Musings on the Mask

Joshua

Administrator
Staff member
From the Article:

The campaign to eliminate this current disease, and others, plays upon this deceit and desire on the part of fallen man for an illicit peace and security in this life, apart from a Savior, or another savior in place of the true. In the push to eradicate a disease (placing the best construction on the actions of our civil and health officials) we have trusted in means, made false promises, overreached in the exercise of civil power, and all apart from a sound reliance upon the Lord, calling upon His Name, in national repentance from sins. Truly, our response, in the main, has been to rest upon even these overreaching and excessive means in the quest to eradicate a disease that the Lord has brought upon us for our sins, rather than humbly to submit to His Word and His Law, and cry out to Him in repentance for civil, societal, and national sins, seeking relief from the only One who is able to give it.​

Read the full article here, if so inclined: https://www.christcovenantrpc.org/resources/articles/musings-on-the-mask/
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
The idea that God has brought this disease because of sins is an assumption. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not.

When you know you're going to be around other people in reasonably close quarters (such as a grocery store), put your mask on.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Junior
The idea that God has brought this disease because of sins is an assumption. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not.

When you know you're going to be around other people in reasonably close quarters (such as a grocery store), put your mask on.
It seems in your first statement that you doubt the obvious. And that in your second, you assert the necessity of the questionable.

That the first is unquestionable take Romans 1:18.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:18 ESV
 

Joshua

Administrator
Staff member
The idea that God has brought this disease because of sins is an assumption. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not.

When you know you're going to be around other people in reasonably close quarters (such as a grocery store), put your mask on.
I would say:

If you're sick, afraid, or vulnerable, don't go where people are, or -if you do- do not expect them compulsorily to cater to your fear/vulnerability, especially by way of State enforcement, and based upon questionable "science."
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
I would say:

If you're sick, afraid, or vulnerable, don't go where people are, or -if you do- do not expect them compulsorily to cater to your fear/vulnerability, especially by way of State enforcement, and based upon questionable "science."
What you are saying makes perfect sense but logic has gone out the window of late. The irrationality of the rules is part of the authoritarian agenda. It is about getting you to suspend your reason and obey the state without question. We are supposed to believe that "The Science" changed radically from April to July from being "masks are useless" to "masks should be mandatory."
 
Last edited:

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Junior
What you are saying makes perfect sense but logic has gone out the window of late. The irrationality of the rules is part of the authoritarian agenda. It is about getting you to suspend your reason and obey the state without question. We are supposed to believe that "The Science" changed radically from April to July from being "masks are useless" to "masks should be mandatory."
Every time I am in public and see everyone (sheep) in masks, I always ask myself: What's next?
I heard some talk lately about adding face shields to the "uniform." That may seem like a big step now, but, if implemented, will seem like a smaller step. It's all to happen by degrees. As I think I heard someone else say, "like frogs in slowly warming water."
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
Every time I am in public and see everyone (sheep) in masks, I always ask myself: What's next?
I heard some talk lately about adding face shields to the "uniform." That may seem like a big step now, but, if implemented, will seem like a smaller step. It's all to happen by degrees. As I think I heard someone else say, "like frogs in slowly warming water."
Hairdressers and barbers over here are wearing visors and facemasks. You would think that they were performing heart surgery, not haircuts.
 

De Jager

Puritan Board Freshman
The Canadian chief medical officer at one point contended that masks were essentially useless, now apparently they aren't.

Who knows if she was right then or now? Maybe the science will change 4 months from now.

Until then, why would I voluntarily put an unnatural covering on my face? I will borrow a little from Paul on a different topic, but in the same vein: "Doth not even nature itself teach you" that covering your face is contrary to nature? God made us with faces to see.

I only wear a mask where I absolutely have to (like if a grocery store says "no mask no service"). Aside from that you won't catch me wearing one.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I wear a mask for the sake of the weaker brother and for the Karens. But Fauci is a fraud after that recent hearing. I don't take anything he says seriously.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
We also need to realise that COVID-19 has become a quasi-religion. As Ruben hinted at in another thread, people are being conditioned to think that the virus is omnipresent. Refusing to wear facemasks or to observe Socialist Distancing are just some of the new secular sins against the COVIDian covenant of works. The promised reward for keeping the COVIDian covenant of works is a return to normality, but, as this covenant of works is impossible to keep, we will never achieve it. Our salvation will only arrive when a vaccine appears. Those who refuse to take the (hastily developed) vaccine will be shut out of the new normal.
 

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Every time I am in public and see everyone (sheep) in masks, I always ask myself: What's next?
Eye goggles, contact tracing, and "protecting our neighbors" by reporting them for not following COVID doctrine. Oh, and don't forget Covi-Pass ("digital health passports"):


Also, coming to a restaurant near you?:


 

Logan

Puritan Board Junior
Reminds me of the movie "Brazil" (fantastic dystopian bureaucracy). There was a friendly poster on the wall that said "Don't suspect a friend, report him!"
 

Von

Puritan Board Sophomore
Also, coming to a restaurant near you?:


MYSELF: Where are we going to sit?
OTHERS: What about outside?
MYSELF: It's quite chilly...
OTHERS: But it's such a nice day - the first clear day in weeks...
MYSELF: Oh, look! It's that greenhouse-thing I saw on the Puritan Board!
OTHERS: (concerned) Where they OK about it?
MYSELF: I can't remember...let's rather find another place.
 
Last edited:

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
Reminds me of the movie "Brazil" (fantastic dystopian bureaucracy). There was a friendly poster on the wall that said "Don't suspect a friend, report him!"
Sad but true. Our media is becoming more and more like Newspeak.
I would say:

If you're sick, afraid, or vulnerable, don't go where people are, or -if you do- do not expect them compulsorily to cater to your fear/vulnerability, especially by way of State enforcement, and based upon questionable "science."
Or, you could just wear this:

social-distancing-1584135209.jpg

Or this:

whjc4z4w6wr41.jpg

Or these:

https _cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext_dam_assets_200515100451-germany-cafe-noodle-distancing.jpg
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
It seems in your first statement that you doubt the obvious. And that in your second, you assert the necessity of the questionable.

That the first is unquestionable take Romans 1:18.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:18 ESV
That's true as a general principle - God has done that and, no doubt, will do so in the future. But, is it true in every single instance? Put another way, is there warrant for absolutizing Romans 1.18 and similar passages? Seems like you're not leaving God any wiggle room to apply His principles to specific instances or not, depending on His sovereign decision. Don't forget Acts 17.30, where Paul states that God had "overlooked the times of ignorance" (CSB). So, there have been times when God, for His own perfect reasons, was willing to not apply Romans 1.18 in all places and at all times.
 
Last edited:

Regi Addictissimus

Completely sold out to the King
That's true as a general principle - God has done that and, no doubt, will do so in the future. But, is it true in every single instance? Put another way, is there warrant for absolutizing Romans 1.18 and similar passages? Seems like you're not leaving God any wiggle room to apply His principles to specific instances or not, depending on His sovereign decision.
I would say if this were a common cold where life went back to normal after a week, then sure. This (or rather our response to the virus) has crippled economies, halted worship services, and restricted the freedom of many. Have you seen the likes in your lifetime? Is this just like every single instance? Surely it isn't.

Couple this with the social unrest that is occurring, and I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could not hear the Lord's voice crying out in the city, "hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it."
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Junior
That's true as a general principle - God has done that and, no doubt will do so in the future. But, is it true in every single instance? Put another way, is there warrant for absolutizing Romans 1.18 and similar passages? Seems like you're not leaving God any wiggle room to apply His principles to specific instances or not, depending on His sovereign decision. Don't forget Acts 17.30, where Paul states that God had "overlooked the times of ignorance" (CSB). So, there have been times when God, for His own perfect reasons, was willing to not apply Romans 1.18 in all places and at all times.
Hi Richard,

I have been looking over the Scriptures, commentaries on Romans, and systematic theologies since your post and still don't have a satisfying response to what you said above. You said that Romans 1:18, or perhaps what I said about the verse, is "true as a general principle." This is true, but I don't think it goes far enough. When you read from verse 18 to the end of the chapter, you see that God's wrath is a never-ceasing, ever-increasing, clearly revealed response of God to "ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness," of men without exception. Every trouble, every sickness, foul weather, earthquakes, broken marriages, all pricks of conscious, addictions, and every political failure, and indeed this worldwide pandemic does infallibly, and effectively reveal God's wrath and curse upon all unbelievers who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Of course, there are ebbs and tides, extraordinary judgments, and times of patience intended to lead men to repentance.

I believe that the jury is still out on just how bad this present judgment will be. As I have said for six months, this still could be the big one. We don't know how far it will go. The 1917-18 Spanish Flu, which started in the USA's midwest, went around the world, until a much more virulent mutation ended up back here in 1918, particularly in Philadelphia. 50,000,000 died worldwide. And that at a time when the population was much smaller than now, and without the virus spreading world travel we have now. The estimated population of the world in 1918 was 1.8 billion compared to 7.8 billion today. That's 4.33 times the population of 1918 or nearly 217,000,000 deaths. AND THAT DID NOT BRING MASS REPENTANCE. I see little sign of repentance today so far today.

I could go on, but won't.
 
Last edited:

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Hi Richard,

I have been looking over the Scriptures, commentaries on Romans, and systematic theologies since your post and still don't have a satisfying response to what you said above. You said that Romans 1:18, or perhaps what I said about the verse, is "true as a general principle." This is true, but I don't think it goes far enough. When you read from verse 18 to the end of the chapter, you see that God's wrath is a never-ceasing, ever-increasing, clearly revealed response of God to "ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness," of men without exception. Every trouble, every sickness, foul weather, earthquakes, broken marriages, all pricks of conscious, addictions, and every political failure, and indeed this worldwide pandemic does infallibly, and effectively reveal God's wrath and curse upon all unbelievers who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Of course, there are ebbs and tides, extraordinary judgments, and times of patience intended to lead men to repentance.
All this is true. I guess my larger point was that God is more subtle in the way He works than we give Him credit for, sometimes. It is He who determines how His judgments are carried out, and where, when, and upon whom. Romans 1.18, etc. provide the general principle. How God carries out that principle is His prerogative and, for His own reasons, He often mixes mercy with the judgment.
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I seem to be working on the "bald" part with no problem!
I do that naturally as well.

Once again the PuritanBoard sends me to Google. I didn't know what a fade was.

But, that is probably not surprising for one who styles his hair with a flowbee.

As for the mask issue, maybe it all is a conspiracy. It comes across to me as a global version of Keystone Cops. But one thing stands out on all sides is how often the arguments appeal to pride and emotionalism. Or, arguments by intimidation.

I wear a mask in my work environment because I am a man under authority. Our Supreme Court has directed it in courts, and our governor has ordered them for most other settings. Shrug. I used to wear masks while combining grain on a cab-less combine in 100 degree heat. That was miserable, but they helped keep me from hacking up grain dust all night.

Meanwhile, I have had folks call me a Beta, a sheep, a coward, etc. Some of those things may well be true. Jesus calls me a sheep, and a stray one at that. In any event, I wonder how helpful it is to appeal to pride against these grand foolish schemes. In my case, the appeals, regardless of whatever merit they might have, fall flat.

F W I W
 

Joshua

Administrator
Staff member
I do that naturally as well.

Once again the PuritanBoard sends me to Google. I didn't know what a fade was.

But, that is probably not surprising for one who styles his hair with a flowbee.

As for the mask issue, maybe it all is a conspiracy. It comes across to me as a global version of Keystone Cops. But one thing stands out on all sides is how often the arguments appeal to pride and emotionalism. Or, arguments by intimidation.

I wear a mask in my work environment because I am a man under authority. Our Supreme Court has directed it in courts, and our governor has ordered them for most other settings. Shrug. I used to wear masks while combining grain on a cab-less combine in 100 degree heat. That was miserable, but they helped keep me from hacking up grain dust all night.

Meanwhile, I have had folks call me a Beta, a sheep, a coward, etc. Some of those things may well be true. Jesus calls me a sheep, and a stray one at that. In any event, I wonder how helpful it is to appeal to pride against these grand foolish schemes. In my case, the appeals, regardless of whatever merit they might have, fall flat.

F W I W
Thank you, Brother Vic. I couldn't agree more with the comments re: emotionalism, intimidation, etc. Perhaps I am guilty of it, but I have done my best not to cast aspersions on others wrt to the masks, and folks being sheep, etc. I certainly would not put myself in a position to tell others they may not or should not wear them, having no business so to do. I hope that my emphases have been that -as others are free to don the mask- I am free not to, and organizations ought to be free not to be compelled to compel others so to do. I am still under the conviction that if I am in a private business or someone else's property, etc. and they ask me to wear it, I will either do so, or cordially leave. My own workplace requires wearing such when in the 'common' areas. P.S. - Beta is one of the very last things I would think concerning you, and Brother is one of the very first. Insults rarely -if ever- forward one's persuasion, and certainly hurt one's reputation with regard to being charitably disagreeable.

And, for other thread-readers' sakes, I'll say I don't believe engages in emotionalism or intimidation (and I don't think Mr. Bravo is charging such, either), but seeks to discuss the general equity with regard to the 6th Commandment in light of current mask mandates and coronavirus response(s).
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks, Josh. No, I wasn't responding to you. I appreciated your observations. I was just musing as well.

That came after an unexpected and surprisingly contentious few days. It was related to my discussions locally of our duties to magistrates.

I call you Brother, too.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
I went to Stranmillis Evangelical Presbyterian Church last evening (I had forgotten to register to attend my own place and may not have got a seat) and noticed that a fair few of the elderly people - some of whom are well over 70 - were wearing masks. If it makes them feel safer, fair play to them. We could debate the propriety of people in that age group even being out at all but, as one minister recently told me, for many people that age getting out to church is one of the things that helps to keep them alive. For that reason, many of them think that going to church is a risk worth taking.

That last point raises an important question: whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why can the government and the church authorities not just set forth the information and explain potential risks and then leave it to the people to decide what course of action to follow? In Britain, the government and the media are psychologically manipulating people to the point that they think they cannot be trusted to be left to make an informed decision for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Junior
That last point raises a further important question: whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why can the government and the church authorities not just set forth the information and explain potential risks and then leave it to the people to decide what course of action to follow? In Britain, the government and the media are psychologically manipulating people to the point that they think they cannot be trusted to be left to make an informed decision for themselves.
That's been the point I've been trying to make since this stuff began. Life is about taking risks. If someone believes taking a certain action involves too much risk, they abstain. But if the task is worth the risk, they go forward, all the while knowing the potential cost. As for those who are scared of getting this virus (and many times rightly so), why can't they just stay at home, and the rest of us go about our lives, knowing the risk the virus might pose to us.

But I think your question reveals a deeper problem: statism. The vigor with which the government (I speak of the States) has gone after this, micromanaging uniformly a country with one of the largest landmasses in the world (and hence infinitely varying virus situations), goes to show that the state views itself as god, and most of the people by their unquestioning compliance show themselves to be faithful worshippers. And what an incompetent and impotent god the state is!
 

kainos01

Puritan Board Senior
the state views itself as god, and most of the people by their unquestioning compliance show themselves to be faithful worshippers
Certainly Nero viewed himself in a godlike way - was Paul "worshipping" him when he said to submit? I don't believe you think this, of course, but it points to the potential dangers of your comment. Obeying the government - whether a king, a tyrant, a governor, or a president - is our duty as Christians. It's as simple as that. Disagree, dissuade regarding the rationale, but do not disobey (provided obedience does not require disobedience to God).
 
Top