. . . and along the way denies the teaching and authority of Peter and Paul.
That is, if you use the logic that Tim does in his drive-by post (comments are closed), then you may reach the conclusion that he (and by implication, his brother, David) consider the apostles (except for Matthew) to be unworthy of contemporary Christians’ obedience. Here’s the exact reasoning:
If an officer of Christ’s Church today is not known, as all the Christians were known in the ancient Roman Empire, for taking up the cause of the children being slaughtered, loving the little ones as their Master does, he merits no reading, no listening, no following as a teacher of the church or shepherd of souls.
Tim’s pleasant little introduction to this deduction was another piece of generic slander against two-kingdom and spirituality of the church theology.
Reformed men who promote that hatred of God legislated by the judiciary these past fifty years or so, justifying their cuddly relationships with evil men under the rubric of “two kingdom theology” and “the spirituality of the church,” are unconcerned about the injustice, oppression, and bloodshed of innocents that has long been the foundation of our civil compact here in these United States. They simply don’t give a rip
It’s self evident on any terms a civilized man accepts for the foundation of common law that sending wives, sisters, and mothers off to fight our enemies is evil, but you’ll look in vain for the spirituality of the church men to address the civil magistrate condemning this evil. It’s self evident on any terms a civilized man accepts for the foundation of common law that ripping unborn babies apart in their mothers’ wombs for money, no less is an evil as great as the world has ever known, but you’ll look in vain for the two kingdom men to write about it on their blogs, speak against it in the public square, preach against it in their pulpits, or show up at the killing place to lift a finger to stop it..
Strong stuff. Tim claims that this is the “entire argument,†but he goes on to throw in comparisons with the Third Reich, I guess, just to throw caution to the wind.
Apparently, the Baylys have encyclopedic knowledge of the writings and thoughts of all 2k pastors. I’d have thought this was the kind of comprehension reserved for God. But I guess they have one of those worldviews.
Or maybe they are so right and righteous that they don’t need to be careful with the facts. Have they followed Tennent in donning a the attire and following the diet of John the Baptist?
But one fact they should consider is that the only mention of the slaughter of babies in the New Testament comes in Matthew. I am open to correction since my Bible knowledge could be better. Still, I don’t recall Paul or Peter addressing the slaughter of innocents or abortion in their epistles, let alone women serving as soldiers.
It is also worth mentioning that in the Roman Empire, slavery existed, as did human sacrifice, not to mention infanticide. And yet, the very same apostles who cautioned against the dangers of self-righteousness, also instructed Christians to be subject to the imperial authorities.
So, if the Baylys’ logic holds, since Peter and Paul were not known for condemning the evils the Baylys list, then Christians should pay no heed to the New Testament epistles (for starters). Apparently, Peter and Paul did not give a rip the way Tim and David rip.
Of course, there is a solution to this predicament. It is the teaching of 2k and the spirituality of the church. If the Bible commands something, or if it forbids it, then Christians must follow. If the Bible doesn’t speak to a matter, then Christians have liberty. This is of the essence of sola scriptura and the formal principle of the Reformation. The Roman Church, like the Baylys, tried to bind consciences with their own extra-biblical requirements. In the Baylys’ case, we must not only refrain from certain actions but we must publicly oppose it the way Baylys do – otherwise, you’re not a true minister they way they are. To this logic, the Reformers said that only the Bible should be heeded in matters of conscience because only Christ is Lord of conscience. When it comes to public life, the only real guidance to Christians is to submit to the ordained powers.
So the Baylys fundamentally misunderstand a basic building block of the Reformed faith and are grossly uncharitable in displaying their ignorance.
Of course, they are not wrong to oppose the slaughter of innocents or even women serving in the military. They may do that and likely have plenty of good reasons from the created order and even the sixth commandment (in the case of abortion). They stray when they beat their breast and bray that only those ministers are worthy of hearing are the ones like the Baylys. If they are right about their own example and reasoning, then the apostles – and even Jesus himself – stand condemned.
Strong stuff, indeed.
62 Comments
Hi Zrim,
With trepidation I respond since I keep getting posts held in moderation and it is a waste of my time. I will make a copy of this an email it to you as well, so as not to waste my time.
Thanks for the questions, let me answer them:
“Your contention seems to be that holding certain politics is tantamount to being personally guilty of certain sins.”
Well, we’ve been over this before, I can do it again for you if you’d like. This comment of yours is vague, and vagueness hurts the dialogue rather than helping it. Do you mean to say that there is no possible political viewpoint one could hold that would be personally guilty of sinning? Well that seems quite absurd. Indeed, I can give examples. And rather than show that they are not sinful, you simply call them “ridiculous.” But that’s the point. If you’re going to make the very austere claim that there is no conceivable political viewpoint one could hold that would be sinful, then I can think of many examples to the contrary. Even the Bible condemns certain political viewpoints. In the current dialectical context, I claim that holding the politics of choice is sinful. I backed that up with the Catechism which claims, by the way, that what it says on the moral law is applicable to all.
“So, to have choice politics is the same as either performing with one’s own hands or having in one’s own body an actual (elective) abortion.”
This is ambiguous. “Same” could be used in different senses, for example, numerical identity. But I wouldn’t claim this in that sense. But I believe that being pro-choice, articulating that view point, defending it, and seeking through political means to make sure that it remains a viable option for people, is a murderous activity. I appeal, again, to the Larger Catechism for this.
“If that’s true then what about having a political outlook that wants to make sure men and women are civilly free to publically worship false gods and practice idolatry, as in making sure Mormons and Catholics and Muslims remain unhampered in the public square, like me? Does this mean I am personally culpable for idolatry?”
Okay, here’s the problem with this argument. Let’s note the dialectical situation. I made a positive argument, from premises I took you to accept (i.e., the Confessional statements), and drew a conclusion that voting for abortion would be sinful and those who do so are subject to moral condemnation and possible discipline. Now, even 2Kers david Gadbois agrees, and I have the question out to Stellman as well. So this isn’t some weird “transformationalist” argument. You can call it “the Confessional argument against voting for abortion,” if you’d like.
In response to my positive argument, let’s note that you did not interact with it but instead asked a question. But John Frame offers helpful words here: “Note therefore that when you seek to refute someone’s position, it is never sufficient merely to set forth arguments for an alternative (and incompatible) view. . . .In such situations it is best, then, not only to argue an alternative view but also to refute the arguments that produced the view you are seeking to overthrow.”
Okay, so here’s your major problems, as I see them: (1) You have not demonstrated that the Catechism uses language that would seem to rule out voting for religious liberty; (2) I believe the Bible teaches and allows for religious liberty; (3) I believe the Confession teaches and allows for religious liberty, (4) The Confession does not say “whatsoever does not hinder the practice of false worship” is idolatry. It does say that “whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any” is a violation of the 6th commandment. I take it as obvious that “voting that one person may kill a human fetus or concepti” is soemthing that “tends to the destruction of life,” and since the fetus or concepti is a living human being, it is an “any.” However, if you think that voting for abortion is logically consistent with not doing a “whatsoever tends to the destruction of the life of any,” then I’d love to hear that argument.
And here’s the biggest problem: This proposition is true: Either the Confessions teach that to vote for religious liberty for non-Christians in the public square is a violation of the 1st commandment, or it does not. So, which disjunct would you like to argue for? Notice that I have put you on the horns of a real dilemma. If you argue, which you’d need to to make your case, that the confession does teach that so voting would be sinful, then you’re sinful. If you argue that it does not, then you don’t have a defeater to my argument. That is, heads I win, tails you lose.
To all:
Notice that Darryl Hart used as as part of his evidence for his reasons for deleting my posts the claim that I do not distinguish between a person’s stated view that X, and my claims that their view “logically implies” that X. But this is false. I have made this distinction many times. Now, for the moment, this post of mine in this thread is visible: September 12, 2010 at 7:48 pm, and you can clearly see me claim that the argument I am offering is based off “logical implication.” I submit hart has made false allegations against me, and it at least appears that his beef isn’t with style, it’s with substance.
So, Paul, what you’re saying is that I have to answer my own question for me? I don’t know why this has to be so complicated. You asked me if someone could vote a certain way without being personally condemned. I said yes because I make a distinction between holding political views and committing personal behavior. You seem to say no because you don’t make that distinction. I ask you if you’d condemn me for holding the view that people should be civilly free to committ idolatry, and i don’t get a simple answer with a simple reason. Rather, you seem to say, “If you think the Bible condemns your political outlook then yes, you’re guilty.” Well, I don’t, so I guess I’m not.
As far as “are there any political viewpoints that can be morally condemned,” I don’t know. I go so far as to say that idolatry should be civilly protected (but ecclesiastically condemned). How much worse can things get than the civil protection of idolatry? But maybe here’s where you go back to your old saw and start suggesting things about Hiltler and Mao and whatever else strikes fear and loathing into the hearts of modern westerners. But I don’t think it’s a sin to wear a brown shirt and jackboots and carry a membership card to a dubious political organization; it is a sin to put a bullet in someone’s head.
Steve, no, I’m not saying that. I clearly answered your question, and with some detail. If you’re not going to read what I write just tell me. I thought you wanted an answer because you begged for one.
“You asked me if someone could vote a certain way without being personally condemned. I said yes because I make a distinction between holding political views and committing personal behavior.”
Um, Zrim, you need to do some of the work here too. I NEVER said anything about “holding a political view.” I said something about ACTING on the view, i.e., voting. To claim that a vote isn’t an action or a behavior is just weird.
“You seem to say no because you don’t make that distinction. I ask you if you’d condemn me for holding the view that people should be civilly free to committ idolatry, and i don’t get a simple answer with a simple reason.”
Zrim, I do make a distinction between someone believing something and keeping their belief to themselves and then acting on the belief. Voting to enact laws is in the second. It plays a causal role, Zrim.
Secondly, I CLEARLY implied that I would not hold you responsible for voting for religious freedom because I CLEARLY stated that I do not believe that either the Bible or the Confessions teach that we are to politically hinder people from free exercise/expression of their religion (within bounds, no Satanic sacrifices, for example). How could you not see that I in fact DID answer you? Are you not reading what I write?
Paul, agreed, I am thinking of holding a view and acting upon it to be synonymous. So when I say someone holds choice politics I am also assuming s/he is also acting upon them. While I am civilly opposed, I still don’t hold anything ecclesiastically against anyone for it. To my mind the proper arena to oppose someone civilly is the civil sphere (not very profound but apparently divisive to those who think being political is also being personal). To oppose them ecclesiastically is a form of religious bullying.
Glad I’m not condemned. Thanks for the simple answer (I confess, my eyes glaze over sometimes at your missives, so maybe I miss stuff). But it sounds like you are saying folks outside our jurisdiction may enjoy religious freedom, but folks within mayn’t enjoy political freedom. I am saying folks within mayn’t have personal or religious freedom, but they may have political freedom.
Are we done yet? This is starting to feel like Isner and Mahut at Wimbledon. I’m praying for a rain delay.
Steve Z.
“Paul, agreed, I am thinking of holding a view and acting upon it to be synonymous.”
That’s clearly false, though. There are all sorts of views that we may hold but not act on. Even a lingustic analysis should show you that “holding a view” and “acting on the view that you hold,” is not synomymous. So your argument rests upon a false premise. Indeed, your own view here is that Christian Jane may hold the view that abortion is acceptable, though she may’nt have one, i.e., act on her view.
“So when I say someone holds choice politics I am also assuming s/he is also acting upon them.”
That’s clearly a bad assumption. But apart from the assumption, this doesn’t do anything to show synonymity. It simply is to state that you believe that people act upon the basis of what they believe. But the act and the belief about the act are clearly different.
“While I am civilly opposed, I still don’t hold anything ecclesiastically against anyone for it.”
I’ve never once argued against what the descriptive content of your noetic structure is. I have just given arguments that suggest you’re belief is wrong.
“To my mind the proper arena to oppose someone civilly is the civil sphere (not very profound but apparently divisive to those who think being political is also being personal).”
I didn’t know you thought the Larger Catechism opposed some people’s civil beliefs in the civil sphere. Oh, sorry, you were begging the question.
“Glad I’m not condemned. Thanks for the simple answer (I confess, my eyes glaze over sometimes at your missives, so maybe I miss stuff).”
Missives? I love how you use rhetoric to poison the well.
“But it sounds like you are saying folks outside our jurisdiction may enjoy religious freedom, but folks within mayn’t enjoy political freedom.”
it only sounds like that because you’re being intellectually lazy. Indeed, I specified that both aren’t absolute. I don’t allow “those outside” to sacrifice humans if their religion allows itl; and I don’t allow “those inside” to further the murder of those who can’t debate Steve Zrimiec and defend themselves. I know it’s all balck and white for you, but I can allow and not allow based on the individual circumstances under question.
“I am saying folks within mayn’t have personal or religious freedom, but they may have political freedom.”
I know you are, which, per my argument, puts you at least at odds with the Confession.
“Are we done yet? This is starting to feel like Isner and Mahut at Wimbledon. I’m praying for a rain delay.”
Sure thing. You admit you don’t even read what I write. So why should I bother? You go ahead and have the last word.
Paul (aka Pau), I object to the substance but I also object to the insinuations which in a few cases were explicit. I think you got carried away with your own (attempts at) humor. I don’t mind the drive by snark from folks like Andrew and Benjamin. Yours has been relentless. I have let most of it go. But you crossed the lines with slander and in this forum it is better (in my judgment) not to go round on the merits of your assertions and perhaps invite further slander against people who may not be reading and so are unable to defend themselves, but simply to remove the comments.
No harm, no foul.
As long as it’s on the record that I deny your charge of slander, accuse you of making a false allegation, and point out the only “evidence” you provided was actually slander on your end since you made the false allegation that I don’t claim certain things are “logical implications” while I actually did, and you are the one who claimed I believed things (e.g., worldview is black and white; regeneration raises IQ, etc) instead of saying you thought they were logical implications.
And, yeah, I get carried away with humor. I’m Italian. That’s the way it goes.
But Paul, it’s not funny. Theonomists never are.
Darryl, certainly you don’t mean to call me a theonomost, since that would be slander. You must mean it’s a “logical implication” of what I say. Well, bully! But here’s the hard part: if you’re gonna claim something is a logical implication, then you’ll need to give us the derivation steps.
But if funny is what you’re after, I can do funy: Did you hear that the Baylys’s accused your boy Zrim of slander? Guess you strange bedfellows aint so far apart after all. Not funny? Fuhgeddaboudit.
Paul, if theonomy is not a sin, how is “theonomist” slander?
Tim, David, I mean Darryl, you’re a smart guy, you can figure it out.
One Trackback
[...] Ethics, Law) The Bayly’s have come out with some strong words against 2K theology, and Darryl Hart has responded to [...]