sermon on the mount

So here we have two people fighting over God’s word, it seems… Not quite so, though. Men is either a covenant breaker or a covenant keeper down here, and I will show you in the following that Dobson and Obama belong in the same category.

Via: CNN.com

Well, maybe you should read the whole article first, because apart from the first sentences, I will only give you what they say about Scripture.

(CNN) — A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.
James Dobson says Barack Obama is distorting bibical teachings to fit “his own confused theology.”

(…)

“Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?” Obama asked in the speech. “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

Generally speaking, the answer to the three (polemic) questions is YES in all cases, the problem is the “or” and the “just” – the whole counsel of God is important (Act 20:27), not just bits and pieces. Scripture is not a smorgasboard where you can pick and choose, so if you do not like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, maybe you do not like the God who gave the Law recounted there. God’s word is a unity – it is called God’s word, not God’s words, for a reason.

As for the content of the statement, Obama shows that he either doesn’t know or wishes to ignore that what we think of when we hear the word slavery – that is, “manstealing” – is forbidden in the bible and he who steals and sells, or buys, a man is to be punished by death (Exo 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.).  What the bible calls “slavery”, on the other hand, is a concept much closer to our modern day concept of employment, only that a Hebrew slave came out of his indentured servitude with both the knowledge and the money to start his own family, having been an apprentice, so to speak, of how to be a godly leader of his household for seven years. I have never met an employee who left his employer after seven years with enough money and knowledge to start his own business, so again, as always, God’s plan and ways are far superior to our petty little attempts at organizing life.

Fishes that do not have both fins and scales are among the unclean foods, so that at least is correct. If you wish to ignore God’s laws in this regard, go right ahead and enjoy your pork tenderloin sandwich too, but be ready to account for it.

As for the stoning of a disobedient child, the reasons parents are supposed to hand their (adult) child over to the community is not a “straying from the faith”, as Obama suggests, but is to be done if the son is “a glutton and a drunkard” and and unrepentant one to boot. In other words, if your child turns out to be a danger to the community, God commands you to love the brethren and protect them from the evil that threatens them, even if this evil comes from your own son. The parents have the responsibility to educate their children well so that they do not turn out this way. I guess if parents today were still going by God’s commandments, they would let less people interfere with their education, knowing what is at stake.

As for the sermon on the mount, this sermon is completely in line with “the rest” of God’s word. Remember who gave this sermon, and that “I the LORD do not change” (Mal 3:6).

(…)

He also called Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application.”

Quite obviously, God’s Law Word is too radical for Mr Obama, and if he is referring to the “turn the other cheek” idea, implying that it commands a completely pacifistic attitude, he has no understanding of what Jesus was referring to. The Jews of his time, living under Roman occupation, knew better that what Jesus is saying here is elsewhere summed up like this:

“Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mat 22:21)

But on with the article:

In the comments to be aired Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

Ok, so Mr Dobson just outed himself as an antinomian as well.

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, adding that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

So who is Dobson to call any part of God’s word “irrelevant” ?  Who spoke the infallible word, God or man ? Who is Dobson to decide what part of God’s infallible word is suddenly not infallible anymore ? And who is “traditional” Christianity to do the same, for that matter ?  The Pharisees had all kinds of traditions, remember ?   And they were not the least bit pleasing to God simply because they favored their own traditions over God’s Law.

Responding to the comments, Joshua DuBois, Obama’s national director of religious affairs, said the Illinois senator is “committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for American families.”

“A full reading of his 2006 Call to Renewal speech shows just that,” DuBois said. “Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together.”

Well, so now we know that Obama cannot be a bible believing Christian as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not a God who crosses any religious lines, but instead He is a jealous God and idolatry, i.e. crossing religious lines, means breaking the first commandment.

(…)

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values,” Obama said. “It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.”

God is not democratic. His values are very specific, and whoever substitutes God’s judgments and values for his and her own is in apostasy. God is not a humanist, and not subject to argument either, as His commandments are not suggestions open for debate, but commandments.

Let us draw your attention to the following verses from John’s first letter:

“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, ” (1 John 2:3-4)

“and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.” (1 John 3:22)

“Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. ” (1 John 3:24)

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.” (1 John 5:2)

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3)

If you have been convinced so far that the Old Testament was not really worth considering as the commandments it presents and refers to are done away with, think again. An antinomianistic approach cannot be maintained in the light of the quoted verses, let alone in the light of Jesus’ teaching as presented in Matthew’s account of the sermon on the mount:

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Mat 5:1)

Have heaven and earth passed away yet ? No, they haven’t. And so the Law is still valid and binding, just like John tells us, too.