Ps 28:5 — Regard the Works of God's Hands

    Because they do not regard the works of the LORD,

    Nor the operation of His hands,

    He shall destroy them

    And not build them up.

Ps 28:5

The worst thing about the works of the wicked's hands against men (cf. v3–4) is that men are the work of God's hands. The worst thing about idolizing the creation is failing to see that it is a work of the Lord's hands. And the worst thing about failing to understand redemption correctly is that it is the work of the Lord's hands. God make us to regard the works of His hands!

Why (in part) I Sincerely and Deeply Religiously Object to Current Sars-Cov-2 Vaccinations for Myself and My Family

N.B. this article presumes knowledge of and adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Westminster Larger Catechism as accurate summations of Scripture teaching. Those who do not sincerely hold to every part of these cannot be expected to understand how and why my objections are sincerely and deeply held, but this ought not hinder them from respecting the religious sincerity and depth of my objections.

It is becoming apparent that I will need to be giving people the reasoning behind my deeply and sincerely held religious objection to the sars-cov-2 vaccines that are currently available in my country. And, if I am sincerely opposed to the vaccine itself, then I am all the more opposed to its being mandated for others, which actually makes it morally worse to receive it, since I am then complicit in this violation of the conscience of other believers. If the fifth commandment requires of superiors that they not demand that which violates the Scripture-informed conscience of their inferiors, then I also have a duty as an equal not to participate in or comply with such a demand. Thus, even if one is not convinced for himself of the sixth commandment violation, he may yet conclude that his brother's conscientious objection makes it a fifth commandment violation to participate in that which has been mandated.

As the reader can already see, there are myriad considerations for the morality of participating in mandated vaccination at all. The following are a few considerations that are specific to the question at hand. Especially in the third section, which introduces the violation of the sixth commandment with respect to one's own life and health, much more could be said about current approaches to researching, manufacturing, marketing, and administering vaccinations in general (not just with respect to sars-cov-2). However, this would get us into the weeds of what is really a different and unnecessary question than I am trying to answer here.

The biggest problem with sars-cov-2 vaccine mandates is that one can legitimately conclude that he is violating the sixth commandment by receiving the vaccine, regardless of which brand he receives.

One can legitimately conclude that he is violating the sixth commandment by receiving the vaccine, because babies were murdered for the research, development, testing, or production that brought us each of the vaccine variants available. As horrible as it truly is to differentiate between how murder-dependent a vaccine is, I give a little more information below. It was collected some months ago, but going back to lifesitenews, etc., to try to re-produce sources has proved difficult, likely due to "user error." I really never expected to share anything publicly, so this boils down to private notes.

BNT162b2 (Pfizer) used research dependent upon HEK-293. This is an old fetal cell line from a baby that was murdered 48 years ago. As far as I know, fetal cell lines were not used for development, testing, or production.

mRNA-1273 (Moderna) used various fetal cell lines both in development and in testing. The fact that the Moderna offering is much more effective than the Pfizer one presents a microcosm of the moral problem as a whole: is a greater reliance upon murder worth a greater effectiveness in medicinal therapy?

JNJ-78436735 (Johnson & Johnson) uses a cell line from a baby murdered 36 years ago in ongoing production.

One can legitimately conclude that he is violating the sixth commandment by receiving the vaccine, because current vaccinations increase the likelihood of becoming a super-spreader to others. This one takes a little more technical reading ability to understand, because it is based upon this study. 

Basically, current vaccinations trigger an immune response that produces primarily serum and secretory IgA antibodies. This helps the vaccinated person if he is infected, because he is likely to have a much milder case of the disease. However, this has not been correlated with increased mucosal IgM or IgG antibodies. 

So, the virus may replicate and be expressed in even greater quantities in a person who does not even feel ill. For the young (<60?) to prioritize increased mildness at the risk of becoming significantly more dangerous to others, and especially to the elderly, is significantly questionable from a sixth-commandment perspective.

One can legitimately conclude that he is violating the sixth commandment by receiving the vaccine, because of increased long-term risk to his own health and life. The Mayo Clinic tracking study recently published in Yale University's medRxiv periodical showed an overall effectiveness, from January through July, of 86% for Moderna and 76% for Pfizer. However, for just the month of July this was down to 76% for Moderna and 42%(!) for Pfizer, meaning that Jan–Jun was actually much higher, and the decline in effectiveness has been much more precipitous. 

Despite the cleverness of the new therapies, there is good reason why we have never vaccinated for the common cold, a substantial portion of which is caused by viruses similar to sars-cov-2 (albeit without the gain of function). The emerging data suggest that we are still not able to vaccinate for what is basically an augmented version of the common cold. This may be disappointing to some, but I don't see how it can be surprising.

Much has been made over the last few days of "official" FDA approval for Pfizer, but little has been made of the fact that it also requires findings of long-term and pregnancy studies in 2025 and 2027. This highlights that we thus far know very little about long-term effects, and even when those findings are in, it will not have been very "long-term." 

But it seems to me that there may be rather serious risk. I think that it is indisputable that auto-immune disease has increased significantly for the past thirty years during which I have been observant/aware of such things. It is unique/ingenious that rather than introducing a foreign body for itself to be attacked, these vaccines actually cause the body to produce that which the immune system then attacks. However, with auto-immune response an increasing threat to our health, I suspect that unnecessarily provoking it may have serious, unintended consequences. Besides this, there may be many other risks that just cannot be suspected, because we have not yet observed the outcome and cannot even begin to theorize about mechanism for that outcome. 

So, we have an unknown but possibly significant risk, which is greater for the young (who, on average, have a "longer-term" risk assessment to make), and a quickly decreasing benefit. As risk increases and benefit goes to zero, risk/benefit ratio goes to infinity. One might reason that benefit is not going to zero; but, taken with the two previous considerations of participating in the disregard of lives already taken, and possibly disregarding the lives of those who remain, it is questionable as to whether there is currently "benefit" at all.

In conclusion, another believer is not necessarily under obligation to reason as I have. Still, it's clear that there may be many biblically ethical reasons to be conscientiously against receiving any of the current vaccinations. The fetal murder consideration alone may be enough. And, if it is possible for another believer to have genuine conscientious objection, then I must be opposed to mandated vaccination.

Some very good pastoral advice on the church's responses to the response to Covid-19

From the minutes of the 36th Council of the Reformed Churches of Brazil, March 22–26, 2021. They are a product of mission work by the Canadian Reformed Church. Article 75 is a response to one of their congregation's request for help in navigating government orders in connection with covid-19. May the Holy Spirit give to the undershepherds of His church wisdom and boldness to instruct and practice according to His Word.

ARTICLE 75. Request for advice and pastoral guidance on how a Christian's posture should be, as well as that of his church, in the face of the current pandemic moment of Covid-19. The internal commission, which was responsible for organizing a compilation of the advice given by the delegates, according to Article 34 of these Minutes, presents its work to the Council. The following delegates ask that it be recorded that they did not give any of this advice: Pr. Madson Marinho and Pb. Josemir Lopes. The advice given by the delegates of this Council to IPSEP IR questions is:

1. On the nature of the pandemic: we can say that we are facing an unprecedented real health crisis, or that we are experiencing the advance of an anti-Christian front, which wants to take advantage of the health crisis to stop the worship and worship of the true God? And what to do in the face of this?

● Some delegates responded that, although we are in a health crisis, we are not in the biggest one, as there have been much worse ones. Others said that there is no health crisis, as they believe that the virus does not have the power of lethality as disclosed. The real crisis is economic and not health related.

● Delegates generally believe that the virus has been used to curtail people's freedom, including freedom from public Sunday worship.

● In this circumstance, an attack of evil against the church of the Lord is visible, an anti-Christian force, which has used the present health crisis to prevent the worship of the church. This has revealed the great antithesis in the world: the forces of evil and the church.

● When the Church faces such persecutions, it clings to the gospel. With this, the church must continue to fear the Lord, trusting the Scripture, being simple as the dove and prudent as the serpent and announcing the gospel.

● The Church must live in the “old normal”, and always attesting to the information given to her.

● In the face of all this, the church must move forward trusting in the Lord.

2. On the restrictions on public worship: to what extent should we accept the State's determinations regarding its interference in Sunday public worship? Is it lawful to stop conducting public services in person and adopt the so-called “online services”? Would celebrating services in person under restrictive decrees break the fifth and sixth commandments?

● The church should only follow the State's instructions as far as it does not exceed the limits of its task established in the Word of God, and when it does not hurt the conscience in the Lord.

30

● Christ is the only head of the Church who knows what is good for her.

● The State cannot legislate about worship, as it does not have the authority to interfere in

Church issues.

● “Online” services are not services. Such “on-line” services are a breach of the 2nd commandment, since it is a form of worship different from the way God prescribed. Worship is a

irreplaceable gathering.

● Some delegates spoke about freedom of conscience to justify the absence of face-to-face meetings.

● In the Bible, the Church is never prevented from solemn meetings as a whole, but only the infected individual, such as OT lepers.

3. About mandatory vaccination: how should we proceed regarding the mandatory vaccination, since there are risks to the health of our siblings and ethical issues involved, such as the use of aborted fetus cell lines for testing? Should councils advise their members on this issue?

● The mandatory vaccine is an abuse, a violation of freedoms.

● Some vaccines against covid-19 can cause more harm than the disease.

● There is early treatment.

● We are being used as a “laboratory experiment”.

● The vaccines presented are not safe, as they have had adverse reactions and involve an ethical issue regarding the use of aborted fetus cell lines.

● Because of the danger that the vaccine can offer, taking it is a breach of the 6th commandment: “A light exposure to danger”

● Councils should warn their members of the danger of getting the vaccine and instruct them as to the ethical damage involved in this.

Unintended but Culpable Consequences of Deifying the State

Many believers in my nation are increasingly, justifiably furious at the expansion of tyranny in recent days. What was originally an attempt to keep medical resources from being saturated has become the wildest of goose chases, with increasingly prodigal wasting of life and livelihood to secure little or no ultimate benefit.

But what many believers aren't recognizing is that this—as bad as it is—is not itself the great problem, but a small consequence of a much greater problem. To use the current, "viral" language, the current destruction of life and livelihood by the state is not the disease, but a symptom of a more complex and deadly disease.

The symptom may be a moving target with unintended consequences. But the disease is the deification of the state—with inevitable consequences.

Encouraging Authorities to Submit to Christ in the 5th, 6th, and 8th Commandments

May the cost of the "cure" send us to the Cross

All that has been done in the advance of tyranny and decline of the economy will have an astronomical price tag in lives. Not just lives by which these are means that they ended early, but lives that are destroyed even in the midst of the living.

Apart from the grace of Christ, millions will come to the provocative conclusion that Solomon suggests for the godless in Ecclesiastes 6:3–6,

"If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better than he—for it comes in vanity and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. Though it has not seen the sun or known anything, this has more rest than that man, 6 even if he lives a thousand years twice—but has not seen goodness. Do not all go to one place?"