Arranged Marriage - The Daughter's Perspective

I've given my view of the arranged marriage of my daughter in two parts found here and here.

My husband has also written about the process here.

Today it gives me great pleasure to share my daughter's testimony of the matter. Her story is not a typical romance story or a courtship story, because she did not get to know her husband in that way until after they were married. Instead you are about to read about a many-year journey of the heart. I hope you will be amazed and encouraged, as I was, to read of the sovereignty and goodness of God in the life of a young woman.

A few months before I turned 11, my mother made an announcement to me and my three siblings. She was going to remarry. She would be marrying a man she met in law school and the wedding would take place in a month or two.

My mother and biological father had been divorced since I was 2 and I was very excited by the news of her remarrying, as I knew she could not have any more children until she was married and I very much wanted more younger siblings.

A year and a half later we moved from my childhood home-state to the state where my step father was from originally. This was also exciting for me. The new home was in the country, with a river on our land and many places for adventurous children to play.  I looked forward to a new home and being next door to his parents, whom I quickly came to regard as my own grandparents, and the affection was returned with greater vigor.

Through the years I began to become unhappy with the changes in my life that, at the time, had created such excitement in me. I began to resent the man who took charge of our family and made changes to us that were, to me, hard. This resentment only got worse as I grew older. I did not trust that he was doing what was best for me and the relationship with my parents grew strained.

By 17 I had decided I no longer wanted to live with my mother and stepfather and had made arrangements to leave home forever and live with my biological dad. I was in a state of mourning with this decision. I greatly loved my younger siblings whom God had given to our family, and I knew from what my parents had said that if I left home I would not be allowed to see or talk with them.  During this time I did not read my bible, or pray in any way. I tried to succeed where all others had failed at ignoring God, and hoping to slip by unnoticed by Him. Perhaps He would forget me.  It is with great joy now I can say that He did not. When it came time, instead of leaving as I had planned, I came home. I do not know, even now, why I returned home from the trip I was on instead of going through with my plan, except to say God’s plan was unavoidable.

Once I was home I spoke with my stepfather and set before him how I was, and was still,  feeling, and the need I felt to do something drastic. I do not know how he truly felt about this, but after two or three months of prolonged conversations, I made a choice. I would stay at home. I would trust in God to provide for my happiness, and I would change my attitude to that of one of contentment.

This was a changing point in my life. I used to always plan for two futures, one at home and one away. I was prepared at any time to catch a ride to the airport and forever leave my family. Now I depended on God. I truly believed He placed me in this family for my own good, that He was sovereign and I could not escape His plan by running away, but I could certainly make that plan much harder on myself.

I am not proud of how I behaved, or my confusion as a teenager. I do not tell these things to bolster a view of me or show false pride in my actions. Rather I relate them so it can be known that I did not always trust  my parents. We have not always had the relationship we do now, and it was a struggle to get there. But even in the midst of my own fears and doubts, not the least of which was trusting my parents to search out and find the spouse I would live the rest of my life with, I make the conscious decision to trust not only them, but God.

After making my decision to stay home, my parents started to actively train me in wifely ways. They had tried before of course but, due to my attitude, while I could clean and cook not unwell, many of the spiritual lessons were lost on me. The ability to have a peaceful mind, a forgiving heart, and an understanding spirit had until this time been impossible to attain. We now talked of marriage often, and it was my earnest desire to be married. (I had wanted to be a wife and mother from a young age, but how to go about that had always eluded me.)

My parents explained to me how they were going to go about finding a husband for me, and the specific Scriptures that had lead them to this way of thinking. I was reassured to not feel pressured into doing this by myself. I was instructed to not show favoritism, to not seek out the favor of young men and to let my works be my apparel.  My parents urged me to protect my heart, and not let it float around, ready to be damaged.  Through some experiment I conducted on my own I came to the realization that “Attitude is Everything”. I could fully control my own attachments. By the end of a year I was firmly convinced I could love anyone.

I reached this conclusion by age 20 but I did not marry until just after my 22nd birthday. It was a long two years (was that all!) but I found contentment at home. I knew my parents (and especially my step-father)  were doing all in their power to go new places, usually 3-4 hours away, to meet new families and talk to fathers, but it all seemed to me to be taking too long. What was God, (and all these eligible sons) waiting for? ( I now know my sweet, wonderful and perfect husband was at that time fighting for his life in a hospital and was not available for marriage.)

Finally a good tip came in from a friend. Their church (about 4 hours away) had many young men who were looking for a spouse. Off we went to visit and sure enough there were more than one, or two, that I had no objection to at all. We met one family in particular and over the course of three months we saw them 3 times. For my family that was a lot of traveling and meeting them so often was encouraging, though I never suspected anything more.

(The following is my favorite part of the story so forgive me if I add too much detail.) Imagine my surprise when one day in May 2015 while at our favorite grocery store, my step-father took me in alone, and whilst buying me chocolate, let me know there was a young man who had answered the questionnaire my father and I had put together years ago, and that soon I might be asked to answer one as well. I tried not to show my excitement, but I am sure my father figured it out by the way I kept pestering him to see the suitors answers. Father did not want me to see the suitor’s answers until I had answered my own questions to prevent me from tailoring my answers. I suspected at this time the suitor was from this particular family we had been meeting with, but as they had a few sons I was not sure which son it was.

About a week later I answered the questions put to me. (The questions were sent to my father’s email, and he emailed them to me to prevent my knowing from which son the questions were coming. So crafty, as I was hoping for a clue from the email address.) I was then allowed to see the suitors answers and all but three were satisfactory. Those three we continued to discuss for the next month, and I was told who was seeking me: Brad. We saw each other once while these discussions were going on. It was a slightly nerve racking time for me because I was expecting at any time to be rejected, but even expecting that, I could not help but see the many good things in this man Brad, and to see he would be a good husband indeed. However, my answers could never have been as satisfactory as his, so I assumed he would soon come to his senses and tell me this was done. His family came to visit mine, and a week later we were engaged. (At a dance, it was all very romantic and beautiful.)

Two months after that we were married, and despite being told often and by many people what to expect, we have found it to be complete bliss. We have yet to encounter many of the hiccups we hear other couples talk about or even have a major disagreement.

I was asked to write this up to show my perspective of what my parents did. Truthfully, the only fault I have is, after Brad and I were engaged we were not allowed to hold hands. That is it. (I found out later it was not just my parents, my husband also did not think it was a good idea.)

I truly appreciate my parents keeping Brad’s identity from me, and that he was even interested, until he had already been approved. I am glad they did not tell me about the talks going on between his father and mine before Brad was told I would be a good match for him. I like to think I am usually level heading and wouldn’t have gotten stresses or worried about it. But after I was engaged and my emotions got rolling, I had a hard time controlling them and that was after I knew we were getting married. If I had known before, and there was a chance of it being called off, I don’t know what I would have done with myself.

I have been married over a year now, and I could not be happier. I see no signs whatever of my marriage not lasting forever, and everyday I thank God for my husband. I do not believe Brad or I have in anyway been damaged by our parents being involved in the process, quite the opposite in fact. We are both very happy that we got all the important questions out of the way and settled quickly so we could move on with getting married, being confident that our parents would let us know if we were rushing through disagreements merely because our emotions were aroused. We had no romantic relationship until married and I believe that was excellent. We of course got to know each other after marriage (Favorite colors, foods, movies, books, etc.) but with the benefit of no bedtimes, other people listening in, or physical boundaries, I firmly believe this was the best way for us, and I would not change anything. 

I don't have anything to add to that. 

The Power to Quicken The Dead - Who Has It?

Aging should bring more than grey hair. Hopefully, wisdom increases with age if I apply my heart to it. I don't know if I'm necessarily wiser, but I have realized two important facts lately. The first is that there is so much that I don't know. I mean so, SO, SO, much that I don't know! I am finally starting to see that I am barely touching the tip of the iceberg in terms of knowledge. Why are young people convinced they are on the cusp of discovering all things and old people are humbly ashamed at what they don't yet know?  I guess it's because the young don't know what they don't know, and the old are starting to get an inkling of what they don't know. I don't know.

The second important thing I'm learning is the utter and complete powerlessness of the dead. I guess I've always known the dead are weak, but the blinders have really been thrown off lately and I can almost sense with my being how impossible it is for the dead to do anything. My understanding of this has been evolving and growing, and honestly, if I have to go much further into this, my brain may collapse from awe. The good thing is, when I read the Scripture now and see the word "dead", the meaning of the passage is practically exploding in my face. I can't miss it. When God says someone is dead, He doesn't mean that he is weak, or only capable of a little work. Dead means dead. Not alive. Not even a little bit.

By now, you are probably wondering where I'm going with this. Well, on Sunday, while the pastor was butchering Ephesians 4, I decided to read Ephesians from the beginning to try to understand the overall point of the book. Naturally, I started in Chapter 1. Paul starts out by telling us that God planned and predestined those who would be in Christ. God also caused them to believe and gave them the Holy Spirit as an earnest of their inheritance in Him. All of this happened by a work of God and God alone. Those whom He chose didn't have to do a thing. which is good, because until He gave them life, they were dead and incapable of believing or doing any other thing. If they had to DO something in order for God to save them, they would never be saved because of their deadness and inability to act.

After God does all that, He opens the eyes of their understanding so that they can know what He did. (verses 17 and 18) And even that is done for His glory. But then we see in verse 19 a new revelation about how God accomplished this feat. This was the stunning moment for me. God used the same power to save us that He used to raise Christ from the dead! Look at this:

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead...   (vs. 19 and 20a)

When I think of the power required to raise someone from the dead, I think it must be large in both quantity and quality. It was one of God's greatest works, right? To raise Christ from the dead? And yet, it took this EXACT SAME power that God had to exercise to save me. Paul calls it "his mighty power." In the past, I have thought it a small thing for God to save me. But now I see that it was a huge thing. And not just me, but the entire Church, which Paul says "is his body." 

And all of this brings me back to Arminians. How could anyone think that he possesses ANY of the mighty power necessary to make himself believe? It is impossible for someone who is dead in his trespasses and sin to exercise faith. He doesn't even HAVE faith until God has already done a saving work in his life and given that man the gift of faith. (Ephesians 2:8-9)  After God opens your eyes to your sinfulness and his forgiveness, don't make the mistake of thinking that YOU realized it and chose to repent and believe. That is the very opposite of how God describes it in Ephesians 1. God chose you. God saved you. God quickened you and opened the eyes of your understanding.

Praise Him.

Dead Men Do Not Act

How dead is dead? Can the spiritually dead commit spiritual acts that result in them being quickened?

Calvinism answers that with a resounding, "No!"

R.C. Sproul, Jr. on Arminianism

The Straw Man is Strong With This One

I'm back to write more about the horror I'm reading on Visionary Womanhood. Natalie Klejwa has done a complete 180 on everything she believed about womanhood and being a wife. This is sad for her, of course, but what is disturbing is that she is now convinced that she has discovered the truth and is encouraging other Christian women to follow her path. She thought she knew the truth for 40 some odd years, in one or two days she finds out she had it all wrong, and NOW women should trust that she knows about that of which she speaks? She doesn't doubt herself even the tiniest bit after following the wrong path for 4 decades? Scary. How about some humility and spending some decades testing your new theories before you call other women to join?

But today I'm here to expose one of her straw men. It is a common tactic on her blog whereat she states some false teaching and then  proclaims it is false. She's not very thorough at knocking down her own straw men, but then, most of them are so ridiculous that she's counting on you to dismiss them for being outrageous based on basic common sense and the most rudimentary understanding of the gospel. The problem is, the false teachings that she is protesting don't actually exist within mainstream or orthodox Christendom. Since I have written somewhat extensively about 1 Peter 3, I'll just talk about her suffering-wife-straw-man. Here is a quote from her blog post The One Sure Sign You are in an Emotionally Abusive Relationship:

There are some people who think a wife needs to suffer for Christ even if it means physical beatings. Christ’s suffering wasn’t enough for her. She’s got to complete it for Him. Total rubbish, of course.

I find it interesting that she provides no link, no citation, to ANYONE who says that a Christian man or woman needs to complete Christ's suffering for Him. Jesus was pretty clear when He said "It is finished" that nothing more needed to be done. His work was complete. For her to suggest any Christian leader teaches that is just, oh, I don't know -- stupid? But wow, she really knocked that one out of the park by proclaiming it to be "total rubbish." Duh.  While setting up this straw man though, she is also treading dangerously close to saying that women are entitled to a marriage free of suffering, or that it is outside of God's will for Christians to suffer, and suffer deeply. Even within marriage. If she is going to talk about Christ's suffering, and about women suffering in marriage, I would think it would be the perfect place for her to direct her readers to the book of 1 Peter, when the apostle actually addresses the very issue. But, no.  So, I'm going to go there.

Let's look at what Peter had to say about suffering wrongfully:

¹⁹ For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
²⁰ For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
²¹ For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
²² Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
²³ Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
²⁴ Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
²⁵ For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;...
¹³ And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
¹⁴ But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
¹⁵ But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
¹⁶ Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
¹⁷ For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
¹⁸ For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: ...

4 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

² That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

This selection starts in 1 Peter 2:19 and goes through to 1 Peter 4:2. I specifically selected the verses that are most applicable to the topic at hand, whether it is within the will of God for Christians to suffer and why. It starts out stating that it is "thankworthy" to suffer and grieve. This means a person who is in the midst of suffering should be thanking God. If a person is to thank God, that means  God is sovereign over our suffering. No need to question what kind of God would permit such a thing (Romans 9), just thank Him.

Then Peter goes on to say that this thing, this suffering, this grief is something to which God has specifically called us. Did you hear that? God called us to suffer. But before he called us to suffer, He did another thing. He caused His own Son to suffer so he (Christ) could serve as an example to us for how to do it. Is there any disagreement about what is being said there? It isn't ambiguous, right? He starts out addressing servants and their mistreatment by masters. He is describing this mistreatment, not as inconvenient, but as suffering and grieving. It's bad.

Peter tells the servants how to suffer. Without reviling. Without threatening. Without sin and without guile. The servants don't need to fear because God is seeing all of that and is judging with righteous judgement. They don't even need to attempt to make their own case.

Here comes the amazing part to me, as a woman. Chapter 3 starts out with the words "likewise ye wives..." We know Peter didn't write this as a separate or stand alone chapter. He wrote it as one long narrative and verse 1 of Chapter 3 follows up the advice to servants to suffer righteously by addressing wives and telling them to also suffer in the same manner as the servants, and to follow Christ's example. We don't "complete Christ's suffering" as was comically asserted as a common teaching by Natalie Klejwa at Visionary Womanhood, instead we suffer in His footsteps, following the example He set. Peter said that some wives will SUFFER at the hands of their husbands who do not obey the word. And was his advice to those wives that they should take a test to see if their husband is an emotional abuser? Nope. Peter's advice, it might even be considered a command, is for the wife to make herself subject to her husband. Not because he is loving her like Christ loved the Church, but precisely because he IS NOT.

And did you see verse 14? Again, I am amazed. God's ways are not my ways. He says that if I, as a wife, suffer at the hands (or mouth) of my husband I should be happy, I should not be in terror or be troubled. Why? Because of the hope that lies within me. The hope of the gospel. The sure knowledge of God's love and His righteousness. Then we see in verse 17 that my suffering, if I suffer for good, IS the will of God! God wills that I suffer! Can this be true? I assure you, it is. And Peter urges us to have the mind of Christ in this matter (in the same way Paul urges us to have the mind of Christ in Philippians 2), to not live in the flesh, and to live "to the will of God." Amen.

Natalie Klejwa would have you believe that if your husband does not obey the word, you are in a "destructive relationship." But the Word of God tells you to believe that God's will, which sometimes includes suffering in marriage, cannot destroy you.  So, who is telling the truth in this matter?

No King But Jesus

I don't know if Christians have always favored statism, or if modern American Christians are just a wonderful example of the success of government schooling. It is a subject I must study further, as I seem to remember reading about certain Christians in the past claiming "No King But King Jesus" and being persecuted for it. Perhaps a reader can enlighten me.

The overwhelming majority of believers with whom I speak and whose stuff I read on the internet and in books seem to think that God wants to rule us through an earthly intermediary, an earthly ruler. I have heard it said countless times that God created 3 institutions, the Church, the family and government. And yet I find no place in Scripture where God instituted government. Romans 13 is used as a proof text, and yet it fails to guide God's people up to the time Paul wrote his letter. Where in God's Law does he ordain governments? Where does He say that His Law is to be executed by governments? To whom was the Law of God given? To His people.

In fact, I see the exact opposite. God wanted to rule His people directly. The book of Judges demonstrates what I believe to be the closest look at how God intended to govern. The Law had been given to Moses, then Joshua led the people of God into the promised land. There is no evidence that they tried to establish a government over all of the land. There are places in Judges where we read of kings within the Israelite lands. These were likely tribal leaders or rulers of cities, but they were not set up to execute God's Laws. The cities also had elders, which is a natural sort of government, if you want to call it that. Elders would hear disputes, represent the city in negotiations with other cities, etc. But they didn't "rule" because the Law of God ruled.

In Judges 8 we see Gideon dealing with city elders who are violating God's command to help their brethren drive out the heathen. After Gideon takes care of that problem and saves Israel from the oppression of foreign kings the people cry out to Gideon to rule over them:

Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou has delivered us from the hand of Midian. Judges 8:22

But Gideon, a type of Christ and a deliverer answers this way:

And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you. Judges 8:23

It isn't recorded that the people didn't understand what it meant for God to rule over them without a king. I guess it was clear to them. But we modern people just can't grasp it. We know that we won't go on a spree of murder, mayhem and robbery, but our neighbor might. I guess.  If an earthly government isn't controlling our every move and writing thousands upon thousands of laws we are going to destroy each other and the earth? When did we get such an idea? Not from the Bible. The Bible doesn't even hint that God's Law was a good start, but we really need to legislate every tiny detail. The pharisees did just that, and Jesus did not have kind words for them.

What does God say about a people that demand a king? Has God spoken? Is Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever? Did God intend to rule directly over His people by means of His Law? I say that He did and here is where God said the same:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah. And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in the thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.  1 Samuel 8:4-7

 Could it be that it pleases God if, when given the choice, we choose to govern ourselves with the Law of God only and reject an earthly government? Is God inadequate for the job? If not, then why subject ourselves to so much tyranny? We are worse than the fools at Galatia who wanted to earn their salvation by works according to the Law. We want to please God by obeying man's Law.

O foolish (Americans), who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?  Galatians 3:1, my paraphrase

 American Christians will reject any notion that they should obey the Law of God, and those same Christians will assert that disobedience to any of the thousands of local, state and federal laws, plus incorporated laws of other nations is sin because God wants us to "obey every ordinance."

If the laws of man contradict or add to the Law of God, are we obligated to obey them while we ignore the commands of the living God? When we measure our righteousness by the standard of man's laws, are we not idolators?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

 How does one know if he has a king?  The borders of a kingdom are determined by where the kingdom's laws are obeyed. All who obey the law of the king are his subjects. Subjecting oneself to the king means subjecting oneself to the law of the king. If his laws are not obeyed, then he is not the sovereign. Obeying the laws of another realm is evidence of loyalty to that realm.

No king but King Jesus!

Is An "Age of Accountability" Found In The Bible?

I was having a conversation with someone (O.k., it was my father-in-law) and he suggested that babies who die are saved because they have not yet reached the age of accountability. He was unable to define what that age was and he seemed really flummoxed by my next question which was, "Are you suggesting that there is more than one way to be saved?"

My reason in asking that question is that I believe there is but one way, and one way only, to be saved, and that is to be born again. Paul describes it like this in Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In other words, God gives the gift of faith. That faith enables us to believe. We don't work up faith, it is given to the elect.  In fact, it is given at a time when we are

dead in trespasses and sins

Ephesians 2:1

Dead people don't believe anything. They have to be made alive first. And it can happen to babies. Even babies in the womb.  If it can't happen to babies in the womb, then how can they be saved?  If babies can't be born again, and the Bible doesn't describe any other way of being saved, then babies can't be saved and they go to hell if they die. 

This is Mark Dewey's explanation of the subject.

The Law And The New Covenant

As it says at the top of my blog, I'm a theonomist. A practical definition of theonomy, which I will borrow from R.C. Sproul, Jr. is "the conviction that the civil law God gave to Israel in the Old Testament ought to be the law of the land in all nations everywhere." Either we have man's law, which is autonomy from God, or God's Law, which is theonomy. But the question always arises when one first hears of theonomy, "What? Are you saying we should be offering sacrifices and observing the feasts? Are you saying that we are obligated to keep the law of Moses in order to be saved?" No. I am saying, with David, that I love God's law and the answers to how we are to love God and love our neighbor are found within the Law. We ought to love God's law and obey His commands. Christ said the same thing in Matthew 5, blessed are those who do and teach them, for they shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I'm not going to give a treatise on theonomy here, that is already spelled out elsewhere in thousands of pages. I recommend Rushdoony to any that wish to get a grasp on the subject. What I am doing here is trying to figure out or understand the contrast between the relationship of God's people and the Law under the Old Covenant and the relationship of God's people and the Law in the New Covenant, and in particular, the point being made in the Letter to the Hebrews. Under both Covenants, the Law of God is the Law of God. It is one and the same Law. But there is this mystical transference of the Law from tables of stone to residence in our hearts. What does this mean to the Christian? How is this manifested in her life?

My thoughts on this matter were provoked by an article from Every Thought Captive which was posted on facebook this week. The article was written in 2007, but the content is of the type that never becomes dated.The author, Mark Dewey, points out that great thinkers like Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin struggled with Hebrews 8: 6-13, so we shouldn't be surprised if the whole meaning isn't obvious to us. Dewey is attempting to explain the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New. But what really stood out to me in this passage, and throughout the entire context of chapters 8, 9 and 10, was how the Law was stored, so to speak, under the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant.

In verse 8 we are reminded of the prophecy of the coming New Covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

In the next verse we are told why God will make a new covenant, because of what happened with the old one:

... because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

As part of the old covenant, God had given them His Law, written on tablets of stone. But His plan for the new covenant is different, He isn't going to put the Law on tablets of stone:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people

It is just as Jesus said, He didn't come to abolish the Law or the prophets. Not only is God not going to abolish the Law within the New Covenant, He plans to establish it by writing it on our hearts! Should the Law have less relevance to us than it did to Moses, or more?  In verse 11 of Hebrews chapter 8 we are told that God writing His Law on our hearts and into our minds will result in all of his people knowing Him.

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

What a great and loving God! He wants us to know Him, so He facilitates that by writing His Law on our hearts and mind. Knowing God's Law is essential to knowing HIM. And if it wasn't clear enough already, by chapter 10 we are told that this new covenant that is to come is, in fact, HERE. That is, it was established with Jesus' sacrifice of himself on the cross and witnessed to by the Holy Ghost. (Hebrews 10:10-17)

The Cult of Statism

One of things that bothers me most about so many, many believers, at least in America, is the extent to which they worship the state without realizing they are doing it. Also, when I attempt to point out their idolatry, it is denied.

Rather than trying to explain what statism is, I'm just going to link to this video and ask you to watch it. Questions?  Let's talk about it.

Sophie's Choice - Why Can't She Choose Her Own Husband?

I have been doing some more reading over at truelovedoesntwait.com. In this post, a young woman by the name of Sophie is arguing in the comments that she should not be prohibited from choosing her own husband. She claims that she isn't insisting on doing the choosing, but rather should simply have the veto if her father wants her to marry a man that she doesn't "like." In other words, as long as her father picks a man that she chooses, she will obey her father and marry him. That reminds me of a woman who obeys her husband in everything, as long as she agrees with him.

The heart of her issue, which she herself doesn't even realize, is that she is as solipsistic as the typical woman. She is the measure of all things. Absolutely no one, no man and not even God, are going to put any limits on her. They are not going to limit her sexuality, for sure. This is the essence of  feminism. A woman can do anything she pleases without limitation and without guidance and it is the duty of others, including her God-given authorities to embrace her choices and to finance them. I'm sure that Sophie would deny being a feminist, but she is believing and practicing the core principles of feminism, therefore she is a feminist, even if she would protest.

No one should miss this post over at Vox Day's Alpha Game Blog. It sums up the solipsism of women very concisely.  And why should women read this and understand it? Because if we don't understand the evil residing in our nature, we are bound to either excuse and dismiss it or outright embrace it. Don't be put off by the strong language. It won't hurt you.

What follows is my response to Sophie and the other commentors over at True Love Doesn't Wait. I wanted to save it here for future reference, you know, for that book I'm going to write someday. It deals with the arguments which say that betrothal is not a command or that any way of getting a wife is ok. On the contrary, I believe that betrothal or an outright purchase are the only ways of getting a wife that conform to what is taught about marriage in the Scriptures. I also wanted to point out that while I agree with much of  what Vaughn Ohlman (the writer/owner of True Love Doesn't Wait) says about betrothal, I also have very serious differences of opinion with him. I do not accept his definitions of either betrothal or marriage, for example, which are pretty big differences.  Ok, my comment follows:

I don't think that Sophie really does have (or that she should have) choices. I think the Bible shows us that a woman does not have the authority over her own sexuality. Her father is the guardian of it until she marries, and he decides to whom and when she will be given in marriage. Once she is married the authority and control over her sexuality passes to her husband.

While there is no single passage of Scripture where this is explained and set forth, it is revealed all throughout the Scriptures. Obviously Vaughn has already written two books on the subject, and even in those he wasn't able to cover every verse where these principles are either mentioned or implied. When we say "show me the verse....!" we are demanding something we don't demand of other principles. For example, where is the verse in the law of God which commands parents to feed and clothe their children? What? There is no such command? But we see parents doing it. Is that just cultural?

In the case of betrothal, we not only see that it is implied as the natural and normal way of doing things, we also see that God, in his law, gives remedies to fathers and husbands when other men, or even the daughter/wife herself decide to exercise their sexuality outside their authority. We see a law wherein a man who suspects his wife of being adulterous can have the priest test her for it. If she is guilty, either by admission or by failing the test, she ends up dead. There is no such test for husbands. A husband's sexuality is not under the control or authority of his wife. He has a duty to her sexually, but it is not exclusive to her. God calls this "just". Is that cultural?

But the real convincer for me came after I became reformed. When I came to understand that the grace of God is irresistible to me. The father chose me for Christ and neither Christ nor I have any choice in the matter. God, Himself, uses betrothal for His Son. And then He created the institution of marriage as a picture of the marriage of Christ and His bride. Every aspect of the marriage, including the betrothal is pictured in how men take wives. The way we do this speaks the gospel. When we ignore betrothal we lie. We are hiding the gospel. When Christians let women choose or not choose their husbands we are using a picture of marriage that lies about the gospel.

There is nothing about marriage from its institution in the Garden until today that is cultural. It was created for the purpose of illustrating the gospel. Not the other way around. God didn't look around the earth and try to find some earthly thing that would help him explain what He is doing, instead, He invented marriage and gave us marriage as an aid to our understanding. When we accept the analogy as created we see that election is from the beginning, we see that betrothal is from the beginning. It is a vital part of the message of the gospel and therefore should not be excluded from the manner in which God's people express marriage.

Perhaps Sophie believes that she chose Christ? Or that she at least had the option to reject Him if she didn't like him? The Scriptures don't teach this. We are to love the God who first loved us, not just say "no" if He doesn't get our motor running. In the same way, we are to love our husbands and if we don't, the older women can teach us how. We don't "marry the one we love", we "love the one we marry". Huge difference. We have no business loving men who are not our husbands.

Longish Quote from C. S. Lewis

If what you want is an argument against Christianity (and I well remember how eagerly I looked for such arguments when I began to be afraid it was true) you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say, 'So there's your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.' But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people's souls -- of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him. You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next door neighbours or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count (will you even be able to remember it?) when the anaesthetic fog which we call 'nature' or 'the real world' fades away and the Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?

Mere Christianity, Bk IV, ch. 11

He makes a great point concerning the futility of arguing against God by using the poor examples of individual Christians. He misses it, of course,  when he claims that ones fate is placed within ones own hands, as it would be as nonsensical for God to leave election within the control of humans as it would have been for Him to have left the job of creation with man. More nonsensical, even, as our election is vastly more important than the molecules that make up our universe. God doesn't even leave us to choose what type of weather we shall enjoy today, He knows we could never choose Him apart from His election of us.

Reason will never lead us to Christ, although it may convince us that we have, in fact, been apprehended of Him.

The Pro Choice Christians

What is wrong with the Church? Why is it that the children of the chosen go the way of the world nearly as frequently as the children of those not chosen? I would assert that it is because dispensationalists are Pro-Choice.

By "dispensationalist" I am referring to those whose theology is not reformed. Those who are not Calvinists. Primarily these folks believe that God saved his Old Testament people in one way, and his New Testament people in a different way. They believe that the Old Testament is useful, but not really authoritative in terms of God's justice or God's commands and that the New Testament somehow supersedes the Old. It's as if God suddenly did something completely different, disregarding everything He had said previously. The term itself comes from the idea that God has acted differently during different "dispensations" of time. I know and love the dispensationalists, for I, myself, was one of them. Thank God He delivered me from dispensationalism.

But my beef with dispensationalists is not so much their nonsensical beliefs about time but with their wrong-headed insistence that man chooses Christ rather than Christ choosing man. When it comes to salvation, they believe man is Pro-Choice.

I don't have the time or the theological training to launch into a full-blown defense of Calvinism here. If you are truly interested there are plenty of websites and books available on the subject. What I want to point out is one of the practical consequences of being Pro-Choice which is that their children leave the Church in droves. According to Barna Research Group, somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of teens who claim to be born again will not be practicing Christianity by their twenties.

What I can't find, is a statistic that compares the teens of evangelical reformed families versus those of evangelical non-reformed families. But from what I've seen personally, I'm pretty sure it's the non-reformed that are responsible for most of the 80% who fall away. The reason is simple, reformed families teach their children that they are chosen by God and have no choice about whether or not they want to follow Christ. Only God gets to choose and His choice is binding on the rest of us. The non-reformed, on the other hand, are hoping their children will see the benefits of being a Christian and choose to be saved, and then, hopefully, choose to obey God in order to get all the goodies that go to the obedient. Since when does a teen or young adult choose what is best for himself? Mostly they choose whatever is fun right now. These parents would never be so lax with the running of their households as they teach that God is about running His Kingdom! "Ok now Susie, it might be dangerous for you to be out all night, plus you'll feel so much better after a good night's sleep, but you just choose for yourself." I don't think so. And yet these same people believe and teach their children that God would REALLY, REALLY appreciate it if they would choose to serve Him, but if not, hey, that's their choice?

What kind of a God builds a Kingdom only with those having nothing better to do? The sovereign God of the universe chooses each one to add to the bride for His Son, He doesn't limit Himself to those who want to come. And once a person is chosen, obedience is required, it isn't an option. To disobey is to be chastened, as we know the Bible says that God chastens those whom He loves.

Let's teach this truth to our children and see if they don't fare better when we stop telling them they have a choice and instead start teaching them the commands of God. Stop telling them that Jesus is softly and gently begging them to come to Him. Stop telling them that God will be so grateful if they would grace the Kingdom with their souls. Stop telling them that they can choose to reject God now and change their minds at any time, God will never reject them. Nonsense!

Be like the parents who brought their children to Jesus so He could bless them. They didn't ask the children if they wanted to go to Jesus, they just took them. You say, "Here is the King. Love Him. Obey Him. Serve Him."

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

When God uses a picture in His Word to help us understand something about Himself or His kingdom, did He search the natural world and choose something to which He thought we could relate, which was sort of like something He was trying to show us?

Or, did He create something in the natural world specifically for the purpose of teaching us some spiritual, heavenly or eternal principle?

I believe the latter. That God created things, relationships, circumstances in this physical world in which we live with the sole purpose of helping us to understand Him. For the purpose of revealing things about Himself which we would otherwise not be able to comprehend.

For example, the different ways that God describes the Church and its relationship to Christ are based upon things to which we can relate. The Church as a body, the Church as a building, as a city. Church members as brothers and sisters of each other and of Christ. And, of course, the Church as the Bride of Christ.

So I conclude that marriage was created by God, specifically for our edification in understanding our relationship to Christ. It has the secondary benefit of making life on earth more enjoyable, but aside from Christ betrothing the Church to Himself, earthly marriage would be entirely unnecessary. Perhaps mankind being both male and female would be entirely unnecessary. Sex would be entirely unnecessary.

To understand marriage and sex is only possible by starting with the DESIGN, and recognizing that God had a purpose for it.