WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT- FROM WHENCE COME YOUR "RIGHTS"?

Where do your rights come from? 

I've been reading a lot lately about Kim Davis, the Rowan county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex who practice homosexuality. What I've been hearing from the leftist writers has been a lot of nonsense claiming that "God's law is not the law of the land" or "the Bible is not the law of the land."  So, to those who say, "God's law is not the law of the land,"  we need to talk.

You see, the most foundational principle upon which our Republic is founded, is human rights. Every human has a fundamental and unalienable "right" to live how he or she chooses to live.

"But where do these rights come from? Who gets to decided what these rights are?" you may ask.

I'm glad you asked.

According to the founders of our Republic, these fundamental human rights come from God. Let me quote them for you.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men" 

Did you hear that? The founders of our nation believed that it was the governments job to ensure that men are free to practice their "certain inalienable rights" that God has given them.  That's why government exists.

But this is where things get uncomfortable, because once we see why government exists, we have to ask the question, "what rights are unalienable?"  And in order to answer that question, you have to identify "what Creator?"

You see, if it's Allah, the Muslim creator, then there are a certain set of rights that each person has. In the case of Islam, men have far more rights than women. So do you wish to identify Allah as the "Creator" that issues men and women their inalienable rights? 

In the case of Judaism, you would have a completely different set of rights that would be given to us as "certain unalienable rights."  

If Jesus Christ is the "Creator" who "endows men with certain unalienable rights" then we have yet another, differing, set of rights.

Do you see how quickly this got uncomfortable? 

So here's what we know for sure. 

1. The founders of this great nation proclaimed that it was the governments job to put into place protections for all men so that everyone could enjoy their rights. (That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men")

2. The rights which men possess cannot be taken from them without perverting a law which is higher than even the most powerful king who would wish to take them. (all men are created equal, [and given] certain unalienable Rights)

3. The most powerful man on earth cannot change what those rights are because they were given to all men by their Creator. (all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.)

4. That leaves us to determine what Creator our founding fathers had in mind. Was is the Muslim "creator" or the Jewish "creator" or the Christian Creator, or some other "creator"? 

This is the question that you must answer. If the Supreme court wants to suggest that homosexual couples have the "unalienable right" to marry one another, then they have to make a case that that right was given to them by the Creator.  What Creator is it? Who is it that holds the whole world in His hands? I hope that you can see the dilemma. If there is no God, then the rights given to men are only those that the most powerful man gives them. But, if there is a God, and that God does give men unalienable rights, then no matter who is in power, he cannot remove those rights from the people. So where do those rights come from?


I'll be awaiting your answer. 

*Note: Some might wonder why I make a difference between the Jewish God and the Christian God. The reason that I do so is because the Jews worship a god similar to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but over the years they have come to construct a version of that God who has become so errant, that this god can no longer be said to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, the God of their fathers, came to them in the flesh and their rejected him and refused to worship Him, choosing to worship instead a god which was a graven image, which they formed and carved in the furnace of their own minds. This is why the Jews need the gospel to be preached to them. 

The Error of Dispensational Theology

Most Christians are Dispensational and don't know it... and it's a gross error. 

Baptist Vs. Presbyterian Covenant Theology

Baptist Covenant Theology

Most people don't know that Reformed Baptists hold to a different view of the covenants than do the Traditional Reformed (Westminster). Here we see how the Baptists have always viewed the covenants since the Reformation.

Kim Davis is not a Theonomist

Kim Davis and Theonomy

Kim Davis: The Rowen County clerk from Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.










Theonomy: The belief that the Mosaic civil laws of the Old Testament are binding upon all rulers of all nations, most especially the Mosaic death penalties. (with the very high likely hood that one day, they WILL become the laws of the world).







Before I begin, let me set the stage so that we are clear on what exactly I'm arguing in this installment. There are several different views regarding the relationship between the Bible and the Government.



View 1: The Christian is a citizen of heaven, therefore he/she should not trouble him/herself with political issues.  This view must be rejected without question. Only the very fringe fall into this category.

View 2: The Christian should be about the work of instituting a Christian government with Christian laws. "Let's make American a Christian nation again" and this will be done through the Church rising up and taking back control. The laws of the land will be those that 'we as Christians' think are most beneficial.  This view is closer to the Biblical position, but it still falls short because this group usually holds to "Dispensational Theology" and therefore does not                                                         identify the law of God very well. Pat Robertson would fall into this                                                       category.



View 3: The Christian should seek to serve God and rule according to his law. Each Christian is to rule by the moral law of God wherever it is to be found in the pages of Scripture and we will know which laws are moral because "our conscience will tell us." Although, we do not enforce the first four of the Ten Commandments, only commandments 6-10.  Most Christians fall into this category.



View 4: Theonomy: The Christian needs to work to institute the Mosaic Old Testament law as the law of the land, thus, the first amendment to the constitution needs to be abolished and the law of God reign supreme. This view also falls short because it does not recognize the temporal nature of many of the laws that God gave to Israel. Including the first four commandments requiring the keeping of a Sabbath, not worshiping any other God, etc. etc. A handful of Reformed Presbyterians fall into this category.





View 5: The Christian should be involved in politics and should obey God in everything, but the law of Moses was not a law given so that nations like the US could copy it. The law that the Christian should govern by is the law of Christ revealed in both the Old and New Testaments. The Law of Christ thus is NOT an exact replica of the Old Testament civil law, but is far greater. (For in Christ "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.) I would fall into this category.

But in this particular post I will only address Theonomy since many Theonomists have been suggesting that what Kim Davis is doing is supportive of their theology. However, I'm certain that Kim Davis is not a Theonomist, and I'm certain that she does not support Theonomic theology.
In short, I'm not sure to what view Kim Davis holds to, but I do know that she is not a Theonomist.

How can I say this? After all, I've never met her, never talked to her, have no idea what church she attends, and I freely confess that I know nothing about her theology. But I know that she's not a Theonomist because she has been married 4 times, divorced three times, and was made pregnant during her first marriage by the man who later became her third husband. Thus, according the Old Testament civil law, Kim Davis should have been put to death long ago, long before she became a believer. The only reason that Kim Davis lives to profess and serve Jesus Christ is because the laws of Moses are NOT in effect.

Of course many Theonomists are praising her stand against a corrupt government, as am I. However, the difference between Theonomists and I is that I can praise her with a clear conscience while they say that she should have been justly executed long ago. The only reason that she's alive is because the Theonomists have NOT gotten their way.

One of the most well known and consistent Theonomists was Greg Bahnsen who passed away and the early age of  47 in 1995. In one of his most complete and enduring works on Theonomy he writes,

"All those who committed capital crimes (as defined in God's law) had to be executed or else the magistrate would have been sinfully judging against the victim and in favor of the offender; this  is the sign of a wicked judgement. Hence, the ruler was prohibited from respecting persons or showing mercy to criminals. When God says homosexuality (for instance) warrants capital punishment, then that is what social justice demands; that is how heinous with respect to social relations the crime is in God's judgement. Those who are put to death according to the law of God are described in Deut. 21:22 as ones who have 'committed a sin worthy of death.' The God-given authority of the law is established in the penalties incurred by its violators. Hebrews 2:2 declares that the word of the law is unalterable. Such is the logic of ethics. If some action is ethically good or right, then the change of time will not per se alter the rightness of that action... the converted criminal who was crucified at Christ's side recognized tha the received just retribution for his crime under the sanctity of justice; he asserted, 'we die justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds."

And he continues,

   "With Respect to social affairs the Lord looks with so much scorn upon these crimes that He commands the state to execute those who commit them. Christians do well at this point to adjust their attitudes so as to coincide with those of their heavenly father. Remember the seriousness of  the penal law. Not even refuge sought by the altar could protect those who were guilty of capital crimes (ex. 21:14; cf. 1 Kings 2:28, 34); not even cherished friends or relatives are exempt from the death penalty when they have violated God’s law (Deut. 13:6-9)… it is not without  significance that the major problems facing society today are listed among those things which god  adjudges to be things worthy of capital punishment.” (Theonomy In Christian Ethics).

Does Kim Davis deserve to die? According to the law of Moses, yes she does. But the law which was administered under that priesthood has changed. As the word of God says, "Where there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law as well."  (Hebrews 7:12) Praise God that we have a new high priest and a new law, for we all deserve to die for "the law brings wrath" (Romans 4:15).  But praise God, because women like her and men like me are allowed to live, even though we deserve to die. And we live because we have died to the law. As it is written:

"Do you not know brother, for I am speaking to those who know the law- that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is release from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Likewise my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another law, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God... now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the spirit and not in the old way of the written code."
 
   
Thank you Jesus for freeing me from the law of sin and death. I know that Kim Davis thanks you too.