I hope Jason Stellman does not consider this piling on. He is a friend and I mean to be respectful of his decision even if I lament his loss of Protestant convictions. At the same time, since some have invoked the two-kingdoms theology as a plausible factor in Stellman’s resignation, a response is in order. And Jason’s reasons for leaving the PCA provide yet another occasion to clarify the 2k position with which he once identified.
First, on the matter of sola scriptura, 2k theology does not pit ecclesiology against the word of God but in fact limits the ministry of the church precisely to what Scripture teaches. At the risk of beating a dead Machen, the hero of conservative Presbyterians put the matter this way in his defense of his refusal to comply with the PCUSA’s Mandate of 1934 (which deemed illegal the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions):
The Bible forbids a man to substitute any human authority for the Word of God. . . . In demanding that I shall shift my message to suit the shifting votes of an Assembly that is elected anew every year, the General Assembly is attacking Christian liberty; but what should never be forgotten is that to attack Christian liberty is to attack the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I desire to say very plainly to the Presbytery of New Brunswick that as a minister I have placed myself under the orders of Jesus Christ as his will is made known to me through the Scriptures. That is at the heart and core of Protestantism. It is also at the heart and core of the teaching of the Word of God. It cannot give it up.
If I read the Bible aright, a man who obtains his message from the pronouncements of presbyteries or General Assemblies instead of from the Bible is not truly a minister of Jesus Christ. He may wear the garb of a minister, but he is not a minister in the sight of God.
By the issuance of this command, the General Assembly has attacked the authority of the Bible in very much the same way in which it is attacked by the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church does not deny the authority of the Bible. Indeed, it defends the truth of the Bible, and noble service is being rendered in that defense, in our times, by Roman Catholic scholars. But we are opposed to the Roman Catholic position for one great central reason – because it holds that there is a living human authority that has a right to give an authoritative interpretation of the Bible. We are opposed to it because it holds that the seat of authority in religion is not just the Bible but the Bible interpreted authoritatively by the church. That, we hold, is a deadly error indeed: it puts fallible men in a place of authority that belongs only to the Word of God.
The point here is not to claim that Machen settles the dilemmas with which Stellman wrestled or that Machen’s clear assertion of biblical authority addresses adequately the squishiness of interpreting and applying an infallible word from God. Instead Machen shows that the spirituality of the church (a variety of 2K), affirmed sola scriptura, Christian liberty, and the Lordship of Christ as part and parcel of Presbyterianism. To the extent the church has authority, Christ delegates it and limits ecclesiastical authority to the Word of God. As practically every Reformed church affirms:
All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God. “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship” (Confession of Faith, Chapter XX, Section 2). (OPC, BCO, III.3)
In other words, 2K’s understanding of church authority is bound up with and limited by sola scriptura. 2K is not the window through which to fly to Rome.
Stellman’s second reason for leaving the PCA concerns his change of mind on sola fide. He no longer believes that justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is basic to New Testament teaching. Instead he believes that the Bible teaches that justification comes through faith working by love. (This is, by the way, a Protestant form of argument – what the Bible teaches as opposed to what tradition or the church instructs.) I myself disagree with Jason’s reading of the New Testament, not to mention that experientially I have no hope apart from Christ’s righteousness, (though purgatory may provide a way out of this problem). As Bill Smith said:
It seems that Mr. Stellman’s evolving view is that our acceptance with God depends not on an imputed righteousness alone but on an imparted, transformational righteousness. I can only say I hope he is wrong, because there is no way I am going to heaven if my going depends on anything at all other than the righteousness of Christ.
But the point here is not with justification per se but its relationship to 2K. Again, the two-kingdom theology is bound up with the material principle of the Reformation. In his inaugural lecture, David VanDrunen argued for the priority of justification to sanctification in the application of redemption and drew implications for 2K:
The civil kingdom is a realm in which judgment is always future, in which strict justice is administered based upon the talionic principle. The spiritual kingdom, on the other hand, is a realm in which judgment is passed/past, in which the talionic principle of strict, retaliatory justice is foresworn for the peaceful practice of turning the other cheek. The non-Christian moral life is characterized by the specter of judgment-to-come, by the obligation to obey so that, somehow, acceptance before God might be earned. The Christian moral life, on the other hand, is characterized by the profound, radical, and decisive act of justification already accomplished, such that one lives no longer in order to sustain the judgment but in response to that blessed judgment already rendered.
. . . these considerations have far-reaching implications for the church’s position in relation to the world, and to the state in particular. To put it simply, the church finds the state’s business foreign. As an institution that forsakes the lex talionis and refuses to take up the sword in judgment or even self-defense, it can have in some sense no cognizance at all of what the sword-bearing state does. The church acknowledges the state’s existence, thanks God for its work, and blesses her saints as they submit to its authority and join in its work, but how can the church itself dare to participate in or contribute to the state’s work? What a strange thing for an institution defined by its peacefulness and mercy to tell the state how to do its work of coercion. What a bizarre scenario when the office-bearers of the church, chosen and ordained in recognition of their knowledge and practice of the things that are above, make declamations on public policy as if they were experts on things that are here below. And certainly similar things could be said about the church’s forays into economic development and whatever other cultural work might promote an agenda of social transformation. How wise were our Reformed forebears who spoke of the spirituality of the church and the solely ministerial character of ecclesiastical authority. The church is the community of the justified; may her shepherds feed the sheep with the bread of heaven and leave uninfringed their liberty in regard to the affairs of earth.
Again, VanDrunen’s comments are not meant to end all debates. Some will undoubtedly take issue with both his views on union with Christ and on church and state. Still, the idea that 2K is some boutique doctrine that its advocates trot out to provoke, create a following, or use as a hobby horse is wrong. For most of the 2k advocates I know, the doctrine is bound up with teachings that are crucial to the Reformation and at the heart of Reformed Protestantism. Those who oppose 2k are not necessarily outside the Reformed camp. But if they affirm the material and formal principles of the Reformation, they are on the road to two-kingdom theology. If they deny 2k, they ride on a rocky road.
90 Comments
Sheesh, Paul. Always flawed thinking and reasoning with you. Who died and made you frigging Socrates?
Darryl, gonna retract? Didn’t think so. You’re so humble. I guess it’s because you can never be wrong. Who died and made you God?
McMark, I would agree that Anabaptists are some kind of 2k, an anti-creedal, anti-liturgical variety. They may be people of the Bible, but have they ever articulated the doctrine of justification by faith alone in a confession, have they?
Paul Lawrence, I’d be glad to take back the assertion that you don’t like 2k. But that would mean you’d have to affirm that you like 2k.
I like 2K. Did you read my link on the other page? The one where I interacted with Stellman’s hatchet job of Carson’s book on Christ & Culture? In there I even wrote “The basic case for 2K is sound.” So, Paul like 2K. paul like 2K real good.”
But, that’s not the retraction I’m talking about. I showed you that Trueman was not implicating 2K or saying Stellman’s leave was not accidental to 2K. I showed it. You said I wouldn’t read Trueman any other way because not liking 2K was personal for me. But we see that you misread Trueman. We see that you are incapable of correction. We see that you can’t be charitable. Even if *I* were those things, what’s your excuse? I thought you were ordained? Aren’t you supposed to be teachable and humble?
Mark, you said: “I agree that submission to Reagan does not mean liberty to work with Reagan anymore than to and with Hitler.” But I don’t know with whom you’re agreeing, because it isn’t me. Submission to both civil authorities means liberty to work for both. You know, like the way Jospeh did for Pharooh and Danil for Nebuchadnezzar. You ask for a philosophical and historical rationale, but I am upping the ante by providing a biblical warrant. Joe and Dan lived in the exilic eras of the OT, which is the era we live in now as NT believers (the final and eternal theocracy is yet to come). The upshot is that believers are not only to obey their magistrates but are also free to wear jack boots or three-piece suits in service to them. My inner American does shudder at wearing jack boots, but it might be because he hasn’t shaken off all his cultural Christianity yet.
Zrim, is not admitting when you’re wrong considered good 2k behavior? Or do you only blow your whistle when a non-2ker breaks one of your rules?
The problem with anabaptists today (and maybe always) is that they think more highly of what “the church” says together in community than they do about what the Bible says.
I agree with Paul Zahl that (any) ecclesiology is trouble when it “places the human church in some kind of special zone — somehow distinct from real life — that appears to be worthy of special study and attention. The underlying idea is that the church is in a zone that is more free from original sin and total depravity than the rest of the world, but the facts prove otherwise” (p. 226, Grace in Practice).
We must see Christ alone standing apart from all churches. We must put what Christ taught and said over what churches teach. We must, if need be, put grace alone over against the churches. Christ’s past saving work has priority over His present work by the Spirit in the churches.
I think Stanley Hauerwas, for example, has elevated his “ideal non-existing the church” to a place way more important than Christ’s atonement for and justification of the individual sinner. After all has been said about the historical claims of various churches, or the purity of their “shelf-doctrines”, or the formal beauty of their worship, churches can and do often become ends in themselves.
Paul Zahl thinks ecclesia happens (or not). “Church is pneumatic, Spirit-led movement, always, like mercury in motion. Church is flux. A systematic theology of grace puts church in its right place. Church is at best the caboose to grace. It’s the tail. Ecclesiology, on the other hand, makes church into the engine” (p. 228).
And then the “anabaptist” in me thinks, well that’s what a loosey goosey Anglican would say, but I know better, because church is Christians alone and nothing more….oh really?.
DG Hart,
Your column seems to indicate Mr Stellman has abandoned his 2k convictions as well. Do we know this? If true, it is strange. The idea solace can be found in Rome for Mr Stellman on several issues he deems important to ‘Christianity’ and his own self-identity, is absurd—then again, culturally, there are reasons one could see Stellman’s inner tempest blowing him toward the Tiber.
David, I’m not sure. But from Stellman’s own comment here, it sounds like he thinks he needs to reconsider 2k.
D. G. Hart: McMark, I would agree that Anabaptists are some kind of 2k, an anti-creedal, anti-liturgical variety. They may be people of the Bible, but have they ever articulated the doctrine of justification by faith alone in a confession, have they?
RS: If you think of all Baptists as being Anabaptists in some way, then the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith does set this out quite clearly. The 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession also sets this out as well.
Trueman was not implicating 2K or saying Stellman’s leave was not accidental to 2K
To put it in terms that Reformed understand, Trueman was not saying that JJS’s departure was grounded in 2K, but he was saying that 2K was instrumental.
Rube, did you miss JJS’s own words in this very thread: “2K had absolutely nothing to do with it…In fact, I still hold to a form of 2K. Now, I realize I may have to change that depending on where I end up, but for what it’s worth, my 2K theology was never a factor. And if it was, it was a factor in keeping me confessional for as long as I was.”
Truemanians have an option: take a man’s own word for it, or try and divine his mind’s inner workings and force the instrumentality. But why would it not be sufficient to admit that his 2k might have to undergo serious rehab in the future instead of trying to force it to the front?
Yes, there’s a difference between baptists and anabaptists. In both London Confessions, the baptists wanted to make it clear to the magistrate that they were not anabaptists, so much so that they would politically agree with treating anabaptists as seditionists. It’s not simply that they wanted to save their own skins. They really were NOT anabaptists. They were the kind of people who said the church should not talk about politics, and then only welcomed Republicans into their fellowship. They were not pacifists. They were patriots.
That’s why I have to think of myself as “anabaptist”, even though I believe that Christ died for the elect alone and that justification is legally given by God’s imputation as a result of Christ’s work outside the sinner. And I am not the only such “hybrid”.
Rube, did you miss JJS’s own words
No, I saw them; I’m just trying to clarify Trueman’s allegations.
I am pleased with Zrim’s idea about biblical warrant. We could be talking about Joseph and Daniel instead of about Hitler, George Washington, and Ronald Reagan. I think I am also pleased with Zrim’s idea that we are now in a new covenant version of exile, in analogy to the exiles of Joseph and Daniel. This means that for us exile is not a curse but our vocation. Diaspora is not a punishment but an opportunity to sing the songs of Zion in strange lands.
This means, I assume, that Zrim would not be appealing to us with the paradigm of Exodus 32 in which we ordain ourselves as priests to God by means of slaying our ethnic brothers. It seems clear that Zrim would not argue for the republished “covenant of works aspects of the Mosaic economy” to serve as the standard for those who serve as resident aliens in the regimes of foreigners. But I do wonder what difference, if any, Zrim sees between the exile of us now and the exiles of the Old Testament. Does the law of Christ (the Sermon on the Mount) make anything different today? Does there continue to be a law-ordeal aspect to our getting things done in the civil kingdoms in which live as exiles today?
I would welcome an answer to any and all such questions, but my basic one is simple. Does Zrim think that Joseph and Daniel acted as agents of the sword for their magistrates? Why would foreign magistrates trust aliens with the sword? By what standards did they exercise the sword? Or do you think that Joseph and Daniel had acquired dual citizenships, not only in Israel (that was and is to come) but also as Egyptian and Babylonian and Assyrian citizens?
Then maybe we can talk about Jeremiah. 29:4: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream,
I take it that Jeremiah was referring to the theonomists and “federal visionists”of his day.
And then in pursuit of biblical warrant we can talk about Naaman. II Kings 5:14 So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel; so accept now a present from your servant.” 16 But he said, “As the Lord lives, before whom I stand, I will receive none.” And he urged him to take it, but he refused. 17 Then Naaman said, “If not, please let there be given to your servant two mule loads of earth, for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the Lord. 18 In this matter may the Lord pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon your servant in this matter.” 19 He said to him, “Go in peace.”
On this manner of singing the songs of Zion in strange lands, I would recommend one Mennonite book: For the Nations, by John Howard Yoder (Eerdmans), especially the chapter on diaspora, “See How they Go with Their Faces”. And one book by a Quaker, A Biblical Theology of Exile, by Daniel Smith-Christopher( Fortress). And also a great book by the premill evangelical Robert H Gundry, Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian (Eerdmans).
Federal visionists like Leithart are a lot more Constantinian than many Roman Catholics today even though they agree on “sacrament” making the church (or churches) It’s interesting to me that folks like Leithart and Hauerwas have made a case for going back to Rome, without ever doing it. They even claim to be “too catholic to be catholic”. But Jason may prove to be more honest and consistent than those two have been.
The same folks who want to follow the OT (making all covenants “the” covenant) model for worship are not agreed about what is legitimate for the people of God when they operate in a second kingdom. In his book, Stellman wrote an interesting note about being guilty (as a member of the “legitimate” second kingdom) for the guilt of all the innocent killed in Iraq.(p 71) I wonder if he thinks that God’s protection of Cain from the death penalty (on earth) was God’s “common grace”?
An observation: It’s a shame that a fellow must fight through so much acrid smoke and scorching heat to find the light. Perhaps I’m being idealistic in believing that Christian brotherhood should make this an enjoyable exploratory process.
Rube, no, he did not say 2K was instrumental. He said an OVER EMPHASIS on 2K was instrumental.
Zrim, Stellman’s response was unresponsive. Trueman never said what Stellman denied.
Anyway, Zrim, when you say I’m “angry” or “egotistical” how can you say that when you haven’t divined my mind? Why do you always demand other people behave in ways you are apparently immune from? Pwned again.
Over emphasis or not, it seems that 2K got dragged in as central to Jason’s deal with no real support from what Jason says he’s dealing with. Why? Maybe to cast aspersions at those who “over emphasize” according to some? Don’t know… Makes me wonder.
Jason, I just don’t see how it has to be someone’s “fault” (i.e. 2K over-emphasizers, WSCA, etc.).
And the only thing that I have seen that could/should have “predicted” your change was your previous blog comments on various subjects. (I am taking that from comments that others made on CCC, not from any first-hand knowledge of your comments.) That is to say that although some may be less than surprised at your change of mind, no one could rightly say that they could have predicted it, much less that they could have predicted it based upon 2K or anything like that.
If that is the case, we can soon expect DGH to “go pope” (although I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one).
– Andy
Andy, I have poped and — get this — I am the pope. But why won’t my wife heed my encyclicals?
Whatever happened to our good friend, R Scott Clark? The world wide web is not the same without his presence. We need Gospel champions that know what they believe and why they believe it! Modern-day Machen! He must be losing his hair over the Stellman news…
Bingo, JJS. I have a pet project against political activism, bow ties, cigars, and facial hair. I blame those for your theological developments. I mean, it’s so obvious.
And given his recent posts, I may as well add the name Horton to that list.
I was wondering about that. I would think that the crux of the issue is the relative strength/weakness of the argument for apostolic succession, rather than a perceived need for epistemological certainty (which was Horton’s focus).
Daryl, you are the pope?
I think that takes the QIRC to a whole new level!
Jason Stellman: “But then, what else are you going to say when someone understands perfectly well what he is now doubting?”
Some people have said that your resignation letter indicates that you possessed a faulty understanding of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Your statement above indicates that you totally reject that claim, yes?
I would like elaboration, Jason. I don’t have your e-mail address. Mine is truthunites@hotmail.com
JJS,
You’re in my prayers, Sir.
I think people have an axe to grind and that is why they look to WSC and confessionalism as the culprit of someone looking at ‘non-Protestant’ pathways to God. I’m a pretty big fan of Westminster California and her professors, past and present (That’s about you D.G. Hart!). I have also been an admirer and huge fan of ‘Dual Citizens’. I think your struggle is a heart and mind issue, not 2k, WSC, High Churchmanship, or anything else. Don’t get me wrong, I’m against your new found positions as much as you have articulated them—but abiding by confessional standards you questioned, and decided you no long held too, would have been far worse. So, I salute you there. Still, I believe the alternative to be hopelessness.
Jason, didn’t you meet with Horton to discuss your questions/doubts recently?
If so, would he not have at least a better idea of where you are coming from & how you got there than many? (At least a better idea than Dr. Trueman or any other number of bloggers who have tried to Vulcan Mind-meld with you lately?)
And I don’t mean that as an insult to Trueman or anyone, just saying that theirs must necessarily be more or less guess work, while I would think that Dr. Horton (if indeed you met with him over this issue) would have some idea of the facts involved in your decision.
I guess Horton’s article is more directed as a response to the kind of struggle Joshua Lim expresses:
It is not simply that Reformed Christianity is wrong and some other denomination is right, or even that all denominations are right; rather, if one small group of Christians could claim to have the truth to the exclusion of some or many others, and if this boiled down to an arbitrary construct of a man’s or a group of men’s imaginings (i.e., their interpretation of Scripture), then I could no longer believe that any Christian denomination had the truth. Moreover, I could only believe that this sort of arbitrary selection of dogma could only be what has occurred throughout the history of Christianity.
Well, You heard it above gents (and ladies). Mr Stellman said when all the copies of Dual Citizen are gone-that’s it. Looks like I’m going to have to find a way to get a new one because my saintly mother has marked up my old copy. D.G. Hart wrote that for him, it sounds like Mr Stellman thinks he needs to reconsider 2k as well. That tears it! (to mimic D. G. Hart). This situation is terrible (no offense JJS). One thing is sure, the situation is ironic enough to submit Hemingway’s iceberg theory has room to breath in our present situation. That is, most of an iceberg is underwater. In the case of Jason J Stellman, his recent pronouncement-and his theological wrestlings with sola fide and Zola scriptura, I can assure those on the combox (and myself), we’re looking at only the part of the iceberg above water… and no, I am not ocusing Jason J Stellman of dishonesty.
JJS’s remark about his ongoing agreement with 2k, “Now, I realize I may have to change that depending on where I end up, but for what it’s worth, my 2K theology was never a factor” weirds me out a bit. I sympathize with the general trajectory, having wondered a few years ago whether my differences with evangelicalism (the lack of any ecclesiology and sacramentology, to speak of) made returning to Catholicism something of an option.
But I wasn’t persuaded of the truth of their distinctives, many of which are still as ridiculous to me as the worst of evangelical excesses. (Lutheran sacramentology had similar problems, and with a closed table in the confessional churches, you can’t privately remain a communicant presbyterian without a Framean level of confessional rigamarole.)
JJS hasn’t mentioned Rome as his destination, but the idea of changing something that you still agree with depending on where you end up reminds me a lot of other protestants who leave evangelicalism for good reasons, then adopt the Assumption, kissing statues in public worship, eucharistic adoration, etc. with no reservations. If a claim to authority is all that’s necessary to overrule doubt, then the problem with evangelicalism ultimately isn’t anything other than the lack of claiming apostolic succession. Whether Rome actually displays it is impossible for anyone to question without being rebellious, from her perspective.
If 2k is worth still holding to after questioning sola scriptura and sola fide, it’s not worth abandoning simply because someone else says to. But hopefully I’m just misreading his intent.
On the other hand, if there were an annual Machen award for Presbyterian of the Year, I would nominate him for the way he’s handled everything were it not for the small matter of no longer being presbyterian. Even there, he could be an example for certain others.
Great Scott, Brother Darryl, Paul and 90? others! Was it only yesterday DGH wrote all this stuff? You (DGH) asked about Why think a return to Christianity should bring us better laws?) Darryl, Ya gotta be kiddin? Oh my, sweet Old Bob is getting as mean as Darryl v. Paul! I doubt if anyone of the 90 commentators will get to this. Maybe if I had energy and time to read all that came before, my following comments would not be necessary? Question: At what point in all this and in history (American Revolution, etc.) Should we “Obey God rather than men:? Doesn’t this sum it all up?— “USA needs gospel (#1 priority)”. and, And, AND our USA needs Christian value LAWS (#2 priority).” Darryl, I think having some kids and grandkids might have been a balancing factor 4 U. I tried, firstly, to lead our many young ones to Jesus. We ALSO tried, secondarily, to teach them to be unselfish, tell the truth, have good manners, dress appropriately, read, do math, history, play ball, etc. Isn’t this what 2K-Neo-Calvinism (or whatefer) is all about? Kive, Old Bob
Gary North, “The Blessings of Serfdom.”
Joseph, acting as the head of a pagan State, provides us with an acceptable model for a civil magistrate. The key question is this: In what circumstances is his model judicially legitimate: In a pagan State or a Christian State? I argue that his model is valid only in the former case. Pagans who break God’s civil laws deserve to be enslaved politically since they are enslaved religiously. This is the message of Genesis. Joseph did the righteous thing in extracting everything from the Egyptians in the first two years: their land, their animals, and their money. Then, when they faced starvation in the third year, he gave them a choice: either perpetual bondage to Pharaoh, plus a perpetual obligation to pay 20% of their increase in taxes, or else starvation.
This rate of taxation was double the rate that Samuel said would constitute God’s judgment against Israel (I Sam. 8:15, 17)…. The text shows that Joseph made the Egyptians pay dearly to stay alive. He bought their lands in the name of the State. He brought them into permanent slavery. He bargained sharply.
There was another quite obvious alternative: Joseph could simply have given away the food, year by year. The people would have retained their land and their legal status as free men. Later Joseph gave food to his family; he did not enslave them…. I argue in my commentary on Genesis that what Joseph did was tyrannical: not immoral but righteous, for he brought a pagan, God hating nation under God’s negative sanctions in history. He enslaved them.
(Gary North, Westminster’s Confession: The Abandonment of Van Ti1’s Legacy [Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991], 274-276.)
McMark, I assume that you, as an Anabaptist, are not persuaded by North.
Correct, I am not persuaded. But of course I like it when I think “the covenant” theologians are being consistent. But I have learned from you and many other paedobaptists that most of you don’t neglect covenantal discontinuity in the way I think you should. For that I am grateful.
John Robbins responds to Gary North. 1. The first problem with North’s argument and conclusion is that the argument applies not just to pagans, but to all men. All men are sinners, and all deserve death. North’s argument, if valid, would justify, not just an ancient African despotism, but the complete slaughter of the human race in 1991. His argument, if valid, would prove too much.
2. The second problem is this: North’s argument assumes that governors ought to judge the religious beliefs of their subjects and mete out punishments according to the truth or falsehood of those beliefs. Therefore it is not only permissible to enslave “pagans,” the enslavement of “pagans” is positively righteous.
3. If it is righteous and moral for governors to enslave their subjects, then the civil laws of the Old Testament, such as those found in I Samuel 8, must not apply to governors. Thus, there is no Biblical restriction on the power of governors.
4. Theonomy teaches that the Biblical civil laws are applicable to all governors even today.
5. If God’s civil laws apply to all societies, including pagan societies, then tyranny can never be righteous or moral.
The question is not, What do the citizens deserve? but rather, What may governors righteously do? Did Joseph, or does any ruler, have the authority to enslave his people? Whether the people deserve it or not is irrelevant. May a ruler righteously enslave his people?
God may and has used governors, wicked tyrants, to punish sinners. That is a clear teaching of Scripture. God used the wicked nations surrounding Israel to punish Israel during the time of the judges. The whole of God’s prophecy through Samuel in I Samuel 8 consists of a warning that by rejecting God and demanding a king, the people would be getting the tyranny they deserved.
It is an equally clear teaching of Scripture that the rulers who do such things are wicked, not righteous. The kings of Israel and Judah were wicked, almost without exception. The kings of the lands surrounding Israel were wicked. They were neither righteous nor moral, even (indeed, especially) when giving a sinful people the punishment they deserved. The issues of whether the people deserve punishment and whether rulers may enslave them are two separate issues.”
For those interested Stellman’s statement of why he is seeking full communion with Rome, you can read that at the site below. It should also be good for a few BLOGs from D.G. Hart.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/
Richard S., the link to Stellman is cold/dead. Ve Protestants have our vays.
D. G. Hart: Richard S., the link to Stellman is cold/dead. Ve Protestants have our vays.
RS: Too bad, but maybe it was just a glitch. His two problems, he said in the article, were sola fide and sola scriptura. He fought the Church, and the Church won (or so he said). James White also saw the article and responded to it which gives some insight into the situation. http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5167
So, we exchange the diversity of practice and some doctrinal variance from nuance to gaping chasms, for magesterial authority who don’t actually do any of the exegetical spade work and a tent so large that it houses liberation theologians, contemplatives, sold-out maryologists and adherents of the higher-critical method taken full cloth from protestant liberalism, but hey we all go to mass and submit to the priestcraft and the guys with the pointy hats who superintend the deposit of faith and oversee it’s maturation but don’t actually know how to mature it or what all it says. And this is the catholicity of faith that is lacking in protestantism but is exhibited in Rome, that is reflective of NT canon unity. REALLY! The council of pointy hats and priestcraft that harkens back to type and shadow judaism is the undergirding of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the NT. Well, good luck with that. Been there done that, not sure I still have the shirt but still have the notes.