-dissent-among-reformed-covenanters/
Here's the meat:
“WE find the Word of God speaks Woe to them that decree unrighteous Decrees, as well as to them that obey and walk willingly after the same [Isa. 10.1; Hos. 5.11]; and therefore we think Magistrates making bad Laws, are to be witnessed against, as well as Ministers or People who obey and follow the same.”
Additional such passages would be,
Is. 8:12, “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy.”
Psalm 94:20-21 “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.”
2 Chronicles 19.2, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?”
Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Based on the fruit that Trump has exhibited, do we believe he is commended by these verses? Or is he condemned by these verses?
\\I am writing this article because I doubt that many “I can’t vote for Trump” Christians have understood what an entirely different nation would result from Hillary Clinton as president, or have analyzed in detail how different a Trump presidency would be. In what follows, I will compare the results we could expect from a Clinton presidency with what we could expect from a Trump presidency.\\
Grudem appeals to an assumed ignorance of those who are #NeverTrump. Very patronizing. I will not work through Grudem's comparison of a possible Clinton presidency vs the possible Trump presidency. But I will say that the appeal to consequences does not make his proposition any better. It's fallacious to say "here are the bad alternatives; therefore, my view is correct". The appeal to consequences is a fallacy and distracts from his ultimate thesis. It does not PROVE that voting for Trump is the morally-right choice.
\\Does character matter?
“But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.
In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.\\
It is not reductionism to stand on the word of God and dissent from the political process or to vote your conscience. When "reductionism" is used against biblical principles, you need to re-think your eisegesis.
\\To my friends who tell me they won’t vote for Trump because there is a chance he won’t govern at all like he promises, I reply that all of American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it is ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a result that is unlikely to happen.
Consider instead the most likely results. The most likely result of voting for Trump is that he will govern the way he promises to do, bringing much good to the nation.\\
Holy circular reasoning, Batman!
\\But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations, thousands of the poor who will never again be able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation’s only healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny.\\
Grudem really thinks that Trump will fix:
abortion,
religious freedom for businesses,
the economy (what with his dismal business record),
social welfare (which the government was never designed to promote! This is a church function!!!),
good education (unsubstantiated; it does not require a degree to have good education),
good healthcare (another church function, which requires more than just "freeing the market" but also requires gospel initiative, which Grudem has shown little in his arguments),
an unchecked ISIS (unsubstantiated; also assumes that the U.S. is the world's watchdog and defender, because we have seen just how much good futzing around in the middle east has been for everybody, especially the orthodox community!!),
millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies (which has not changed since the 1940s; and Hillary herself has stated multiple times that Israel is an ally, so this point is even less substantial)
He is beyond mistaken and decieved. And he will blame you for not voting for his candidate. Isn't that funny? And he will bear the weight of his decision should Trump win and fail to do the above.
Wayne Grudem is wrong about voting for Trump. He is wrong about those who decide not to vote for Trump.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Music Recommendation: Pretty Girls Make Graves
One of my favorite but neglected genres of modern rock music is the post-punk revival sort of cacophony. It grabbed my ears maybe a year after high school, which was probably too late to cash in on the scene. By the time I found Pretty Girls Make Graves in 2009, the band was shelved for two years. That doesn't mean I can't be a dreamer.
One of the reticent issues I have with getting into real "punk rock" is that it doesn't always sound very interesting. Usually I find the production a bit furry where it should be clean-shaven. Sometimes I hear a song and think "that was great! -- for thirty seconds". In other words, punk rock has no payoff.
As a music enthusiast, I want crescendo. Better than thirty second crescendos in a song here or there, I want the album to experience a crescendo. When an album has crescendo and masters the musician's impulses with the "not yet... not yet" ethos of the world's greatest epic stories, it captivates me. Pretty Girls Make Graves have made two such enrapturing albums: The New Romance and Elan Vital.
So some time around graduating high school, I had discovered the love of mathcore welling up inside me. Reaching through the Zune marketplace (Yeah I had one of those things and there hasn't been a PMP like it since), I found every bit of music I could find, using Wikipedia as my brainstorming tool of choice. Converge (on the recommendation of high school friend Justin) led me to Botch.
From Botch I was taken toward Minus The Bear and These Arms Are Snakes. From These Arms Are Snakes I was wisted toward Sharks Keep Moving and Kill Sadie. From these bands, I was presented with Pretty Girls Make Graves. Not quite the heritage of Botch and their brand of destructive atonality, but intriguing nonetheless.
PGMG have all the markings of "underrated indie" that I look for. They aren't really "emo", because the music is interested more in art than emotion. They aren't really "punk", because belying the somewhat-aggressive lyrics are the smart cheek-kisses of careful production values. The vocals don't have the razor-sharp overdubbing quality of pop-punk, and neither do they sound like a lawn mower trying to chew up your grandfather's old yard tree stump. Guitars sound crisp, but without the corn-sugar empty spaces taken up by resonance.
So surprising it is, then, that both the radio-friendly Romance and the brooding Elan Vital are such equitable examples of how to do "post-" music without letting the arbitrary experimentation cause creativity overdose.
What makes the music good is that the guitars never seem to follow a formula. Drums don't detract but enhance the identity of the album. And nothing negative could be said of Andrea Zollo's work as a vocalist. The bass is like heavenly sourdough on an equally divine BLT sandwich.
As I listen through PGMG, I'm reminded of how undeservedly short the post-punk revival wave was. There are good examples of bands out there today, but most seem to have become dormant. Every time Drive Like Jehu comes out to play a show, I'm somewhere else. I've missed two or three opportunities since moving to California where I could have seen them. If PGMG would re-unite and tour, I would be the evangelist telling everybody to go see them.
We need to have a conversation about guitars in music today. I like them. I hate them. I mean, I like them when they sound good. I hate them when it's all they sound like. Something that makes PGMG so interesting is the eschewal of "follow the melody" with all their strings. Bass does it like it should. Guitars always seem to be taking turns diving into the ocean of noise. One verse, the strings are screeching and you could mistake them for a confused mathcore headbanger's breakdown; next they are taking turns massaging the listener in the arms of post-rock's orchestrated melting pot of sine waves.
Some moments they invoke the best moments of Circa Survive in the space of fifteen seconds. Then they summon the Franz Ferdinand-oise chops, shredding the strings in measured bursts. Touches of indie-pop electronica pervade their albums in the tinest spaces. PGMG brings new life to the adage that less is more. While they aren't musically minimalist, they are most certainly musically prudent in their usage of noise, guitar, melody, harmony (or lack thereof), and always seem to leave a good taste in my mouth.
Don't miss out. Besides, if Trump gets the next presidency, it might come back for the next four years. I can't imagine a second presidential term would happen anyway.
Nick
One of the reticent issues I have with getting into real "punk rock" is that it doesn't always sound very interesting. Usually I find the production a bit furry where it should be clean-shaven. Sometimes I hear a song and think "that was great! -- for thirty seconds". In other words, punk rock has no payoff.
As a music enthusiast, I want crescendo. Better than thirty second crescendos in a song here or there, I want the album to experience a crescendo. When an album has crescendo and masters the musician's impulses with the "not yet... not yet" ethos of the world's greatest epic stories, it captivates me. Pretty Girls Make Graves have made two such enrapturing albums: The New Romance and Elan Vital.
So some time around graduating high school, I had discovered the love of mathcore welling up inside me. Reaching through the Zune marketplace (Yeah I had one of those things and there hasn't been a PMP like it since), I found every bit of music I could find, using Wikipedia as my brainstorming tool of choice. Converge (on the recommendation of high school friend Justin) led me to Botch.
From Botch I was taken toward Minus The Bear and These Arms Are Snakes. From These Arms Are Snakes I was wisted toward Sharks Keep Moving and Kill Sadie. From these bands, I was presented with Pretty Girls Make Graves. Not quite the heritage of Botch and their brand of destructive atonality, but intriguing nonetheless.
PGMG have all the markings of "underrated indie" that I look for. They aren't really "emo", because the music is interested more in art than emotion. They aren't really "punk", because belying the somewhat-aggressive lyrics are the smart cheek-kisses of careful production values. The vocals don't have the razor-sharp overdubbing quality of pop-punk, and neither do they sound like a lawn mower trying to chew up your grandfather's old yard tree stump. Guitars sound crisp, but without the corn-sugar empty spaces taken up by resonance.
So surprising it is, then, that both the radio-friendly Romance and the brooding Elan Vital are such equitable examples of how to do "post-" music without letting the arbitrary experimentation cause creativity overdose.
What makes the music good is that the guitars never seem to follow a formula. Drums don't detract but enhance the identity of the album. And nothing negative could be said of Andrea Zollo's work as a vocalist. The bass is like heavenly sourdough on an equally divine BLT sandwich.
As I listen through PGMG, I'm reminded of how undeservedly short the post-punk revival wave was. There are good examples of bands out there today, but most seem to have become dormant. Every time Drive Like Jehu comes out to play a show, I'm somewhere else. I've missed two or three opportunities since moving to California where I could have seen them. If PGMG would re-unite and tour, I would be the evangelist telling everybody to go see them.
We need to have a conversation about guitars in music today. I like them. I hate them. I mean, I like them when they sound good. I hate them when it's all they sound like. Something that makes PGMG so interesting is the eschewal of "follow the melody" with all their strings. Bass does it like it should. Guitars always seem to be taking turns diving into the ocean of noise. One verse, the strings are screeching and you could mistake them for a confused mathcore headbanger's breakdown; next they are taking turns massaging the listener in the arms of post-rock's orchestrated melting pot of sine waves.
Some moments they invoke the best moments of Circa Survive in the space of fifteen seconds. Then they summon the Franz Ferdinand-oise chops, shredding the strings in measured bursts. Touches of indie-pop electronica pervade their albums in the tinest spaces. PGMG brings new life to the adage that less is more. While they aren't musically minimalist, they are most certainly musically prudent in their usage of noise, guitar, melody, harmony (or lack thereof), and always seem to leave a good taste in my mouth.
Don't miss out. Besides, if Trump gets the next presidency, it might come back for the next four years. I can't imagine a second presidential term would happen anyway.
Nick
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Music Recommendation: Best of 2015
I'm just gonna tell you guys my favorite releases this year. No particular order.
A couple notes:
I was not able to listen to a bunch of music like I normally do, and not for lack of wanting. I wasn't slacking. I was just working a lot. Probably over-working. Beside that, if year one of a marriage is a shake-up, then it's even more ambiguating than puberty. Not in a bad way.
You will find mostly math rock here. That's because my wife listens to a lot of math rock, and the majority of what she sends to me is math rock. I do listen to songs with lyrics, but it's draining to listen to emotional music and I'm not the sixteen-year-old I once was. I prefer to let most music speak for itself.
This is in no particular order, but if I had to say one of these was my favorite, it would be the latest ASIWYFA release, Heirs. A close second (or maybe first on other days), would be toe's release Hear You. These were probably the best acts I saw this year, and both of them are from overseas. I hope toe comes back to America soon. It's not fair that Japan gets them all the time.
Still up for debate: how to pronounce 'toe'. Is it "toh" like your little toe? Or is it "to-eh" like "I wish I could read Japanese and find out how they write it out"?
This is nowhere close to-eh resolution, but I will probably try listening toh more music in 2016.
Anyway, that's enough about me. Let me tell you more about me through my favorite music releases this year, along with whether or not I saw them in 2015, and a one-sentence description of the album.
Oh, and here's the playlist:
Toe - Hear You - and I saw them live.
Syncopation at its Japanese finest, like listening to a jam band's collective dream.
And So I Watch You From Afar - Heirs - and I saw them live.
Quiet moments and raucous crescendo.
The Oh Hellos - Dear Wormwood - and I saw them live.
Eschatological poetry put to the sympathies of folk-indie rock.
Grinstead - Hymns
A good and varied example of how to make old hymns taste good to newer ears.
mewithoutYou - Pale Horses - and I saw them live.
The simultaneously resolved and resigned spoken word-indie rock with one part maturity, two parts poetry, and two parts gray hair.
El Ten Eleven - Fast Forward - and I think I saw them live this year. But I don't remember. I've seen them a whole bunch.
Two-piece work of wonder, with an injection of EDM sensibilities multiplied by chillwave.
Between The Buried And Me - Coma Ecliptic - and I saw them live.
Progressive Metalcore.
Sufjan Stevens - Carrie & Lowell
Trans-Episcopalian anti-folk.
And here are my favorite bands I saw live this year. The State of California should thank me for all the tolls I paid going across their silly bridges. (about 50% of these were in San Francisco. Probably 25% of these bands played at Bottom Of The Hill).
BTBAM
Animals As Leaders
Toe
Eisley
ASIWYFA
mewithoutYou
Mylets
Pinback (Thanks guys for the music)
Mae (Everglow 10-year Anniversary!!)
Dustin Kensrue
The Oh Hellos
MuteMath (finally)
Future Of Forestry (Just kidding, I had the headache from hell and missed their Christmas music show).
A couple notes:
I was not able to listen to a bunch of music like I normally do, and not for lack of wanting. I wasn't slacking. I was just working a lot. Probably over-working. Beside that, if year one of a marriage is a shake-up, then it's even more ambiguating than puberty. Not in a bad way.
You will find mostly math rock here. That's because my wife listens to a lot of math rock, and the majority of what she sends to me is math rock. I do listen to songs with lyrics, but it's draining to listen to emotional music and I'm not the sixteen-year-old I once was. I prefer to let most music speak for itself.
This is in no particular order, but if I had to say one of these was my favorite, it would be the latest ASIWYFA release, Heirs. A close second (or maybe first on other days), would be toe's release Hear You. These were probably the best acts I saw this year, and both of them are from overseas. I hope toe comes back to America soon. It's not fair that Japan gets them all the time.
Still up for debate: how to pronounce 'toe'. Is it "toh" like your little toe? Or is it "to-eh" like "I wish I could read Japanese and find out how they write it out"?
This is nowhere close to-eh resolution, but I will probably try listening toh more music in 2016.
Anyway, that's enough about me. Let me tell you more about me through my favorite music releases this year, along with whether or not I saw them in 2015, and a one-sentence description of the album.
Oh, and here's the playlist:
Toe - Hear You - and I saw them live.
Syncopation at its Japanese finest, like listening to a jam band's collective dream.
And So I Watch You From Afar - Heirs - and I saw them live.
Quiet moments and raucous crescendo.
The Oh Hellos - Dear Wormwood - and I saw them live.
Eschatological poetry put to the sympathies of folk-indie rock.
Grinstead - Hymns
A good and varied example of how to make old hymns taste good to newer ears.
mewithoutYou - Pale Horses - and I saw them live.
The simultaneously resolved and resigned spoken word-indie rock with one part maturity, two parts poetry, and two parts gray hair.
El Ten Eleven - Fast Forward - and I think I saw them live this year. But I don't remember. I've seen them a whole bunch.
Two-piece work of wonder, with an injection of EDM sensibilities multiplied by chillwave.
Between The Buried And Me - Coma Ecliptic - and I saw them live.
Progressive Metalcore.
Sufjan Stevens - Carrie & Lowell
Trans-Episcopalian anti-folk.
And here are my favorite bands I saw live this year. The State of California should thank me for all the tolls I paid going across their silly bridges. (about 50% of these were in San Francisco. Probably 25% of these bands played at Bottom Of The Hill).
BTBAM
Animals As Leaders
Toe
Eisley
ASIWYFA
mewithoutYou
Mylets
Pinback (Thanks guys for the music)
Mae (Everglow 10-year Anniversary!!)
Dustin Kensrue
The Oh Hellos
MuteMath (finally)
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Music Recommendation: UnderØATH: Ø (Disambiguation)
UnderØath has always been one of my favorite bands.
I know they broke up and now I guess they are back together. And while I think I have moved on from the phase in life where all I listened to was metal music --
When I was 14, I used to have a binary test for whether or not a metal band was good. It was:
Is the band UnderØath? Yes=1 No=0. I didn't make a lot of friends for a while.
-- I can always find myself crawling back to the accessibility in Florida-native UØ's brand of distortion.
--
I discovered UnderØath when I got a Tooth and Nail sampler of 96kbps tracks from their up-and-comer's. It was probably "It's Dangerous Business Walking Out Your Front Door". I could never remember the whole track name. All I remembered was SCREAMING. And SINGING. And SCREAMING. And SCREAMING. It was SCREAMO
Then I borrowed They're Only Chasing Safety from Justin who was in the 10th grade, and listened to it on my Phillip's portable CD player with my Panasonic clip-on earphones, for probably three hours straight on a field-trip to the Phoenix Art Museum (or something like that). I was enamored with the noise. But I was mostly enamored with "I'm Content With Losing". I couldn't get over it. It was SCREAMO
Well, I had to give the CD back, but then I got it again and ripped it to my PC and it was bomb's away. Over a period of a couple months, it was all I could listen to.
Well, over the summer between 9th and 10th grade, I managed to borrow a copy of Define The Great Line from Thomas who was in the same grade I was. Over a period of a couple years, it was all I could listen to.
Well, over the summer between 11th and 12th grade, I managed to buy a copy of Lost In The Sound Of Separation with my own money. Over a period of a couple years, it was all I---
My dang brother managed to find the .mp3 files I made of that album and proceeded to over-play "Too Bright to See, Too Loud to Hear" (literally for hours, same song, repeat, for like a year). Well, Josh and I both had an appreciation for the juxtaposition of Aaron Gillespie's clean vocals against the heavy-shred bleeding esophagus of Spencer Chamberlain. I still really enjoy the album but it took a few years of maturity to get over the sibling-jealousy I had for My Favorite Band. I started listening to UnderOath because nobody else in my family wanted to listen to it and he had to go and "ruin" it by enjoying it like I enjoy it.
But I'm more hardcore, see? I actually think it is UnderOath's Ø (Disambiguation) that stands on the pedestal of Magnum Opus. I think it is the best album they ever created.
And innumerably I've been told I was wrong. Nobody likes it. Well, some people like it. But seriously, nobody likes it.
Why? Because UØ always ran on the fuel mixture, a stoichiometric concoction of SCREAM/CLEAN DISTORTION/EXPERIMENTAL LYRIC/INSTRUMENTAL HAPPY/ANGRY UPLIFTING/DEPRESSING music that got them the label deal, that got them millions of albums sold, that got them on the fathers of crossover music list. They were giving into that patriarchy, the one that said "you'll only sell music if Adam D likes it".
Subsequently, bands like Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying, and HASTE THE DAY were winning the battle at the release of 2010's gooder metal album. I don't really like to talk about it.
No, Disambiguation was the kind of album that makes a person think twice about its merits. It isn't an instantaneous joy-ride. It's thoughtful, and deep, and tragic like the last famous battles of warriors long past dead. It's the kind of progressive that makes you uncomfortable because you didn't think music made you feel like this.
I'm convinced that it is the best metal album to ever come out of a Solid State band (with the exceptions of maybe The Chariot's The Fiance and The Chariot's Wars And Rumors Of Wars), sheerly due to the creative force that was unleashed by the depature of last remaining original member Aaron Gillespie from the band. (I love The Almost, and I think that Aaron is a very good musician, so this isn't so much an insult as pure observation and conjecture).
It really takes some listening with Ø (Disambiguation). It's an acquired taste. It's not easy like the previous stuff. You aren't given the respite of soft vocals with emotive lyrics. You're stuck listening to the whole thing;
like you're standing in the Tower of Terror line,
waiting to get to the place where you sit,
where they take up you up,
where they send you up and down,
and the whole thing is uncomfortable.
You have to let it grow on you. And then you reap the rewards of your patient ears, the feeling of microgravity for that split second where if you dropped your phone, it would float there with you all the way down.
And then the drop stops.
And shoots you up.
And then drops you again.
And then you're released back to the wild wondering what happened to your ears and why the breath in your lungs is aching for community.
That's Ø (Disambiguation) in a nutshell. I can only explain it by metaphor because there is no simile to suit it. It's incomparable. It's deep. But not deep in the bungie-jumping way. Deep in the "leagues under the ocean" fashion.
It isn't fashionable. And that's why it suits my fancy.
Recommended listens:
In Division
Paper Lung
Who Will Guard The Guardians
Vacant Mouth
I know they broke up and now I guess they are back together. And while I think I have moved on from the phase in life where all I listened to was metal music --
When I was 14, I used to have a binary test for whether or not a metal band was good. It was:
Is the band UnderØath? Yes=1 No=0. I didn't make a lot of friends for a while.
-- I can always find myself crawling back to the accessibility in Florida-native UØ's brand of distortion.
--
I discovered UnderØath when I got a Tooth and Nail sampler of 96kbps tracks from their up-and-comer's. It was probably "It's Dangerous Business Walking Out Your Front Door". I could never remember the whole track name. All I remembered was SCREAMING. And SINGING. And SCREAMING. And SCREAMING. It was SCREAMO
Then I borrowed They're Only Chasing Safety from Justin who was in the 10th grade, and listened to it on my Phillip's portable CD player with my Panasonic clip-on earphones, for probably three hours straight on a field-trip to the Phoenix Art Museum (or something like that). I was enamored with the noise. But I was mostly enamored with "I'm Content With Losing". I couldn't get over it. It was SCREAMO
Well, I had to give the CD back, but then I got it again and ripped it to my PC and it was bomb's away. Over a period of a couple months, it was all I could listen to.
Well, over the summer between 9th and 10th grade, I managed to borrow a copy of Define The Great Line from Thomas who was in the same grade I was. Over a period of a couple years, it was all I could listen to.
Well, over the summer between 11th and 12th grade, I managed to buy a copy of Lost In The Sound Of Separation with my own money. Over a period of a couple years, it was all I---
My dang brother managed to find the .mp3 files I made of that album and proceeded to over-play "Too Bright to See, Too Loud to Hear" (literally for hours, same song, repeat, for like a year). Well, Josh and I both had an appreciation for the juxtaposition of Aaron Gillespie's clean vocals against the heavy-shred bleeding esophagus of Spencer Chamberlain. I still really enjoy the album but it took a few years of maturity to get over the sibling-jealousy I had for My Favorite Band. I started listening to UnderOath because nobody else in my family wanted to listen to it and he had to go and "ruin" it by enjoying it like I enjoy it.
But I'm more hardcore, see? I actually think it is UnderOath's Ø (Disambiguation) that stands on the pedestal of Magnum Opus. I think it is the best album they ever created.
And innumerably I've been told I was wrong. Nobody likes it. Well, some people like it. But seriously, nobody likes it.
Why? Because UØ always ran on the fuel mixture, a stoichiometric concoction of SCREAM/CLEAN DISTORTION/EXPERIMENTAL LYRIC/INSTRUMENTAL HAPPY/ANGRY UPLIFTING/DEPRESSING music that got them the label deal, that got them millions of albums sold, that got them on the fathers of crossover music list. They were giving into that patriarchy, the one that said "you'll only sell music if Adam D likes it".
Subsequently, bands like Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying, and HASTE THE DAY were winning the battle at the release of 2010's gooder metal album. I don't really like to talk about it.
No, Disambiguation was the kind of album that makes a person think twice about its merits. It isn't an instantaneous joy-ride. It's thoughtful, and deep, and tragic like the last famous battles of warriors long past dead. It's the kind of progressive that makes you uncomfortable because you didn't think music made you feel like this.
I'm convinced that it is the best metal album to ever come out of a Solid State band (with the exceptions of maybe The Chariot's The Fiance and The Chariot's Wars And Rumors Of Wars), sheerly due to the creative force that was unleashed by the depature of last remaining original member Aaron Gillespie from the band. (I love The Almost, and I think that Aaron is a very good musician, so this isn't so much an insult as pure observation and conjecture).
It really takes some listening with Ø (Disambiguation). It's an acquired taste. It's not easy like the previous stuff. You aren't given the respite of soft vocals with emotive lyrics. You're stuck listening to the whole thing;
like you're standing in the Tower of Terror line,
waiting to get to the place where you sit,
where they take up you up,
where they send you up and down,
and the whole thing is uncomfortable.
You have to let it grow on you. And then you reap the rewards of your patient ears, the feeling of microgravity for that split second where if you dropped your phone, it would float there with you all the way down.
And then the drop stops.
And shoots you up.
And then drops you again.
And then you're released back to the wild wondering what happened to your ears and why the breath in your lungs is aching for community.
That's Ø (Disambiguation) in a nutshell. I can only explain it by metaphor because there is no simile to suit it. It's incomparable. It's deep. But not deep in the bungie-jumping way. Deep in the "leagues under the ocean" fashion.
It isn't fashionable. And that's why it suits my fancy.
Recommended listens:
In Division
Paper Lung
Who Will Guard The Guardians
Vacant Mouth
Friday, November 27, 2015
Music Recommendation: Jimmy Eat World: Clarity
"Hey man."
"Hey."
"Hey, I got a music question for you."
"OK, shoot."
"OK, so have you ever heard of Jimmy Eat World?"
"Yes! I love that band. They are probably my favorite band."
"Dude! Yeah me too. Like, Bleed American is so good, man."
...
end conversation.
So, you say you like Jimmy Eat World. You say you jumped on before they were ALL BIG. You got into them before they made the decision to change "Bleed American" to "Jimmy Eat World" because of post 9/11 sympathies. You heard "The Middle" and you liked it before the video, before the radio play, before everyone else saw them in concert. Well guess what. You're a poser.
You're a poser like your dad's love for the C3 Corvette. You're a poser like Christian butt rock. You're a weirdo who tried to be cool. You got left in the dust because the 90's weren't with you like you were with them. You were watching "Hey! Arnold" because it was on T.V., not because it was transcendent. You were sitting in the bathroom picking your nose in the stall. You were not listening to Clarity.
Clarity.
Now, I'll be honest and say this up front: I discovered Futures before any other Jimmy Eat World album came to my ears. I discovered them because my friend Nathaniel told me they were good. He had the "deluxe edition" and I had a CD player so I just borrowed the thing for nigh-near two years, just to give it back scratched and well-worn. Thanks Nathaniel.
McDaniel had this protomillenial habit of collecting myriads of burned CDs with low-fi MP3 tracks from all sorts of crap audio on it. Remember when the iPod was not a household name back in 2005? That's when we were burning CDs and dealing with the awful two-second pause in between tracks, because both iTunes and Windows Media Player were pathetic and weren't interested in giving us the full experience. We had to be economic. You had 80 minutes and it was a waste to use less than all 80 revolutions of the second hand. We weren't torrenting. Some of us had dial-up. We had to burn our stuff to laser disks because upload speeds were in the 128-768kbps range and we had time limits on how much we could use the computer. We were using MSN messenger. Or AOL. or Yahoo.
And myspace. oh myspace.
So anyway, Nathaniel gave me one of those plastic holders that came holding fifty blank CD-Rs, and he gave it to me with about fifty used CD-Rs. There's a long list of bands I could be thanking Nathaniel for, but really, this is about Clarity. This is about the time I discovered a CD full of Jimmy Eat World tracks and most of them were from Clarity. This is about the time I got used to the inevitable skipping that comes with the peeling surface of cheap CD-Rs. This is about the time when I discovered my favorite album and couldn't drop it.
No, I've carried Clarity with me for years.
So eventually I was able to scrounge up a couple bucks and find Clarity at Barnes and Noble. It was miraculous. Fifteen year-old me found an album he had been wanting since he heard the first couple tracks off of it. All the redbook audio quality. No more track skipping.
Enter "Table For Glasses." The beauty of the first track is its understatement. In fact. Clarity is an album of understatements. The first track is just the understatement of the album of understatements. It's the breaking voice in the middle of "hello". It's the gasp for air after you've exhaled and delayed breathing. It isn't so much deep as it is wide. That's not to say that Clarity lacks depth. But you have to get past the second syllable of the proverbial understatement to get anywhere. It takes a certain kind of viligence to keep listening for the subtlety.
You get to the first single of the song "Lucky Denver Mint". The chorus sings
You're not bigger than this
not better. why can't you learn?
I'm not really certain why this song got the "single". I'm not sure that there's any song here that really commands radio time. And that's alright. That's part of the charm.
"Your New Aesthetic" comes on and suddenly you're anti-nostalgiating forward to "Nothing Wrong", the only RADIO PUNK on Futures. This is the roots of the angry political JEW that we've all come to know or skip tracks.
"Believe in What You Want" is probably the only track I ever consider skipping. Why? I don't know. It's just as good as the others. I just have impossible standards.
"A Sunday" -- Now here's where the album gets good. Here's where the album goes from standard emo father fare to underproduced beauty. From this point forward, the album goes uphill and fast. You've survived the last three songs just to get to this one. You've pulled up to the top of the coaster and you're on the brink of heading to oblivion.
"Crush" -- The second "Believe in What You Want" but twice as good. It's got the typical Mark Trombino flare you find everywhere. It's because of tracks and albums like this that got me into Drive Like Jehu (Trombino drums for them).
12.23.95 - Merry Christmas, baby - Enough said.
"Ten" -- The trifecta begins with the under-the-table whiskey drink song. Listen to the chorus. Listen to the piano. Listen to the drums. Listen to the beat. The syncopation. And then listen to Blame no one. Blame no one.
"Just Watch The Fireworks" -- The second of the sweet trilogy. I'm always stuck between this song and the next for "best song ever". This song has the exposition of musical themes. Strings. That epic Jimmy Eat World build-up stolen by many a worship drummer years over.
"For Me This Is Heaven" -- The prestige. The reveal. The heart swoon. The nail in the coffin which drives in home this thought "Yes, this is the best Jimmy Eat World Album Ever." So famous is the chorus line that the re-master released in 2007 featured the lyric on the CD front.
"Blister" -- Good ol' rocking Jimmy Eat World.
"Clarity" -- The one before the big one.
"Goodbye Sky Harbor" -- The one that puts you to sleep. I don't mean that in a bad way. It goes from emo, to alternative-ish... to synthesizers. To the fade-out. It takes 13 minutes and you shouldn't ask for it back.
__
It's not my typical to do any track-by-track. I'm not even sure the above is good advice or good descriptions. But I swear this is my favorite album.
Lots of other bands that I like have made three albums in a row that correspond with the Jimmy Eat World format.
There's the Clarity, the underproduced one that sounds perfect, but only in practice. It doesn't make sense until you've listened to that album as whole, and it cements itself as your favorite because this is the one where you suddenly see everything clearly.
Then there's the Bleed American, the one that everyone likes. The one with all the singles. The one that warrants the most track skips because you really only care about the singles. Yeah, that's the one. Yeah, "Bleed American" is one of the hardest songs ever, bro. Nobody cares.
Lastly, there's Futures, the one that everyone should like. The one with all the brains. The one that somehow perfectly engineered the production process to keep all authenticity inward and all the pretension and pop-sensibility away. The one that you know should really be your favorite, but you wouldn't call it the "best" album.
See, bands like Death Cab For Cutie, and Sufjan Stevens have albums that fit under these. Not necessarily in the same release orders.
Clarity - Transatlanticism - Seven Swans
Bleed American - Plans - Illinois
Futures - Narrow Stairs - Michigan
I think about it now.
Just ignore that guy that says things like "Static Prevails was the best Jimmy Eat World album, and I really only listen to the Photo album. And Enjoy Your Rabbit was back when Sufjan was real."
I never really have gotten over Clarity. It's the album that started me down understated drums. It's the album that stopped me from listening to emo-pop (with few exceptions like Taking Back Sunday). It's the album that stopped me from thinking about death and more about learning to live. Futures was all about dying to me. A guy from high school named David passed and all I could listen to was "Pain" and "23" and think about growing old. Clarity was really about learning to live with consequences. Learning to move on. I guess I haven't learned that lesson yet.
Nick
"Hey."
"Hey, I got a music question for you."
"OK, shoot."
"OK, so have you ever heard of Jimmy Eat World?"
"Yes! I love that band. They are probably my favorite band."
"Dude! Yeah me too. Like, Bleed American is so good, man."
...
end conversation.
So, you say you like Jimmy Eat World. You say you jumped on before they were ALL BIG. You got into them before they made the decision to change "Bleed American" to "Jimmy Eat World" because of post 9/11 sympathies. You heard "The Middle" and you liked it before the video, before the radio play, before everyone else saw them in concert. Well guess what. You're a poser.
You're a poser like your dad's love for the C3 Corvette. You're a poser like Christian butt rock. You're a weirdo who tried to be cool. You got left in the dust because the 90's weren't with you like you were with them. You were watching "Hey! Arnold" because it was on T.V., not because it was transcendent. You were sitting in the bathroom picking your nose in the stall. You were not listening to Clarity.
Clarity.
Now, I'll be honest and say this up front: I discovered Futures before any other Jimmy Eat World album came to my ears. I discovered them because my friend Nathaniel told me they were good. He had the "deluxe edition" and I had a CD player so I just borrowed the thing for nigh-near two years, just to give it back scratched and well-worn. Thanks Nathaniel.
McDaniel had this protomillenial habit of collecting myriads of burned CDs with low-fi MP3 tracks from all sorts of crap audio on it. Remember when the iPod was not a household name back in 2005? That's when we were burning CDs and dealing with the awful two-second pause in between tracks, because both iTunes and Windows Media Player were pathetic and weren't interested in giving us the full experience. We had to be economic. You had 80 minutes and it was a waste to use less than all 80 revolutions of the second hand. We weren't torrenting. Some of us had dial-up. We had to burn our stuff to laser disks because upload speeds were in the 128-768kbps range and we had time limits on how much we could use the computer. We were using MSN messenger. Or AOL. or Yahoo.
And myspace. oh myspace.
So anyway, Nathaniel gave me one of those plastic holders that came holding fifty blank CD-Rs, and he gave it to me with about fifty used CD-Rs. There's a long list of bands I could be thanking Nathaniel for, but really, this is about Clarity. This is about the time I discovered a CD full of Jimmy Eat World tracks and most of them were from Clarity. This is about the time I got used to the inevitable skipping that comes with the peeling surface of cheap CD-Rs. This is about the time when I discovered my favorite album and couldn't drop it.
No, I've carried Clarity with me for years.
So eventually I was able to scrounge up a couple bucks and find Clarity at Barnes and Noble. It was miraculous. Fifteen year-old me found an album he had been wanting since he heard the first couple tracks off of it. All the redbook audio quality. No more track skipping.
Enter "Table For Glasses." The beauty of the first track is its understatement. In fact. Clarity is an album of understatements. The first track is just the understatement of the album of understatements. It's the breaking voice in the middle of "hello". It's the gasp for air after you've exhaled and delayed breathing. It isn't so much deep as it is wide. That's not to say that Clarity lacks depth. But you have to get past the second syllable of the proverbial understatement to get anywhere. It takes a certain kind of viligence to keep listening for the subtlety.
You get to the first single of the song "Lucky Denver Mint". The chorus sings
You're not bigger than this
I'm not really certain why this song got the "single". I'm not sure that there's any song here that really commands radio time. And that's alright. That's part of the charm.
"Your New Aesthetic" comes on and suddenly you're anti-nostalgiating forward to "Nothing Wrong", the only RADIO PUNK on Futures. This is the roots of the angry political JEW that we've all come to know or skip tracks.
"Believe in What You Want" is probably the only track I ever consider skipping. Why? I don't know. It's just as good as the others. I just have impossible standards.
"A Sunday" -- Now here's where the album gets good. Here's where the album goes from standard emo father fare to underproduced beauty. From this point forward, the album goes uphill and fast. You've survived the last three songs just to get to this one. You've pulled up to the top of the coaster and you're on the brink of heading to oblivion.
"Crush" -- The second "Believe in What You Want" but twice as good. It's got the typical Mark Trombino flare you find everywhere. It's because of tracks and albums like this that got me into Drive Like Jehu (Trombino drums for them).
12.23.95 - Merry Christmas, baby - Enough said.
"Ten" -- The trifecta begins with the under-the-table whiskey drink song. Listen to the chorus. Listen to the piano. Listen to the drums. Listen to the beat. The syncopation. And then listen to Blame no one. Blame no one.
"Just Watch The Fireworks" -- The second of the sweet trilogy. I'm always stuck between this song and the next for "best song ever". This song has the exposition of musical themes. Strings. That epic Jimmy Eat World build-up stolen by many a worship drummer years over.
"For Me This Is Heaven" -- The prestige. The reveal. The heart swoon. The nail in the coffin which drives in home this thought "Yes, this is the best Jimmy Eat World Album Ever." So famous is the chorus line that the re-master released in 2007 featured the lyric on the CD front.
"Blister" -- Good ol' rocking Jimmy Eat World.
"Clarity" -- The one before the big one.
"Goodbye Sky Harbor" -- The one that puts you to sleep. I don't mean that in a bad way. It goes from emo, to alternative-ish... to synthesizers. To the fade-out. It takes 13 minutes and you shouldn't ask for it back.
__
It's not my typical to do any track-by-track. I'm not even sure the above is good advice or good descriptions. But I swear this is my favorite album.
Lots of other bands that I like have made three albums in a row that correspond with the Jimmy Eat World format.
There's the Clarity, the underproduced one that sounds perfect, but only in practice. It doesn't make sense until you've listened to that album as whole, and it cements itself as your favorite because this is the one where you suddenly see everything clearly.
Then there's the Bleed American, the one that everyone likes. The one with all the singles. The one that warrants the most track skips because you really only care about the singles. Yeah, that's the one. Yeah, "Bleed American" is one of the hardest songs ever, bro. Nobody cares.
Lastly, there's Futures, the one that everyone should like. The one with all the brains. The one that somehow perfectly engineered the production process to keep all authenticity inward and all the pretension and pop-sensibility away. The one that you know should really be your favorite, but you wouldn't call it the "best" album.
See, bands like Death Cab For Cutie, and Sufjan Stevens have albums that fit under these. Not necessarily in the same release orders.
Clarity - Transatlanticism - Seven Swans
Bleed American - Plans - Illinois
Futures - Narrow Stairs - Michigan
I think about it now.
Just ignore that guy that says things like "Static Prevails was the best Jimmy Eat World album, and I really only listen to the Photo album. And Enjoy Your Rabbit was back when Sufjan was real."
I never really have gotten over Clarity. It's the album that started me down understated drums. It's the album that stopped me from listening to emo-pop (with few exceptions like Taking Back Sunday). It's the album that stopped me from thinking about death and more about learning to live. Futures was all about dying to me. A guy from high school named David passed and all I could listen to was "Pain" and "23" and think about growing old. Clarity was really about learning to live with consequences. Learning to move on. I guess I haven't learned that lesson yet.
Nick
Friday, November 13, 2015
Music Recommendation: Norma Jean: Bless The Martyr And Kiss The Child
White tie. Black Jacket. I ain't see you in a while.
Your whites shine, black velvet. I ain't seen you in a while.
You're slick, a slick and polished mess. I ain't see you in a while.
Let's just face the facts. And get back to the basic form.
^^
The lyrics above belong to a song that's like SEVEN minutes long.
I don't know if I'm going to be making a point here. I'm just once again revisiting an album that I enjoy and endear to my adolescence.
Norma Jean is now a very recognizable metal band. But from back when Christian metal was a thing, this album probably set an impossibly high bar. Everyone can limbo but nobody can jump higher. Except for The Chariot but that's a blog for another day.
A Solid State pandora's box of slam-dancing, incoherent and illiterate guitar screeches, cacophonous crashing drums, with a dash of "God" here, "Jesus" - there. "Christ" speckled over the oblivion of screams, absence of overdub, guitar-flavored distortion, and the lyrics of a poet.
Have I talked about the lyrics?
Do you get it now?
By way of disclaimer, this album was done back before Josh Scogin split to raise up the screaming adulation of METALCORE fans with his third labeled band, The Chariot; a comparison with who would not be fair. Neither do I believe it fair to make Cory Brandan's headship face:face with Scogin's brand of incoherence. All this to say, I have two favorite Norma Jean albums, and this is one of them. The other one (NJ's latest which I've already talked about here) is a standup album by its own right. It has its own merits and it would be obtuse to compare this album from 2002 with a different headman to their recent releases.
But back when, I was a child, see? And I spoke in hyperbole because metaphor was too similar. I said "This is the best Norma Jean album". And I was right, see? Because I had all the ideas figured out. Bless The Martyr... is the most crunchiest, distorted, absolutist, atonal, progressive,thrash drunken cousin metal rock band album to come out. Back in 2006 when the harmony of Underoath
--[Yes they are still a good band, and Disambiguation was the best they ever released]
--wasn't really RESONATING with my teenage tumult into romances and long nights wasting away with thoughts of holding hands and breathing shared air with a nameless ideal, I turned my face toward Norma Jean's Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child.
Resonance? DISSONANCE.
Meter? AMBIMETER.
Singing? SCREAMING.
Pose? POISE.
Dishes? MUSIC
Catharsis? SURFING ON LAVA
Guitars? Experimental music? WHATEVER MAN IT'S JUST NOISE
I don't know what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the ~16 minute Pretty Soon, I Don't Know What, But Something is Going to Happen is 16 minutes long, man, and it's gonna blow your mind. It's so long, they actually have a longer official name for it which Wikipedia used to reference but no longer does. Why? Because everyone who edits Wikipedia was my age when they were my age, and now they are older and they don't have time to remember obscure 16 minute song titles from an obscure album from their obscure teenhood. I don't either. I'm too busy listening to math rock to listen to mathcore anymore.
Did I tell you about the lyrics?
Norma Jean, the fathers of anthemic illiterate breakdowns. Here's a line. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Listen to the guitar do a thing. The drums are nuclear weapons exuding from the hamfisted percussionist. Just listen to it. Do you feel the ART?
NO! You feel DEATH. You feel like you're watching something dying. And it's not just dissonant. It's not just crashing noises and weeping and the gnashing of teeth. It's beautiful. Why? Because the music and unintelligible screaming require you read the lyrics and then you've realized: This is poetry. Poetry. Poetry read aloud in the middle of child-warfare battlefields and Orwellian martyrdom. "It's all worth while".
It was so worthwhile that I got my Zune 80 engraved with an abridged version of one of their lyrics on the back of it. I didn't need to exude creativity. My ears needed to absorb it. I owe all my teenage poetry to bands like Norma Jean and The Chariot and Converge and Botch. I was a sweaty mess. I was quitting basketball and picking up drums FOR REAL. 2006 was an interesting time for me. I now know that I'm mostly an uninteresting person (much less interesting now than I was back then and back then I was already boring) and that I can enjoy my music in my headspace and not have to share it with everyone. I don't have to say "This album is good and here's why" because now I've got nostalgia on my side and the only thing that defeats nostalgia is death. And when I'm dead, nobody has won the argument because, really, there wasn't an argument in the first place.
I digress. Why is this album one of my favorites ever? I blame my adolescence. I finally found some music that my entire family hated and that I loved. And they hated it for good reasons based on their decadent sensibilities, and I loved it because what produced such aural hatred in others produced sonic affection in me (the bitter taste of discordance has never gone away and I hope it is here to stay). I was on top of the world when nominal Christianity was starting to fade from my heart and meaning was found more than in the scribes of dictionaries.
Bless the Martyr is like a 180-proof shot of whiskey. It burns. It goes down hard. It lowers your blood temperature. You're not sure you could take another one. But the distilled product is the THING. It's so much the THING all other things are suddenly really small things.
I will leave you to ponder my motivation with the recommendations to listen to:
Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste
Sometimes It's Our Mistakes That Make For The Greatest Discoveries
Organized Beyond Recognition
Congratulations.
This is my escape.
A pen and a book
And if the world can see what I got
Then let's all have a good look.
A fortunate one.
Peace.
SDG
Nick
Your whites shine, black velvet. I ain't seen you in a while.
You're slick, a slick and polished mess. I ain't see you in a while.
Let's just face the facts. And get back to the basic form.
^^
The lyrics above belong to a song that's like SEVEN minutes long.
I don't know if I'm going to be making a point here. I'm just once again revisiting an album that I enjoy and endear to my adolescence.
Norma Jean is now a very recognizable metal band. But from back when Christian metal was a thing, this album probably set an impossibly high bar. Everyone can limbo but nobody can jump higher. Except for The Chariot but that's a blog for another day.
A Solid State pandora's box of slam-dancing, incoherent and illiterate guitar screeches, cacophonous crashing drums, with a dash of "God" here, "Jesus" - there. "Christ" speckled over the oblivion of screams, absence of overdub, guitar-flavored distortion, and the lyrics of a poet.
Have I talked about the lyrics?
Do you get it now?
By way of disclaimer, this album was done back before Josh Scogin split to raise up the screaming adulation of METALCORE fans with his third labeled band, The Chariot; a comparison with who would not be fair. Neither do I believe it fair to make Cory Brandan's headship face:face with Scogin's brand of incoherence. All this to say, I have two favorite Norma Jean albums, and this is one of them. The other one (NJ's latest which I've already talked about here) is a standup album by its own right. It has its own merits and it would be obtuse to compare this album from 2002 with a different headman to their recent releases.
But back when, I was a child, see? And I spoke in hyperbole because metaphor was too similar. I said "This is the best Norma Jean album". And I was right, see? Because I had all the ideas figured out. Bless The Martyr... is the most crunchiest, distorted, absolutist, atonal, progressive,
--[Yes they are still a good band, and Disambiguation was the best they ever released]
--wasn't really RESONATING with my teenage tumult into romances and long nights wasting away with thoughts of holding hands and breathing shared air with a nameless ideal, I turned my face toward Norma Jean's Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child.
Resonance? DISSONANCE.
Meter? AMBIMETER.
Singing? SCREAMING.
Pose? POISE.
Dishes? MUSIC
Catharsis? SURFING ON LAVA
Guitars? Experimental music? WHATEVER MAN IT'S JUST NOISE
I don't know what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the ~16 minute Pretty Soon, I Don't Know What, But Something is Going to Happen is 16 minutes long, man, and it's gonna blow your mind. It's so long, they actually have a longer official name for it which Wikipedia used to reference but no longer does. Why? Because everyone who edits Wikipedia was my age when they were my age, and now they are older and they don't have time to remember obscure 16 minute song titles from an obscure album from their obscure teenhood. I don't either. I'm too busy listening to math rock to listen to mathcore anymore.
Did I tell you about the lyrics?
Norma Jean, the fathers of anthemic illiterate breakdowns. Here's a line. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Listen to the guitar do a thing. The drums are nuclear weapons exuding from the hamfisted percussionist. Just listen to it. Do you feel the ART?
NO! You feel DEATH. You feel like you're watching something dying. And it's not just dissonant. It's not just crashing noises and weeping and the gnashing of teeth. It's beautiful. Why? Because the music and unintelligible screaming require you read the lyrics and then you've realized: This is poetry. Poetry. Poetry read aloud in the middle of child-warfare battlefields and Orwellian martyrdom. "It's all worth while".
It was so worthwhile that I got my Zune 80 engraved with an abridged version of one of their lyrics on the back of it. I didn't need to exude creativity. My ears needed to absorb it. I owe all my teenage poetry to bands like Norma Jean and The Chariot and Converge and Botch. I was a sweaty mess. I was quitting basketball and picking up drums FOR REAL. 2006 was an interesting time for me. I now know that I'm mostly an uninteresting person (much less interesting now than I was back then and back then I was already boring) and that I can enjoy my music in my headspace and not have to share it with everyone. I don't have to say "This album is good and here's why" because now I've got nostalgia on my side and the only thing that defeats nostalgia is death. And when I'm dead, nobody has won the argument because, really, there wasn't an argument in the first place.
I digress. Why is this album one of my favorites ever? I blame my adolescence. I finally found some music that my entire family hated and that I loved. And they hated it for good reasons based on their decadent sensibilities, and I loved it because what produced such aural hatred in others produced sonic affection in me (the bitter taste of discordance has never gone away and I hope it is here to stay). I was on top of the world when nominal Christianity was starting to fade from my heart and meaning was found more than in the scribes of dictionaries.
Bless the Martyr is like a 180-proof shot of whiskey. It burns. It goes down hard. It lowers your blood temperature. You're not sure you could take another one. But the distilled product is the THING. It's so much the THING all other things are suddenly really small things.
I will leave you to ponder my motivation with the recommendations to listen to:
Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste
Sometimes It's Our Mistakes That Make For The Greatest Discoveries
Organized Beyond Recognition
Congratulations.
This is my escape.
A pen and a book
And if the world can see what I got
Then let's all have a good look.
A fortunate one.
Peace.
SDG
Nick
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Questions for Ann Coulter
This is in response to her article "The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth, But They Shouldn't Be President". Anybody who reads her loyally and agrees with her and is in her purported demographic (Conservative, Evangelical, Republican, Christian, etc.), I would love to hear your responses. Thanks.
__
1. Who exactly do you believe the "meek" are? Since you are using scripture, give me some scriptural references to the "Meek" and which qualities they possess which would bar them from presidency?
2. The country needs a man. And it needs a man all the time. What kind of man? And also, how do you judge the qualities of a man? What qualifies a "man" as president-material? Bible verses?
3. Please give the context of Job 12 which would apply positively to Donald Trump.
4. Does your understanding of this context apply when Mr. Trump says he has never asked for forgiveness? Is that not pride? Isn't the entire life of Christian one of repentance (I'm paraphrasing German reformer Martin Luther)? How could you expect an apparently unforgiven man to run the U.S. appropriately? What does the bible speak of ungodly rulers (and an unforgiven man has no capacity to be a godly ruler unless he repents and is forgiven)?
5. On which basis do you call the "concept of America" the "last hope for Christianity on the planet"? It seems there are many other last hopes for Christianity, a majority of which are popping up all over China. Do you really believe that if America went down the tubes, there would be no hope for Christianity on the planet? The kingdom grows with each dying martyr.
6. Where's the biblical basis for your views on immigration flow? Do government borders limit people or governments? If they limit people, then you're encroaching on the ideals of socialism. Tread carefully here.
7. That's a very cute plug for your book there. Have you noticed the self-fulfilling prophecy in your book? "If illegals enter the states, they will ruin us. I hate them. And look how they don't want to vote for my team. That's why I hate them." What does the bible say about the sojourner? What does God's law say about the sojourner?
SDG
Nick
__
1. Who exactly do you believe the "meek" are? Since you are using scripture, give me some scriptural references to the "Meek" and which qualities they possess which would bar them from presidency?
2. The country needs a man. And it needs a man all the time. What kind of man? And also, how do you judge the qualities of a man? What qualifies a "man" as president-material? Bible verses?
3. Please give the context of Job 12 which would apply positively to Donald Trump.
4. Does your understanding of this context apply when Mr. Trump says he has never asked for forgiveness? Is that not pride? Isn't the entire life of Christian one of repentance (I'm paraphrasing German reformer Martin Luther)? How could you expect an apparently unforgiven man to run the U.S. appropriately? What does the bible speak of ungodly rulers (and an unforgiven man has no capacity to be a godly ruler unless he repents and is forgiven)?
5. On which basis do you call the "concept of America" the "last hope for Christianity on the planet"? It seems there are many other last hopes for Christianity, a majority of which are popping up all over China. Do you really believe that if America went down the tubes, there would be no hope for Christianity on the planet? The kingdom grows with each dying martyr.
6. Where's the biblical basis for your views on immigration flow? Do government borders limit people or governments? If they limit people, then you're encroaching on the ideals of socialism. Tread carefully here.
7. That's a very cute plug for your book there. Have you noticed the self-fulfilling prophecy in your book? "If illegals enter the states, they will ruin us. I hate them. And look how they don't want to vote for my team. That's why I hate them." What does the bible say about the sojourner? What does God's law say about the sojourner?
SDG
Nick
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Music Recommendation: Citizens & Saints: Join The Triumph
Two consolations:
I know I haven't posted a music recommendation in a while.
I know this album technically came out last year.
Citizens & Saints (formerly Citizens) released this album almost a year ago as the time of this blog's writing. I'm just here to make a couple observations and link a Spotify thing.
Observations:
1. Even less contemporary guitar-bass-piano-bass. Lots more synth.
The band has gotten a lot more comfortable with the almighty synthesizer. Expect more artificial noise. I personally think these sorts of things detract from the musicianship, but I'm saying this as a drummer who prefers to hit real drums. Take my salt with a grain of feelings. The sound works for them, and for that, I am glad.
2. Even more clean production.
Production value is an all-time high for this band. I prefer the dirtiness of their first EP (back when they were a Mars Hill band). But this is not necessarily a detraction.
3. Even more hymns.
Criticisms of Mars Hill's church strategy aside, I do believe there has been an increase in the proliferation of the hymns of the last few centuries, in no small part due to the influence of Mars Hill's worship music and its stylistic pervasion into the CCM sphere. The helpfulness of the old forms is not to be dismissed; and the hymn+modern music sensibilities formula never sounds terribly formulaic. Advantageous to hear these words because of how malleable the media is.
The verdict:
Citizens... sounds kinda like what I expect. A non-nonsense 80's-tinged indie rock worship album with clean production and classic hymns.
The Recommendations:
The Strife Is Over
Be Thou My Vision
Father You Are All We Need
I don't give out letter ratings, but if I did, I'd give this one a B.
I guess I give out letter ratings.
SDG
Nick
Spotify:
I know I haven't posted a music recommendation in a while.
I know this album technically came out last year.
Citizens & Saints (formerly Citizens) released this album almost a year ago as the time of this blog's writing. I'm just here to make a couple observations and link a Spotify thing.
Observations:
1. Even less contemporary guitar-bass-piano-bass. Lots more synth.
The band has gotten a lot more comfortable with the almighty synthesizer. Expect more artificial noise. I personally think these sorts of things detract from the musicianship, but I'm saying this as a drummer who prefers to hit real drums. Take my salt with a grain of feelings. The sound works for them, and for that, I am glad.
2. Even more clean production.
Production value is an all-time high for this band. I prefer the dirtiness of their first EP (back when they were a Mars Hill band). But this is not necessarily a detraction.
3. Even more hymns.
Criticisms of Mars Hill's church strategy aside, I do believe there has been an increase in the proliferation of the hymns of the last few centuries, in no small part due to the influence of Mars Hill's worship music and its stylistic pervasion into the CCM sphere. The helpfulness of the old forms is not to be dismissed; and the hymn+modern music sensibilities formula never sounds terribly formulaic. Advantageous to hear these words because of how malleable the media is.
The verdict:
Citizens... sounds kinda like what I expect. A non-nonsense 80's-tinged indie rock worship album with clean production and classic hymns.
The Recommendations:
The Strife Is Over
Be Thou My Vision
Father You Are All We Need
I don't give out letter ratings, but if I did, I'd give this one a B.
I guess I give out letter ratings.
SDG
Nick
Spotify:
Friday, August 28, 2015
Wisdom from Miracles by C.S. Lewis
Reading through Miracles. I may have accidentally saved the best of the apologetic
in the "essential collection" for last.
"If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely. And what, after all, does the size of a world or a creature tell us about its 'importance' or value?"
"If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely. And what, after all, does the size of a world or a creature tell us about its 'importance' or value?"
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Life Is Short. Repent.
The recent Ashley Madison dumps reveal two things about our secular media.
They love when the righteous fall.
They hate when unrighteousness is exposed.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. On one hand, there are now millions of men and women whose "private" cheating has been brought to the watching eye of the public. On the other hand, there are now millions of men and women whose lives will be utterly changed by this. And it trickles down to the family, to the children. Divorces are likely. Huge personal ramifications are likely. People will despair of their sin, and attempt to cover the ugliness.
Everyone can see how ugly it is. But is the ugliness in the questionable practice of the data dump (namely, the hacking, the deception inherent in pulling out large swaths of personal information and exposing it to the world)? If it is, then we ought to remember the uglier sin of adultery. The uglier sin of breaking the wedding vow. The uglier sin of turning one's back on the wife of their youth. The uglier sin of David and Bathsheba's adultery and the ugliness of David's attempts to cover his sin with the death of another man.
Wasn't Nathan also deceptive? For he drew out David's hypocrisy with his own ruse, speaking as the mouthpiece of God. Then we must concede that there is such a thing as righteous deception.
The Ashley Madison data dumps are merely unwitting calls to repentance. Who knows why the hackers did it. But we know why God orchestrated them to do it:
Everyone can see how ugly it is. But is the ugliness in the questionable practice of the data dump (namely, the hacking, the deception inherent in pulling out large swaths of personal information and exposing it to the world)? If it is, then we ought to remember the uglier sin of adultery. The uglier sin of breaking the wedding vow. The uglier sin of turning one's back on the wife of their youth. The uglier sin of David and Bathsheba's adultery and the ugliness of David's attempts to cover his sin with the death of another man.
 | |||
Wasn't Nathan also deceptive? For he drew out David's hypocrisy with his own ruse, speaking as the mouthpiece of God. Then we must concede that there is such a thing as righteous deception.
The Ashley Madison data dumps are merely unwitting calls to repentance. Who knows why the hackers did it. But we know why God orchestrated them to do it:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
Romans 1:18-32 ESV
The interesting backlash and moral outrage by those who approve such practices against the release of this data is epitomized by this scripture. And yet, there is silence among them, in the form of selfrighteous gloat, when the sins of people like Josh Duggar are further revealed. Now Edom is laughing. Beware, Edom:
“But do not gloat over the day of your brother in the day of his misfortune; do not rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin; do not boast in the day of distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; do not gloat over his disaster in the day of his calamity; do not loot his wealth in the day of his calamity. Do not stand at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives; do not hand over his survivors in the day of distress.”
Obadiah 1:12-14 ESV
So what to make of this news? 39 million accounts were created by aspiring adulterers who had already committed their sins in secret, in their hearts. And God sees them all. And now God has exposed it all. Chances are there are adulterer pastors shaking in their boots, waiting to see if they will be found out. Men and women are seeking to cover their shame with the indignant blast against those on higher moral pedestals. Yet the only way to cover the shame of sin forever is to let Jesus be your covering.
If you are a Christian, Jesus died for your sins before your adultery, he died for your sins after they were covered. But he didn't die to cover them so that they wouldn't be revealed. Rather, the only way Jesus covers sin is by uncovering it. The confession of the Christian is not a non-admission of guilt, but the admission and transfer of that guilt to Jesus, where it was swallowed up on the cross. We give Jesus our sin, and Jesus gives us his righteousness. Nothing has changed. Christian, were you found out? Then repent. Repent before you're found out, so that when you are found out, you are pointing people to Jesus and the sin you transmitted to Him. Give Jesus the glory of your repentance.
God's response to Edom is more fearsome and quakening than the crash of the ocean of iniquity unleashed by the revelation:
“For the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head. For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow, and shall be as though they had never been. But in Mount Zion there shall be those who escape, and it shall be holy, and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions. The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble; they shall burn them and consume them, and there shall be no survivor for the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.”
Obadiah 1:15-18 ESV
Esau dies. Esau burns. The church is the agent of God's flame. God will blot Esau out, by changing their names, or by giving them escape through the cross of Christ.
Every human being was born in Esau's tent.
Christians should be reminded of Paul's exhortation:
““Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
1 Corinthians 6:13-20 ESV
But before this, Paul commands we remember the why:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV
Such was I. And such were some of you.
Were the Christian's sin revealed to them, they need only rejoice in repentance and come back to God's fold. But for those who gloat at the fall of the righteous,
““Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink— you pour out your wrath and make them drunk, in order to gaze at their nakedness! You will have your fill of shame instead of glory. Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision! The cup in the Lord’s right hand will come around to you, and utter shame will come upon your glory!”
Habakkuk 2:15-16 ESV
The glory of the unrighteous is the fall of the righteous, and their just deserts will be utter shame.
SDG
Nick
Monday, July 20, 2015
Feathers? Must be a duck.
How to start with this one?
This is a response to Dr. Michael A. Cox, a pastor at First Baptist Church in Pryor, OK, who took Calvinism to task as "Spiritual Racism", comparing it to racism (Haha, really?) and Hinduism (the milk is dribbling out my nostrils).
His post can be read here: http://sbctoday.com/is-calvinism-spiritual-racism/
In his article, he asserts that Hinduism, racism, and Calvinism have "many things in common; too many for Christians not to be alarmed." There's a word for bad logic that a particular beloved Papist of mine wrote. That word is "bosh".
Cox says the following of Hinduism:
"Reincarnationists, like Hindus, avoid the giving of invitations, publicity, or advertisement, and simply trust the Law of Attraction to draw their own to them and them to their own.[1] This is fueled by a primary tenet of Hinduism, namely that one is born into a caste out of which there is no escape in life. Thus, Hinduism propounds social determinism characterized by social superiority, social caste, social election, social bigotry, social prejudice, and social exclusivity."
Firstly, let's note that Cox provides a source. I haven't looked at the source, but the "[1]" is a hyperlink on his page to a source which helps provide the basis for his point.
Of racism:
"Racism is the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.[2] Thus, Racism propounds racial determinism characterized by racial superiority, racial election, racial caste, racial bigotry, racial prejudice, and racial exclusivity."
"[2]" indicates that there is another source for his information regarding racism. I haven't checked the source, but, yes, this seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation of racism as it exists today.
Of Calvinism, Cox asserts the following
"Calvinism is the dogma of spiritual determinism characterized by spiritual superiority, spiritual election, a spiritual “caste,” spiritual bigotry, spiritual prejudice, and certainly by spiritual exclusivity. "
No source included. Let's hope he can get a better source, because his internal information seems inconsistent with scripture.
And his thesis:
"Clearly, it shares some distressing affinities with Hinduism and Racism."
I see. If it has feathers, then it must also quack like a duck.
Cox proceeds to say that Hinduism, Racism and Calvinism are caste-systems, which presuppose that all people are stuck in their caste and have no way of getting out. This is easily seen in Hinduism, wherein you must live life in the social caste you've been given, and as the social caste is somehow absolute, you must learn to live with it regardless of your objections and aspirations.
Racism contends that you're in a particular racial caste which predetermines your value and worth. Plainly put, unless you're one of the people who thinks Rachel Dolezal is one of the good guys, there's just no getting out of it. You're stuck in your heredity. And since your entire worth is based on race, the racist need only decide that their race really superior, and supposing that they are actually the same heritage you have, they can imagine a class within which they have qualified as a member and you have not.
We should see here that, especially for racists, and the kind of racist who believes that "election" in scripture supposes a particular elect race, a doctrine can easily be misconstrued into a dogma that a person's inherent standing and worth in society is predetermined by their race. It's easy to point out that as early as Exodus 12, we have definitive proof that God not only hates racism, but holds to principle and not to people. God is not loyal to the nation of Israel due to their personal interest in Him, but rather because of His covenantal interest in them. And the covenant is no respector of persons, because the covenant was made and fulfilled by Himself, and holds to the principle of God's word, and not to the people of Israel.
So, Cox says, look at the spiritual pride that Calvinism elicits. You're not elect? Then we have no time for you! You aren't one of those chosen to be saved by God? Gee, you should just get over it. As if election
1) was a legitimate cause for boasting
2) meant that those who desired to be saved wouldn't actually be saved ever.
3) was Calvinism's way of creating an upper-class sect of Christianity so that they could go off and be really lazy, because they already know who the elect are and can thus quit evangelising unless they know there's an elect person out there somehow. Presumption is the Calvinist's best weapon, after all.
What?
So, Let's ignore the existence of the word "elect" in scripture and dig into the inferential texts. Let's just assume that Peter never called the church "elect" and dig into some 200 proof-calvinism for a second.
Cox seems to forget the following point, which Calvinism has used only scripture to demonstrate: People are evil. They are totally depraved. Jeremiah 17:9. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5, John 3:19, John 8:34, Romans 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:18, Proverbs 14:12, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 8:7.
If there are a series of verses which explain this concisely, it's Romans 3:9-18.
No One Is Righteous
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Romans 3:9-18 ESV)
We ought to see that verse 9 should lead us to conclude a couple things:
1. The Jews are not better off than the Greeks, though they were given God's law.
2. The Greeks are not better off than the Jews.
3. All are under sin. UNDER sin, as if sin were OVER them; everyone's master. You cannot have two masters. It's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible speaks to the depravity of men being total, and that the charge of depravity does not apply to specific men, or to specific groups of people, but to the entire human race.
Is there any reference to race here, that in any such way, could be logically construed to provide a basis for the heinous sin of racism? I don't see it. Maybe Calvinism isn't spiritual racism then. Cox's argument is the same argument every opponent to the doctrine of election has ever made. The only difference is that right now, racism is a hot-card. It's a commodity to use it to illustrate your points. Who wants to make a short wager that apart from the publicity of apparent racism in today's social media, Cox would not have brought up his point? I'll start with a bottle of whiskey.
The only solution to people who don't seek God is a God that seeks them. And we are told repeatedly that Jesus goes out and recovers each every one of his flock. The conclusion must be made: Jesus loses none that he seeks to find(John 6:39). Meaning that those who were lost are condemned already (John 3:18). Meaning that we have to determine why God saves people.
If Cox is right, then God saves people based on spiritual determinism, and chooses spiritually superior men, elects them due to their superiority, and only chooses them due to their superior spiritual caste. Thus, Cox concludes that Calvinism's God must be a spiritual bigot, and spiritually prejudiced, and spiritually "exclusive".
Cox also has to contend with a couple errors of his own here. Namely, using a foremost example of Election, by which Abram was called and determined by God to be the patriarch and vehicle for all his successors for all who would come to believe in Jesus Christ. Using election to disprove election? I'm not certain what he is getting at here.
Also, the tones of racism here are applied to Calvinism's "prideful" theology. The elect are proud because they are elect? Circular reasoning? You bet. But Paul, the author whose writings were used foremost, especially in the book of Romans, to infer the doctrine of election said this:
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
(Romans 9:1-3 ESV)
So beside from the inference which is rightly made, that if God calls all believers and Jesus loses none of them, and therefore God must also not effectually call all unbelievers so that Jesus continues to lose none of the elect, we also see that election is unconditional, to the point of Paul lamenting the fate of unelect kinsmen, his own Jewish brothers. And how do Christians get saved if not by the commendation of faith (Hebrews 11) which we are told is a gift:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV)
See also that God prepared good works beforehand which we (being the elect) should walk in. Also note that "no one may boast". The election of Calvinism specifies through scripture that faith "is the gift of God, not a result of works". We also see that faith should result in thankfulness:
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 1:3-6 ESV)
It is not possible for the proud to be thankful of an object other than themselves. Yet we find that those "elect" in scripture are called not to pride, but to thankfulness, sobered by the reality that your faith is not the source of God's election but rather the fruit. The Calvinist, above all others, should not be proud but extremely humble. The Calvinist should ask the rhetorical "Why should God have saved me?" There is no inherent good reason in a person that causes God to save them, but for His own glory for which he uses both the elect and the reprobate. The question we should be asking isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?". It is this: "Why does God save anyone?"
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
(1 Timothy 1:12-17 ESV)
Note that Paul, whose works are some of the foremost sources for the doctrine of election, called himself chief of sinners. Does that sound like pride?
Cox also falls into the mistake that the assumption of hard-determinism often leads itself to. I'm perfectly willing to say there is determinism if we qualify it. People are determined to sin and continue to sin, and until God intervenes, they do nothing but sin. They are chiefs of sinners. It doesn't get better unless God interjects. But the idea that the determinism is capricious, that God determines selfishly, is irreconcilable with the bible. Rather, the determinism most of us espouse is compatiblism. Everyone is destined for hell. But some are predestined for salvation. And that's where election comes in. Unless God changes you so that you desire good, you will always desire sin. And if you desire good, you will cooperate with him. If not, you resist him. The Holy Spirit works in the elect to bring about faith, and from that faith proceeds good works. It's a cooperative work, but it doesn't start with you. If you cooperate, it's because God first gave you life and thus the desire to cooperate. It's all God's work.
The non-elect are the proud ones. They are even condemned by their pride.
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud.
(Proverbs 16:18-19 ESV)
If we are dead in our trespasses, we cannot "choose" to be alive. We must be given life in order to choose Him. If God completes every good work, and gives you spiritual life, then you are guaranteed the completion of that good work in you. The non-elect are simply dead in their trespasses.
Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelise, Cox says, because they are only looking for the "elect". Well, Paul certainly did not seem in the slight worried about "finding the elect", but in preaching the gospel. Puritans of old were not looking for the elect. They were preaching to the public. Reformed churches today are not interested in finding the elect, because they already understand that God gives the growth. God provides the elect for evangelism. Calvinists need not worry to this end; nor have they ever been inclined to worry about it. The chant of biblical Christianity has always been "preach the Gospel and God will bring hearers". Calvinism upholds the truth of scripture, especially on the subject of election.
Conclusively, election is based not on the works, or caste, or anything else that a sinner could bring to the table in exchange for salvation. The only thing a Christian contributes to salvation is the sin which requires forgiveness. Indeed, the purpose of election was not for God to save a particular caste of people, but to save all kinds of people. And has He not accomplished this so far? The charge of spiritual racism Cox has levied against Calvinism rings hollow and untrue. The reason the plans of God can be viewed as a universal scope is because NOTHING stops Him from saving anybody. If you're elect, your salvation is guaranteed. Election is the call to joy of the Christian, for they cannot even escape God themselves, regardless of their prodigousness or sinfulness. That is the doctrine of election. There are none too far to be effectually called to Christ.
If election sounds spiritually racist, Cox ought to look in scripture and see it for himself. If he is a Christian, election should be nothing short of his joy. It is not pride that election should elicit from the Christian, but rather joy. The entire purpose of election is that no good work God calls us to returns void.
The alternative to election is that nobody ever gets saved, and we wallow in our sins until we die, and we die in our sins, and we are rightfully judged and condemned for our sins. That's the history of mankind without election. Do we really want Cox's non-electing God in the driver seat?
I didn't think so.
SDG
Nick
This is a response to Dr. Michael A. Cox, a pastor at First Baptist Church in Pryor, OK, who took Calvinism to task as "Spiritual Racism", comparing it to racism (Haha, really?) and Hinduism (the milk is dribbling out my nostrils).
His post can be read here: http://sbctoday.com/is-calvinism-spiritual-racism/
In his article, he asserts that Hinduism, racism, and Calvinism have "many things in common; too many for Christians not to be alarmed." There's a word for bad logic that a particular beloved Papist of mine wrote. That word is "bosh".
Cox says the following of Hinduism:
"Reincarnationists, like Hindus, avoid the giving of invitations, publicity, or advertisement, and simply trust the Law of Attraction to draw their own to them and them to their own.[1] This is fueled by a primary tenet of Hinduism, namely that one is born into a caste out of which there is no escape in life. Thus, Hinduism propounds social determinism characterized by social superiority, social caste, social election, social bigotry, social prejudice, and social exclusivity."
Firstly, let's note that Cox provides a source. I haven't looked at the source, but the "[1]" is a hyperlink on his page to a source which helps provide the basis for his point.
Of racism:
"Racism is the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.[2] Thus, Racism propounds racial determinism characterized by racial superiority, racial election, racial caste, racial bigotry, racial prejudice, and racial exclusivity."
"[2]" indicates that there is another source for his information regarding racism. I haven't checked the source, but, yes, this seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation of racism as it exists today.
Of Calvinism, Cox asserts the following
"Calvinism is the dogma of spiritual determinism characterized by spiritual superiority, spiritual election, a spiritual “caste,” spiritual bigotry, spiritual prejudice, and certainly by spiritual exclusivity. "
No source included. Let's hope he can get a better source, because his internal information seems inconsistent with scripture.
And his thesis:
"Clearly, it shares some distressing affinities with Hinduism and Racism."
I see. If it has feathers, then it must also quack like a duck.
Cox proceeds to say that Hinduism, Racism and Calvinism are caste-systems, which presuppose that all people are stuck in their caste and have no way of getting out. This is easily seen in Hinduism, wherein you must live life in the social caste you've been given, and as the social caste is somehow absolute, you must learn to live with it regardless of your objections and aspirations.
Racism contends that you're in a particular racial caste which predetermines your value and worth. Plainly put, unless you're one of the people who thinks Rachel Dolezal is one of the good guys, there's just no getting out of it. You're stuck in your heredity. And since your entire worth is based on race, the racist need only decide that their race really superior, and supposing that they are actually the same heritage you have, they can imagine a class within which they have qualified as a member and you have not.
We should see here that, especially for racists, and the kind of racist who believes that "election" in scripture supposes a particular elect race, a doctrine can easily be misconstrued into a dogma that a person's inherent standing and worth in society is predetermined by their race. It's easy to point out that as early as Exodus 12, we have definitive proof that God not only hates racism, but holds to principle and not to people. God is not loyal to the nation of Israel due to their personal interest in Him, but rather because of His covenantal interest in them. And the covenant is no respector of persons, because the covenant was made and fulfilled by Himself, and holds to the principle of God's word, and not to the people of Israel.
So, Cox says, look at the spiritual pride that Calvinism elicits. You're not elect? Then we have no time for you! You aren't one of those chosen to be saved by God? Gee, you should just get over it. As if election
1) was a legitimate cause for boasting
2) meant that those who desired to be saved wouldn't actually be saved ever.
3) was Calvinism's way of creating an upper-class sect of Christianity so that they could go off and be really lazy, because they already know who the elect are and can thus quit evangelising unless they know there's an elect person out there somehow. Presumption is the Calvinist's best weapon, after all.
What?
So, Let's ignore the existence of the word "elect" in scripture and dig into the inferential texts. Let's just assume that Peter never called the church "elect" and dig into some 200 proof-calvinism for a second.
Cox seems to forget the following point, which Calvinism has used only scripture to demonstrate: People are evil. They are totally depraved. Jeremiah 17:9. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5, John 3:19, John 8:34, Romans 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:18, Proverbs 14:12, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 8:7.
If there are a series of verses which explain this concisely, it's Romans 3:9-18.
No One Is Righteous
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Romans 3:9-18 ESV)
We ought to see that verse 9 should lead us to conclude a couple things:
1. The Jews are not better off than the Greeks, though they were given God's law.
2. The Greeks are not better off than the Jews.
3. All are under sin. UNDER sin, as if sin were OVER them; everyone's master. You cannot have two masters. It's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible speaks to the depravity of men being total, and that the charge of depravity does not apply to specific men, or to specific groups of people, but to the entire human race.
Is there any reference to race here, that in any such way, could be logically construed to provide a basis for the heinous sin of racism? I don't see it. Maybe Calvinism isn't spiritual racism then. Cox's argument is the same argument every opponent to the doctrine of election has ever made. The only difference is that right now, racism is a hot-card. It's a commodity to use it to illustrate your points. Who wants to make a short wager that apart from the publicity of apparent racism in today's social media, Cox would not have brought up his point? I'll start with a bottle of whiskey.
The only solution to people who don't seek God is a God that seeks them. And we are told repeatedly that Jesus goes out and recovers each every one of his flock. The conclusion must be made: Jesus loses none that he seeks to find(John 6:39). Meaning that those who were lost are condemned already (John 3:18). Meaning that we have to determine why God saves people.
If Cox is right, then God saves people based on spiritual determinism, and chooses spiritually superior men, elects them due to their superiority, and only chooses them due to their superior spiritual caste. Thus, Cox concludes that Calvinism's God must be a spiritual bigot, and spiritually prejudiced, and spiritually "exclusive".
Cox also has to contend with a couple errors of his own here. Namely, using a foremost example of Election, by which Abram was called and determined by God to be the patriarch and vehicle for all his successors for all who would come to believe in Jesus Christ. Using election to disprove election? I'm not certain what he is getting at here.
Also, the tones of racism here are applied to Calvinism's "prideful" theology. The elect are proud because they are elect? Circular reasoning? You bet. But Paul, the author whose writings were used foremost, especially in the book of Romans, to infer the doctrine of election said this:
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
(Romans 9:1-3 ESV)
So beside from the inference which is rightly made, that if God calls all believers and Jesus loses none of them, and therefore God must also not effectually call all unbelievers so that Jesus continues to lose none of the elect, we also see that election is unconditional, to the point of Paul lamenting the fate of unelect kinsmen, his own Jewish brothers. And how do Christians get saved if not by the commendation of faith (Hebrews 11) which we are told is a gift:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV)
See also that God prepared good works beforehand which we (being the elect) should walk in. Also note that "no one may boast". The election of Calvinism specifies through scripture that faith "is the gift of God, not a result of works". We also see that faith should result in thankfulness:
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 1:3-6 ESV)
It is not possible for the proud to be thankful of an object other than themselves. Yet we find that those "elect" in scripture are called not to pride, but to thankfulness, sobered by the reality that your faith is not the source of God's election but rather the fruit. The Calvinist, above all others, should not be proud but extremely humble. The Calvinist should ask the rhetorical "Why should God have saved me?" There is no inherent good reason in a person that causes God to save them, but for His own glory for which he uses both the elect and the reprobate. The question we should be asking isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?". It is this: "Why does God save anyone?"
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
(1 Timothy 1:12-17 ESV)
Note that Paul, whose works are some of the foremost sources for the doctrine of election, called himself chief of sinners. Does that sound like pride?
Cox also falls into the mistake that the assumption of hard-determinism often leads itself to. I'm perfectly willing to say there is determinism if we qualify it. People are determined to sin and continue to sin, and until God intervenes, they do nothing but sin. They are chiefs of sinners. It doesn't get better unless God interjects. But the idea that the determinism is capricious, that God determines selfishly, is irreconcilable with the bible. Rather, the determinism most of us espouse is compatiblism. Everyone is destined for hell. But some are predestined for salvation. And that's where election comes in. Unless God changes you so that you desire good, you will always desire sin. And if you desire good, you will cooperate with him. If not, you resist him. The Holy Spirit works in the elect to bring about faith, and from that faith proceeds good works. It's a cooperative work, but it doesn't start with you. If you cooperate, it's because God first gave you life and thus the desire to cooperate. It's all God's work.
The non-elect are the proud ones. They are even condemned by their pride.
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud.
(Proverbs 16:18-19 ESV)
If we are dead in our trespasses, we cannot "choose" to be alive. We must be given life in order to choose Him. If God completes every good work, and gives you spiritual life, then you are guaranteed the completion of that good work in you. The non-elect are simply dead in their trespasses.
Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelise, Cox says, because they are only looking for the "elect". Well, Paul certainly did not seem in the slight worried about "finding the elect", but in preaching the gospel. Puritans of old were not looking for the elect. They were preaching to the public. Reformed churches today are not interested in finding the elect, because they already understand that God gives the growth. God provides the elect for evangelism. Calvinists need not worry to this end; nor have they ever been inclined to worry about it. The chant of biblical Christianity has always been "preach the Gospel and God will bring hearers". Calvinism upholds the truth of scripture, especially on the subject of election.
Conclusively, election is based not on the works, or caste, or anything else that a sinner could bring to the table in exchange for salvation. The only thing a Christian contributes to salvation is the sin which requires forgiveness. Indeed, the purpose of election was not for God to save a particular caste of people, but to save all kinds of people. And has He not accomplished this so far? The charge of spiritual racism Cox has levied against Calvinism rings hollow and untrue. The reason the plans of God can be viewed as a universal scope is because NOTHING stops Him from saving anybody. If you're elect, your salvation is guaranteed. Election is the call to joy of the Christian, for they cannot even escape God themselves, regardless of their prodigousness or sinfulness. That is the doctrine of election. There are none too far to be effectually called to Christ.
If election sounds spiritually racist, Cox ought to look in scripture and see it for himself. If he is a Christian, election should be nothing short of his joy. It is not pride that election should elicit from the Christian, but rather joy. The entire purpose of election is that no good work God calls us to returns void.
The alternative to election is that nobody ever gets saved, and we wallow in our sins until we die, and we die in our sins, and we are rightfully judged and condemned for our sins. That's the history of mankind without election. Do we really want Cox's non-electing God in the driver seat?
I didn't think so.
SDG
Nick
Friday, July 17, 2015
Why God Does Not Punish Believers
This fruitful discussion came up last night at our little community group and I figured I ought to complete the thoughts that were coming into my head, since I was averse to keeping people up all night with a systematic thought behind the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and how that was played out under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and the differences and similarities therein.
The thesis is this: God does not punish believers for their sins, nor has he ever punished believers for their sins, nor will he ever punish believers for their sins. God cannot do this because that sin was nailed to the cross when God took out ALL punishment for ALL the elect's sin on his own Son.
So in other words, God does not apply the retributive result of justice to the Christian, because He already punished Jesus for it. God does not punish Christians. He does not draw retribution to satisfy his wrath against the Christian by inflicting his wrath upon the Christian, because Jesus took that wrath for himself. The great exchange was when Jesus took our sinfulness and applied it to himself, and he handed us his righteousness.
Where the disconnect comes is in the word "punish", and its contrast with the word "discipline". Some definitions of "discipline" use the word "punish", but if we are looking at the real roots of the word, we find that discipline and punishment need not be the same thing, and I believe there to be a real distinction when we are referring to God's punishment (His visiting of his wrath upon the unrighteous) and God's discipline (His visiting of his corrective grace upon the elect).
Of course, the biggest spat of the night was the following distinction I made (which was not agreed with) about the substance and nature of the Old and New Covenants. I asserted (and still do) that David's sin with Bathsheba, the resulting death of his son, and the resulting blasphemy against God's law by the people of Israel as they witnessed their wayward king; all of these were covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was not inaugurated but its effects were most certainly retroactive. The same faith that saved David is the same faith that the believer has. The difference is, David's faith was in the promise of the seed of the woman and the Christian's faith is in the actual seed of the woman. The New Covenant is better than the Old for many reasons, and this is one of the big ones. We no longer see the shadow of Christ in the sacrificial systems of the Old Covenant. We see Christ through the Spirit because He has atoned for all sin for all time for all of His elect. And when Hebrew asserts that the patriarchs of the faith were commended due to their faith, we have to ask what sort of faith they had and what the object of the faith was.
The Old Covenant believers had real saving faith in the promise of the New Covenant. That faith was not provided for by the sacrificial system. Rather, the sacrificial system was used to clean the Old covenant believer of their sins. Its use was manifold in keeping God's people preserved in the covenant of works. The law acted as a guardian (Galatians 3:23-29), a schoolmaster, but faith in the law was not the means by which God's people were preserved. Rather, faith in the promise of the New Covenant is how God preserved his people.
Now we know that the New Covenant is better than the old, and I think a lot of this has to do with seeing the shadow of Christ (forthcoming, revealed but not inaugurated in the Old Covenant), and partaking in the substance of Christ (now revealed, inaugurated, delivered as promised in the New Covenant).
My point: The Old Covenant believers had the same faith while under the Old Covenant that New Covenant believes have under the New Covenant. Were there differences? Absolutely. But God took it upon himself to take up the wrath against all believers for all time. Look at the inheritance that the Gentiles have in the epistle to the Hebrews, the perfection of God's sacrifice for ALL believers in Hebrews 10, the commendation of faith (the same commendation the Christian receives) in Hebrews 11. All of which was made possible by the revelation of the New Covenant in Genesis 3:16, and God's reconfirmation of that promise through the Old Covenant with Abraham, and the rest of the patriarchs. Thus the shadowy object of their faith was inaugurated as the full substance of the Christian's faith.
For this reason, I have strong reason to believe that God has never punished believers for their sins and blasphemies, in the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant. The same unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is that which God ultimately punishes all unrepentant believers for. But for the elect church, for all time, believers in the NT and the OT, God's punishment was meted out on himself, mirroring the promise he made with Abraham, taking the responsibility of the covenant upon himself in Genesis 15:17. He swore on himself because there was no greater one in Hebrews 6:13.
God promises to discipline His beloved, and promises to not punish them. And justice is preserved because Jesus took that sin upon himself, past. present, and future, and paid the penalty, and He was punished for our sins and blasphemies. He took our rags and gave us riches. It is consequently unjust for God to punish a believer when that punishment was already given to Christ, who died and rose again. It is consequently only just for God to discipline his beloved (Hebrews 12). It is consequently just for God to punish the unrepentant rebellious sinner. As God's wrath was satisfied by Jesus' death, and we are clothed in Jesus' righteousness, it is impossible for God to strike the Christian in wrath, for He would be striking himself, and that was already finished at Calgary.
SDG
Nick
The thesis is this: God does not punish believers for their sins, nor has he ever punished believers for their sins, nor will he ever punish believers for their sins. God cannot do this because that sin was nailed to the cross when God took out ALL punishment for ALL the elect's sin on his own Son.
So in other words, God does not apply the retributive result of justice to the Christian, because He already punished Jesus for it. God does not punish Christians. He does not draw retribution to satisfy his wrath against the Christian by inflicting his wrath upon the Christian, because Jesus took that wrath for himself. The great exchange was when Jesus took our sinfulness and applied it to himself, and he handed us his righteousness.
Where the disconnect comes is in the word "punish", and its contrast with the word "discipline". Some definitions of "discipline" use the word "punish", but if we are looking at the real roots of the word, we find that discipline and punishment need not be the same thing, and I believe there to be a real distinction when we are referring to God's punishment (His visiting of his wrath upon the unrighteous) and God's discipline (His visiting of his corrective grace upon the elect).
Of course, the biggest spat of the night was the following distinction I made (which was not agreed with) about the substance and nature of the Old and New Covenants. I asserted (and still do) that David's sin with Bathsheba, the resulting death of his son, and the resulting blasphemy against God's law by the people of Israel as they witnessed their wayward king; all of these were covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was not inaugurated but its effects were most certainly retroactive. The same faith that saved David is the same faith that the believer has. The difference is, David's faith was in the promise of the seed of the woman and the Christian's faith is in the actual seed of the woman. The New Covenant is better than the Old for many reasons, and this is one of the big ones. We no longer see the shadow of Christ in the sacrificial systems of the Old Covenant. We see Christ through the Spirit because He has atoned for all sin for all time for all of His elect. And when Hebrew asserts that the patriarchs of the faith were commended due to their faith, we have to ask what sort of faith they had and what the object of the faith was.
The Old Covenant believers had real saving faith in the promise of the New Covenant. That faith was not provided for by the sacrificial system. Rather, the sacrificial system was used to clean the Old covenant believer of their sins. Its use was manifold in keeping God's people preserved in the covenant of works. The law acted as a guardian (Galatians 3:23-29), a schoolmaster, but faith in the law was not the means by which God's people were preserved. Rather, faith in the promise of the New Covenant is how God preserved his people.
Now we know that the New Covenant is better than the old, and I think a lot of this has to do with seeing the shadow of Christ (forthcoming, revealed but not inaugurated in the Old Covenant), and partaking in the substance of Christ (now revealed, inaugurated, delivered as promised in the New Covenant).
My point: The Old Covenant believers had the same faith while under the Old Covenant that New Covenant believes have under the New Covenant. Were there differences? Absolutely. But God took it upon himself to take up the wrath against all believers for all time. Look at the inheritance that the Gentiles have in the epistle to the Hebrews, the perfection of God's sacrifice for ALL believers in Hebrews 10, the commendation of faith (the same commendation the Christian receives) in Hebrews 11. All of which was made possible by the revelation of the New Covenant in Genesis 3:16, and God's reconfirmation of that promise through the Old Covenant with Abraham, and the rest of the patriarchs. Thus the shadowy object of their faith was inaugurated as the full substance of the Christian's faith.
For this reason, I have strong reason to believe that God has never punished believers for their sins and blasphemies, in the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant. The same unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is that which God ultimately punishes all unrepentant believers for. But for the elect church, for all time, believers in the NT and the OT, God's punishment was meted out on himself, mirroring the promise he made with Abraham, taking the responsibility of the covenant upon himself in Genesis 15:17. He swore on himself because there was no greater one in Hebrews 6:13.
God promises to discipline His beloved, and promises to not punish them. And justice is preserved because Jesus took that sin upon himself, past. present, and future, and paid the penalty, and He was punished for our sins and blasphemies. He took our rags and gave us riches. It is consequently unjust for God to punish a believer when that punishment was already given to Christ, who died and rose again. It is consequently only just for God to discipline his beloved (Hebrews 12). It is consequently just for God to punish the unrepentant rebellious sinner. As God's wrath was satisfied by Jesus' death, and we are clothed in Jesus' righteousness, it is impossible for God to strike the Christian in wrath, for He would be striking himself, and that was already finished at Calgary.
SDG
Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)