The Tools of Dominion

Following the trial against Warren Jeffs, it becomes more and more obvious that the charges against him are a ruse. The alleged victim wants money and uses her rape story to get it, it seems.

But even if Jeffs will be cleared of all charges, it will not lead to peace for his community, as we can see in other headlines we read today:

"FLDS Dairy farm sold at auction for $2M"

and
"State now targets FLDS police cadets"

...not to speak of all the articles that somehow come away with the idea that the women and children of Jeff's group are victims and enslaved, and need to be rescued. Jeff's group has too much money, too much power to be self-sufficient to be just left alone by the state anymore.

Let me tell you what this looks like from our perspective:

Men and women who come to together under God's plan end up having "power", the ability to take dominion. The state doesn't wish to see this happen, and covets its power, its money, its women and children. This is the case with the Amish, the Hutterites, and also with the FLDS, it seems, though we would not subscribe to their belief since they rely on extra-biblical sources too.

The outcome is nevertheless interesting and proves Gary North's point: God's Law provides the Tools of Dominion.

Properly followed, dominion is inevitable. But since there can be no "god", no law, no power greater than that of the state, the state fights people who take dominion.

We read an article this morning that pondered whether or not people have the right to be enslaved if they wish to be enslaved. Well... Look at society. God's Law is the perfect Law of liberty, while society enslaves it's members as best as possible and punishes everyone who is unwilling to go with the flow and dance with the tribe. People choose every day to be enslaved by society's values, the media and its ideas, "common sense", and other unreliable and changing laws...

Oh well.

Technorati Tags: Warren Jeffs, Tools of Dominion, Gary North, FLDS, God's Law, slavery, Joshuah's House

Powered by ScribeFire.

A Simple Life, but Godly

We have been blogging about a simpler life for nearly two weeks now, sketching what can be done to start living simpler (you still haven't dragged your TV set back into the living room, or have you ?), giving you ideas about what skills you can start to develop right now to prepare for a self sufficient life in the countryside. Are your tomato seeds growing well ? Did you sew a skirt or two and throw out all those low cut tops you used to wear ? Did you get a book from the college library about herbal remedies, or home schooling ? Well, if you did, that would indeed be a good start.

But caution is needed... Read more.


Technorati Tags: simple living, college, back-to-college, TV, christian ladies, modest dress, God's Law

Powered by ScribeFire.

Simpe Living by God's Design II

Why do people uphold one idea of the bible and take it to extremes, while disregarding other parts of His Law-Word, much like the Pharisees in Jesus' time did with their ritual washing of hands, pots and pans ?

Read more.


Technorati Tags: simple living, God's Law, Christian ladies, Tota Scriptura, Joshuah's House

Powered by ScribeFire.

Spanking unbiblical ?

Yet another country is preparing to deny parents the right to discipline their children by spanking.

Under the headline "No justification for hitting kids - NGOs", we found an article today ( http://iafrica.com/news/sa/344713.htm) in which a reverend and spokesperson for the SA Council of Churches actually states that "attempts to justify corporal punishment through biblical "proof texts" (...) bordered on the unchristian, irreligious and unorthodox", since Jesus doesn't "promote physical punishment as a justifiable means of discipline" in the New Testament, and "the Old Testament reflected patriarchy and slavery as the norm, and warfare as a way of solving problems" implying that it therefore could not be used as a valid proof text: "It was problematic to attempt to transplant that text to a culture three or four thousand years later. Interpretations of sacred writings were always dynamic, and reflected the times in which that interpretation took place", the spokesman is paraphrased.

The article then goes on quoting some lady from an allegedly influential NGO who speaks about "hitting children" and "abuse", about the dangerous effects of teaching children that "violence was a solution to conflict", and about a general fight against violence in the country. Concerning the "large backlash against the proposed ban" that came from "some Christian leaders (...) claiming that parents had not only a right, but also a duty to beat their children", she states that "this is frightening in the context of the current levels of violence against children in South Africa, and completely irresponsible".

The article closes by mentioning that all this was part of a global campaign. "According to the Global Campaign to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 18 countries have passed legislation-protecting children from all corporal punishment. They include New Zealand and the Netherlands, both of which took the step this year, the Ukraine, Germany, Israel and Sweden."

There are several things to address about this article.

For one, we see a reverend as a false teacher, doing what you expect a false teacher to do: teaching. He feels comfortable with doing away with God's law on the grounds that Jesus never mentioned this aspect of it, as if Jesus and God who gave us the Law were two different Law-Givers, as if God, Christ Jesus, was not the same, yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8). The Law given to Moses was Jesus' Law as much as it was the Father's Law. Jesus came to confirm, not to do away with God's eternal law-word for His children. But this reverend refers to the Old Testament as faulty in other instances too, it seems, thus claiming that we cannot rely on it anymore.

His examples to discredit the Old Testament, patriarchy, slavery and war, all not "the norm" anymore, would all be worth considering at length, but let me just be brief here:
God chose patriarchs to lead their families in Godly ways, and the fact that we place more value on the state and the church today than on the family has led to much of society's problems. Society chose a "better" way than God's way, and see what the results are.

Slavery as referred to here is clearly an abomination in the bible (it is called man stealing and punishable by death, Deu 24:7), whereas the slavery promoted in the bible, "indentured servitude", has much more in common with modern day employment situations, only that employees are worse off today in many ways.

War that the children of Israel fought was war explicitly commanded by God so that His enemies would be destroyed, the seed of the Nachash, the peoples that were given up to the fallen sons of God, the giant tribes, those that were not God's allotment:

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage." (Deu 32:8-9)

So these examples have to be viewed from today's perspective in order to be held against God, so to speak, and that's exactly what that reverend does. He pulls the cultural argument in order to do away with God's law and feel good about it. Oh well.

As for the lady quoted later on, she too lumps something that is biblical (chastising) in with something that is certainly unbiblical (abuse), and thus discredits what God has commanded, just like the reverend does with his examples. This is an underhanded approach.

God commands fathers to teach their children and to lead their houses well, and to discipline everyone that is under his care if need be, so that they might not end up in hell, but that he can present his family unblemished on the Last Day. This includes wives and children. What this lady refers to though is abusive child beating, and not chastising or disciplining. Certainly disciplining is nothing a parent likes to do, and if it is necessary, the goal is to set the one that went astray back onto God's path. So the reasons for spanking are limited to what goes against God's Law, and are by no means arbitrary. If daily spanking is necessary, the parents have failed tremendously in their attempt to raise their children in a godly way, which is where the churches should see their field of expertise instead of ranting against God's Law: Teaching God's word to the fathers, so that they might lead their wives and children well.

Another thing that is of course left out in the article is the age from which onward a child is accountable to God's law - between the age of 12 and 13, that is. Before that, spanking a child is not a duty for Christian parents. But such distinctions are not mentioned, of course.

Finally, her argument that disciplining a child would teach that violence is a form of solving conflicts is rather ridiculous. Beating a child in anger certainly leads to such outcome, or beating a child without any reason at all or for just any reason according to their whim. If that is the way they raise their children, it is ungodly and doesn't have anything to do with discipline as commanded by God at all. So she complains about social problems, and thus justifies her stand against God's word, even calling it irresponsible to follow God's lead.

We cannot but think that people who proclaim such false and corrupt teaching and entice others to follow it are given up to this fate. When accounts will be settled on the Last Day, they will have to answer for all they have done like everybody else. And leaders will be judged more strictly than the flock itself, for they do not only put guilt on their own head, but on all the people they are leading...

This is Old Testament teaching, and James repeats it, but I can hear the argument already: "This of course must also be viewed in a cultural light, since the New Testament times are all over and gone for such a long time too by now..."

Let me ask you though:
Why would Jesus insist that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mat 5:18)?

And why would Paul say that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Ti 3:16)?

Technorati Tags: SA Council of Churches, Global Campaign to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, spanking, chastisement, discipline, false teachers, slavery, patriarchy, God's Law, Joshuah's House

Response to a Group Discussion

This article is posted here instead of on an internet group in order to remain consistent: I said I wasn't going to elaborate on polygamy in my introduction to the group, but since the topic was taken up by others, we take the opportunity here to answer to some of the arguments offered. This article not only deals with a defense of polygamy (please see our apologetics page at Joshuah's House for a more elaborate defense of this aspect), but also with the general way people read Scripture nowadays. This article addresses biblical marriage and the concept of love, judgment and the notion that Christians always have to follow the law of the land.

On the Matter of Marriage

There were a few verses from the bible quoted in one of the posts I am referring to here. All these verses about marriage (Heb 13:4, Psa 128:3, Pro 5:15-23, 1Co 7:2-3) are very wonderful verses, stressing the beauty and responsibility of a lifelong commitment made before God and the beauty of people caring for each other in a godly fashion. God protects marriage indeed, it is a godly bond that secures the dominion covenant.

But the conclusion that theses quoted verses prove polygamy to be sinful, adulterous and whoremongery is wrong - here, presuppositions shape theology, and not the other way around. Polygamy, according to the presupposition, is not marriage, so the verses about marriage cannot apply to one man and many wives, but have to apply to one man one wife only. This presupposition is not a biblical, but a romantic concept.

Polygamy from a biblical perspective is simply "marriage". If you look up the word "marriage" and the respective verb in the Old and New Testament, you will find that the word is related to the following:

• a contract - "to marry: to give yourself in marriage, to take a wife, to get married" (H2992, G1060)
• a possession - "to possess, to rule over" (H1166)
• to conjugal rights, literally, the flesh (H5772b)
  
• a ceremony (G1062)
  

Nowhere is there mentioning of "star-crossed lovers", a "soul mate", or the "prince on the white horse", so to read romantic notions of marriage, to read exclusivity between one man and one women into biblical marriage is to insert a secular, romanticized concept into the bible that is simply not there.

If you want to point to the "Song of Solomon" for notions of romantic love, please remember who Solomon was and how many wives he loved (and yes, he sinned in not listening to the commandment not to multiply wives to himself as the king (Deu 17:17)), and that Jesus came through this line, came through people like Abraham and Jacob, through the union of Judah and Tamar, David and Bath Sheba, Uriah's widow, all of whom were people who in some way or another lived in a polygamous relationship, or in the case of Judah and Tamar, had issues with the Levirate marriage commandment - check it out in Matthew 1 and the respective chapters in Genesis, the second book of Samuel and the first book of Kings.

If you want to point to Paul talking about letting every man have his own wife and every women her own husband (1Cor 7:2) to prove that Paul advocates monogamy, please look at the two different Greek words translated as "own" here and you will find that they both pertain to the man, that both state possession from the man's perspective - her "own" husband is her "proper" husband, the husband that properly possesses her, just as his "own" wife, "own" being a reflexive pronoun here, is the wife that he possesses, that belongs to him, that he is responsible for. If you look at the language, this verse is not a verse pointing to exclusivity with regards to how many wives a man can have, but rather to a woman belonging to one man alone, thus pointing to the responsibility on the part of the man, but doesn't indicate quantity when it comes to wives. Besides, the context in 1Co 7:2 indicates the reason for marriage in the first place: to avoid fornication. Men have to take responsibility for every woman they sleep with for by sleeping with a woman, a man makes her his wife. Even in today's world, by the way - a marriage that is not consummated is not a valid marriage in court, but could be dissolved based on the fact that it was never consummated, since it can legally be considered null and void. So the biblical standard is kept up here in this regard.

The bible uses no specific term for polygamous relationships, but simply calls having a wife or more than one wife "marriage" - and whenever "marriage" is mentioned in the bible, it refers to the biblical definition of marriage that includes both polygamy and monogamy, and not to a modern day definition of marriage that is based on a romantic concept and a social preference, in our small part of the world, for this romantic ideal.

In the bible you find plural marriage not only to be a common and accepted form of marriage, but also a protected one. The biblical definition of "marriage" is not "one man one women", but "becoming one flesh" (Gen 2:24), and since according to Paul you can become one flesh with a whore (1Co 6:16), it is by no means restricted to one man one woman as such, but to one man one woman at a time. The point about marriage in the bible is that it is a lifelong commitment, a lifelong responsibility, and it is formed by the act of becoming one flesh - no church, no state necessary. By sleeping with someone, you marry him or her. That's the biblical concept of marriage, it is as simple as that.

If polygamy was sin, why would God tell David through the prophet Nathan that he has not only given him his predecessor's wives into his arms, but would also have given him more if that was not enough (but David had to run off and sleep with a married woman (adultery = sleeping with a married woman, the marital status of the man does not figure into the definition), and then kill her husband by proxy (murder) - see 2 Sam 12:8) ? If polygamy was sin, why would a man be required to take his widowed sister in law and produce offspring with her in order to provide an heir for his untimely deceased brother, no matter if he was married already or not (this, by the way, is also contrary to the common incest laws, Deu 15:5-10). If polygamy was sin, why would the law of Moses specifically provide for the first wife and protect her from being cast aside for a 'younger model', as man in his fallen state is prone to do (Exo 21:10)? If polygamy was sin, why would Jesus portray himself as the bridegroom to ten virgins, five of which proved themselves to be unprepared and therefore unworthy (Mat 25:1-13)? And if polygamy was sin, why would God portray Himself as the husband of two wives to make His point about the idolatrous nature of His people (Eze 23)?

Marriage, according to Scripture, can be either polygamous or monogamous, the important bit about marriage is that it is a lifelong commitment, a covenant not to be broken by man - the only exception being the woman committing adultery (Deu 24:1, Mat 19:9). Adultery and whoremongery are sexual relationships outside this marriage relationship, not inside of it. You cannot commit adultery with you own wife, or be a whoremonger with your own wife. That's why the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb 13:4).


On the Matter of Love

When it comes to the biblical concept of love, here too, like always, we need to let God define His terms and not Noah Webster or any other dictionary author. To love God means to keep his commandments (Joh 14:15), to love the brethren means to follow God's commandments concerning the community, and to put the evil away from among the brethren if necessary - again, a concept of responsibility, by the way. Loving the brethren means not to murder and not to steal, not to covet and not to bear false witness, not to commit adultery and not to forget your parents ( the concept of a multi-generational family, by the way). Not to murder includes protecting the brethren from a potential murderer, not to steal means also protecting the community from a potential thief and so on and so forth, so the commandments point to the bigger picture of you not doing these things PLUS doing your bit to prevent these things from happening in the community. Where is the romance in this ? The main aspect of love in the bible is loving God and keeping His commandments, which includes caring for the safety of the brethren, and mainly describes taking responsibility as God commands, both within a marriage and within the community.


On the Matter of Judgment

When you consider the biblical references to judgment, you run into something that looks an awful lot like a contradiction: Judge not so that you may not be judged (Mat 7:1, Luk 6:37), but shun those brethren that are fornicators, idolaters etc. (1Co 5:11 was quoted), and don't let false teachers into your house (2Joh 1:10 was quoted). Besides these, you find Jesus being rather judgmental about people, calling them swine and dogs that you should not waste your pearls on (Mat 7:6), and Paul promises to those that display the fruits of the flesh that they will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).

God of course doesn't contradict Himself, and this is only a contradiction if you put the first quote absolute, because then, you cannot judge anyone anymore to be a false teacher, a whore monger, a swine unworthy of your pearls, or exhibiting any of the fruits of the flesh Paul lists. The point about not judging is that we should follow God's assessment in every way, and not lean unto our own understanding when it comes to judgment (or any other moral and ethical, social and personal issue, for that matter, Pro 3:5-8). Thus, we can follow God in saying that homosexuality is an abomination to Him (Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-27), without being judgmental on our own accord. Thus, we can say that liars and cowards are going to burn in the lake of sulphur (Rev 21:8), and don't keep company of people who ignore or ridicule God's Law (2Ti 3:2-5), without be judgmental, for we are obedient to His will in doing so.

The general call not to judge and to associate with everyone equally, no matter what they believe or not believe, violates God's commandment of separation and holiness (Lev 20:26).


On the Matter of Obeying the Law of the Land

Since I just summed this up the other day on this blog, I will just copy the part of the blog post relevant to the comment that polygamy is illegal in the United States.

5.

"Not to mention that in most countries, polygamy is illegal."

If you look at statistics, this assessment is inaccurate and reveals a rather limited world view, but let's continue arguing from a biblical perspective. This statement offers the view that Christians should obey the law of the state... but only as long as it is not in conflict with God's law, of course, since we can only show God that we love Him by keeping His commandments (Joh 14:15). And if people had always thought this same way about home schooling too, for example, it would still be next to impossible to home school your children in this country. But of course many good Christians nowadays take advantage of the fight people like Mr. Yoder fought against the state of Wisconsin, and take for granted their right to educate their children at home simply because it is (no longer) illegal to do so.



Technorati Tags: biblical marriage, internet groups, polygamy, monogamy, God's Law, apologetics, Joshuah's House

Unholy Prudery

The first time I heard the phrase unholy prudery, I chuckled heartily. Now that to me seems to be quite the oxymoron! Credit must be given to Rushdoony for it. He wrote in Vol. I of "The Institutes of Biblical Law" that "An unholy prudery prevents the church today from reckoning with many laws." He was referring to Lev 20:18 etc, and his 'today' is not our 'today", but the principle remains the same.

Without a doubt, there is an "unholy prudery" that keep the church from dealing with things such as polygamy, incest (Cain's wife, Levirate marriage) slavery, and a host of other things outlined in the bible. With polygamy, they think of the word, and immediately conjure unholy images in their head, and equate it with sexual immorality, when in fact it is a rather clear biblical form of marriage, as equally valid as monogamy.

Truthfully, I feel as though many people are ashamed of the scriptures, because they tend to look at things from todays definitions of good and evil, right and wrong, and thus end up avoiding, if not outright rejecting plain biblical truth, simply because people dont think that way anymore. You can practically see their jaws drop, and hear the gasps for air:

"Egads, your talking about polygamy, and we all know this to be wickedness and sinful, and we have much better things to do with our time than to focus on immorality (like patting each other on the back for protecting each other from plain biblical teaching.)"

Unholy prudery indeed.

Obstacles on the Way to God- #12

12. There is only one spirit that influences people's decisions, and that is God's Spirit.

Examples from Scripture that refute this notion:

• "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:27).
• "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." (1Ch 10:13-14).
• "And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him." (Mar 1:23-26).
• "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph 6:11-12).
• "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1Jn 4:1).

Obviously, there is more than one spirit at work, and even God Himself sometimes sends evil spirits upon the people (Jdg 9:23; 1Sa 16:14; 1Ki 22:21-23). Therefore, John's advice should be taken very seriously - "try", that is to say, "test" the spirits, whether they are in accordance with God's Law-Word, or not. There is only on way to test the spirits, and that is, to test them against scripture, and scripture alone.

Technorati Tags: God's Law, Holy Spirit, familiar spirits, deception, Christian faith, Jesus, Paul, Joshuah's House

Obstacles on the Way to God- #11

11. Church attendance equals, or at least is a prerequisite to, salvation.

The idea of weekly church attendance as a commandment cannot be found in the bible. As one of the 10 Commandments, keeping the Sabbath holy is certainly required of a believer, and the main feature of the Sabbath is rest, that no work should be done by anyone (Exo 20:8-11; Deu 5:12-15), along with study, for which Jews went to the temple, where the law was read. Keep in mind that back then, the individual households did no have a copy of the law, but that the people gathered to hear it being read to them instead (Exo 24:7 and 2Ki 23:2/2Ch 34:30). For the same purpose, to teach and to study, Jesus and the Jews of His time went to the temple (Mar 1:21, 29; 3:1; Luk 4:16, 44; 13:10, just as a few examples).

The Israelites kept the Sabbath and the Feasts, as God commanded them, and these included a "holy convocation", in the case of the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the first and last day, for example (Exo 12:15-17), which is, basically, a public gathering for study and offering of sacrifices.

But first and foremost, the Sabbath was a day of rest from work, for the whole household, animals included, and for the aliens that lived within the gates.

Christians nowadays, however, have not only chosen to call the first day of the week their "holy" day instead of the last, but have also largely done away with the Sabbath commandment of rest, and substituted it with the "commandment" of weekly church attendance, after which they are free to do whatever they please. Oftentimes, this includes going out for dinner, shopping, or indulging in some other kind of amusement or recreation that more often than not requires other people to work, waiters and waitresses, shop attendants, ticket seller in amusement parks, and the like. God, on the other hand, commanded us not to do what pleases us, but what pleases Him (Isa 58:13).

In short, church attendance does not meet the requirements of the Sabbath commandment, which makes it a tradition of men. These, especially if they contradicted God's Law, Jesus condemned as being wrong (Mar 7:6-8).


Technorati Tags: God's Law, Sabbath, deception, Christian faith, Church attendance, Joshuah's House

Obstacles on the Way to God- #10

10. The bible doesn't need to be taken as a whole, not all of Scripture is relevant or profitable anymore.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2Ti 3:16-17).

That says it all.


Technorati Tags: God's Law, Tota Scriptura, deception, Christian faith, Joshuah's House

Lunchtime Rant

Reading Rushdoony at lunchtime is inspiring and rewarding.

In the bit I read today concerning the 8th commandment "Thou shall not steal", he says that "God's order clearly includes private property" and also includes godly wealth. He provides Deut 8:17-18 and Proverbs 13:11 as scriptural evidence for this - here we find a warning against the pride of wealth, and not of wealth itself, Rushdoony points out.

Can we not say, however, with an equal degree of certainty, and with an equal amount of Scriptural authority, that God's order also clearly ordains "godly marriage" which includes both polygamy and monogamy ? Yes, we can likewise rest on the solid footing of Scripture when it comes to equally valid and ordained marriage, with 2 Samuel 12:7-8 being only one of many helpful scriptural references.

Isn't it interesting that to people, even to Rushdoony, on whom I rely in some ways, some things are so "clearly" ordained, and yet they argue that other things which were just as "clearly" ordained in Scripture are not so any longer, or never were so clear. This indeed is an inconsistency on his part, as it is an inconsistency on most other people's part too. We must accept all of Scripture to be God's infallible and eternal word, otherwise we are hypocrites... According to James, if we fail in one aspect of the law, we fail in all (Jas 2:10).

So here is, in short, the result of my lunchtime ranting:

• Can wealth be godly? Yes, as a tool of godly dominion (Gen 1:28).
• Can plural marriage me godly? Yes, again, as a tool of godly dominion.

And besides, women are a form of wealth, as are children, so godly wealth includes wives and the fruit of their wombs, as we can see in 2 Sam 12, if we are only willing to read what it says.

Let him who has ears, hear.


Technorati Tags: Rushdoony, polygamy, wealth, hypocrisy, God's Law, Joshuah's House

Obstacles on the Way to God- #8

8. God is not sovereign - people can act against His will and plan.

Examples from Scripture that refute this notion:

• The bible gives us many examples of people who had (or will have) no choice but to act as God wanted them or will want them to, among them Pharaoh in Exo 3-13, and Gog in Eze 38 and 39. In the same way, Judas was given up by God to Satan and thereby to a terrible fate (Joh 13:27, Mar 14:21), that is, to deliver Jesus to the authorities, so that God's pure sacrifice might be made to redeem those that fear God from the wages of sin.
• God claims over and over again to be "God Almighty" - in the KJV we find this in 57 verses, both Old Testament and New Testament. To deny that God is sovereign means to claim that God lies.

Technorati Tags: God's Law, Sovereign Lord, Pharaoh, Gog, Judas, deception, Christian faith, Jesus, Joshuah's House

Simple Living in Practice, Lesson #15

Yesterday it was only mentioned as an example, as a side note, so to speak, but I want to come back to it today: I mentioned teaching your children what the bible says, and nothing else.

One aspect of God-sufficiency, of simple living according to His will, is to refrain from adding to His word or taking anything away from it. Children are to be taught the word of God, so that, when they grow up, they may not depart from it (Pro 22:6), and since you are home schooling your child so that you, and not his or her peers at school are your children's role model and orientation, you are also fully responsible for what you child learns. Be careful to handle this responsibility well, and don't let a church of some type or another take it out of your hands either.

And there is one more thing to remember: Children are children, and even if they are most teachable when they are very young, they are only to be held responsible for their actions according to God's law when they have reached the age of 12. It is important to teach them well until then, so that they know God's Law and what it means for their everyday life, and it is important to teach them after they have reached the age of 12, so that they can learn how to live a responsible life. But it is utterly wrong to instill in children of the age of 5, 7 or 9 the idea that they have sinned, and that they need to repent and return to God. If you do that, all you are doing is putting your child in an emotional frenzy. There is no need for all that. Sin comes with the knowledge of the Law, and as long as your child is not to be held accountable, don't pretend that he or she is.

In the same way, don't make your young child go out an be a missionary to non-brethren. You should know how difficult it is to be in the world and yet withstand all the snares and traps put up there, and you expect your child to be in the middle of it and happily withstand it all? We are called to come out of her (Rev 18:4), and to have nothing to so her sins, so it is certainly much closer to God's will to protect your child from worldly influences, and when they are old enough to understand the snare, to teach them what the world is like, instead of putting them out there expecting them to do what most adults have troubles with, and what is against God's command.

Why do I feel the need to stress all this?

We watched "Jesus Camp" the other night. The documentary is propaganda against people who try to teach their children God's way, yes indeed. But you don't really need to look too closely to spot the glaring inconsistencies among the people portrayed, and begin with the adults please. When it comes to the children, look at their age, and look at what they believe, those that are asked, and look at how far away from God's word it all is... They have many things right, but they have more things wrong, it seems.

Women shouldn't teach? Modest dress? Head coverings? Children under the age of 12 are not subject to the law?

And instead: Churches that are not charismatic are dead churches? This generation of children is a key generation to the end times?? We should train the young children because the enemy does so too??

Besides, Ted Haggard is a good role model for a young boy who obviously is trained to be a preacher, even if unofficially??? Oh well.

Beware, people, beware, and cling to God's Word.


Technorati Tags: simple life, home schooling, God's Law, Jesus Camp, Ted Haggard, Christian ladies, God's creation, nature, homesteading, self sufficiency, separation, SAHM, plural marriage, polygamy, dominion covenant, multi-generational family, Joshuah's House

Obstacles on the Way to God- #6

6. There is such a thing as progressive revelation - God allowed people to sin for a while in the Old Testament times.

Examples from Scripture that refute this notion:

• "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Heb 13:8)

• God punished His people for transgressions, over and over again, since He is true to His covenant and upholds His Law. The whole Old Testament is full of such accounts. Our suggestion would be to read the five books of Moses, and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah as examples, to get an idea of God's righteousness.

Technorati Tags: God's Law, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Christian faith, Jesus, Paul, Joshuah's House

Obstacles on the Way to God - #5

5. God is a humanist and appoints the same rights and duties to men and women.

Examples from Scripture that refute this notion:

• God's Law does not value an individual person's life as the highest value, but puts God first. If someone violates God's Law and defiles himself, the people and the land, capital punishment is necessary to wash the sin away (see the following chapters for numerous examples: Exo 21, Lev 20, Lev 24, Num 35, Deu 13, Deu 17). In Deuteronomy, the phrase "thou shalt put the evil away from among you" clarifies the concept behind capital punishment: It is a means of loving your neighbor by not allowing anyone evil to dwell among the brethren to hurt them, lead them astray or defile them (Deu 17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 22:24, 24:7). If God was a humanist, the worst thing that could happen would be the death of a person. But God's Law ranks higher than an individual life, so a grave violation of the Law that endangers all the brethren is to be paid for by the death of the transgressor (and sometimes also his household).
• Genesis shows the different roles of men and women in the dominion covenant (Gen 1:28). Eve is called Adam's help meet (Gen 2:18), not his equal. The curses that follow the fall in Gen 3 make their respective roles more difficult: Eve is going to bear her children in pain, and Adam is going to work the soil with more difficulties. Besides, the curses clarify that it is not Eve who should "run the show", but that it is Adam's responsibility to lead his house (Gen 3:16-17).
• Paul and Peter both stress the different roles of husband and wife, men and women, several times (1Cor 11:3-16 and 14:33-35; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-24; 1Ti 2:9-15; Titus 2:1-8; Heb 11:8-12; 1Pe 3:1-7). To write off these roles (as well as God's judgments about what is abominable to Him and defiles us) as cultural, means to deny that the triune God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), and that all Scripture is profitable for instruction (2Ti 3:16).

Technorati Tags: God's Law, Moses, humanism, Christian faith, Jesus, Paul, Dominion covenant, hep meet, curses, Joshuah's House

Simple Living in Practice, Lesson #12

Today's lesson deals with the biblical foundation for the farming time frame. God did not leave His people without command and advice in every area of life because all areas of life are under His authority, and if we follow Him in trust and obedience, He promises that it will be well with us and our children after us, and that we will live long in the land that He gave us (Deu 4:40, and in many other places).

Exodus 23:10-13 spells out the Sabbath laws concerning the land: Just like the seventh day of the week is holy, so is every seventh year, which means that during the six years, you have to be a good steward to what you sow and reap, so that you can let the land rest for a whole year in the seventh, and then have seed to sow anew and do without its fruit for yet another year since you only sow anew in the beginning of the new year one.

Lev 19:23-24, in addition, establishes the rules for trees that bear fruit for food - for three years their fruit shall be considered uncircumcised, in the fourth year the fruit is holy and the Lord's, and in the fifth year, the fruit can be gathered and eaten. This is something to keep in mind when you plant trees for food.

And what happens to whatever does grow on the fields in the seventh year ? The fruit that is does yield without being ploughed and used you can gather as you need them, but they are also for the poor people of the land, and the wild animals. The biblical idea of charity, quite in contrast to what is practiced in churchianity these days, is very straight forward and directed to very specific people: widows and orphans, who are the poor and unprotected people of the land, and everybody who passes by. And the how of charity is as simple, and in terms of food, the biblical farming rules reflect this, not only for the Sabbath year, but for every harvest: Deu 24:20-21 explains that, when you beat your olive tree and gather your vineyard's fruit, you are not supposed to go over them again to glean what is left on the tree and the vine, but you should leave the rest for the strangers, widows and orphans.

As far as thanksgiving is concerned, Exo 23:14-19 tells you that apart from the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is very early in the year, there are basically two occasions on which the fruit of your field are presented to the Lord as thanksgiving - the time when the first fruits are gathered, and at the end of the season, when the crops are gathered in from the fields. So basically, whenever the land gives you from its wealth, you are to remember that it is not you who makes the crops and the fruit grow, no matter how much you work for it, but it is the Lord, and all our life, including our work life, is under His authority.

Remember this when you plant your garden after you moved onto your new patch of land.


Technorati Tags: simple life, Christian ladies, God's creation, God's Law, farming, nature, homesteading, self sufficiency, separation, SAHM, plural marriage, polygamy, dominion covenant, multi-generational family, Joshuah's House