Not a Christian nation? America's government an embodiment of the Two Kingdoms: James Madison on Martin Luther

Atheists and other usurpers want to convince the public that the United States was never, in any sense, a Christian nation. Well, there's one problem: the facts don't bear this out.

If it wasn't enough that the Puritans were influenced by it, America's supreme law, the Constitution, is the incarnation of Martin Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, the idea that the religious and civil realms are, and should be, separate, which is, of course, an explication of Christ's command to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."

How do we know this? James Madison, the Father of the Constitution declares it in an 1821 letter to F. L. Schaeffer:

It illustrates the excellence of a system [American Constitutional government] which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

If St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully

In exploring the possible use of "Iscariot" as an epithet for Judas (the name can mean "man from Kerioth," like Leonardo "da Vinci"), I stumbled upon a discussion of the two apparently-conflicting accounts of Judas' death recorded in the New Testament. But it's not whether he died from hanging or his body fell and burst that is at issue (the Scriptures state that Judas hanged himself and that his body fell and burst; the two are not incompatible)' it's whether or not Matthew erred in citing Jeremiah when quoting Zechariah.

In an article on Judas Iscariot, a contributor notes that no less than Saints Augustine, Jerome, and Luther consider Matthew's citation an "error." Here's the passage in question:

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood."

They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me" (Matthew 27:3-10).

The best-informed and most rational explanation for this apparent contradiction is offered by the Lutheran Study Bible in a text note on Matthew 27, verses 9-10 (p. 1645) and the subsequent essay on the reliability of Scripture, "God's Reliable Word" (p. 1646). The text note states that the passage:

"Quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, but adds phrases from Jeremiah 19:11 (a potter's field is used for burial) and an allusion to Jeremiah 32:6-11 (Jeremiah's purchase of land)."

So, did the Evangelist err (at least partially)? Was St. Matthew careless? The essay explains further that (emphases mine):

"critics overlook a number of points on this issue. First, at a time when manuscripts were very rare and expensive, readers resorted to a variety of ways for studying and remembering key passages. Scribes often prepared collections of texts on a topic as a means for exploring and learning the teachings of Scripture. In The Harmony of All Sacred Scripture, Michael Walther provided numerous examples of this practice and the writers' habit of merging quotations (Harmonia Totius S. Scripturae [Strasbourg: Eberhard Zetzner, 1626], 416). Below is Walther's list with some additions:

Matthew 21:5 contains Isaiah 62:11, Zechariah 9:9

Matthew 21:13 contains Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11

Mark 1:2-3 contains Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 40:3

Acts 1:20 contains Psalm 69:25, 109:8

Romans 3:10-18 contains Psalms 14:1-3, 53:1-3, 5:9, 140:3; Proverbs 1:16; Isaiah 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1

1 Peter 2:7 contains Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 8:14

The example from Mark 1:2-3 is especially helpful for understanding Matthew 27:9-10. Mark ascribes his quote to Isaiah, but the full quote is actually a mixture of Malachi and Isaiah -- and Malachi gets quoted first. When we carefully consider Matthew 27:9-10, we see that the first words of the text come from Zechariah 11:13. But there is also wording from Jeremiah 32:6-9. It appears that both Matthew and Mark named their lists by the larger prophetic books cited in the lists. (Zechariah and Malachi were perhaps less likely to suggest themselves for the titling, since they stood in the scroll of the minor prophets.)

And if St. Augustine is going to be used carelessly (or dishonestly) to impugn the integrity of Scripture, then he should be allowed to speak fully:

"If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood . . . For the utterances of Scripture, harmonious as if from the mouth of one man, commend themselves to the belief of the most accurate and clear-sighted piety, and demand for their discovery and confirmation the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research . . . So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction, the only conclusion is that he does not understand" (NPNF 1 4:180).

So, it turns out St. Augustine was right after all. Not about the Evangelist erring, but about our lack of understanding and our need for "the calmest intelligence and the most ingenious research" in our study of Scripture.

Question everything, but don't use skepticism as an excuse for denying the answers when you find them (or they find you)

One of the great intellectual crimes of the last one and one-half centuries has been the brainwashing of the West into making a false dichotomy between Faith and Reason. At least with regard to Christianity, it is not true that the two are mutually-exclusive; that one is based on Fact and the other emotion; that one is a matter of the heart and the other a matter of the mind; that one is objectively true and the other merely personal whim.

In fact, the Apostle Paul makes this point powerfully in declaring the obvious: If Christ has not risen from the dead, then our faith is futile and we Christians are to be pitied more than all men:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ . . . if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins . . . If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

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" (1 Corinthians 15).

Some reflections the nature and proper use of Reason, especially with regard to Faith, in response to a friend:

Official Roman Catholic teaching is that when the Pope defines a matter of faith or morals, he is infallible. (This does not mean that he doesn't sin or err in other matters, such as discipline or personal opinion).

I reject that doctrine, since it conflicts with the teachings of Christ: He tells the truth; it is up to us to recognize and admit that.  No office makes a man infallible in any matter; it is only to the degree that the Pope -- or any man -- speaks accurately the words of Christ that he speaks Truth.

As for Luther, he was a miserable sinner, just like every pope, you, and me. His value was that at a time when the western church taught officially that Christians could literally pay (cash) to remove sins, when the Church of Rome preached that God was a terrible, malevolent judge waiting to torment us in hell forever unless we could in some way satisfy His justice on our own merit (an impossible task), when those entrusted with the responsibility to preach faithfully His Gospel instead preached doctrines of hell, Luther rediscovered the clear teachings of Scripture.

He found that God's justice was not in treating us as our sins deserve, but in declaring all of us just (justified, innocent, righteous) in Christ, through faith in Him.

Though all of us sin daily and much and deserve God's wrath, God has had mercy on all of us by sending His Son to become flesh, die for our sins, and rise from the dead. In Christ, God reconciled the whole world -- all of us -- to Himself. He forgives our sins, rescues us from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all people, as the words and promises of God declare.

Luther was completely fallible (just like us); his great contributions were restoring to preeminence in the Church the true Gospel and reviving the teaching that unless something can be shown to be true from Scripture, it has no place as doctrine in the Church.

As for Mr. Jefferson, he was partly correct: We should question everything, but we should not use our skepticism as an excuse for denying the answers when we find them.  Or when they find us.

It appears from the quotation provided that Mr. Jefferson misunderstood the nature and purpose of Reason, since by definition, reason is a tool each man possesses to determine objective truth; an "Oracle given by heaven" comes from heaven and not from the mind of a man.  (If Man could discover from within all that God intended to communicate to us, then why would He send his Son?)

Some misunderstand Luther's comments on Reason being "the devil's whore;" he did not mean that we should reject the use of reason or the objective truth we determine with it and live in ignorance and superstition, but that we should put Reason in its proper place, which is as a tool that we use to determine fact, especially with regard to understanding the Scriptures as God intended.

Many Christians err in subjugating Scripture to their contra- or extra-Biblical, man-made "traditions" (as in Roman Catholicism and American Evangelicalism) or to their own Reason (as in American Evangelicalism as derived from Calvin; you may recall what Jefferson said regarding Calvin's god).  All of us sin, all of us err, and all of us have a responsibility to speak faithfully what God has revealed.  So we are responsible not only for the uprightness of our decisions but also the rightness of our declarations.

As for the First Amendment?  It opens the door to, invites in to supper, and then locks the door behind to shield from the wolves the skeptic, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, animist, pagan, agnostic, atheist, and truly peaceful Muslim.

So, what specific objections are in the way, my friend?

Let your sins be strong, for God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners

Be honest about just how bad your sins really are, because Christ paid for them all.

Great news for the wicked, from here:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?

Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

--Martin Luther to Philip Melanchthon,
on the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521

Calvin's lonely god

Christ said that "many" enter destruction, and few find the way to eternal life.

If, as Calvin and some of his defenders argue, God denies the "many" reprobate who end up in Hell knowledge of Him and His grace -- they are "justly left in their sin" by His "sovereignty" -- then Calvin's god is lonely by choice. It chose to save only a few.

The Christian God calls all people to eternal life, not just the "lucky" few.

Offered in response to some thoughts from a kind sir concerned about my understanding of Calvin's unique doctrines:

I realize now that "God's Sovereignty" is code for "I'm a Calvinist."

I did not intend to "go for the throat;" I got the sense that you were someone who was perhaps Lutheran and had moderated your original views on Calvin's doctrines.

Apparently, you have crossed over fully into Calvinism.

As for what Calvin taught and Calvinism teaches, I did not invent, “TULIP.”

With Total Depravity (“T”), I have no problem (the teaching, not the condition!), since Scripture says that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We are dead in our trespasses and sin.

With that Luther would agree, I think.

Perseverence of the Saints (“P”), though contrary to Scripture, does not make God a monster.

It is with the heart of Calvinism (the center of "t U-L-I p") that I have a problem. It contradicts the Word of God and perverts His nature. (That's the nicest way I can say that without lying by omission.)

With respect to Unconditional Election (“U”), yes, Scripture states that God predestines believers to eternal life, and yes, It does make clear that those who end up in Hell deserve it (as do we all).

But judging from the Calvin quote I offered previously -- according to the Modern History Sourcebook, "from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen" (sorry, no page number), found here -- it does not seem that he is saying what you are saying he's saying.

Calvin states that God "exclud[es] the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit."

God does not say that He “justly leaves us in our sins” (your words). Christ came to save “the world.”

Jesus puts the lie to Calvin's claim by observing, “many are called, but few are chosen.” How many is “many,” according to the context? Those who were invited refused, so the King's servants were commanded to go out into the streets and "invite . . . as many as you find." They “gathered all whom they found.”

Not “some” of whom they found. All were invited. All were called.

No one was "justly left in their sin," alone and helpless.

Similarly, with regard to Limited Atonement (“L”) you wrote, "An atonement that actually saves and purchases us out of sin."

Jesus actually saves. Christ is – “actually” -- the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of “the whole world.” God was actually reconciling “the world” to Himself in Christ's body on the cross.

Not “some” of the world.

Jesus did not lament, "I longed to gather only 'some' of you." Nor did He declare that His mission was to save "only some." Christ came to seek and to save “the lost.”

Not “some” of the lost.

Lastly, concerning Irresistible Grace (“I”), if God's grace is “irresistible,” then – as Calvin observes above – God does not send His Holy Spirit to those “many” who end up in Hell, or they wouldn't be there.

You call that, "justly leaving people in their sin."

Calvin's god creates people for Hell.

Calvin's god died for only some people.

Calvin's god denies the Holy Spirit to many.

Calvin's god justly leaves many in their sin, helpless and alone.

Christ opened the kingdom of Heaven to all people, but Calvin and his god shut it in people's faces.

They are "denied the knowledge of God and His grace." They are "justly left in their sin."

The justice of God is not how a holy and righteous God punishes sin, but how the merciful God justifies all in Christ: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . ."

Christ died for all so that all might live.

Update: It was recommended I read Piper's, The Justification of God. Here is my reaction to that:

I had a chance to read the sermon. Piper quotes Jonathan Edwards:

"the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell."

"in God’s shewing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and hardening whom he will."

You (plural) are taking Paul's rhetorical argument -- a hypothetical -- and making out of it a doctrine that contradicts the rest of Scripture.

That hardly seems wise.

Piper says that "Romans 9 is an explanation for why the word of God has not failed even though God’s chosen people, Israel, as a whole, are not turning to Christ and being saved."

He claims that the reason for their not turning to Christ is "God's sovereignty."

But Paul says it is because of unbelief in Christ:

"but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame" (Romans 9:31-33).

Piper's misunderstanding of Romans 9 comes from his misidentifying "Israel." They do not have "conditions they must me[e]t to be the 'children of promise.'"

Paul is making the point in Romans 9 that it is by faith -- not works -- that both Jew and Gentile become a part of the true Israel.

This chapter is not about God denying His grace to anyone -- justly leaving people in their sin -- it is about how a person receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life: Faith in Christ.

Piper concludes by asking:

"Are all Israel the "children of promise" or only some? If only some, what makes one person a child of promise and another not?"

Paul answers -- God answers: "Faith in Christ" -- which is "the gift of God" -- makes a person a child of the Promise.

Amillennialist Contra Mundum

When I first began this site, it was with the intention of arguing politics, evolution, and Christian apologetics, topics I found myself addressing often in other forums.

I am forever opposed to anything that attempts to undermine confidence in the Word of Christ, in which we have "the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

And because it is founded upon that Christian faith and the two greatest documents created by Man -- the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution -- I defend the America given to us by God, as our Founding Fathers defined it.

I want what is good for my neighbor, my loved ones, and myself, and that means defending what is good and true.

Over the past three years, I found myself spending more and more words on The Religion of Rape and Slaughter, and that fact troubled me. Watching the coverage of Israel's current action in their War of Self-Defense Against Islam, I realized why my focus had shifted: When an enemy wants to subjugate, enslave, and murder you and yours (temporal consequences of Muhammad's venomous lies), you'd better mount a proper defense against it.

I have come to realize that President Bush's comforting words about Islam after 9/11 -- words I inwardly, quietly, wishfully wanted to believe -- were false.

We are not at war with a "tiny minority of extremists" taking their orders from a nut in a cave. We are engaged in the only continuous war of the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad's war against humanity.

The more I've learned of Islam's "sacred" texts and history, the more I've come to realize that the "Fundamentalist, Extremist, Radical, IslamoNaziFascist, Islamist, Jihadi, Jihadist-ists" are not perverting "a great world religion of peace," they're fulfilling it.

The monsters who behead Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, the animals who ask women in a Sudanese village whether they are Christian or Muslim and then slice the breasts off those who answer incorrectly, leaving them to die in the street, the devils who kidnap Copt daughters from their families and then rape and forcibly "marry" and "convert" them -- all of them are imitating the example of their Ideal Man, the false prophet Muhammad.

This barbarism has been carried out -- dependent upon Muslim knowledge, zeal, and resources -- around the world for the last nearly one and one-half millennia.

Only two kinds of people can deny the truth regarding this ancient, horrific, global nightmare: the ignorant and the deceitful.

If anyone doubts, he needs only to read Qur'an, ahadith, and sira, the eternal word of Allah and the words and deeds of its apostle, the genocidal pedophile Muhammad. Most of these texts are easily available to the infidel (and the inquisitive Muslim-In-Name-Only) with an ISP.

Islam's bloody present is just a trickle compared to the flood of its past. Since the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior -- and since Allah's word is immutable -- the stakes in our current conflict can not be higher.

Centuries ago, the Church Father Athanasius earned a reputation for consistently and vigorously fighting heresy. He was unwilling to let falsehood go unchallenged, so a saying developed around him: "Athanasius Contra Mundum" ("Athanasius Against the World").

Loving this same Truth, Martin Luther [apparently, it was misattributed to him] said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion [of] the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Can one allow the heretical claims of a genocidal, thieving, lying, enslaving pedophile to go unchallenged, especially when that false prophet commanded his followers to kill, rape, and enslave you and yours?

Christ warned that the world would hate His people, just as it hated Him. If one is not persecuted, despised, or rejected for speaking Jesus' words, it would be wise to consider whether one is in the battle at all.

Now is the time to take up the fight.

The Justice of God

A holy and just God will punish sin.

This is bad news for us sinners, since we break the commandments of God by our thoughts, words, and deeds every day of our lives. We justly deserve God's wrath.

Thankfully, God has a justice for us we wouldn't expect. It is the justice, or righteousness, that comes by faith alone in Christ alone, Who is our Righteousness.

Following is an account of how one Roman Catholic monk, Martin Luther, discovered this wonderful justice...

[Translator's Note: ...The terms "just, justice, justify" in the following reading are synonymous with the terms "righteous, righteousness, make righteous." Both sets of English words are common translations of the Latin "justus" and related words. A similar situation exists with the word "faith"; it is synonymous with "belief." Both words can be used to translate Latin "fides." Thus, "We are justified by faith" translates the same original Latin sentence as does "We are made righteous by belief."]

Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul's Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: "The justice of God is revealed in it." I hated that word, "justice of God," which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.

But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn't be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, "Isn't it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?" This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'" I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith." All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

I exalted this sweetest word of mine, "the justice of God," with as much love as before I had hated it with hate. This phrase of Paul was for me the very gate of paradise. Afterward I read Augustine's "On the Spirit and the Letter," in which I found what I had not dared hope for. I discovered that he too interpreted "the justice of God" in a similar way, namely, as that with which God clothes us when he justifies us. Although Augustine had said it imperfectly and did not explain in detail how God imputes justice to us, still it pleased me that he taught the justice of God by which we are justified.

From Project Wittenberg

Originally posted July 30th.

Happy Reformation Day!

The real reason to celebrate: today is the anniversary of one of the most important moments in Church history.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, posted on the church doors at Wittenberg his 95 Theses.

The main thrust of his argument was that God had clearly revealed in His Scriptures that:

-because of our sin, all of us justly deserve His wrath,

-there's nothing we can do about it, but

-because of His great love for us, the Son of God bled and died to take away our sins!

Because of Jesus, we are freely and completely forgiven of all our sins, reconciled to God, and await eternal life with Christ in His kingdom!

What better reason to celebrate?