In Matthew 22.21, Christ responds to those who would entangle him by using a Roman coin with Caesar's image. He tells them to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.
This passage has generated a great deal of discussion over the centuries and not a few are confused by it - and as a result end up explaining it away.
Listening to a recent sermon on Psalm 3, I noted the preacher's insistence on the abiding validity of the imprecatory psalms. This became an issue back in the 1990's when some Theonomist-inspired leaders began to call for their use in the context of the Clinton presidency. The problem for them is that intuitively most Christians see a problem or conflict with their employment given the commands and general ethos of New Covenant spirituality - and the command to turn the other cheek and to love one's enemies. They're right, and yet the contemporary situation (with the call to use imprecatory psalms) is indicative of even greater doctrinal and theological problems.
In Jude we read of evil men crept in unawares, men who pollute the Church and corrupt its life and message. How do they do this?
Jude tells us they promote the 'way of Cain' who killed out of malice, pride, and a desire for standing before men and God. They also fall into the 'error of Balaam' who manipulated the word and corrupted the office of prophet. He hired out his services as he sought financial gain. And Jude also refers to the 'gainsaying of Core' who opposed Moses and sought to usurp his authority. His aspirations and actions served to subvert to the divine oracle.
In his first epistle, Peter quotes Hosea 1.9-10 suggesting that the fulfilment of the Children of Israel being as the sand of the sea is found in the Gentile inclusion. Hosea hints at this and the New Testament confirms it in uncertain terms.
1 Peter 2 speaks of the disobedient who stumble - an indication of apostasy. The Holy Nation is now comprised of people who formerly were not a people but are now the people of God (echoing Hosea).
Many Christians in the United States embrace the notion of American Exceptionalism - the notion that the nation due to its unique historical position and role is above common judgments. As it is the representative of liberal democracy and freedom and the focus of good in the world, it cannot be judged by the same standards as other nations. At times it must tackle tough and nigh on impossible tasks resulting in situations that would cause other nations to fall under severe judgment. The US must be exempt from such charges and condemnations. It cannot be held to the same standard.
Burk misses the flow of Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 2. He is an apostle charged with bringing salvation to all mankind. On that basis he exhorts men and women - targeting (as it were) certain points or characteristics which he (and the Holy Spirit of course) deemed universal.
Men are to lift holy hands eschewing the male tendency toward wrath and doubt and we could spend a fair bit of time exploring these characteristics, how men are more given to pride and anger and are less naturally given (we might say) toward faith which is something quite different from the normal Evangelical definition of faith as simple knowledge and assent.
Theological Modernists and the academy argue that Isaiah was written by two different authors. Chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah ben-Amos - the Isaiah we all know. Chapters 40-66 were written by another prophet in the exile (the so-called Deutero-Isaiah) who often tries to mimic the style of Isaiah and yet due to the seeming predictive prophecy in those chapters, it could not be the same person - or so it is argued. The naming of Cyrus in chapters 44-45 comes into play as the idea that Isaiah ben-Amos in the 8th century BC could name a future king of the 6th century is deemed impossible. Therefore they argue the second portion of the book was composed by a prophet in the exile period who knew Cyrus by name. And yet because he pretended to place himself in the past and predict the name of the king, he would in fact be a liar. This is not an issue for modernist theologians. This is because these theologians and scholars are unbelievers who reject the notion of revelation. The Bible for them is a series of moral tales and traditions. God may speak through the words but there is nothing unique about the Scriptures. For them, God is just as likely to speak through the writings of another religion or through inspirational figures of our own day.
https://churchandfamilylife.com/podcasts/667344e11a0b9ce0df045b5d
Law in Scripture is complicated and there is a tendency among some to reduce its complexity or flatten its dimensions. Sometimes law refers to the commandments of God and at other times it is cast in Redemptive-Historical terms.
I have often made reference to this passage, insisting (contrary to the exponents of 'once saved always saved' that it does not negate the concept of real apostasy. The argument is made that so-called apostates aren't really so, because like the figures mentioned in 1 John 2.19, they were never actually part of the Church. And so when a person seemingly 'falls away', they did not in fact fall away, but merely manifested their unregenerate state. In other words they were never 'real' Christians.
Recently I sat through a sermon on Psalm 112. It was a workshop in moralistic non-redemptive-historical preaching. It wasn't that the content was awful or the exhortations uninspiring, but the preacher missed the essential component of the passage and read it in a Judaized fashion. While disappointing it generated some great and edifying conversation for the drive home.
Consider Colossians 1 – Paul speaks of their faith in Christ, love of the saints, the hope laid up for them in heaven which was heard in the gospel, which has come to them and brought forth fruit (specifically in them). He says they have known the grace of God in truth and that they have love in the Spirit. He exhorts them to knowledge, wisdom, and spiritual understanding, to walk worthy of the Lord, fruitful in every good work. Once again he speaks of them increasing in knowledge – as these concepts of work, fruit, and knowledge go together.
https://www.clr4u.org/will-christ-ever-spew-lukewarm-christians-out-of-his-mouth-revelation-316/
Will Christ ever spew lukewarm Christians out of His mouth?
Dean Davis says no, because he believes in Eternal Security and as such the implied warning is merely hypothetical, a case of hyperbole, a warning to those who aren't actually part of the Church but pretend to be.
Listening to a radio preacher the other day, the question of 'the race' in 1 Corinthians 9 was raised. Paul speaks of a race, a prize, and his seeking of an imperishable or incorruptible crown. The preacher in question insisted this was not about salvation, but simply a question of rewards.
Dominionists and other advocates for Christians in government will often appeal to the example of Daniel and his three friends as a case for contemporary New Covenant believers working for a pagan government – to do good it is argued.
By some estimates a problem exists in the utilization by certain persons of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3.16. When it comes to making an argument for Sola Scriptura, they would argue Paul's words can only refer to the Old Testament and as such the passage does not support the larger doctrine which rests on assumptions rather than a specific teaching.
I recently heard a sermon on the closing verses of 2 Kings Chapter 2 wherein Elisha is cursed by mocking children. He in turn curses them in the name of Jehovah. This results in two she-bears emerging from the woods and forty-two deaths result.
Psalm 9 calls for the Lord to rise up in judgment on the wicked nations, while the related Psalm 10 takes up a tone of lamentation and a continued call for judicial action – but in a more narrow context. The condemned self-idolatry of the nations plays out in a more immediate sense in the way the wicked (the rich and powerful) crush the poor and the weak.
It is not uncommon for Theonomists and other advocates of Dominion Theology to make an appeal to the Book of Jonah as an example of a pagan society transformed. Nineveh's repentance represents (to them) a kind of prototype of what would take place over one thousand years later under the New Covenant.
This psalm is well known by many for the words of comfort it provides regarding the plight of the believer in the world and the abiding sense of injustice that can gnaw away at us if we let it. The wicked flourish and the righteous always seem to suffer and lose.
Returning to the question of double-truth, it might be argued that such dualities, paradoxes, or dynamics (which are so problematic to many) are the result of a severance which occurred with the Edenic Fall. On the one hand these inconsistencies and living contradictions (if that's what they are in fact) present a dilemma, but one that is solved with the eschaton, when all such tensions and dynamics are removed and with the reconciliation that occurs – the ultimate unity or holistic reality we seek, will become manifest in Christ. As such any kind of duality is not something inherent in the world but a sundering, a tragic result of sin.
