A Right View of Rights

Who has the right to define our rights?

If left to individuals we may expect chaos, if to government, abuse.
We look to the Founders, but they never assigned themselves such authority.
Instead, they recognized pre-established rights, authored by Someone greater.
They credited the basis of these rights to certain truths;
truths they simply, yet boldly, called “self-evident.”

When it comes to rights, the Founders got it right!

The Declaration of Independence--brilliant.
Doesn’t much of its brilliance shine from its simple reliance on truth?
Jefferson, committee, and Congress, however disparate in theology and philosophy, nonetheless agreed on specific predicating truths in their argument for a new nation. Not stopping there, they and other colleagues used the same truths as foundation and anchor for our actual government.

What truths?
A deliberate reading of the first two paragraphs of the Declaration reveals no less than five: 1) the existence of God, 2) the supreme authority of God’s laws (natural and otherwise), 3) man’s creation by God, 4) the equality of men (humans) by virtue of their creation as equals, 5) the existence of “unalienable” rights, endowed by God.
The obvious point, which drives the claim for independence, is that
God is the source of basic rights,
which neither king, decree, nor institution have any authority to take away.
The Founders saw firsthand the unjust denial of people’s rights, but knew that such denial does not destroy those rights, it instead calls for rectification and liberation. In that sense, the Founders were not only justified,
but even obliged to do what they did.

To re-define rights is simply not right.

In the construction of a great edifice, though it may span 2 ½ centuries and undergo various corrections and revisions, the weight of the building must be kept on its foundation.
Though the truths cited are timeless, and cemented in our founding documents,
there’s a problem.
The rights resting on those truths must be properly understood and applied to public policy. This must be done by humans, sometimes elected, sometimes appointed, always fallible, and often corrupt.

Corrupt officials, legislators and judges have often hidden their corruption
by evasion and deception, violating the rights of others in the process.
Now a broadside is underway against the integrity of the whole system.
Junior tyrants in Washington, taking advantage of a largely uninformed/misinformed public, are pushing destructive policy based on a re-interpretation or distortion of American rights.

Members of the Supreme Court suddenly endowed a previously unknown “right of privacy” with sufficient authority to unseat the longstanding right to life of the youngest Americans. With such precedent and logic, how long can we uphold the safety of the oldest Americans? Or the weakest Americans?

A supposed set of “reproductive rights” excuses and accommodates the immorality of some, while violating the time-honored right of conscience of others: employers, caregivers, churches, landlords, taxpayers, and again, the unborn.

Society is currently being molested by the sudden campaign for a re-definition of marriage. An aggressive minority demands so-called “gay marriage,” which is neither, and which implies that little human demagogues can unseat God as the Author of human rights, and the Judge of what’s right.
In the face of these assaults on our wonderful form of government and our great nation,

The time is right for a defense of true rights.

It's important to remember that as great as our nation is and has been, it is a temporal entity.

In the words of Scripture, "We have here no continuing city, but we seek one to come" Hebrews 13:14.

But temporal things do matter. They can reflect the character, and advance the cause of eternal things; for good or for evil. For those of us who are Christians, may our prayer be that America as an institution should halt its slide toward the latter, and return to the former.

In Response to “Why Christianity is Far More Sensible”

I appreciate Marc Barnes’ post, “Why Christianity is Far More Sensible than Whatever You’re Doing Right Now,” on Patheos.com. I share his view that Christianity offers the best explanation for suffering, but differ on the substance of that explanation. When we discuss ideas that affect the direction of people’s faith, and in turn their fate, we are treading on serious ground indeed. I’d like to fairly, but firmly challenge a couple of Marc’s points.

Note that man was given an intelligent mind, but the Fall brought damage to our psyche as well as our physiology. Our natural thinking is not only suspect, but actually bent toward error. “There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death,” Prov. 14:12 (also Jer. 17:9, Rom 3:10-12, I Cor. 2:14).  Just to say, we do well to check and correct our thinking with God’s corrective and directive authority, Scripture. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” II Tim. 3:16. BTW, this need for correction and instruction goes for both individuals and institutions.

Marc states, “sin is what went wrong.” Correct (Rom. 5:12)!  He states, “it [the cross] is not an example of suffering, it is suffering.” Also correct, indicating that the suffering of Christ on the cross is effective--it accomplishes something. What accomplishment? I think Marc would agree, it accomplishes payment for people’s sins. But the Bible carries it further, saying that it is 1) the only acceptable payment (Heb. 10:4-14, I Pet. 1:18-19), and 2) the fully effective payment for sin (Isa. 53:11, Rom. 5:18, Heb. 10:14, etc.).

Marc builds the following case: 1) Christ is infinite, therefore 2) His suffering is infinite, and 3) thereby His suffering encompasses all other suffering. I’d like to contest this line of reasoning because, of the three assertions, I only see scriptural evidence for the first, that Christ is infinite. He’s infinite, that is, in certain ways. As God, He’s all powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent, and eternal. Though it defies imagination that such a being could, or would, suffer and die for sinful mortals, He did, and His suffering is absolutely sufficient, as per the verses cited above. That his suffering is infinite does not necessarily follow. Look, Christ is “meek and lowly.” Does that mean infinitely meek and lowly? Then how shall He “rule the nations with a rod of iron”? Christ came to “seek and to save that which was lost.” Does that mean His seeking is infinite? Will He therefore seek forever, endlessly traversing the lake of fire--the destination of all the lost (Rev. 20:10, 15; 21:8)?

I would ask Marc, in what way is Christ’s suffering infinite? In time? Does it go on throughout eternity? That would contradict clear statements that His sacrifice was specific, timely, and final. Hebrews 10:12 contains one such towering statement: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Complete. Finite. Finished!

Is Christ’s suffering infinite in quality? I can’t presume a competent answer, but it does seem to ring true. However, Marc seems to be saying more--that Christ’s suffering is infinite in quantity. He offers the analogy of Bob owning all the blocks, therefore any block you have ultimately belongs to Bob. But how do we know that Christ possesses all suffering? A heartwarming thought, but does it have a real basis? Not a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father’s notice, true. “Lo, I am with you alway,” true. Jesus, the “man of sorrows,” having sampled every variety of testing,  became a “high priest… touched with the feeling of our infirmities” Hebrews 4:15. But notice these statements are directed toward His followers, His children. He doesn’t promise to bear the burdens of those who reject Him. His words to religious-but-lost Pharisees were not so heartwarming. “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matthew 23:33. 

Here’s a serious question. Revelation 20 says the devil will be cast into the lake of fire and “shall be tormented day and night forever.” Does that suffering also belong to Jesus? Did Jesus suffer for Satan, or will He suffer with Satan? Throughout eternity? Where’s the “joy that was set before Him (Heb. 12:2)” as He looked beyond the cross? 

Another question, if all suffering belongs to Jesus, how can anyone go to hell (as Jesus taught)? Will He be there with them? Maybe their suffering flows backward to the time when Jesus was on the cross and is absorbed into His. Pardon the bit of sarcasm. We know there are myriad things spiritual and metaphysical that go beyond our comprehension, but I believe the concepts we’re intended to accept by faith are clearly presented and established in Scripture. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” Romans 10:17. That is wonderful and exciting to me! For those who have “ears to hear,” God provides a clear explanation of the truth, not from fallible men or organizations (which all are), but from His inspired and preserved Word!

In contrast to its silence on the presumed infinity of Christ’s suffering, there is something that Scripture does indeed emphasize--strongly and repeatedly. Not infinity, but righteousness. Righteousness is the standard for acceptability before God. Nothing else will do (Isa. 64:6, Mt 5:20). So, our being unrighteous, God’s perfect plan of redemption required a perfect, righteous sacrifice for us (I Pet. 1:19, Heb. 9:14). This concept is offensive to some, and represents the “foolishness of preaching” (I Cor. 1:21). Foolishness, that is,  to the lost; but the “power of God and wisdom of God” to those who believe (I Cor. 1:24).

God has provided only one way. The just must die for the unjust (I Pet 3:18), the sinless for the sinner (II Cor. 5:21), and the righteous for the unrighteous (Rom. 5:8,18). The “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) must be a “lamb without blemish and without spot” (I Pet. 1:19). In our weakness and utter inability to keep God’s law, we needed a Savior who actually fulfilled the Law (Rom. 5:19; 8:2-3). Why is this significant? Because it reveals that Christ Himself is the only way, the absolute way of salvation.

A further syllogism used by Marc is this: a) the cross is “an action of an infinite God;” b) “thus it is infinite in nature;” c) therefore “saving those in the past, present, and future.” Again, we’re dealing with infinity. The link between God’s being infinite and His actions being necessarily infinite is not supported. If true, then every act of God is infinite. How are the creation of man, the flood of Noah, and the parting of the Red Sea infinite? Yet all are clearly acts of God. The conclusion that the work of the cross saves those in the past, present and future is correct to a degree, but not to infinity. The problem here is that further, more spurious, conclusions might be inferred, such as this: individuals in any age of the future might be saved out of hell or “purgatory,” because, after all, “the cross is not bound by time.”

A more accurate, safer conclusion rests solidly on the following scriptures. Romans 4:3: “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness;”  thus, 1) individuals in times past were justified (saved) through faith. Romans 4:23-25: [Abraham is] “the father of all them that believe,” and [an example of “imputed” righteousness] “for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”  Thus, 2) individuals in this present age are also saved through faith. (The definition of impute is “to attribute or ascribe,” and Biblically signifies a legal transference to one’s account.)  Romans 3:24-25: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood…” So, 3) Christ‘s blood sacrifice is the price of redemption.

Based on these verses (and truly many more), the conclusion I suggest is: faith is the means of access, and Christ’s sacrifice the actual basis of salvation for people of all (earthly) times.

So the cross can indeed save souls today as in times past. In that sense it’s timeless. Point well taken. The rest of the story, however, is that the clock is ticking. That’s why I specify “all times” as “all (earthly) times.” On one particular day, judgment fell on Sodom. One day the door of the ark was shut. One day death strikes an individual. One day this age of God’s grace will suddenly end. If this arouses a feeling of fear in a person without assurance of salvation, that’s good! Fear is an effective and legitimate motivator. While Jesus’ ministry was to positively seek and to save the lost, part of that was negatively warning them to “flee from the wrath to come.” If you recognize yourself to be outside the shelter of God’s mercy, consider this statement: “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” II Cor. 6:2.

I realize the post by Marc Barnes was just that--a blog post, written informally to provoke thought. He wasn’t writing a dissertation. My response here may seem overdone, but my point is not to try to outwit or insult Marc. I find him intelligent and thoughtful. I applaud his posts defending truths now under full-scale assault by our wayward society. I only caution anyone, Marc included, not to misunderstand or misrepresent, even by implication, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom 1:16). The Gospel is so simple, and requires such humility, that it’s understandable we’d tend to add to it, either by effort or intellect.

That leads to a final point. Again, not to insult Marc, but consider his following statement: “It [the cross] is the motion of humanity towards the Good.” If I’m not misreading this, it seems to imply that fallen man, epitomized by a murderous clan of religious leaders, a self-serving Pilate, brutal Roman soldiers, a blasphemous mob, and some runaway disciples--this fallen, corrupt train wreck of mankind--is voluntarily moving toward “the Good.” His statement seems to imply that. The truth: if humanity is moving anywhere, it is moving voluntarily and inexorably in the other direction!

Whatever the intent of Marc’s statement, it seems to miss the real point of the cross--certainly nothing about man’s merits or good intentions. Hey, rather than humanity moving toward the Good, isn’t it more like God moving toward the Bad? He moved toward us! And it’s not adequate to think mankind sort of lingers under a shadow of sin. Sin is not a disconnected influence causing us annoyance. It’s a deadly virus found in every cell of our fallen nature! “…ye will revolt more and more: the whole heart is sick and the whole head faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises and putrifying sores” (Isa. 1:5-6). “There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:10-13).

What, then, is the point of the cross? Though Jesus never sinned, nor was divested of holiness, He did take the position of sinner. He accepted the legal imputation and the judicial burden of sin. Though incomprehensible, this is clearly stated for us in Scripture. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” II Corinthians 5:21. In one act, God graphically demonstrated 1) man’s great wickedness, 2) God’s righteous wrath, and 3) God’s amazing love. But it wasn’t a demonstration only. It was a sufficient, efficient, and once-for-all work of redemption. Praise to the wonderful grace, wisdom and power of God!!

So is there any positive value in our suffering? Yes, I do agree there is. I’d love to delve into it, maybe later. The short answer is this. Among other things, suffering is a prompting toward redemption. Not itself an actual “motion toward the Good,” it’s a motivation to cry out for God’s help. The blind man’s suffering did not itself help cure his blindness, but it did prompt him to cry out, “Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me!” In the work of grace, our suffering is instrumental but not efficacious; a motivation, not a method; it has meaning but not merit. In the words of  Toplady, “Could my tears forever flow, could my zeal no respite know, all for sin could not atone; thou must save and thou alone, rock of ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in thee.”