8-15-20 John MacArthur – Too Little Too Late

John MacArthur – Too Little Too Late: The Forgotten de Mornay – The Right Man On Time

Too Little Too Late

Is it Too Little Too Late for the stance of John MacArthur in resisting the tyrants of government in California? Over the years of his time in the pulpit he has more often told congregations across these United States to NOT become involved in politics or that which is associated with it. I heard him speak a number of years ago telling a large congregation that ‘Christians should not be involved in politics.’ He as well as other major pastors have minimized and worse neglected the extensibility of Biblical truth, which should affect every aspect of life, including the political, social, economic and cultural arenas. Sadly, there are predominant pastors which are part of a coalition that is and has been at times overtly catering to ‘cultural Marxism’ and more – see The Gospel Coalition’s Bamboozling Act.

As I have discussed for the last thirty plus years, The Church is to be victorious in every aspect of where we are placed. This is not a ‘name it and claim it’ concept. It is the eschatology of the Reformers and especially the Puritans that settled the northern colonies of America. Since the mid-1800’s the universalism of the ‘social gospel’ and what I have called ‘roof top eschatology,’ has removed the American foundational view of developing a ‘moral and virtuous people’ to lead in every aspect of governance – beginning with the family.

I have said a lot regarding the indispensability of the foundational principles in governance having roots in Reformation Biblical truth. ‘Too Little Too Late’ is the reactionary impulses of Christian Church leaders that have not engaged the full extensibility of the Gospel into all that God is involved in. Yes, that even means the cultural and political realms.

John MacArthur is doing an about face from non-engagement in social-cultural-political issues to a very honorable and Biblically sound set of actions previously called ‘Biblical Resistance.’ This is the right and duty of Christians. Especially for Christians in a Constitutional Republic like these United States. If John MacArthur and the few other pastors/church leaders would have stepped up like this when prayer was removed from the classroom….well then it would not be Too Little Too Late now.

I will be elaborating on all of this on this Saturday’s program.

Philippe de Mornay

I began reading de Mornay almost a decade ago. He was a pastoral leader that was timely for goings on during the height of troubles as the Reformation was marching forward. The work that I will be discussing over the next several weeks is “Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos” or translated as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants.”

This is an in depth Biblically sound blueprint for Christian resistance. What I intend to do during these next several weeks is bring the application of this work relative to our Constitutional Republic. The reality is that Free Citizens, especially Christians, have the true right to act in and according to what is detailed in Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos. The anarchists, radicals and socialists/communists groups are taking to the streets of US cities perverting the principles of good governance through resistance that is supporting and further establishing tyranny.

This work of de Mornay is timely for our present situation.

So, the Burning of Bibles in Portland is covered in this book. Oh yes, the response is not what is occurring in that city. The responsibility of those governing is so out of alignment with Foundational Constitutionalism that what de Mornay writes is the key to restoration of the Republic.

So hold onto your nickers because these next few programs are not what you are expecting as a solution to fixing our nation.

Nonconformity

In reading the background of John MacArthur’s statement of standing against the political tyranny of the California Government and researching several other articles, I noticed that a Reformation pastor named Richard Baxter was quoted. I have read a lot Baxter’s works. Most in church leadership only focus on his works in ‘pastoral leadership.’ Well… Baxter was in many ways like de Mornay and he wrote a small work, about 300 pages, called ‘Nonconformity.’

So Baxter was not one of those ‘Too Little Too Late’ sort. OK, just to get you thinking on this, here is his opening statement entitled:

‘Nonconformity, As under King Charles II and King James II. TRULY STATED and ARGUED, By Richard Baxter.’

“Who earnestly beseecheth Rulers, and Clergy, not to Divide and Destroy the Land, and cast their own Souls on the dreadful Guilt and Punishment of National PERJURY, lying, deliberate Covenanting to Sin against God, corrupt his Church and not amend, nor by Laws or blind Malignity, to reproach faithful Ministers of Christ, and Jude them to Scorn and Beggery, and to Lie and Die in jails as Rogues, and so to strengthen Profaneness, Popery and Schism, and all for want of WILLINGNESS andPATIENCE to READ and Hear their just Defence; while they can spend much more time in Sin and Vanity. The Author humbly begs that he and his Books of unconfutable (def: cannot be refuted) Defence of a Mistaken persecuted Cause may not be Witnesses against them for such great and wilful Sin to their Condemnation.’

Key passages:

Mat. 12. 25. Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to Desolation,

Luk. 13.3,5. Except ye Repent, ye fall all likewise Perish.

Now consider the opening paragraph of Baxter and think about it when I discuss sovereignty of a citizen as well as who the elected are responsible to:

“It is agreed on by all real Christians, that Man being made an intelligent Free Agent, not under brutish necessitating Determination by Objects, is governed by God by the Moral way of Law; that is, by the Signification of his Ruler’s Will, making his Duty, and not by meer natural or forcible Motion : And it is agreed that GOD himself is his only absolute Universal Ruler, and his Laws given in Nature and by Revelation are the only Universal Laws, which no Humane Power can abrogate or dispense with: And that Kings and Magistrates are his Ministers for Mens good, and have no Power but from him, and none against him or his Laws; and that it is not Man, but God, by whom we must all be judged to everlasting Reward or “Punishment: And therefore that all men must obey God before Men, and must not fear them that can but kill the Body, but him who is able to cast both Soul and Body into Hell.

”And it is agreed on by all Sober Christians, that therefore as Subjects must use their own Reason at discerning Self-Governours, to Judge who is their King, and who is an Usurper, and what Actions are commanded or forbidden by Man’s Laws; so must they first and chiefly use their own reason, to judge discerningly what Actions are commanded or forbidden by God, and must do accordingly whoever is against it. This Judgment is commonly called Conscience; which if it err not must be followed, but if it err, it must be rectified: for then it is not God indeed that is obeyed: for God’s Law changeth not as Confidence doth: yet to go against such a Conscience is Sin, because it is interpretatively to go against God, while the Man thought this had been God’s Will.”

Sam Adams Wisdom

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE GOVERNOR.

MARCH 2, 1773

[Massachusetts State Papers, pp. 384-396; printed also in the Boston Gazette, March 8, 1773, and in The Speeches of His Excellency Governor Hutchinson, pp. 90-113.]

“…Your Excellency says, that, “as English subjects, and agreeable to the doctrine of the feudal tenure, all our lands are held mediately, or immediately, of the Crown. “We trust, your Excellency does not mean to introduce the feudal system in its perfection; which, to use the words of one of our greatest historians, was “a state of perpetual war, anarchy, and confusion, calculated solely for defence against the assaults of any foreign power; but, in its provision for the interior order and tranquillity of society, extremely defective. A constitution, so contradictory to all the principles that govern mankind, could never be brought about, but by foreign conquest or native usurpation.” And, a very celebrated writer calls it, “that most iniquitous and absurd form of government, by which human nature was so shamefully degraded ” This system of iniquity, by a strange kind of fatality, “though originally formed for an encampment, and for military purposes only, spread over a great part of Europe; ” and, to serve the purposes of oppression and tyranny,” was adopted by princes, and wrought into their civil constitutions; “and, aided by the canon law, calculated by the Roman Pontiff, to exalt himself above all that is called God, it prevailed to the almost utter extinction of knowledge, virtue, religion, and liberty from that part of the earth. But, from the time of the reformation, in proportion as knowledge, which then darted its rays upon the benighted world, increased, and spread among the people, they grew impatient under this heavy yoke; and the most virtuous and sensible among them, to whose steadfastness, we, in this distant age and climate, are greatly indebted, were determined to get rid of it; and, though they have in a great measure subdued its power and influence in England, they have never yet totally eradicated its principles. Upon these principles, the King claimed an absolute right to, and a perfect estate in, all the lands within his dominions; but, how he came by this absolute right and perfect estate, is a mystery which we have never seen unravelled, nor is it our business or design, at present, to inquire. He granted parts or parcels of it to his friends, the great men, and they granted lesser parcels to their tenants. All, therefore, derived their right and held their lands, upon these principles, mediately or immediately of the King; which Mr. Blackstone, however, calls, “in reality, a mere fiction of our English tenures.” By what right, in nature and reason, the christian princes in Europe, claimed the lands of heathen people, upon a discovery made by any of their subjects, is equally mysterious. Such, however, was the doctrine universally prevailing, when the lands in America were discovered; but, as the people of England, upon those principles, held all the lands they possessed, by grants from the King, and the King had never granted the lands in America to them, it is certain they could have no sort of claim to them. Upon the principles advanced, the lordship and dominion, like that of the lands in England, was in the King solely; and a right from thence accrued to him, of disposing such territories, under such tenure, and for such services to be performed, as the King or Lord thought proper. But how the grantees became subjects of England, that is, the supreme authority of the Parliament, your Excellency has not explained to us. We conceive that upon the feudal principles, all power is in the King; they afford us no idea of Parliament. “The Lord was in early times, the Legislator and Judge over all his feudatories,” says Judge Blackstone. By the struggle for liberty in England, from the days of King John, to the last happy revolution, the constitution has been gradually changing for the better; and upon the more rational principles, that all men, by nature, are in a state of equality in respect of jurisdiction and dominion, power in England has been more equally divided. And thus, also in America, though we hold our lands agreeably to the feudal principles of the King; yet our predecessors wisely took care to enter into compact with the King, that power here should also be equally divided, agreeable to the original fundamental principles of the English constitution, declared in Magna Charta, and other laws and statutes of England, made to confirm them. Your Excellency says, “you can by no means concede to us that it is now, or was, when the plantations were first granted, the prerogative of the Kings of England, to constitute a number of new governments, altogether independent of the sovereign authority of the English empire.” By the feudal principles, upon which you say “all the grants which have been made of America, are founded, the constitutions of the Emperor, have the force of law.” If our government be considered as merely feudatory, we are subject to the King’s absolute will, and there is no authority of Parliament, as the sovereign authority of the British empire. Upon these principles, what could hinder the King’s constituting a number of independent governments in America? That King Charles the I. did actually set up a government in this colony, conceding to it powers of making and executing laws, without any reservation to the English Parliament, of authority to make future laws binding therein, is a fact which your Excellency has not disproved, if you have denied it. Nor have you shewn that the Parliament or nation objected to it; from whence we have inferred that it was an acknowledged right. And we cannot conceive, why the King has not the same right to alienate and dispose of countries acquired by the discovery of his subjects, as he has to “restore, upon a treaty of peace, countries which have been acquired in war,” carried on at the charge of the nation; or to “sell and deliver up any part of his dominions to a foreign Prince or state, against the general sense of the nation;” which is “an act of power,” or prerogative, which your Excellency allows. You tell us, that, “when any new countries are discovered by English subjects, according to the general law and usage of nations, they become part of the state. The law of nations is, or ought to be, founded on the law of reason. It was the saying of Sir Edwin Sandis, in the great case of the union of the realm of Scotland with England, which is applicable to our present purpose, that “there being no precedent for this case in the law, the law is deficient; and the law being deficient, recourse is to be had to custom; and custom being insufficient, we must recur to natural reason;” the greatest of all authorities, which, he adds, “is the law of nations.” The opinions, therefore, and determinations of the greatest Sages and Judges of the law in the Exchequer Chamber, ought not to be considered as decisive or binding, in our present controversy with your Excellency, any further, than they are consonant to natural reason. If, however, we were to recur to such opinions and determinations, we should find very great authorities in our favor, to show, that the statutes of England are not binding on those who are not represented in Parliament there…”