Rabbi Bret apparently thinks he has another smoking gun to support his beef against 2k. Cornel Venema has written a review of The Law Is Not of Faith for the Mid-America Reformed Seminary journal and the good Rabbi is content to rely on reviews rather than actually read the book to bolster his vendetta against Westminster California..
What is worth noting is that the gun Venema shoots doesn’t smoke the way that Bret does. Compare the following quotations, from Bret about the toxic nature of 2k, Venema on the authors views of republication (of the covenant of works), and also the heated words of the Kerux review (which Bret adds for good measure).
First Bret, ever charitable and ever showing the effects of listening to too much Rush:
Even though R2K theology was disciplined in the Lee Irons’ case it has not yet been eliminated from the Reformed Church. This is due to the fact that R2K theology has many high profile Doctors (and at least one Seminary) who are dedicated to breathing life into this dismal theology. Dr. Venema’s work in the Mid-America Journal of Theology is one more effort to pull back the curtain to expose a committee of Ozzes who are working overtime to infect the whole Reformed Church with their virus theology.
Now from Kerux, more like Michael Medved than Rush, but nonetheless guilty of fear-mongering:
The goal of Ferry and Fesko’s contributions was to position the idea that the Mosaic covenant is in some sense a covenant of works within the mainstream Reformed tradition. However, because of their misquotations, misrepresentations, and (at times blatant) misreading of the primary documents, their essays are both significantly flawed. Far from providing the Reformed churches a definitive settled word on the matter, they have only further muddied the already murky historical-theological waters on the Mosaic covenant in the Reformed tradition. Though both authors attempt to write with a detached, objective, and “historical†tone, careful analysis reveals that both authors are governed far more by their polemical interests than they let on. Their chief interest seems to be in legitimizing their own views on the Mosaic covenant rather than faithfully representing the consensus position of Reformed orthodoxy.
Curious that the waters of the Reformed tradition are murky, but Fesko and Ferry’s motives are not. I wonder what goggles you wear for that kind of vision.
And now Venema (thanks to Bret – I have yet to see the review):
Though Ferry cites Calvin as an example of this kind of formal republication (a forerunner to R2K Mosaic covenant as republication ‘in some sense’ of the covenant of works –BLM), I will argue in what follows that Calvin does not conceive of the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works. Calvin’s view is much closer to what Ferry terms a ‘material’ republication view, (the view that in the Mosaic covenant we have a mere reiteration of the moral obligations that belong to the moral law of God in any of its distinct promulgations throughout the course of history) since Calvin affirms that the Mosaic Law reiterates the requirements of natural (moral) law that was the rule of Adam’s obedience before the fall. The position Ferry terms a ‘material’ republication view, is … the most common view in the Reformed tradition and hardly warrants being termed a ‘republication’ of the covenant of works in any significant sense. Ferry’s taxonomy here and throughout is rather confusing and, for that reason, unhelpful.
A couple of matters worth pondering: 1) if Venema had issued warnings akin to what Kerux published or what Bret opines, the Rabbi would have quoted them. So this is the best that Bret can do in finding ammunition against Westminster California. Since Venema doesn’t go near calling into question the faithfulness of ministers of the gospel, he is shooting blanks compared to Bret’s own toxic bullets.
2) Has Bret or the reviewers of Kerux ever considered that Brent Ferry, a good friend and former student, did not attend Westminster California? Now this could be proof the spread of the virus. It could also mean that people who read sources – not just reviews – learn a thing or two about the Reformed tradition and even its variety and pluriformity. In which case, Westminster California is not the font of these apparently objectionable views.
Another point worth making is that Bret and Kerux’s authors seem to think that Murray is on the orthodox side of matters covenantal. I myself believe that Murray got more right than he got wrong. But for a theologian, who questioned the reality of a covenant of works, to be held up as the standard of Reformed orthodoxy by which to bludgeon the contributors to The Law is Not of Faith is well nigh ironic. If Bret and Kerux’s reviewers can look past some of Murray’s quirks, why not Ferry and Fesko?
Finally, over at the Puritan Board Venema’s review has provoked discussion and Mark Van Der Molen, who is to Kloosterman what T. H. Huxley was to Charles Darwin, says that Venema’s review raises the same “red flags†that the Kerux review did. Well, not to put to fine a point on it – Venema does not. He does not hyperventilate about republication bringing down the witness of the Reformed churches. Instead, he engages in an academic review. Surely, an attorney should be able to spot the difference between a hostile witness and a lawyer’s summary arguments.
Meanwhile, Bret and Van Der Molen continue to ignore the CRC, the communion most worldviewish and Kuyperian. If denying positing two kingdoms is leading churches astray, what happened to Bret’s own communion where a world and life view is more synonymous with orthodoxy than the Canons of Dort.
If these guys can be so wrong about how to read texts and conditions within churches, why should we trust their analysis of the culture or politics? The answer is – no reason.
Old Life 
I have yet to see the review
Venema’s review raises the same “red flags†that the Kerux review did. Well, not to put to fine a point on it – Venema does not.
Darryl, typically it is more credible if you actually read the review before coming to conclusions.
LikeLike
It was just this thing that made the Covenant Theology that Michael Horton articulated in his Putting Amazing Back into Grace and The God of Promise attractive to me and got me out of the Theonomy and transformational Reformed theology I had been flirting with which seemed to put me under the condemnation of the Law of Moses 24/7. It was having adverse effects on my relationship with God and I was in despair most of the time and quit going to Church for 10 years. Thank God for these Westminster West theologians who pointed out the republication of the Covenant of Works in the Covenant with Moses. It allowed me to see the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. This also seemed to be the very thing which separated Luther from the Catholic theologians and started the reformation in the Church back in the 1500’s.
LikeLike
Can I get a bingo or at least a reasonable exegesis of why what I said is not so?
LikeLike
John,
I’m not sure anyone can offer you a “reasonable exegesis of why what [you] said is not so”. An appeal to your personal experience is just that…personal. I have no doubt you left the church for 10 years, but that in no way validates Westminster West (or anyone else, for that matter).
I had the opposite experience as you. I was steeped in the radical Law/Gospel divide that permeates Westminster West. I lived a bifurcated life where lust, rage and cursing had reign in my life. The Law/Gospel dialectic only exacerbated the problem of reconciling obedience to Grace.
In my experience, Westminster West’s answers were found wanting and my life demonstrated this. I’m not blaming them, btw…we often seek out that which affirms our disobedience.
LikeLike
In Principles of Conduct by John Murray there’s a chapter, “Law and Grace” which shows that even the NT’s (undoubtedly) grace-based teaching there is an emphasis on law (small “l”?). Or, better put, obedience. “Be ye holy as I am holy” is not just Sinai, it’s Mt. Zion. I think WCal does not do justice to the NT teaching on a life of obedience to God’s commands. This makes Craig French’s (not that I know who he is, but just based on his previous post) experience somewhat understandable, not of course, as he says, not legitimate.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’m taking this one section at a time.
Do not fear … more Venema quotes are to come … but until then how about this teaser?
I quite gladly admit that Venema compared to Kerux is akin to someone raising the warning about epidemic (Kerux) and someone clinically describing the disease itself (Mid America Seminary). In either case though, the content of the communication is effective as to the danger of the disease.
LikeLike
Bret, as if confusion invalidates one’s theology? Since when are you above confusion.
LikeLike
“Eliza”, so you’ve read the entire corpus of writings by Westminster California? Or maybe you’d care to show where they neglect the law? Seems to me they are sounder than most when it comes to the second and fourth commandments (have you read VanDrunen on images?).
LikeLike
Mark, if you want to quote all the damning parts of Venema’s review, you have the floor.
LikeLike
Craig,
Good point- we do have to center our theology in the objective truth of what the scriptures actually teach and not use our personal experience as the barometer for determining whose side we fall on theologically. Or as you say…”we often seek out that which affirms our disobedience. When I struggle with my own sin (and particular sins I commit) I always seem to go back to the book of Romans and how Paul lays out his argument. Romans 7 seems to indicate to me that “lust, rage, and cursing” as you put it, will always be apart of my internal makeup and ready to pounce on me when triggered by circumstances I may be going through in my experience. I realize that many interpret this section of Romans very differently and the degree and whether we actually are simul iestus it peccator (simultaneously just and sinful) after regeneration is hotly debated. Also, how much willful effort we have to put into fighting this sin is hotly debated. I remember reading John Owens book The Mortification of Sin as I was struggling with a particular sin in my life that was reoccuring and thinking to myself I can never do what Owens instructs us to do in the book. But then when I read Romans 6:1-3 where Paul says: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” I easily fall into despair again. But we cannot make the doctrine of grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone an excuse for continuing on in the particular sins that we easily convince ourselves are no big deal even though they obviously are having an effect on me and those who know me.
Another section of scripture that always makes me very uncomfortable is 1John 3:7-10- “Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil; whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”
The conclusion I have come to is that the Westminster’s West’s theological answers are correct scripturally but that does not give me an excuse to continue on in the sins I may have a propensity towards. I have to make diligent use of the means of grace and work things out with the Pastor of my local Church as I continue the ongoing struggle with my sin and sins.
So Craig let me ask you this, did your lust, rage and cursing leave when you changed your theology?, and if so whose theology did you turn to and why did it help?
LikeLike
As I look at the above responses perhaps some good biblical exegesis will come forward and some of the pettiness between warring factions will get some good and honest answers.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Well, I’m pretty sure the confusion of the Arminians, or the Pentecostals, or the Roman Catholics or the Anabaptists pretty much invalidates their theology.
But that’s just me.
How is Hillsdale going?
We really ought to get together for a meal or something now that we are virtually neighbors.
LikeLike
Re: John @ 09:20 AM, looking for a “bingo”.
I’m not sure that there’s a direct (i.e. external or objective) relation between feeling legal condemnation 24/7 and the Theonomy school of thought. In fact it’s quite possible to see theonomists as those who are “comfortably in control of God’s Law.” This is of course to generalize, and use broad brushstrokes. But my observations are based on this pedigree: I was a theonomist of theonomists. Born and raised in Southern California, I was acquainted with Greg Bahnsen & Rushdoony, close personal friend of the late David H. Chilton. Shucks, I even overlapped with James Jordan at WTS and stood around chatting with him in the WTS Bookstore (a fellow bookstore employee was a friend of Jordan’s from RTS days). Now, I realize this was all in a prior millennium, but I don’t recall running into theonomists who were full of doubts and morbid introspection.
So, sorry, (speaking gently) I don’t think a bingo is warranted; but, hey, it’s DGH’s blog.
LikeLike
John,
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to consider in your fight against sin is the nature of God’s Grace (it has been for me). You and I are going to agree on an initial point:
The justification of the believer rests on the finished work of Jesus Christ. 100% God’s work. Not 50-50, or 90-10…100% God’s work.
Now how do works,well, work in the life of the believer? First, they are not a means of being justified before God. They in no way add to our justification…they are the life of salvation, however. The same power of Grace which justifies us must be *at work* in us.
What Federal Visionists and (sadly) Westminster West types have little room for the active work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. To these groups, an emphasis on this is termed “pietism”. Yet what does Paul say when talking about the relationship between grace and law? Well, often we see people go to this verse in Romans 6: 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
They quote it as if saying “you know, everything Paul just said very logically points to lawlessness”…when really, Paul was anticipating a misunderstanding. This is evidence of the inspiration of Romans, here, because we still muck this up today. What does Paul say previous to this verse in Romans 6? Well, he says something else that’s often quoted out of context: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”
The emphasis is normally on the latter, but not the former. Why aren’t you under law? Because the law, the letter of it, has no power. That’s why. It has no power. It can’t do anything for you. It can condemn you, but it can’t do anything else. Sin will just turn its nose up to the law and break it some more. So what’s the answer? Grace. Is it simply grace for God to forgive? Nope. Not even close (though obviously Grace give forgiveness).
It is grace to overcome sin: “For sin shall not have dominion over you”. The law can show us our sin…but it cannot remove the rule of sin over our lives. Grace can. Obedience isn’t law, obedience is born of grace. Obedience is the power of God’s Holy Spirit in us. If you are not obedient, you are not born of God. You are not righteous. You are not declared righteous, and you are not living righteously.
Neither the Federal Vision, nor R2K offers what the believer needs in order to live according to grace. Where there is faith there is the Holy Spirit, and where there is the Holy Spirit, there is the new birth. Where there is the new birth there is power to overcome sin.
The law is not your enemy. Sin is. Unless you’re an unbeliever, then the law will be your enemy because it will be accusing you with no mediator. Be assured that if you have a Mediator, you have died with Him…and Romans 6 takes on a *gasp* transformational quality to the believer’s life…and it’s based on the objective justification of a believer based soley on the work of Jesus Christ…because God not only gave us Christ, He gave us His Spirit.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Bret and Van Der Molen continue to ignore the CRC, the communion most worldviewish and Kuyperian. If denying positing two kingdoms is leading churches astray, what happened to Bret’s own communion where a world and life view is more synonymous with orthodoxy than the Canons of Dort.”
This is easy to answer.
All because someone believes in and affirms worldviews doesn’t mean that they have the correct worldview. Your reasoning here is like saying since bad marriages exist therefore bad marriages invalidates the whole notion of marriage.
????????
LikeLike
Eliza, I would be interested to have an example of a Westminster West (“WSC”) professor’s writings or statements that you believe evidence the seminary’s “teachings that do not do justice to a life of obedience.” This assertion surprises me since I’ve heard and read a great deal of their output and have never found anything to this effect.
LikeLike
Cris D.
That was an interesting response- when I was devouring the Reconstructionist material (probably between 1985 and 1990- I was introduced to Rushdoony’s work through Bob Mumford a charismatic who I became familiar with through New Wine Magazine in the late 70’s) I often corresponded with Rushdoony through snail mail. He was always very gracious to me probably because I used to send money on a regular basis. I don’t think too many people did. I liked David Chilton too although I never met him but heard him on interviews and he seemed liked a good guy. That was quite a shock when he died.
I did come under severe condemnation through the reconstructionist teaching. Their view of sanctification was very problematic to me and then I started reading modern reformation magazine and their critiques of the theonomists and have been an adherent of the Westminster West folks since then- the early 90’s on), There are many reasons for why I stayed away from the Church for 10 years (I cannot blame it all on the condemnation from reconstructionist teaching) which I really cannot get into on a public blog- suffice it to say that I have been through hell and back and am just coming out from under the rubble of it all.
Thanks for the response that brought back a lot of memories.
LikeLike
You seem like a decent guy too Cris so even though we would probably lock horns theologically we might find that we have a lot in common. Orwell often found that those he did battle with, when not fighting over some issue, found to be good personal friends.
LikeLike
Craig,
I do not see you saying anything different than Horton would say. I think your problem with 2K is that they believe in the cessation of spiritual gifts and do not allow for the “free activity” of the Holy Spirit in the worship services. I saw so much nonsense in the Charismatic movement that I love the liturgy of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church and have no problem with the cessation of spiritual gifts and the removal of contemporary worship services. The Spirit works through Word and Sacrament and I am comfortable with not have complete spiritual victory over my ongoing battles with sin in my life. I have found that people get paranoid about sin and instead of being able to freely confess it to their Pastors they have to hide it and suppress it and pretend it is not a part of them anymore. This causes more problems then being honest and forthright about it. Heck, with the reconstructionists you might have to face a public stoning if you were not careful.
So the tradeoff is between the paranoia about sin in the congregation on the one hand and a seemingly laissez-faire attitude towards sin on the other. But I think my post above kind of steers a middle way and I do not see the Westminster West folks saying anything different than I did.
LikeLike
Craig, so let’s get this straight, if someone speaks ill of pietism he doesn’t believe in the Holy Spirit? Huh?
It really would be useful if you are going to condemn WSCal that you actually supply evidence. Otherwise, this is only based on your experience with 2k. Well, my experience of pietism was bad. But somehow your experience counts more than mine.
LikeLike
Bret, so if worldviews can go bad, why do you spend more time attacking 2k than your own CRC?
You actually want to break bread? Aren’t you afraid you’ll pick up the bug? (I’m afraid I’d get shot.)
LikeLike
John Y: I always kept a foot or two firmly in my local OPC back then (Calvary OPC in LaMirada, CA). I am not (and was not) as smart or as gifted a communicator as my friend David. Here’s an anecdote for you: David Chilton & I took classes at Cal State Fullerton together. We used to have an absolute blast holding the doors open for women on campus. We got some rather nasty looks for being Christian Gentlemen.
I left for WTS Philly in 1977, so I was growing in my redemptive-historical understandings and moving on from Theonomy while Theonomy was growing into “Reconstruction.” Missed some of those imbalances you ran into.
Theonomy appeals to many because at first it appears to be the most consistently reformed contrast and opposite to dispensationalism. Once you can find other compelling antitodotes to Dispensationalism, Theonomy can be put aside.
LikeLike
John,
Just to be clear, I’m not a charismatic. In fact, my comment in no way spoke to continuation/non-continuation of the charismata.
DGH,
you didn’t get it straight. You couldn’t possibly because you lump everything you don’t like into categories they don’t belong.
I would use you as evidence of R2K’s avoidance of the Holy Spirit. Remember our email exchanges regarding the way you discouraged the memorization of Scripture? This isn’t news to you Darryl. What I’ve written here is what I’ve already shared with you.
So you are Exhibit A.
LikeLike
“Bret, so if worldviews can go bad, why do you spend more time attacking 2k than your own CRC?”
A living dog is more dangerous than a dead lion.
“You actually want to break bread? Aren’t you afraid you’ll pick up the bug? (I’m afraid I’d get shot.)”
I’m up to date on my immunization shots, so I have nothing to worry about.
I’m still waiting for my Concealed weapons permit so you’ve nothing to sweat.
It would be a charming meal I’m sure.
LikeLike
Craig,
Ah, Ok it is a personal issue with some of the Westminster West folks. Well, welcome to reality. I met Rod Rosenbladt about a month ago at a White Horse Inn conference in the Chicago area and he was kind of a jerk to me (and I thought I would like him if I met him), That is not going to make me leave the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church or my theological convictions. He was probably having a bad day. Kim Riddlebarger was kind of cold and a jerk too. Maybe it was just the way I presented myself. Anyways, we should not hold up theologians as celebrities. They usually disappoint when you meet them anyways. Besides they probably would rather have been with their families rather than having to travel to make an extra buck. They need to be respected more than liked- being on the front line of battle probably can be very taxing at times.
I did jump to the conclusion about the cessation of gifts and all but I have a tendency to do that before inquiring further. Sorry about that. You better come up with a better argument than you have so far though (as to why you have problems with Westminster West). The Holy Spirit argument just does not cut it.
LikeLike
Cris D.,
So have you put aside your theonomy? I gladly put aside mine and found a good antidote to dispensationalism in Luther. When I was a dispensationalist I was not aware that I was one. I slowly made my way to the Reformation- first through Francis Schaeffer, then Theonomy, then Calvin College and the transformational Reformed then Modern Reformation magazine and Westminster West. And a long strange trip it has been.
LikeLike
John,
I haven’t presented an argument against Westminster West. I did make an argument for what the nature of saving Grace is, and I argued from Romans 6. Somehow you thought I was talking about the charismata when, in fact, I’m only talking about what should be the experience of every single believer.
Do you think the normative description of the christian life is to be conquering sin, or to be under the power of sin?
LikeLike
Bret, so you kick your dog? Shame on you.
LikeLike
Bret, I had lunch with Paul Manata Saturday. From what I can tell so far I haven’t infected him, but at our last secret 2k meeting the doc said incubation time for evil was 3-4 days, so who knows.
All because someone believes in and affirms worldviews doesn’t mean that they have the correct worldview. Your reasoning here is like saying since bad marriages exist therefore bad marriages invalidates the whole notion of marriage.
I have to admit, even though worldviewism has contributed to the demise of our shared denomination, it is fun to watch 1kers fight about whose sanctified worldview is correct. It reminds me of Thomas Oden’s quip that fundamentalists and liberals have more in common than either would be willing to admit (sort of like Anabaptists and Catholics). I know you think you’re the conservative underdog, Bret, in a worldviewish denomination dominated by progressives, but try being a 2k confessionalist here. It’s like being Reformed in the IFCA.
LikeLike
Craig,
I think the scriptures reveal both positions. I certainly would not hold up the conquering sin verses to a friend or someone who confided in me a grievous sin they had committed or were struggling with. I think it is extremely important that we do not convey or give off attitudes of self-righteousness or be in victory mode constantly. We often go through blue periods in our lives where victory over sin seems like a million miles away. I point everyone to Christ as the norm. He promises that though our sins be as scarlet he will make them white as snow. And he instructs us to do it up to 7 x 70 times a day.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I wish I was a fly on the wall at the place you and Paul met at. I am sure Paul is a very engaging person and probably fun to have a few beers with. I hope you stayed away from controversies which required well thought out and succinctly argued positions.
LikeLike
John,
Do you believe God’s Grace has power in the Christian’s life?
LikeLike
Craig,
No, I believe God’s Spirit has power in the Christian’s life- are you trying to trick me into something or what? As the Apostle Paul says somewhere and the Spirit mightily empowers me within (Ephesians, Colossians or Philippians I believe)
LikeLike
RE: Craig French @ 11:45 AM
>> and Romans 6 takes on a *gasp* transformational quality to the believer’s life.
Craig – you realize the “transformationalism” that DGH & 2K School are speaking against is Cultural Transformation?
The unregenerate person is dead in sin and needs the effectual call and quickening grace of God by the Spirit to become a new creation/new creature (2 Cor 5.17).* But neo-calvinist transformationalists see that that necessarily entails the christian and the Church to be engaged in cultural transformation, sees that the Gospel mandate really is meant to empower the Cultural Mandate.
*I’m pretty sure this was Bob Godfrey’s position at Westminster Philly and is still his position (as president) at Westminster Calif, along with the rest of the faculty. There’s no denial of the Holy Spirit’s work, No denial of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Craig,
I am not sure what your denominational or confessional affiliations are (which might help clarify some things), but I think you are oversimplifying the issue here. Of course God’s grace is efficacious in the life of the believer. However, the Christian life is not as simple as you state:
Obedience isn’t law, obedience is born of grace. Obedience is the power of God’s Holy Spirit in us. If you are not obedient, you are not born of God. You are not righteous. You are not declared righteous, and you are not living righteously.
This really doesn’t square with anything regarding the Christian life as described in WCF 14-18 which accounts for the weakness of our faith and the believers ongoing struggle against sin and the devil while in this life. We all have struggled with various sins at different times in our lives, however this is also superintended by Providence. Typically our faith grows and is strengthened by the Holy Spirit by the due use of the ordinary means Craig, and that goes for us all. God stands behind these uniquely, and frankly this isn’t a 2k-vs FV or Transformationalism issue, it is a biblical and confessional one. That you grew in personal holiness might not be attributable to a theological shift, but the work of God in you over time.
With all due respect, if 2k was used as an impetus for justifying or willfully remaining in sin that was due to the sin in you, not in the theological system (we all justify sin in various ways, so this isn’t an attack on you as a person, as I trust God has continued to work on you irrespective of your current aversion to 2k). I don’t know of any confessional 2k-er who advocates anything but a courageous war and hatred against sin and it’s effects. However, I also see a great deal of realism in the confessions with respects to the lingering effects of sin. It’s a battle we all fight, and maturity is often measured in inches but over time the sanctifying work of the Spirit renovates us from the inside out. We do believe that what God commands, the Spirit enables and produces in us over time. But, this is predicated on receiving and resting upon Christ alone for our salvation, not in measuring the quality of our obedience as a measure of our state before God.
LikeLike
Eliza,
Interestingly, Venema (pg. 97 of the review) says: “In my estimation the failure of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith to affirm vigorously the positive function of the law as a rule of gratitude in the Mosaic economy is not accidental. Because the authors of [TLNF] view the moral law of God to express necessarily the “works principle” of the covenant of works, they do not have a stable theological basis for affirming the abiding validity of the moral law as a rule of gratitude…VanDrunen seems compelled to conclude that the moral law of God is no longer the rule of conduct for believers in relationship to each other within the ‘spiritual kingdom’ of the church of Jesus Christ. VanDrunen even goes so far as to suggest that the law that is ‘written upon the heart’ of the new covenant people of God is not substantially the same moral law that was promulgated in the Decalogue through Moses.”
And Mark Garcia has written in a review of CJPM: “In contrast with this clearly conditional, saving place for good works, Clark argues that they are “merely evidence of sanctity and nothing more” (252–3; emphasis is Clark’s, who uses Trent as his source and then confuses matters by writing “sanctity” while Trent stated “justification”). I cannot see how such an understanding squares with the testimony of Scripture or the Reformed tradition.”
LikeLike
Zrimec wrote,
“I have to admit, even though worldviewism has contributed to the demise of our shared denomination, it is fun to watch 1kers fight about whose sanctified worldview is correct. It reminds me of Thomas Oden’s quip that fundamentalists and liberals have more in common than either would be willing to admit (sort of like Anabaptists and Catholics). I know you think you’re the conservative underdog, Bret, in a worldviewish denomination dominated by progressives, but try being a 2k confessionalist here. It’s like being Reformed in the IFCA.”
Bret responds,
So your worldview tells you Steve.
LikeLike
Darryl asked,
so you kick your dog? Shame on you.
Bret responded
I do when it is rabid.
LikeLike
Jed wrote,
I don’t know of any confessional 2k-er who advocates anything but a courageous war and hatred against sin and it’s effects.
Bret responds,
This is great to know!
I expect a sermon series anytime from some R2K’er on the necessity to do courageous war against stealing both in our individual lives and when we enter the voting booth to vote to support Keynesian economic policies.
LikeLike
John asked for good exegesis and Craig provided some, but I fear that John failed to feel the bite of the argument. I think this is because, as John wrote:
John, have you considered that you may misunderstand Paul’s thrust in Romans 7? Why would Paul refer to a Christian as being “sold under sin” (as he does to the Man in Romans 7) when he specifically said that Christians are “no longer slaves to sin” in the previous chapter? I can’t get around that.
If you want to read a detailed treatise on the subject I would recommend Doug Moo’s commentary on the passage.
LikeLike
Bret,
So all theology boils down to how you stand on conservative Randian politics and Austrian economic policy? That is where I do not think you really get the 2K position (but maybe you do). You do understand that a libertarian and someone with Austrian Economic leanings can still be 2K right? They will definitel vote against the Keynesians too. But they are not allowed to preach Austrian economics during their sermons or advocate libertarianism while doing the same. 2kers have the liberty to be as socially, politically or economically active as they want to be. Just don’t shove it down people throats from the pulpit. In fact, it is irrelevant in Church. Shout as loud as you want in the public square but do not determine someones Christianity from their political,social or economic policy beliefs. Is this that difficult to understand?
LikeLike
Keith,
I have read parts of Doug Moo’s commentary on Romans (his section on Romans 7) and even went to a 3 month Sunday School Class at College Church in Wheaton, Illinois which he taught about 6 or 7 years ago on the book of Romans. It was a very good class and he is a very good teacher but I do not agree with his position on Romans 7. Jason Stellman agrees with Moo too. I think the scriptures are unclear on the matter or you can persuasively take either position. I have heard Riddelbarger argue against Moo. I have come to the conclusion that the struggle against sin is a very personal matter dealing with deep psychological issues which none of us can really get inside other people’s skin and experience with. We really do not know what people struggle with internally or why they act the way they do. It is better to leave this work to Word and Sacrament and leave it at that. Perhaps Church discipline will have to come into play but I am even leery of that because I have seen it handled wrongly so often. Anyways, Romans 7 and Church discipline are very controversial subjects and I would rather deal with these issues with a personal Pastor not someone on a web site whom I do not even know or who does not know me.
LikeLike
I asked a question during the class with Moo on his position on imputation and he waffled around with it and would not commit on it. In fact he got a bit irritated about it. So, I have some reservations with Moo, Romans 7 and Romans 5. For what its worth.
LikeLike
Patrick R.,
I have not read Venema’s crique of TLNF, but from your quote it appears that he is drawing inferences that may not be warranted and offering quotes out of context, and certainly out of the context of the larger corpus of WSC’s professors’ works. The point that they make about the Mosaic covenant is that it is a republication of the COW at the level of typology with respect to the land. The burdeon of the argument is to show that, and so it is not the place to stress the postive role of the law in the life of the believer. Elsewhere the faculty is on record stressing the role of the eternal moral law of God as the Third Use of the Law for believers, binding on believers as a rule of gratitude. R. Scott Clark, for example, summarizing his theses about covenant theology, writes:
“Sanctity is the second benefit of the covenant of grace and flows from justification.
Sanctity is as gracious as justification. Sanctity is logically and morally necessary as evidence of regeneration, faith and justification. Considered relative to sanctification (in distinction from justification) faith can be said to be active and is begun and sustained by grace but involves human cooperation with sanctifying grace. Sanctity is no instrument or ground of justification. Sanctity flows out of proper use of the divinely ordained covenant signs and seals. The third use of the moral law is norm of covenant life. Denial of the third use of the Law (tertius usus legis) leads to antinomianism.
The third use of the law, like the first use, also drives us to Christ.”
The Third Use of the Law as a rule of gratitude for the Chrisitan is stressed repeatedly by Mike Horton and Kim Riddlebarger in Modern Ref and on the WHI; Steve Baugh stresses it; David Van Drunen in his public lectures and lectures to student stresses it; etc.
To assert that WSC sees no positive role for the law in the life of the believer is grossly inaccurate and unfair. If there are specific, first-hand quotes that someone would like to adduce, rather than quotes from reviewers, that might be helpful.
LikeLike
I was trained at WSC to love the third use of the law.
LikeLike
John,
I didn’t say anything about Randianism. I wrote about the taking seriously the 8th commandment.
And I quite agree that R2K’ers might practice Austrian Economics…. just as they might be free to practice redistributionist Marxist economics or Fascist economics or Fabian Socialist economics.
And the Church, according to your view, may not say anything about the necessity of the Church applying the 8th commandment to that sin or forewarn God’s people from supporting people with their vote who support theft because after all that would be “shoving down their throats.”
John … I’ve been around this block more than a few times. I invite you to http://www.ironink.org to read my R2K category. There you will find me interacting with some of the leading lights of R2k-dom. While they’ve accused me of a number of things they’ve never accused me of not understanding R2K.
All the best John.
LikeLike
Bret,
OK, you put me in my place. Can’t people decide whether they are breaking the 8th commandment by their economic beliefs on their own. So, does your Church put people under discipline if you find out they are harboring covert Keynesian economic beliefs? I’m sure they would be paranoid to express their Keynesianism in front of you. Or, they would leave your Church pretty quick. What if they happened to be true believers in Christ too? Does not that pose some dilemma’s?
All the best to you too
LikeLike
Bret, confessional 2kers preach through books of the Bible (or from the catechism). The don’t do series. Your Baptist slip is showing.
LikeLike
Keith, beware recommending Doug Moo. For Craig French’s minister, Moo has sold out to egalitarianism. So perhaps Moo’s exegesis of Rom. 7 would also be off.
LikeLike
John, you need to realize that Bret only deals with the 2k of his hysteria. Unless you approach the issues the way Bret does, or use the pulpit the way Bret does, you are leading the church astray. Funny that he and the Baylys don’t get along anymore. Strike that, too many chefs for one church soup kitchen.
LikeLike
Has any read Horton (Law of Perfect Freedom: Relating to God and Others Through the Ten Commandments) or Fesko’s (The Rule of Love: Broken, Fulfilled, and Applied) books on the Ten Commandments? It seems to me that WSC’s faculty is well aware of the importance of God’s law in the life of believers.
LikeLike
Bret,
I am just not sure that the Bible has any interest in Keynsesian economics, and this is coming from a Libertarian with a great deal of respect for Hayek and the Austrian School. But I am not sure what to do with this at all:
I expect a sermon series anytime from some R2K’er on the necessity to do courageous war against stealing both in our individual lives and when we enter the voting booth to vote to support Keynesian economic policies.
I am not so sure that Keynes would be so adverse to the Jubilee laws of Leviticus 25, or the wealth redistribution of Leviticus 23:22. What horrific economic policy those Israelites suffered under, having their wealth distributed to the poor and gasp, the alien. I would be interested to see what portion of annual income the average Israelite gave away through Jubilee laws, Tabernacle tithes, and the total cost of tithes, sacrifices, and other sundry offerings on an annual basis. It wouldn’t be shocking to see the Israelites living off of 50-60 percent of their earnings, ans this doesn’t include savings. So if you want to forgo the reality of the dissolution of the ceremonial Law and make an argument for Biblical Economics you might not get that virulent rejection of Keynes as you might like, or wholehearted endorsement of anarhco-Capitalism that you are looking for.
Usually the courage to fight sin is set within the constraints of Scripture the Sacraments and the confessions. Law/Gospel and the ministry of Word and Sacrament go a long way in bolstering faith. Even if we aren’t gushing as some who are more pietistic in their persuasion, or aren’t out out to alter the structures of society, we radical 2kers (where I come from being radical is pretty rad) take our homeward journey and obedience seriously. After all Keynesian Economics is a passing system, we have our eyes set on that which God has made to endure.
You can have this world, and the happenings in it Bret. But my guess is that the world will be largely unchanged when God takes you home regardless of how much you fight to make it right. If the Son of God didn’t alter the fundamental structures of human government and culture when he graced the earth, what makes you think you can? What is wrong with taking Paul seriously when he says we should strive for a quiet life? It might be inconsequential to many, but I know firsthand the value of neighborliness as a Christian virtue – most of the time we impact others by being faithful to those whom God has placed in our lives.
Besides, is there a deficiency in pondering the Law and the Gospel as it is proclaimed every Sunday? Is there some fatal flaw or disloyalty to Jesus when we receive and rest upon him? Is the Lord’s supper insufficient to strengthen us through the Holy Spirit working in us to unite in us the sign and the thing signified? Frankly if I heard a sermon, heck, even a Sunday school lesson that dealt with Keynes I would be hopping mad and might even consider looking elsewhere for a church. If you want to talk about Keynes, a good place to start would be an Econ class at your local junior college, otherwise keep it and anything related to it out of the pulpit. Maybe even a coffee shop lecutre by Bret about the ills of Keynsian Economics, and how it is such a crock, just not in the pulpit dude.
LikeLike
For Patrick R. & DGH & C French:
C French’s comment: “Westminster West types have little room for the active work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. To these groups, an emphasis on this is termed “pietismâ€. Yet what does Paul say when talking about the relationship between grace and law? Well, often we see people go to this verse in Romans 6: 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!” certainly resonates with what I’ve heard & read of WW. And this blog.
I don’t know who the Patrick R. that responded is, but if he is of “in defense of Moses…” all I can say to that article is Amen!!
LikeLike
Way to dude him Jed and thanks for the support- I had some fun here the last couple of days.
LikeLike
Jed,
had you started one chapter earlier in the WCF, you’d see what I was talking about:
I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]
I wonder how any of this is “bad news” to a believer? Obedience is of grace, and we must experience it truly, personally, and sin no longer has dominion over us. Still sound bad?
BTW, I’m just a vanilla Reformed guy. A member of the PCA.
LikeLike
John said: “I have come to the conclusion that the struggle against sin is a very personal matter dealing with deep psychological issues which none of us can really get inside other people’s skin and experience with. We really do not know what people struggle with internally or why they act the way they do. It is better to leave this work to Word and Sacrament and leave it at that. Perhaps Church discipline will have to come into play but I am even leery of that because I have seen it handled wrongly so often.”
This is a lamentable commentary on the effects of R2K. I truly mean this, John. For all the talk from R2K against the self-help gospel, the end result is a work of Christ where the most appealing effect is primarily psychological. “Leave it to Word and Sacrament”…that is: “Don’t tell me about obedience, and don’t talk to me about the Holy Spirit”. Apparently the Church is limited to serving you in one of two ways primarily, and you say “maybe a third”, but we all know that was lip-service. The moment a Church steps in with discipline you will step out. You won’t listen to the Bride because you won’t listen to the Spirit.
Jesus said He would send another Paraclete to come along side us. He didn’t say “I am with you always in Word and Sacrament”…He is with us by His Holy Spirit. He said it was better that He leave and that was so we wouldn’t be orphans. I’m afraid you may be an orphan at least 6 days a week.
LikeLike
Craig,
I am very committed to the Church I attend and the Lutheran Confessions I adhere to. My Pastor knows all my sins and I trust my soul to his care. I would never get to the point where I needed discipline because I can confess anything to him in complete confidence knowing that Christ can and will forgive me. I have never been under such good spiritual care in all the Churches I have attended in my life.
Who the heck are you (whom I don’t know and you don’t know me) to say those things about me? I have no problem with talking about obedience or the Holy Spirit. I do have problems with Churches who are constantly watching others for signs of disobedience (believe me I have attended some of those) and I run from them as quick as I can. I would probably run from you too- maybe to the local watering hole to get away from you are your types.
LikeLike
Craig is trying to steal the joy I have deep down in my heart.
LikeLike
John asked,
“Can’t people decide whether they are breaking the 8th commandment by their economic beliefs on their own.?”
Most definitely, but does the fact that preaching that theft is sin and then going on to define and give concrete examples as to what theft is contrary to letting people decide they are breaking, by their economic beliefs, the 8th word?
Besides in preaching the Heidelberg Catechism I am compelled to teach that some economic beliefs are theft, Note especially the second paragraph in the answer.
What does God forbid
in the eighth commandment?
A. He forbids not only outright theft and robbery,
punishable by law.^1
But in God’s sight theft also includes
cheating and swindling our neighbor
by schemes made to appear legitimate,^2
such as:
inaccurate measurements of weight, size, or volume;
fraudulent merchandising;
counterfeit money;
excessive interest;
or any other means forbidden by God.^3
In addition he forbids all greed^4
and pointless squandering of his gifts.^5
^1 Ex. 22:1; 1 Cor. 5:9-10; 6:9-10
^2 Mic. 6:9-11; Luke 3:14; James 5:1-6
^3 Deut. 25:13-16; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 11:1; 12:22; Ezek. 45:9-12; Luke 6:35
^4 Luke 12:15; Eph. 5:5
^5 Prov. 21:20; 23:20-21; Luke 16:10-13
John asked,
So, does your Church put people under discipline if you find out they are harboring covert Keynesian economic beliefs?
Bret
If by discipline you are asking whether or not we instruct folks in God’s mind who are harboring covert Keynesian economic beliefs, they answer is most certainly — “yes.” We’ve yet to have to advance beyond that discipline for God is gracious to open people’s minds to understand how that is theft.
John stated,
I’m sure they would be paranoid to express their Keynesianism in front of you.
Bret responded,
Why should they be paranoid since I make it clear that we all have unchecked and unrealized sin in our lives that God is gracious,. in and by the preaching of the word, to expose and heal?
John asked,
Or, they would leave your Church pretty quick. What if they happened to be true believers in Christ too? Does not that pose some dilemma’s? ”
Bret
Well, I suppose that it is inevitable that some believers, who care not to be discipled in God’s word in order to learn that Christ is Lord over their economic beliefs might leave the Church.
But is our goal to preach and teach in such a way that people who refuse Christ’s Lordship don’t leave the Church?
Thanks for the conversation John,
LikeLike
Darryl informed me,
Bret, confessional 2kers preach through books of the Bible (or from the catechism). The don’t do series. Your Baptist slip is showing.
Bret responded,
Well, when I preach through the Catechism (which I’m doing in our evening service now) this is one thing I come across,
What does God forbid
in the eighth commandment?
A. He forbids not only outright theft and robbery,
punishable by law.^1
But in God’s sight theft also includes
cheating and swindling our neighbor
by schemes made to appear legitimate,^2
such as:
inaccurate measurements of weight, size, or volume;
fraudulent merchandising;
counterfeit money;
excessive interest;
or any other means forbidden by God.^3
In addition he forbids all greed^4
and pointless squandering of his gifts.^5
^1 Ex. 22:1; 1 Cor. 5:9-10; 6:9-10
^2 Mic. 6:9-11; Luke 3:14; James 5:1-6
^3 Deut. 25:13-16; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 11:1; 12:22; Ezek. 45:9-12; Luke 6:35
^4 Luke 12:15; Eph. 5:5
^5 Prov. 21:20; 23:20-21; Luke 16:10-13
————
And when I come across this Keynesianism fits pretty well, as an example, the 2nd paragraph in the answer.
It’s good to know that we are on the same page regarding “series.” I’m pretty sure after over 20 years in the pulpit I’ve never done one of those.
Our agreement here Darryl on not preaching sermon series gives us accord that is like anointing oil that consecrates for Holy toil the servants of the Lord.
LikeLike
John, Bret’s answer to you about economic beliefs of individuals is a pretty good example of legalism. He talks about economic (and political and educational) theory the way Baptists talk about substance use and worldly amusement. It looks like it’s mostly soft economic legalism, the kind that informally keeps people in their place and under his thumb. But once they have the audacity to publicly act in some way on whatever doesn’t thrill him personally it will turn into hard legalism where there is some kind of formal punishment.
LikeLike
Bret,
It has been 15 years or so since I last read Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law but from my recollection he waxed eloquent about 50 to 60 pages per commandment. He went through every nook and cranny that we might face in our lives that each commandment might have relevance to. He based progress in sanctification on how obedient we were to each nook and cranny of the law. So Bret, have you been obedient in thought, word and deed to every implication and nook and cranny of each of the Ten commandments (lets say since Sunday after Church)? I hope you don’t say yes I have but you probably will.
Luther faced the same type of thing with the Catholic Church of his time. He too went through each of the Ten Commandments in his Larger Catechism but shortened the implications and application by an enormous amount then what was common in many of the Catholic theologians writings of his time (I am pretty sure he would have taken out the implications for medieval economic and political theory). And his purpose for doing so was that he felt his shorter version was sufficient to convince the people he was teaching that they needed a Savior because of their inability to obey all these commandments in thought, word and deed.
Thanks for the conversation Bret
LikeLike
Thanks Zrim,
I am getting a feel for him and his inherent tendency towards dominance and aggression. Lets see how he answers my post. I wonder if he would turn aggressive on me if I was in his presence? I understand Darryl’s apprehension for having lunch with him.
LikeLike
Darryl and John,
Thanks for your responses.
Darryl, I was not intending to offer a unqualified endorsement of everything Douglass Moo has ever written. I was offering his reading of Romans 7 as a very clear articulation of my understanding of that passage.
John, I did not mean to imply that your position was unconsidered. Indeed, the fact that you have had direct interactions with someone whom I know only as an author makes me feel foolish and amateur. I hope you can see through my clumsy efforts that my main point was that Craig’s exegesis of Romans 6 has real bite when one takes the “Moo-ian” position on Romans 7. That is all I was trying to say.
LikeLike
Jed,
You’re kidding right?
Jed wrote,
I am not so sure that Keynes would be so adverse to the Jubilee laws of Leviticus 25, or the wealth redistribution of Leviticus 23:22. What horrific economic policy those Israelites suffered under, having their wealth distributed to the poor and gasp, the alien.
Bret responds,
You’re confusing the ceremonial law with the judicial and moral law Jed. Here is what Thomas Gilbert said about those distinctions,
“There were three laws among the Jews,the Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral law. I suppose the Judicial Law as to pains of it, was a fence and guard to the Ceremonial and Moral Law. [In the first place] the [Judicial] law doth aim at obedience to it, and in the second place [at] punishment to its disobedience. I conceive the punishment [for infringement] of the Ceremonial law was not [part] of the law itself, but [a fence] of the purity of the Jews and the punishment [for infringement] of the Moral Law was not part of the Moral law, [but a fence to it]. So far as the Judicial [law] was a fence and outwork to the ceremonial law [it] is fallen with the ceremonial law. So far as it was and outwork of the Moral law it stands with the moral law, and that still binds upon men. So [that part] of the Judicial law was a fence to that, is still the duty of the magistrates.”
Puritanism And Liberty Being The Army Debates
All that to say that Jubilee was part of the Ceremonial law that pointed to Christ. With the coming of Christ the ceremonial law has been fulfilled. However, the Moral law, which remains and which forbids Keynesianism because Keynesianism is
cheating and swindling our neighbor
by schemes made to appear legitimate,^2
such as:
inaccurate measurements of weight, size, or volume;
fraudulent merchandising;
counterfeit money;
excessive interest;
or any other means forbidden by God
———-
Jed wrote,
I would be interested to see what portion of annual income the average Israelite gave away through Jubilee laws, Tabernacle tithes, and the total cost of tithes, sacrifices, and other sundry offerings on an annual basis.
Bret
A really good book that answers that question Jed is Tithing and Dominion by Powell and Rushdoony. If you’re really interested in the answer to your question I’ll come back later and glean the answer from the book that is at my study.
Jed wrote,
It wouldn’t be shocking to see the Israelites living off of 50-60 percent of their earnings, ans this doesn’t include savings. So if you want to forgo the reality of the dissolution of the ceremonial Law and make an argument for Biblical Economics you might not get that virulent rejection of Keynes as you might like, or wholehearted endorsement of anarhco-Capitalism that you are looking for.
Bret
Actually … Jed … it would be shocking because you are WAY OFF in your guess.
Also, take into consideration Jed that in all this tithing the one who was being given to was GOD. Are you suggesting that the State has the same place as God to require of us what God required?
I glad we are agreed regarding free market anarchism. You know … all because one eschews Marxist economics Jed, doesn’t mean that they are for anarchistic economics. Can you show me anywhere in this thread where I have said I support free market anarchism?
Jed wrote,
Usually the courage to fight sin is set within the constraints of Scripture the Sacraments and the confessions. Law/Gospel and the ministry of Word and Sacrament go a long way in bolstering faith. Even if we aren’t gushing as some who are more pietistic in their persuasion, or aren’t out out to alter the structures of society, we radical 2kers (where I come from being radical is pretty rad) take our homeward journey and obedience seriously. After all Keynesian Economics is a passing system, we have our eyes set on that which God has made to endure.
Bret,
Well, if you have your eyes set on that which God has made to endure you won’t mind too terribly much if the State makes laws that requires Jews to wear yellow stars of David’s on their clothing. Well, if you have your eyes set on that which God has made to endure you won’t mind too terribly much if the State defines the unborn as non-person capable of being slaughtered. I mean … you won’t mind these kinds of things because … after all, your these things don’t endure and you have your eyes set on that which God has made to endure.
Jed writes,
You can have this world, and the happenings in it Bret. But my guess is that the world will be largely unchanged when God takes you home regardless of how much you fight to make it right. If the Son of God didn’t alter the fundamental structures of human government and culture when he graced the earth, what makes you think you can? What is wrong with taking Paul seriously when he says we should strive for a quiet life? It might be inconsequential to many, but I know firsthand the value of neighborliness as a Christian virtue – most of the time we impact others by being faithful to those whom God has placed in our lives.
Bret responds,
Well Jed … you are an pessimillennialist. Some of us are postmillennialist. As such we are not surprised when you pessimillennialist practice your retreat religion which allows the power religion of humanism to trod down the poor, murder the judicially innocent, and torture the judicially righteous in Christ. It’s all very convenient for those who are so heavenly minded that they no longer have the capacity to be salt and light in the public square.
I would say the Son of God did alter the fundamental Structures when He came. By His Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Session He formed a Church that would be alive with the Spirit of God gathered with a divine power to destroy strongholds. We have been given the Spirit of the living God to destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.
When every thought is taken captive to obey Christ what results is has orthodoxy. Where one has orthodoxy one has orthopraxy.
Thinking on economics is a thinking that is to be taken captive and if it is taken captive we can expect orthopraxy on economics.
Oh … and by the by … in all I do, I am striving for a quite life for myself and my generations that come behind me.
Jed wrote,
Besides, is there a deficiency in pondering the Law and the Gospel as it is proclaimed every Sunday?
Bret responds,
Oh goodness … I hope not for we do so every week.
Now, a question for you … is the Scripture all indicative or are we to be mindful of the imperatives of Scripture?
Jed asked,
Is there some fatal flaw or disloyalty to Jesus when we receive and rest upon him?
Bret
Only if your Jesus gives you a license to sin. Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound?
Jed asked,
Is the Lord’s supper insufficient to strengthen us through the Holy Spirit working in us to unite in us the sign and the thing signified?
Bret responds,
Yes … for those who are of the company of the elect.
Jed goes on,
Frankly if I heard a sermon, heck, even a Sunday school lesson that dealt with Keynes I would be hopping mad and might even consider looking elsewhere for a church. If you want to talk about Keynes, a good place to start would be an Econ class at your local junior college, otherwise keep it and anything related to it out of the pulpit. Maybe even a coffee shop lecutre by Bret about the ills of Keynsian Economics, and how it is such a crock, just not in the pulpit dude.
Bret responds,
I am compelled by the Scriptures to give the whole counsel of God which includes the prohibition against all theft. Keynesianism is one example.
All the best Brother Jed,
LikeLike
Zrim wrote,
Bret’s answer to you about economic beliefs of individuals is a pretty good example of legalism.
Bret responds,
This is really quite scurrilous language.
Please show me where I said that one can only be saved by keeping the law.
That is the definition of legalism. I nowhere champion that one is saved by keeping the law.
Still … this is the kind of language that I would expect from an anti-nomian.
Steve wrote,
He talks about economic (and political and educational) theory the way Baptists talk about substance use and worldly amusement. It looks like it’s mostly soft economic legalism, the kind that informally keeps people in their place and under his thumb. But once they have the audacity to publicly act in some way on whatever doesn’t thrill him personally it will turn into hard legalism where there is some kind of formal punishment.
Bret responds,
1.) When the Scripture prohibits theft Zrim calls it “keeping people under my thumb” when I preach the Heidelberg Catechism’s teaching on the prohibition against theft.
Go figure … and here I thought it was about people wanting to be God’s bond-servants walking in the joy of the third use of the law.
2.) In my time in the pastorate the only time Church discipline has been used as been for adultery. So, clearly you’re wrong on your assessment Steve.
Trust all is well with you and your family Brother,
LikeLike
John Y.
So Bret, have you been obedient in thought, word and deed to every implication and nook and cranny of each of the Ten commandments (lets say since Sunday after Church)? I hope you don’t say yes I have but you probably will.
Bret responds,
Goodness John … if you really believe that about reconstructionists then you never understood reconstruction theology. (Big surprise that)
The answer to your question is “no.”
Did you really think that it would be anything but “no?”
Now a question for you brother,
Have you been desirous, during the past week, to esteem God’s law in thought, word and deed to every implication and nook and cranny of each of the Ten commandments? I hope you don’t say, “no,” but maybe you will and maybe you’ll find virtue in saying “no.”
John wrote,
Luther faced the same type of thing with the Catholic Church of his time. He too went through each of the Ten Commandments in his Larger Catechism but shortened the implications and application by an enormous amount then what was common in many of the Catholic theologians writings of his time (I am pretty sure he would have taken out the implications for medieval economic and political theory). And his purpose for doing so was that he felt his shorter version was sufficient to convince the people he was teaching that they needed a Savior because of their inability to obey all these commandments in thought, word and deed.
Bret
Ah … yes .. but we preach the HC which puts the explication of the law in the section of gratitude and so have a better explanation then Luther’s work. An explanation when given concrete examples includes the prohibition against Keynesianism.
Continue to rest in Christ for all John,
LikeLike
“I am getting a feel for him and his inherent tendency towards dominance and aggression. Lets see how he answers my post. I wonder if he would turn aggressive on me if I was in his presence? I understand Darryl’s apprehension for having lunch with him.”
———
This kind of language really is most Pharisaical.
If you were in my presence, I would simply do what I am doing now and tell you that you are in error.
Our only hope is Christ alone,
LikeLike
I meditate on the Law day and night brother (well, not every day and night)- how am I in error? Because I am questioning your tendency towards dominance and aggression?- Am I bearing false witness? That seems to be the testimony of many. Perhaps you are in error? I am sure I am in error in some ways- that’s why I go to Church every Sunday- to get my tendency towards error and roaming away forgiven.
LikeLike
And how is the language I used Pharisaical?
LikeLike
R2K is errant theology. Those who embrace it are in error.
And of course I am in error somewhere … if I weren’t I would be perfect.
And we all know that isn’t so.
LikeLike
You are right- our only hope is Christ alone. I agree with you on that one.
LikeLike
I am not convinced R2K is errant theology although Luther knew nothing of it. Luther was big on distinguishing Law and Gospel and may have agreed with R2K if he hashed it out with those at Westminster West. So, I think you are being premature in your stating that R2K is in error. Let some theological council hash out that one.
LikeLike
I think you are wrong about Luther and gratitude too. I will have to search the pages of the Lutheran confessions to come up with proof on that one.
LikeLike
So Bret, have you been obedient in thought, word and deed to every implication and nook and cranny of each of the Ten commandments (lets say since Sunday after Church)? I hope you don’t say yes I have but you probably will.
Bret responds,
Goodness John … if you really believe that about reconstructionists then you never understood reconstruction theology. (Big surprise that)
The answer to your question is “no.â€
Did you really think that it would be anything but “no?â€
But isn’t your obedience to the law the way you measure your progress in sanctification? And do you not measure others that way too?
LikeLike
Bret,
You seem to be mellowing a bit- hey that is a good thing
LikeLike
Keith says: “I hope you can see through my clumsy efforts that my main point was that Craig’s exegesis of Romans 6 has real bite when one takes the “Moo-ian†position on Romans 7. That is all I was trying to say.
I think you are right Keith and that is why I have trouble with Moo and all those who interpret Romans 7 that way.
LikeLike
Lets stay away from the playing the Pharisee card too- they should name a new fallacy after that one. It is probably similar to Ad hominen but with greater degree of diabolical intent.
LikeLike
Craig, what do you do when someone else, who has the Spirit, disagrees with you? What happens when spirit-filled Christians don’t advocate picketing at clinics? Mind you, they don’t say you may not picket. But what happens if other people have the spirit with whom you disagree? Why do you assume that your invoking the Holy Spirit proves you to be correct? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the sermons you hear, would it?
LikeLike
Hey Bret, great to hear how you preach through the catechism. I don’t think your calling Keyensianism a sin, though, is a good and necessary consequence of either the 8th commandment or the Catechism. I mean, I think the 8th commandment forbids me from shopping at Walmart. But I don’t try to inflict my conscience on others. Have you never heard of Christian liberty?
LikeLike
Keith, and I was not offering a comment on Moo’s work. It’s just that the Baylys have not apparently found Venema’s review to bash 2k because they are more upset with the gender translations (by Moo in part) in the new NIV.
LikeLike
Bret, while you’re “giving” the whole counsel of God, do you ever consider taking a humility pill, as in, you might be wrong about Keynes.
LikeLike
Bret, do you think 2k is more in error that Grand Rapidian worldviewism? If so, why? If not, why devote so much energy to those whose views on everything in the Confession is right? Since when did your view of 2k become the orthodox view? Have you not heard? The Belgic and Westminster Confessions were revised after the eighteenth century revolutions? Come on, dude. You know how to use a computer. Get up with the history.
LikeLike
Is this conversation even *about* 2K? At times it seems that 2K is presented as a theological Godzilla, trampling all over theological Tokyo. Frankly, this conversation seems to be more about millenial views and liberty of conscience than 2K.
One exception (among others, I am sure) is Bret’s citation of the catechism, in which all the given examples of 8th commandment are actually interpersonal, but Bret extends them to the state. I’m not sure I have the time to have a knock-down-drag-out about the propriety of doing that, but I do think the extension of that commandment to taxation – by the state – is a premise that needs to be established.
LikeLike
DGH: I mean, I think the 8th commandment forbids me from shopping at Walmart.
And you were telling me that Scripture is silent about such things. You stinker … holding out on me like that. 😉
Bret, I agree with DGH: If Keynesianism is theft, then is clearly wrong. But the devil is in the minor premise: By what good and necessary inference from Scripture do we get that Keynesianism is theft, rather than governmental expenditure of taxes?
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
I guess it depends upon what the meaning of “is” is.
Might I recommend a couple books, among many, that convinced me that Keynsianism is synonymous with theft.
1.) PRODUCTIVE CHRISTIANS IN AN AGE OF GUILT MANIPULATORS A BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO RONALD SIDER — David Chilton
2.) Baptized Inflation — Ian Hodge
There are other books but these are good introductions for people.
Are we to believe that theft only applies to shop lifting candy bars? Or do we believe that it is possible for the state to legalize theft? And if that is possible and since the Scripture speaks against theft it strikes me as incumbent to preach against the economic means by which the state preforms theft.
Michael says the examples in the HC are actually interpersonal and then wants to suggest that my relationship to the state isn’t personal? I guess I don’t understand that assertion.
Darryl, I’m confident you’ll be praying for me in my lack of humility.
Also, I don’t see any difference between R2k and worldviewism so I can’t answer that question.
Cheers to all,
LikeLike
Bret, this is fun.
So you can tell the difference between “R2k” and worldviewism.
So, you have a worldview.
The CRC has a worldview.
“R2k” has a worldview.
So why do you object to “R2k” and not the CRC?
LikeLike
Jeff, to keep the surprise-fest going: I also believe I glorify God by not shopping at Walmart.
LikeLike
Bret, the state can tax me; that’s in the Bible. But you can’t tax me; that would be theft. It’s hardly self-evident that the 8th commandment applies to the state in the same way it applies to individuals.
LikeLike
MM, 2k and liberty of conscience are joined at the hip.
But you make a good point about the personal nature of the eighth. The law is for how people interrelate to people, not how states carry out economic theory. This to me is an important point that distingishes 2k from non-2k. It is one thing for someone to think that states should be able to take someone’s wealth and give it to another, but it’s quite another for a person to rob a person.
The problem for Jeff is that McAtee can probably connect enough dots to theoretically show that “Keynesianism is theft.” That isn’t the issue though, because Keynesianism isn’t a member of the church, only people are. You can’t admonish or discipline an economic theory or public policy, you can only do that to actual people. And you can only do that to actual people who actually violate the law in their own minds or bodies.
LikeLike
They may enjoy skulling together, Zrim, but they can stand on their own.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, to keep the surprise-fest going: I also believe I glorify God by not shopping at Walmart.
Wow! I must have made a real impact. 😉
LikeLike
Zrim: The problem for Jeff is that McAtee can probably connect enough dots to theoretically show that “Keynesianism is theft.â€
Maybe so, but the bar is high: Good and necessary inferences only need apply.
Zrim: That isn’t the issue though, because Keynesianism isn’t a member of the church, only people are.
Well, no, it is an issue. But you’re right in this: Suppose for the sake of argument that Keynesianism is theft. Then what? Obama’s not in my church, so …
LikeLike
Suppose for the sake of argument that Keynesianism is theft. Then what? Obama’s not in my church, so..
Obama being a member of your church only affects whether you could discipline Obama. But a member may seek the pastor’s counsel on whether he– the member–should support Obama or some congressman or a referendum that promotes keynesian theft legislation. May the pastor open the Word of God for counsel to guide the member, since this deals with an issue in the “civil kingdom”?
LikeLike
Bret,
I don’t think you understand Keynesian economics, this is especially displayed in your unwarranted assertion that it is a violation of the 8th Commandment. Keynes basically saw (and rightly so) that there was inherent irrationality behind consumer confidence – thus the economy’s stability was at the mercy of the self-fulfilling moods of the consumer who controls demand by either pessimism or optimism. So, Keynesian policy is aimed at economic stabilization, especially in the area of employment, but also in the areas of aggregate supply and demand. Hence, under a classic Keynesian model, the government expenditures would be geared toward investments in things like infrastructure which would have a positive net effect on the economy. The New Deal, for all of it’s controversy reflected classic Keynesian policy, in gov’t expenditures such as the Hoover Dam, highways, etc. which created more jobs, and theoretically expanded aggregate demand. The Employment Act of 1946 is another example where the Federal gov’t took an active role in promoting full employment and production. Obviously taxation plays into this, as gov’t uses tax funds to invest in various projects and programs and projects that stimulate demand. This creates opportunites for investment and growth in the private sector – via gov’t contracts – ask anyone who has ongoing construction contracts w/ the gov’t – it definitely stimulates business activity, and this has a positive net effect on the supply and demand for the economy as a whole. Obviously there are those who disagree with Keynes, but you are going to be hard pressed to find a bona fide economist from the Austrian School or any other similar laissez-faire advocate (who knows what they are talking about) who considers Keynesian Theory to be tantamount to theft.
So when it comes to the bail-outs of the last couple of years, these are not (classic) Keynesian policies either. Whether or not TARP actually rescued the financial markets is up for debate, however, anyone with a 401k or money in the market knows that after the big hit in 2008, there was a moderate recovery in their investments over the last 18-24 months. The problem is that these massive gov’t expenditures have accomplished exactly the opposite of classic Keynesian economics sought to accomplish. Keynesians sought to stabilize unemployment through government investments that created jobs and would have a ripple effect on the economy as demand increased. However, the bailouts have crowded out the loanable funds in the economy, which have hamstrung the private sectors ability to secure funds to grow their businesses. What compounds this is that gov’t investments in infrastructure have been meager at best, since the gov’t has already run up such staggering debt that securing loans to fund these projects is not likely. There could have been a push for light rail, and speed rail systems that would decrease needs for automobiles, and hence fossil fuel. However, political alliances such as the democrat connection to unions such as UAW prevented these kinds of investments, these were political rather than economic decisions. From a Keynesian perspective, stimulus to the depressing economy would look a lot different than what we have seen since 2008.
Even though I am not a Keynesian and I have some fundamental disagreements with the system, I think it is reckless and ignorant to call this theory theft. If you are so interested in enacting economic reform it would be helpful if you understood what you were talking about and stopped relying on misleading sloganeering. If you are for more free-market models, it is incumbent on you to a) make sensible arguments, and b) elect politicians who believe in this (such as Ron and Rand Paul) The fact is that there is an economic trade off between stability and freedom. Keynes sough to bring the two into a better balance. It is easy to rail on it, until you realize that much of the unprecedented stability achieved between WWII and 9/11 was due to Keynesian policy. Maybe we would have been better off in the long run if we didn’t have such active fiscal and monetary policy, but I guess we will never know that since the whole field of Economics has to look to the past in order to gauge the validity of its theories.
The advantage of 2k is that it can leave the debate over economic policy where it belongs – in the public square. However, according to what you are proposing, debates over economic policy belong in the pulpit. I don’t think you have any warrant to assert this. Whether you are Keynsian or from the Chicago School, these are issues of liberty. What is interesting to me is that I am not sure that Kuyperians such as Godfrey, or our resident Kuyperian Baus, or heck, even Kuyper himself would go so far as to assert what you have. Economic arguments have their place, but not in place of the ministry of the Word.
As far as the other issues, abortion, genocide, isolationism, etc – I think you are just being silly, but I have already spent too much time on Keynes to get to the rest of your statements. Suffice to say, you have a wholly inaccurate opinion of where I stand on these issues, or how I would deal with them in the public square. But that conversation will have to wait.
LikeLike
I am also pretty sure that pre-Constantinan X-ians had to pay taxes that went to all sorts of abominable ends, nonetheless, they were commanded to pay taxes. So, even if Keynesianism is theft, which it isn’t, you still have to pay your taxes out of submission to the authority God placed over you. Unless you are a member of government and can affect fiscal policy, or a member of the Fed and can affect monetary policy – these things are out of your hands.
LikeLike
Mark, all things are possible, so the answer to your question is “of course.” That only begs the question of whether the pastor can find anything that directly speaks to a conclusion, binding on all church members, that concludes K’sm is theft.
And I wonder if the minister does find, on thin evidence as Bret does, that K’sm is theft. What do you think, Mark, the minister will tell the Christian about whether or not to pay the K’sm inspired taxes? Might the Bible say something about submission to ruling authorities, even those that persecute and steal from Christians?
Or do you only want the Bible to give you support for what you want?
LikeLike
Everyone knows that if you want to understand Keynes or Hayek, you need to listen to the Keynes/Hayek rap:
LikeLike
Paul, that’s classic man. I only wish I had those rapping skillz.
LikeLike
Mark: May the pastor open the Word of God for counsel to guide the member, since this deals with an issue in the “civil kingdom�
Right. And that’s why Zrim’s issue (“is Keynesianism a member of the church?”) is not the only issue.
I think we all — maybe? — might be able to agree that
(1) individual Christians might find something about Keyneysianism (or the Austrian School) that appears to contradict Scripture, and
(2) if so, then their consciences are impacted, AND
(3) That there is a principled difference between individual conscience and what is lawful (in God’s eyes) to proclaim from the pulpit.
What say ye: Bret? DGH? Zrim? Mark? Jed? John? Mary Ellen?
LikeLike
Jeff,
There’s a difference between private council and the pulpit. Preaching should center on the proclamation of the gospel, not for political or economic issues. Maybe there is some sort of exception to this, like if you are a German in WWII, the 6th command still applies to you, so willful killing of civilians (in the context of ww2 for non-millitary purposes – like Jews and gypsies) is a no-no. However, the economic issues discussed here, or Kuyperianism for that matter is definitely off limits from the pulpit since these aren’t a) sin issues b) redemptive issues.
LikeLike
On a somewhat related note, here is one of my favorite You Tube snippets – Milton Friedman schooling Phil Donahue on capitalism. (it’s brief)
LikeLike
LikeLike
And I wonder if the minister does find, on thin evidence as Bret does, that K’sm is theft. What do you think, Mark, the minister will tell the Christian about whether or not to pay the K’sm inspired taxes? Might the Bible say something about submission to ruling authorities, even those that persecute and steal from Christians?
Or do you only want the Bible to give you support for what you want?
The minister should tell him to submit to the whole counsel of God. This could include pastoral counsel {with the Bible open} not to support the referendum/law that would impose a theft on the citizenry. If it passed, then it could include the pastoral counsel {with the Bible open} to render to Ceaser.
LikeLike
Jeff, one could conceivably make the case that pre-emptive war isn’t just war and thus Bush, who is a member of our church, is guilty of murder. But that’s just as misguided as punishing Obama, who is a member of our church, when it is concluded that his Keynesian economic policy is theft. Neither man is personally guilty of murder or theft. Again, there is a difference between persecuting an ideology and disciplining a Christian.
LikeLike
Zrim, I don’t find that analysis nearly thorough enough.
(1) Herod was held accountable for the murder of John the Baptist. Yet he personally did not kill John, but ordered his servants to do so. So acting indirectly through one’s subordinates (generals; IRS agents) is no defense.
(2) People don’t “do” ideologies; they “do” actions. So disciplining GWB or BHO for their actions is not actually disciplining them for their ideologies. It may be the case that the ideology motivates the action; but the action is what is culpable. We’re not talking about thought-crime. Or put another way: we would not discipline GWB for articulating a doctrine of pre-emptive war, but for acting on it.
So if GWB were a Presbie (!) AND *if* we were to discipline GWB for murder, then at his trial, I would expect him to pull out WCoF 23.2 and to make the argument on that basis. That’s why that section was, like, written and stuff.
(3) The real issue on the table is whether we may, or mayn’t, discipline a magistrate for actions taken pursuant to his duties. I would argue that the Confession sets a very high bar but not an insurmountable one. Again: WCoF 23.2 is written for a reason.
Put another way: if Duvalier were a Presbie, would you have tried him for murder?
So it seems to me that your analysis lacks a couple of things: a distinction between ideologies and actions; and a thorough discussion of when a magistrate might be held culpable by the church.
LikeLike
Paul, that Keynes/Heyek rap is pretty classy. Nice way of framing them as the party man and the nerd that cleans up the day after.
We seem to have a little test case going on in the US and Germany/England.
LikeLike
Jeff,
If a Presbie GWB appealed to the just war concept in WCoF 23.2 then all someone has to do is contrast just war with pre-emptive war and say that the pre-emptive war ideology he acted on tends toward murder (sort of like how Paul says certain reproductive laws “tend toward murder” and those who act on them should be punished), thus he can’t hide behind the “just war” concept in 23.2 and is personally guilty of murder. (I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the thrust of 23.2 isn’t something about when can magistrates be held accountable for their policies, but rather that believers as citizens of the civil kingdom can wield the sword, perhaps against some confused Anabaptist-y notion that believers and swords should never meet.)
A magistrate can be held accountable to his church when he personally breaks the law, just like a non-magistrate member. Why does that have to be so complicated? Do you think that magistrates are held to a different standard than non-magistrates? The question for you is, How far back from being personally responsible for breaking the law do you want to go? You talk about about high bars, and I agree that the bar should be high, because otherwise we end up punishing people for the ideas they have we simply don’t like instead of the actions they make which directly violate the law. The way to avoid that, and to make sure the right person is in the hotseat, is to say there needs to be a very short line between an action that is unlawful and a person. Othwerwise, what’s to keep the woman who answers the phone at Planned Parenthood from being punished as well as the doc who performs the procedure? (Seriously, I have heard it said that anyone who works at PP should be disciplined. But since when was where someone works sufficient grounds? Don’t more questions have to be asked?)
LikeLike
And I wonder if the minister does find, on thin evidence as Bret does, that K’sm is theft. What do you think, Mark, the minister will tell the Christian about whether or not to pay the K’sm inspired taxes? Might the Bible say something about submission to ruling authorities, even those that persecute and steal from Christians?
Or do you only want the Bible to give you support for what you want?
Nope, the minister should tell him to submit to the whole counsel of God. This could include pastoral counsel {with the Bible open} on the referendum/law that would impose a theft on the citizenry. And if it passed, then it would include pastoral counsel {with the Bible open} on rendering to Ceaser. The more difficult question is at what point one would believe submitting to Ceaser would require him to violate God’s Word, the abiding standard for all men. The revised Belgic which you so dislike sets these principles out quite clearly without confusing spiritual and civil authority.
LikeLike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
Pastor Bordow
Thank you for that clip
LikeLike
Zrim, I wasn’t saying GWB was (or wasn’t) justified; I was just predicting how the trial would go down. Do you agree with me that this is the obvious place for the defense to go?
And my point in doing so is that the appeal to WCoF 23.2 *assumes* that Scripture has something to say about war. And magistrates declaring war.
For if it did not, then WCoF 23.2 has no rationale for existence.
A magistrate can be held accountable to his church when he personally breaks the law, just like a non-magistrate member. Why does that have to be so complicated?
I don’t think it does. But the (unintended?) side-effect of saying that Scripture is silent on this area of life, or that, is to make those areas outside of the jurisdiction of Scripture. And in particular, if Scripture is “silent” on governance, then that implies that the governmental actions of the governor, no matter how sinful they might be, cannot be disciplined. Only his private actions fall under the jurisdiction of the church, since we all “know” that Scripture has nothing to say about his governance.
I say, No, if the magistrate breaks the law of God in either private actions or in his governance, then he can and should be held accountable.
How far back from being personally responsible for breaking the law do you want to go?
Fair question. We agree that there is decreasing culpability moving out away from direct action. But not zero.
It’s striking to me that Scripture holds
(1) Nations to account for the actions of their leaders, and
(2) Individuals to account for their failure to act (frequently!).
So my sense, undeveloped into theory, is that our culpability is actually greater than we want to believe.
So take the phone operator at PP. At one level, she’s just answering phones. Nothing in the Bible against that. At another level, she is facilitating murder by acting as the go-between (with knowledge) between a pregnant woman and an abortionist. She receives money for hooking up perp and vic.
So is she a phone operator, or party to a hit?
I wouldn’t want that job.
LikeLike
Internet connection was spotty earlier and thought my post at 5:41p.m. didn’t go through–hence the repetitive post just now.
LikeLike
Mark, it is actually you who has the problem with the revised Art. 36. You have at various times defended the original Art. 36, which the revisers declared to be unbiblical. That means that you were, when using the original Art. 36 against me, violating the “abiding standard for all men.”
LikeLike
Darryl, unsurprisingly you have it exactly backwards. I’ve defended the revised Belgic 36, which you resist. There are links to these discussions, if you wish to refresh your recollection.
LikeLike
The more difficult question is at what point one would believe submitting to Ceaser would require him to violate God’s Word, the abiding standard for all men.
Why is that so hard, Mark? If he tells you to worship him or kill me in your own person then you disobey. If he does neither of those two things then obey, whether you like what he’s commanding or not.
But “they were amazed†in Mark 12 for good reason. Jesus was telling them, quite to the contrary of their “godly†expectations, to give to their civil oppressor, who had delusions of deity no less, what he demanded, and gave them no wiggle room whatsoever to disobey like they wanted. They were hoping for “pastoral counsel {with the Bible open} on how to circumvent the referendum/law that would impose a theft on the citizenry†and instead got “Render to him (his tactics are irrelevant).â€
LikeLike
Do you agree with me that this is the obvious place [WCoF 23.2] for the defense to go?
Maybe, Jeff, but my point is that all the prosecution has to do is say pre-emptive war isn’t just war, guilty. Which brings us to the point about personal sin. If you want it possible for a Christian to be subject to discipline for his Keynesian governance (provided this theory is even proven in the first place) then you’ll also have to say a professor who teaches Keynesian economics should be as well. Again, I say that it’s one thing to govern or teach a certain economic outlook that someone says is “theft,†quite another to personally steal from another person.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t want a certain job. What matters is whether you think answering a phone is the same as taking a life (like Paul thinks voting to keep abortion legal is the same as performing or having one in one’s own person). I think they are quite different.
But maybe you (and Paul) are like my wife, who thinks that carrying on emotionally but not physically with someone other than one’s spouse is the same as adultery—she creates the dubious, modern category called “emotional adultery.†I say it’s really bad judgment, but it doesn’t rise to the level of actionable sin. A man cannot walk into a family courtroom and say his wife merely spends too much time with Bob and is therefore guilty of adultery. She may be showing very bad judgment and is playing with fire, but she’s not guilty of the charge. And this is my concern here, the less-than-careful distinctions being made end up punishing people who shouldn’t be punished. Maybe you’d want to discipline a wife for her poor relationship skills, but I’d rather spare the rod and shake my finger. Or in the case of economic or political outlooks, simply disagree.
LikeLike
“(like Paul thinks voting to keep abortion legal is the same as performing or having one in one’s own person).”
Zrim, I would actually appreciate if you would knock this off. This is not my position and it is so absurd as to be completely uncharitable. Will any others act consistently and criticize Zrim for comments like this? If not, I guess it really was my content and not my form.
Yes, I have said it is a violation of the general equity of the 6th commandment, and I have argued for that view (and interaction with that argument would be nice). Surely a Christian doesn’t object to these moves. Didn’t our lord say that whoever lusts after a woman in his heart has committed adultery? Didn’t he say that a man who hates his neighbor is guilty of murder? Your argument is with Jesus and the biblical wittness.
“But maybe you (and Paul) are like my wife, who thinks that carrying on emotionally but not physically with someone other than one’s spouse is the same as adultery—she creates the dubious, modern category called “emotional adultery.â€
I’m wondering if any Reformed pastors would like to back this up?
“I say it’s really bad judgment, but it doesn’t rise to the level of actionable sin. A man cannot walk into a family courtroom and say his wife merely spends too much time with Bob and is therefore guilty of adultery.”
Every single Reformed pastor I have asked disagrees with you. But let’s also note that you’re language is entirely unhelpful. “Merely spends too much time” is so ambiguous as to be dialectically useless. Moreover, a family court isn’t a church court. A family court does nothing about “adultery of the heart,” the church can and does.
“And this is my concern here, the less-than-careful distinctions being made end up punishing people who shouldn’t be punished
As can be seen, it is I who have made the careful distinctions, it is you who has been careless with his langauge.
“Maybe you’d want to discipline a wife for her poor relationship skills, but I’d rather spare the rod and shake my finger.”
Not if she continued,unrepentent, in the indescrete behavior.
Anyway, Zrim, husbands are supposed to love their wives like Christ loves the church. He engages in neither actual nor emotional adultery.
LikeLike
Zrim, does phone sex get discipline or a finger wag?
LikeLike
Zrim: “(like Paul thinks voting to keep abortion legal is the same as performing or having one in one’s own person).â€
Paul: I would actually appreciate if you would knock this off. This is not my position and it is so absurd as to be completely uncharitable. Will any others act consistently and criticize Zrim for comments like this?
Just so Paul knows that we care about such things: Zrim, I agree with Paul that your attempts to “get at what he’s really saying” are actually distorting his real position. Surely that’s not your goal?
LikeLike
Zrim: Maybe, Jeff, but my point is that all the prosecution has to do is say pre-emptive war isn’t just war, guilty. Which brings us to the point about personal sin.
And my point is that the prosecution would have to actually prove, from Scripture, that this is so. Burden of proof and all, right?
But if they *do* prove that pre-emptive war is *always* unjust, or even that Iraq II was unjust, then Bush is guilty. His position as a magistrate doesn’t give him a pass.
There are sins that are not personal.
Zrim: If you want it possible for a Christian to be subject to discipline for his Keynesian governance (provided this theory is even proven in the first place) then you’ll also have to say a professor who teaches Keynesian economics should be as well.
You weren’t paying close attention. The distinction I drew was between actions and thoughts. I don’t want a Christian subject to discipline for being or advocating Keynesianism. I do want a Christian who makes actual theft a matter of policy to be subject to discipline.
But if Bret comes along and declares all Keynesianism to be theft, then the burden of proof is on him to produce good-and-necessary inference. If he can produce it, then yes: the Keynesian prof is, hypothetically, advocating theft as a matter of policy. He’s inciting others to sin. That ought to be actionable, no?
Zrim: But maybe you (and Paul) are like my wife, who thinks that carrying on emotionally but not physically with someone other than one’s spouse is the same as adultery—she creates the dubious, modern category called “emotional adultery.†I say it’s really bad judgment, but it doesn’t rise to the level of actionable sin.
I think I would side with your wife. Jesus does, right? “I say to you that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery with her in his heart.”
I don’t think Jesus is saying that these two are equal in every sense — after all, the Confession distinguishes various heinousnesses of sins, right? And I wouldn’t grant divorce to a woman because her husband took a long look.
But if we are trying to give pastoral counsel to individuals, we aren’t going to tell them, “It isn’t sin until you break the actual commandment.” That was the foolishness of the Pharisees, failing to really understand the underlying equity of the law. They strained at gnats — external actions, in fact — and swallowed camels — heart conditions contrary to the equity of the law.
Zrim: A man cannot walk into a family courtroom and say his wife merely spends too much time with Bob and is therefore guilty of adultery. She may be showing very bad judgment and is playing with fire, but she’s not guilty of the charge.
No, but he can complain to his elder. And should the elder make a phone call? Yeah, probably. And should his counsel include issues of the 7th commandment? Yeah, probably.
The WLC:
Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.
Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel…
The act of spending time with Bob is not necessarily adultery, but it is a window into motivation. And contrary to DGH’s allergy to motivation, the WLC addresses motivation square on.
LikeLike
Jeff, now I feel loved. Thanks for warming the cockles, nay, the sub-cockles of my heart.
LikeLike
Jeff, as for my allergy, what I am allergic to is people (sometimes you) who think they can read motivations (as in the surgeon who gives glory to God). All the talk about motivation may lead people to think they can spot it. I actually think I am completely ignorant of your motivation.
I also believe that the goal of self-consciousness, so that we know our own motivation, is fool’s gold. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don’t. And sometimes our motivations are conflicted between incompatible goods. Too much concern with motivation can lead to spiritual navel gazing and falling for “earnest” preachers.
LikeLike
Just so Paul knows that we care about such things: Zrim, I agree with Paul that your attempts to “get at what he’s really saying†are actually distorting his real position. Surely that’s not your goal?.
What Paul argues is that when Bob casts a civil vote to keep abortion legal he should be ecclesiastically punished for violating the sixth commandment. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that this is another way of saying that certain political outlooks are the same as personal behavior.
I think I would side with your wife. Jesus does, right? “I say to you that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery with her in his heart.â€
Jeff, isn’t there a difference between sins of the heart and sins of the hands? The point here isn’t that sins of the heart aren’t a problem, as in enough to alienate us from God. The point is how to handle the sins of the heart and those of the hands. Sins of the heart and hands are enough to invite God’s wrath, but we can only punish those of the hands and admonish those of the heart. That was the point of saying that certain relational but non-sexual activities are “playing with fire,†etc. They deserve admonishment, which includes warnings about how certain bad behaviors can lead to illegal ones which then are met with actual punishment.
Paul says to cast out the man who is sexually (read: physically) carrying on with his mother-in-law. Where is there any call to put him out who has sins of the heart?
No, but he can complain to his elder. And should the elder make a phone call? Yeah, probably. And should his counsel include issues of the 7th commandment? Yeah, probably…The act of spending time with Bob is not necessarily adultery, but it is a window into motivation.
Make up your mind, Jeff. This sounds like you agree with me that there is a difference between sins of the heart and those of the hands and different ways of handling each. But if you agree with my wife then there is no “yeah, probably, not necessarily†about it.
LikeLike
If he tells you to worship him or kill me in your own person then you disobey.
Is the basis of this decision guided by the standards revealed in the Bible?
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, isn’t there a difference between sins of the heart and sins of the hands? …They deserve admonishment
Yes, that’s better. Earlier, you weren’t even mentioning admonishment.
But what if the wife refuses the admonishment and continues the “unwise but not unlawful” behavior?
At some point, doesn’t that shade over into disciplinary stuff?
LikeLike
Is the basis of this decision [If he tells you to worship him or kill me in your own person then you disobey] guided by the standards revealed in the Bible?
No, I’m just making stuff up.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s better. Earlier, you weren’t even mentioning admonishment.
I may not have been using the explicit language but I was hinting at the concept—“showing very bad judgment and is playing with fire.†The point I was accenting was not punishing innocent people. Witnessing it myself, I’ll be the first to lament the relatively lax state of ecclesiastical discipline anymore, but lowering the bar in such a way that we call bad judgment adultery or bad economic or political policy murder and theft seems a bad way to make up for it.
But what if the wife refuses the admonishment and continues the “unwise but not unlawful†behavior? At some point, doesn’t that shade over into disciplinary stuff?
I don’t know, Jeff, but my point isn’t to indulge endless hypothetical’s, it’s simply to make the point about the personal nature of these things, as well as the differences between private and public behavior. I understand from the other thread that that point doesn’t land with you. But I don’t see how we keep ourselves from cutting off noses to spite faces if we don’t exercise more caution, to say nothing of how we put limits on our natural impulses to make the Bible say more than it does.
LikeLike
Is the basis of this decision [If he tells you to worship him or kill me in your own person then you disobey] guided by the standards revealed in the Bible?
No, I’m just making stuff up.<
Is this sarcasm?
LikeLike
Mark, yes, it was sarcasm. Sorry, I had my Wheaties this morning.
LikeLike
“I don’t know, Jeff, but my point isn’t to indulge endless hypothetical’s, it’s simply to make the point about the personal nature of these things, as well as the differences between private and public behavior.”
My position has never been that if it is a one time thing the wife (or husband) needs more than admonishment. My claims were specifically predicated upon repeat, unrepentent behavior. You even denied punishment at this point, Zrim. And, FWIW, this isn’t merely a “hypothetical,” it is a real and frequent occurence.
“What Paul argues is that when Bob casts a civil vote to keep abortion legal he should be ecclesiastically punished for violating the sixth commandment. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that this is another way of saying that certain political outlooks are the same as personal behavior.”
Let’s note that 2Kers david Gadbois and Jason Stellman agree with me here. Anyway, everything turns on “same as.” I’ve only argued that it is a violation of the general equity of the 6th commandment, per the Larger Catechsim. You have not rebutted either form, nor any premise, of that argument, and so the conclusion goes through, despite your protests otherwise.
LikeLike
Zrim, was eating Wheaties based on the Bible?
LikeLike
Zrim,
So can you agree with the general proposition that the Bible sets *some* normative moral standards by which *some* actions of the magistrate can be measured?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I swear that Paul and I haven’t gone out and purchased BFF charms here but I think he and your wife have a point regarding the emotional affair issue. Let’s even suppose that there isn’t sexual lust involved, which in reality there almost always is in emotional affairs, the emotional affair if it can be reasonably demonstrated is a fundamental breach of the marital vows. You know that “forsaking all others” part, and I am sure it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that there is also a demonstrable breach of Ephesians 5:22-33.
I don’t think this is bad judgment, it is actually a sin and a dereliction of duty. The session should step in, hopefully in order to nip even nastier problems in the bud. Bad judgment might be having a cup of coffee once with a female coworker after hours in order to help her sort through recurring boyfriend issues. However it becomes a sin issue when it jeopardizes wife and family. Unfortunately I know this sort of scenario all to intimately. My dad was the culprit, and he was the chairman of the elder board at a very large evangelical church, and the elders lacked the fortitude to step in when when his emotional affair stretched on over the course of years, needless to say became an obvious sin issue. The issue was never dealt with and culminated in him leaving my mom after over 30 years of marriage. I can’t help but think that if someone had dealt with the sins of the heart, some of the greater sins of the hand could have been prevented. It is the kind of devastation a family never fully recovers from.
I am not using the experience to bully my way into proving the point here, I just think that this is what happens when cutesy emotional affairs or inordinate amounts of time spent (alone) with a member of the opposite sex goes unchecked. Feel free to come after me if you think I am wrong here man, cause honestly it would go a ways in relieving some deep frustrations when elders don’t do their job.
LikeLike
Mark,
Zrim can speak for himself here, but I think the issue here isn’t evaluating the magistrate in such a way to insist that he gets on board with our agenda, it’s more of gauging how his policy effects our primary commitment to obey God. When he asks us to disobey God we need to have our consciences shaped by God’s word at least enough to know that this is an instance in which we must disobey the magistrate.
LikeLike
Zrim: I don’t know, Jeff, but my point isn’t to indulge endless hypothetical’s
I agree with Paul — your “hypotheticals” are what actually happen in real life and end up before commissions of Presbytery.
It’s not much good if you have a nice, tidy system that breaks when confronted with real situations and leaves you saying, “Well, that’s just a hypothetical.”
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, as for my allergy, what I am allergic to is people (sometimes you) who think they can read motivations (as in the surgeon who gives glory to God).
I was pretty clear — said it quite clearly — that I don’t think I can read the surgeon’s heart. Is there a reason that you’re gainsaying me here?
While I’m thinking about it: between the two of us, aren’t you more likely to lead off with
“You seem to think…” ?
For a guy that eschews motive-reading, you certainly feel comfortable using the language of mind-reading. Not sure what to make of that.
DGH: I also believe that the goal of self-consciousness, so that we know our own motivation, is fool’s gold. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don’t. And sometimes our motivations are conflicted between incompatible goods. Too much concern with motivation can lead to spiritual navel gazing and falling for “earnest†preachers.
OK, let’s agree that we don’t want too much concern with motivation. Does it follow therefore that we don’t want any concern with motivation, or that all talk of motivation is banned? Surely not.
For then Scripture would speak to no effect, when it says to “Be on your guard against all kind of greed.” Right?
And anyway: Earlier, you were floating the idea that Scripture speaks to motivations and natural law, to actions. Now, you want to play the Jack of Agnosticism card and claim that we can know nothing of other people’s motivations and very little of our own.
If we put those two ideas together, aren’t you saying that Scripture has barely anything to say at all?
I’m utterly unconvinced. I think Scripture talks about the motives of the heart because it wants us to think about the motives of the heart.
If you want to say that we don’t thereby have perfect knowledge, then fine, I agree. But holding out for perfect knowledge is straining at a gnat.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input, Jed. I was saddened to hear about your father.
LikeLike
Zrim, are you sticking with hypos and running from committing to real life scenarios? I’m shocked, just shocked. 🙂
LikeLike
To do formal discipline, you need 1) a commission or omission, 2) that is sin according to the Bible, 3) with the ability to prove #1, that has 4) sufficient gravity to warrant formal discipline.
Zrim’s hypothetical is “carrying on emotionally but not physically with someone other than one’s spouse.” The commission, presumably, is a married person spending an inordinate amount of time with a non-spouse of the opposite sex. The Biblical prohibition would be, arguably, an extension of the 7th commandment and the 3rd (insofar as there is a marriage vow involved), i.e. the emotional attachment is a species of adultery, or a path recklessly tending toward adultery.
In the ideal world, we could see emotions, the patina of lust on them, and peer into our crystal balls to see the end result. In the real world we don’t see emotions, and would be hard-pressed to prove there is an emotionally adulterous heart rather than, e.g., cordiality among colleagues. In the real world it would probably even be difficult to establish that the two were together an inordinate amount of time. We can’t prosecute physical adultery that hasn’t happened yet. In the real world one could be guilty of slander for leveling an accusation of adultery based on presumption and shreds of evidence.
This would likely arise from a complaining spouse who is suspicious with a little bit of evidence and a feeling of emotional detachment. It’s doubtful that formal discipline would be an efficacious way of handling this situation. One-on-one conversation for clarification and possible admonishment would be the way to handle this, with pastoral marriage counseling being another possible route.
I realize this post is not in the same generic/theoretical vein as the above posts, but, then again, an occasional “grounding” of these matters might be profitable from time to time.
I was going to say this is a real-life scenario, but given how few churches even do discipline, maybe it’s ideal in its own way.
LikeLike
Let’s note that 2Kers david Gadbois and Jason Stellman agree with me here.
What is the point of this constant tactic, Paul? So what? If you, Gadbois and Stellman all think someone should be ecclesiastically disciplined for his civil views then I disagree with all three of you (get as many as you want, I don’t care). If Kuyper can disagree with Calvin, the Confessions and our Reformed theologians that heretics should be civily punished, I don’t see why I can’t dissent with you all that a church member should be disallowed his political outlook. So all three of you vote to discipline Bob, I don’t. Am I next for not punishing an innocent man, er, I mean letting an evil doer go?
DGH, is the action of eating Wheaties being coupled with the motivation of sarcasm biblical and God-glorifying? Or maybe I should ask Jeff.
Jed, I’ve sat on a Council that refused to discipline blatant sexual sin, so I know the frustration. But, with all due respect to your situation, I stand by my points about the differences between sins of the heart and hand, admonition and discipline. As frustrating as refusing to discipline sin can be, I don’t see what is gained by punishing behavior that requires admonition to make up for it. I agree that the line between sins of the heart and hands can get fuzzy sometimes, but that seems to be precisely why we need the sort of bright lines I’m suggesting. And not to rub it in, but it seems to me that even when things are dealt with properly along these lines this doesn’t “prevent†the worst from actually still happening.
So can you agree with the general proposition that the Bible sets *some* normative moral standards by which *some* actions of the magistrate can be measured?
Mark, the Bible clearly sets normative moral standards by which the personal actions of all believers, from magistrates to peasants, can be measured. The question isn’t what station in life an individual holds but what confession s/he makes.
CVD, what I’m doing is my darndest to meet your felt need to be concrete and stop flying at 35K. I thought you’d be happy? But don’t you think the best mix is some concrete and 35K, as in applying principles to particulars? That’s what I am doing with Paul’s hypo.
LikeLike
DGH, is the action of eating Wheaties being coupled with the motivation of sarcasm biblical and God-glorifying? Or maybe I should ask Jeff.
You can eat Wheaties sarcastically all you want.
LikeLike
Thanks Paul, I appreciate the kind words, it was a very sad situation that we went through. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I guess it’s evidence of the collateral damage of sin – it can hurt a lot of people
Michael and Zrim,
I think the scenario that Michael has presented is reasonable. The only thing that I think you overlook is that the emotional affair is symptomatic of other issues, and often these aren’t without notice. This is especially the case in a smaller church, where typically a pastor allocates a good deal of time to visiting his parishioners. Some will admit to various undefined “marital issues” or even vaguely speak of struggles in the thought life. These are where an elder should dig, and should seek to aide the parishioner in question. If the parishioner is generally honest, there is a great chance that the emotional affair can be headed off at the pass with minimal discipline or damage to the family. However, even when there is more deceit taking place, there is often neglect at home that gets back to the pastor. So we aren’t dealing with trying to divine the interior life of the believer here, rather we are talking about basic diagnostics that the pastor or elder should be using to gauge their flock.
Of course there are those insidious cases where everyone is caught off guard due to the almost obsessive deceitfulness on behalf of the parishioner. In this case you guys are right, and there isn’t much to be done until there is some kind of hard evidence. But, I would venture to say that there are many emotional affairs are part of a constellation of sin that can be identified and dealt with before drastic disciplinary measures need to be made. By the time you get to drastic measures you probably aren’t dealing with merely an emotional affair, you are likely dealing with a real one, and when it has gone that far often it is too late to salvage the marriage.
But whatever the case may be, I think we were dealing with the case of a known “emotional affair”, did I misread the issue? I know that Zrim was dealing with the hypothetical of a guy spending too much time with a woman not his wife – and to that I’d say that this isn’t merely unwise (categorically stupid is more like it), but a big time red-flag. But when it comes to a known emotional affair, it has risen to a sin issue and should be dealt with. To the point that even when a known sin is confronted, the worst might not be prevented – this is true, but if nothing is attempted then it just might be a foregone conclusion. Without delving into detail, there was sufficient evidence in my dad’s case to warrant discipline – whether or not it would have changed the ultimate outcome isn’t something that I’ll ever know. But there was certainly a gross failure on the part of those who should have done something.
Weren’t we talking about Keynes though?
LikeLike
meant to say *aren’t many emotional affairs*
Jeff, I don’t eat Wheaties, but I’ll try downing that first cup of coffee tomorrow with a seer.
LikeLike
Jeff, I know you backed away from reading the motivation of the surgeon. But I wonder if you consider how when you shoot from your hip (or your heart) you sometimes do say things from which you need to back away. So I understand that you backed away. I’m still wondering why you said that “the point” of the exchange was reading the surgeon’s heart. My own sense is that people who spend a lot of time thinking about motivation, or thinking that the Bible points toward lots of introspection, end up thinking they can tell motivations or worldviews.
And while I see that Scripture talks about motivation, I also think the Bible speaks of wisdom. And being wise in my book means figuring out how the world works, not how my motivations or presuppositions line up. The latter are legitimate, but not if it makes you unfit for life in the real world. So, for instance, I am teaching a course on Christian and politics and some students think that the U.S. is hostile to religion. If you divide the world according to motivations, that may make sense. But if you actually look at the law and formal structures, you see that Christians have incredible freedom to practice their religion and that some of the state’s laws reflect an effort to accommodate sticky religious diversity.
This also applies to plumbing. I think I’d be more inclined to hire a Christian plumber who read the Bible less and fixed more leaks. I mean, the creation is good. Why do we need to spend a lot of time figuring out if our handling of creation is pure when we still are ignorant about the way it works.
LikeLike
Zrim, it’s because you’ve long painted my position on matters like these as anti-2K, and that you are carrying the 2K torch. So I cite paradigmatic 2Kers. When you stop your tactic I’ll stop mine. I also allow poeple their political output. You have to constantly employ rhetoric like that to avoid my actual argument. But here’s where I’m most interested: I cited the Confession in support of my argument. Are you saying you disagree with the Confession? Are you saying you disagree with my argument? If so, show that it is either invalid or unsound. If you cannot, you must accept the conclusion.
As far as the emotional affir, here’s the deal: we need to define precisely what is going on. When this first came up between Zrim and I, the position wasn’t “spending a lot of time with a member of the opposite sex.” That’s hopelessly ambiguous. The way this started was over *lust* and desiring another woman (or man) sexually. Zrim had said that as long as no action (like a physical affair) had been committed, a church could do nothing. In our original story, we knew what was going on (so it wasn’t about guessing hidden motives), and the spouse continued to engage in adultery of the heart. As with my argument for violating the 6th if you cast a vote for abortion to be/stay legal (in our specific scenario), Zrim said that since no physical sin had taken place, a church can do nothing. Zrim furthermore said that all men lust and so we would have to discipline the entire church. To which I responded that that move was a failure since the debate we agreed on was (a) we know about this person’s lust and (b) it is repeated and there is a failure to repent.
Now that I have laid out our original debate, what say you (Michael Mann or whoever)? Zrim is doing here what he does in our abortion debate: trying to argue via labeling. If he can change it to “spend too much time,” then he thinks he can wiggle out of matters. But I’m interested in our original debate. If Zrim wants to admit I was correct in that original debate, okay. And I will grant him that given a vague and ambiguous “spending too much time” there is not much room for punishment. But let’s note that that wasn’t the terms of the original debate.
LikeLike
DGH: But I wonder if you consider how when you shoot from your hip (or your heart) you sometimes do say things from which you need to back away.
It’s a partially fair criticism. On the one hand, you are correct: I am not the absolute best of writers, and there are times when I fail to say what I mean. And further, there are times when ideas haven’t really been polished in my brain, and our exchanges sometimes get at that. So point for you.
On the other hand, it is frequently the case that you represent my position less according to what I actually say and more according to what I seem to think. And when you do so, I find myself having to use different words to explain things a different way so that you won’t misunderstand. In other words, some of what is going on is that I am defending against conclusions jumped to.
So for example:
Jeff, I know you backed away from reading the motivation of the surgeon.
You sure didn’t acknowledge it when you told me that I thought I could read the surgeon’s heart. It was a flat misrepresentation, and I’m very uncomfortable with the fact that your words now suggest that you *knew* it at the time.
DGH: And while I see that Scripture talks about motivation, I also think the Bible speaks of wisdom. And being wise in my book means figuring out how the world works, not how my motivations or presuppositions line up.
I agree. That’s why I teach science.
Look, I’m sorry that my talk of motivations bugs you, but if you look at my actual words, you don’t see a whole lot of naval-gazing going on. I put forward a simple proposition: in Scripture, motives and actions are distinct but inseparable.
There’s no hint of the kind of wild flights of fancy that you’re projecting on to me.
LikeLike
DGH: This also applies to plumbing. I think I’d be more inclined to hire a Christian plumber who read the Bible less and fixed more leaks. I mean, the creation is good. Why do we need to spend a lot of time figuring out if our handling of creation is pure when we still are ignorant about the way it works.
You’re not getting what I’m saying at all.
Walk down the thought process: If we glorify God in our plumbing (as opposed to while we plumb), then it follows that we must work heartily in our plumbing, as to the Lord. And also, that our plumbing will be for the love of neighbor.
And if our work is hearty and our motive is to love our neighbor, it will necessarily follow that we will be zealous to do a good job plumbing — else, it is not service to neighbor, but something else.
And if we are zealous to do a good job plumbing, it will necessarily follow that we will be zealous to learn the mechanics of actual plumbing.
My motivated actor doesn’t spend time thinking about his motivations; he spends time thinking about getting the job done.
It’s the same thing with a loving spouse. As a husband, I don’t spend time thinking about how much I love my wife. Rather, I spend time (when at my loving-est) thinking about what she needs and how to meet those needs.
You’ve confused “motivation” with “thinking about motivation”, and for that reason, you have completely misunderstood what’s going on here.
LikeLike
Mark, the Bible clearly sets normative moral standards by which the personal actions of all believers, from magistrates to peasants, can be measured.>/i>
Zrim, I asked a broad question, but it appears you qualified the answer by adding the word “believers”. Just to be clear, are you saying these Biblical normative moral standards cannot be used to measure the actions of unbelievers?
LikeLike
Paul, the scenario became “spending too much time” because that is all that can be seen; an adulterous heart cannot be observed, much less proven. Sure, there is sin that is not observable but there are limits to church discipline. If such a man came as his own accuser – admitting to an adulterous heart – it could be dealt with as church discipline.
So, attitudes of the heart, while not necessarily exempt, are rarely going to be the subject of church discipline.
You and Zrim will have to sort out what this does to your discussion.
LikeLike
I asked a broad question, but it appears you qualified the answer by adding the word “believersâ€. Just to be clear, are you saying these Biblical normative moral standards cannot be used to measure the actions of unbelievers?
Mark, yes, because part of this involves matters of jurisdiction. I am saying that the Bible is the church’s book. Unbelievers have general revelation and, per Paul, it is sufficient, as sufficient to govern civil affairs as the Bible is to govern ecclesiastical ones (i.e. sola scriptura). The only people who get the Bible’s imperatives are those who enjoy its indicatives.
Anyway, everything turns on “same as.†I’ve only argued that it is a violation of the general equity of the 6th commandment, per the Larger Catechsim.
Paul, you are treating the man who votes to keep abortion legal the same as the woman who gets one or the man/woman who performs one. You say that all three have violated the sixth. I agree the latter two have but not the former. And you can offer up all the sophisticated logic, philosophy and ethics all you want to explain why the first is “not the same as” the second two, but at the end of the day you are punishing the former the same as you are punishing the latter. I doubt very much all that elaborate reasoning would matter much to Bob since he’s being treated the same way. Or don’t you think treatment and regard are that closely related? I sure do.
LikeLike
Michael: So, attitudes of the heart, while not necessarily exempt, are rarely going to be the subject of church discipline.
I think this is oversimplified. I greatly appreciate your desire to “ground” this in a real situation, and I want to continue in that vein.
For one thing, as we all know, people ultimately don’t get excommunicated for adultery. They get excommunicated for being “contumacious” in their adultery — that is, visibly stubborn and unrepentant.
It seems to me that the attitude of the heart is right there as a subtext of what’s happening in discipline. Rather than being absent, or rarely present, the motive is the underlying issue, as reflected in the action.
LikeLike
It is oversimplified, Jeff. Maybe I should have said “attitudes of the heart per se.” I have focused on proof problems for sins of the heart. I think there would normally be proof problems in the given hypothetical. Attitudes of the heart are involved in every sin, but they need to be manifested in some observeable way to be the subject of discipline. You can prove theft, but not coveting in the heart per se. You can prove slander or assault, but not hatred in the heart per se. You can discipline for not coming to church services, but you had better have a lot of objective proof if you are going to discipline for coming to church with an irreverent attitude. So proof is a major issue.
Sure, contumacy is a common charge. But if it is to be brought, it will need to be based on proof, not a mere presumption that a guy has a bad attitude toward the session.
Proof, btw, is not a mere technical impediment. It is important to avoid slander and the tyrrany of those who would be quick to see evil where there may be none.
LikeLike
It seems to me that the attitude of the heart is right there as a subtext of what’s happening in discipline. Rather than being absent, or rarely present, the motive is the underlying issue, as reflected in the action.
I can’t help but wonder if the sympathies for this invented category called “emotional adultery†(and protestations against waiting to pull the trigger on folks as law breakers until they actually break a law) is a function of the relative victory of a form of Gnosticism, where the distinctions between the internal and external are cast off. Whatever else this involves, the upshot seems to be, from the human point of view, that the inner life should be treated the same as the outward life. And motivations or so-called “attitudes of the heart†become at least as important as actions. But what about the command against turning up chaff with wheat, upturning inward stones, prying into mysteries? Some might say this is how heart religion might work but not ecclesiastical religion.
Sorry, CVD, I felt like soaring for a spell.
LikeLike
Secular justice can’t eliminate all wrongdoing in its jurisdiction. Church courts can’t eliminate all wrongdoing in their jurisdiction. The attempt of either to do so will result in tyranny. Sin is a reality, and God will deal with all of it in his time and his way. Oops, was that a piece of a worldview?
The more I think about it, the more I am thumbs down on “emotional adultery” as a matter of church discipline. When the church disciplines it is saying “Thus saieth the Lord.” Though perhaps the case could be made that emotional adultery is in the penumbra of the 7th commandment, I think it would be judicial activism on the part of the church courts to prosecute on that assumption. (That’s a serious point wrapped in a little joke, btw )
There may be other ways to get at the scenario. For example, if the alleged emotional adulterer is neglecting his wife or if his actions cause trouble in the other marriage, etc. And, like I said, a one-on-one discussion about the matter would probably be a good idea.
LikeLike
MM: Attitudes of the heart are involved in every sin, but they need to be manifested in some observeable way to be the subject of discipline.
I agree with everything you say in this post, and would say that this is precisely what I’ve been feebly trying to get across: motives are not invisible, but are manifested in what we actually do.
Zrim: I can’t help but wonder if the sympathies for this invented category called “emotional adultery†(and protestations against waiting to pull the trigger on folks as law breakers until they actually break a law) is a function of the relative victory of a form of Gnosticism, where the distinctions between the internal and external are cast off.
Nice flight, but it’s mostly fancy. You don’t get Gnosticism by saying that motives matter. You get Gnosticism by saying that externals DON’T matter, or are wicked and to be despised.
So in this context, a Gnostic would say, “It doesn’t matter whether I’m actually sleeping with Jane; what matters is my heart.” OR, a Shakeristic Gnostic would say, “Of course I have an emotional attachment, but I would never sleep with Jane — that would be crass and vulgar.” (as opposed to sinful).
No one, not even your wife I’d wager, is saying either of those.
LikeLike
MM: There may be other ways to get at the scenario. For example, if the alleged emotional adulterer is neglecting his wife or if his actions cause trouble in the other marriage, etc. And, like I said, a one-on-one discussion about the matter would probably be a good idea.
Right. The sin, if sin it is, will not exist in isolation. And I think we all agree that one-on-one is the place to start.
So let’s take this as the scenario:
(1) Alice and Bob are spending time together “as friends.” (I.e., not task-related)
(2) Bob’s wife Candice asks him to stop.
(3) Bob refuses.
(4) Candice calls elder Doug, who calls Bob.
(5) Bob says the problem is all in Candice’s head.
Now what? Zrim, where would you go with this?
LikeLike
Michael, this is a convo Zrim and I have had in the past, as he referrenced earlier. It was never “spending too much time.” I have never said you can discipline sins no one (save the party and God) knows about. That’s absurd and so an uncharitable interpretation of my position. If he (or you) wants to shift the goal posts, that’s fine, but then he needs to stop saying I have a position on the location of the new goals. So, yes, as you say, if the sin *is known* then discipline may happen. Zrim disagreed with that in our original dialogue. And note here he also does when he says that no actual, physical adultery has taken place and that no civil court can do anything about “adultery of the heart.”
LikeLike
Steve,
“Paul, you are treating the man who votes to keep abortion legal the same as the woman who gets one or the man/woman who performs one.”
How so? I am saying they are both guilty of violating the general equity of the 6th commandment.
Moreover, I can’t see how you can punish the one who has it. They are politically allowed. And maybe they have some scientific and philosophical argument that states that concepti are not human persons. You’d be requiring the church to jump into scientific and philosophical interpretation. Or, do you think the Bible is a “textbook” on embryology? How now, worldviewist! 🙂
“You say that all three have violated the sixth.”
Oversimplified: I say that the Bible and the Confession say this.
“And you can offer up all the sophisticated logic, philosophy and ethics all you want”</i.
I simply quoted the Confession to a professing "Confessionalist."
But if this is going to turn into another reason- and logic-degenerating session, then that's my signal to go.
“but at the end of the day you are punishing the former the same as you are punishing the latter.”
Even civil courts do this in cases of murder-for-hire. Moreover, I would only do what I would do if there was continued, unreprentent behavior. Lastly, there will be other natural law punishments for the former than for the latter.
“I doubt very much all that elaborate reasoning would matter much to Bob since he’s being treated the same way.”
I am shocked that you think people who continue to act in public ways that violate the 6th commandment, and do so repeatedly and without repentence, should not be disciplined. Guess what, if a member of a church admits he hates some individual, and he continues to hate and refuses to repent, he too can be disciplined. On what basis? Violating the 6th.
Anyway, we’re not going anywhere on this. All I ask is that you refrain from representing my position is such uncharitable ways and purposefully casting it in as weak a light as possible so as to be able to move on without having to do the hard work of actually rebutting the argument you have been given. Deal?
LikeLike
Paul, I really don’t have an agenda in your dialogue with Zrim. I don’t think I have imputed any position to you or Zrim. I generally follow your dialogue but it would hurt my head too much to be the overseer of integrity in argumentation. I am speaking for myself without calculating whose argument is being helped or hurt.
Jeff, you say “motives are not invisible, but are manifested in what we actually do.” Motives may show themselves, but they don’t always, e.g., poker players, deceivers, stealthy people, timid people, unskilled people, etc. Probably no one has ever detected my motivation to be a power forward for the Boston Celtics. God sees all, men see in part, and sometimes we don’t see what we think we see; it’s the human condition and a boundary on church discipline. Am I addressing your issue?
LikeLike
Nice flight, but it’s mostly fancy. You don’t get Gnosticism by saying that motives matter. You get Gnosticism by saying that externals DON’T matter, or are wicked and to be despised.
Well, the way that I have always understood the Gnostic impulse was that it can go both ways, Jeff. If externals don’t matter then you either get ascetism, because by “don’t matter†it is meant that they are actually evil and the only alternative is to say that only the invisible things “matter†so pursue those only; or you get the mirror error of hedonism, because by “don’t matter†it is meant “whatever†so indulge your natural desires if you want. My point here tracks with the former, ascetism, where the “emotional†or “relational†is what’s esteemed over the “bodily†or “physical,†such that carrying on with another at the intangible level is actually sort of superior to carrying on physically, so that the physical act itself “doesn’t matter (as much)†because one has essentially been violating the important stuff even before the physical act. So, toast the sucker, even if he never committed the actual act. That’s what my wife says.
I think this is the difference between a feminine outlook that esteems the interior/experiential over the external/bodily, as opposed to a masculine which is vice versa. So you guys who agree with my wife are pansies. More Wheaties this morning, not the sarcastic kind but the half-joking-half serious, passive-aggressive sort.
(1) Alice and Bob are spending time together “as friends.†(I.e., not task-related)
(2) Bob’s wife Candice asks him to stop.
(3) Bob refuses.
(4) Candice calls elder Doug, who calls Bob.
(5) Bob says the problem is all in Candice’s head.
Now what? Zrim, where would you go with this?
Jeff, again, I’m not much for playing this game and sorting out these detailed hypo’s. Suffice it to say that I agree that real life gets very complicated, and even here there are myriad questions that are likely involved which make it hard to give an answer. I appeal to Ecclesiastes and say there is a time for everything, a time to mind one’s own business, a time admonish and a time to punish.
I will say this, though, it does seem possible that Candice is making a mountain over a molehill, unless you think a wife’s complaint is always superior and never vulnerable to error, which is more victory of the effeminate worldview.
LikeLike
MM: God sees all, men see in part, and sometimes we don’t see what we think we see; it’s the human condition and a boundary on church discipline. Am I addressing your issue?
Yes, and that’s exactly how I would think about it also. We have partial or approximate knowledge, and must move forward on that basis. What I’ve been resisting is motive-agnosticism, the notion implied in DGH’s critique.
LikeLike
Jeff, if you used language other than what is so often said of justification and sanctification, “distinct but inseparable,” I might not be as disagreeable. But really, I don’t accuse you of flights of fancy. I am simply (I think) observing dispositions and tendencies.
LikeLike
“Paul, you are treating the man who votes to keep abortion legal the same as the woman who gets one or the man/woman who performs one.â€
How so? I am saying they are both guilty of violating the general equity of the 6th commandment.
My understanding is that you’d have Bob the unrepentant voter punished, because that’s what we do with people who unrepentantly violate the law. At least, that’s what I think we do with them. But Bob hasn’t done that, he has only cast a vote. Again, I think much of this is a function of over-realizing politics to the point of saying that to act politically is to act personally.
Moreover, I can’t see how you can punish the one who has it. They are politically allowed. And maybe they have some scientific and philosophical argument that states that concepti are not human persons. You’d be requiring the church to jump into scientific and philosophical interpretation. Or, do you think the Bible is a “textbook†on embryology? How now, worldviewist!
Paul, you can’t see it because you discern everything in elaborate philosophical terms and neglect common sense; you add up merit points instead of stepping back and being discerning; you think life is about the best argument winning. But you can win an argument and still be wrong or lose it and still be right (I know, this doesn’t compute with you). But being politically allowed is not a justification for either having or performing one. I don’t care what sort of political, scientific and philosophical argument is given by those who perform or have, so no I wouldn’t be requiring the church to sort all that out. They can use those arguments in the voting booth, though, and I will oppose them there and be satisfied. I refuse to wield ecclesiastical power to bully my civil opponent.
I am shocked that you think people who continue to act in public ways that violate the 6th commandment, and do so repeatedly and without repentence, should not be disciplined. Guess what, if a member of a church admits he hates some individual, and he continues to hate and refuses to repent, he too can be disciplined. On what basis? Violating the 6th.
I’m shocked as well, because I don’t say that. Here watch: people who continue to act in public ways that violate the 6th commandment, and do so repeatedly and without repentance, should be disciplined. The question, however, is what constitutes violating the sixth. You say casting certain votes do, I disagree. I say it’s personally behaving in certain ways.
LikeLike
But Jeff, how do you do motivation without thinking about it? You don’t see any resonance with the idea of “zealous” plumbing and the integrated self that sees everything through the lens of faith? I mean, you really do sound like you want Christian plumbers not to go simply through the motions of fixing leaks but to do so to the glory of God. Well, that sure sounds like something that is intentional. Use of the word “zealous” supports that hearing.
LikeLike
Zrim: So, toast the sucker, even if he never committed the actual act. That’s what my wife says.
I’d be surprised if Mrs. Zrim were quite so cut-and-dried. But perhaps she is.
Zrim: I think this is the difference between a feminine outlook that esteems the interior/experiential over the external/bodily, as opposed to a masculine which is vice versa. So you guys who agree with my wife are pansies. More Wheaties this morning, not the sarcastic kind but the half-joking-half serious, passive-aggressive sort.
Well, it’s true that I live in a house full of girls, and that colors my world. (Cue the Fmaj7 chord)
But you’re on really shaky ground if you’re arguing that the male way to see things is correct and the female, merely pansy-ish. Might have to change your blog to the Confessional Doghouse.
And here, I’m half-joking and half-serious also. Much of the Hart-Zimrich analysis is aimed at shouting down a particular method of analysis: seeing the unity between motive and action, and aiming at describing each together with their interactions.
Instead of saying, OK, that’s one way of thinking about things, you guys jump straight to the worst possible abuses that might occur in such a system. The implicit claim, therefore, is that my method of analysis is unBiblical.
And I find that quite curious coming from a pair of guys who want to uphold liberty of conscience.
If all this really comes down to is a “male” and “female” way of looking at things (!) and trying to argue that the “female” way is wrong, wrong, wrong, well … are you really on the side of liberty?
LikeLike
DGH: I am simply (I think) observing dispositions and tendencies.
So how are “dispositions and tendencies” different from “motives”, such that you think you can observe the former, but you have no idea about the latter?
But in any event, I am serious about the “you seem to think…” language. The reason I tend to quote people in my responses is that I believe that the spoken word takes priority over paraphrase and any inferences that I might draw out of the spoken word.
So I do find it very frustrating that you gloss my words to try to get at dispositions and tendencies. Sometimes, you end up imputing tendencies diametrically opposite of what my words actually say. At other times, you read out so much into my words that I have to spend time busting the mountains back down to molehills.
Not to say that I’m blameless or always crystal-clear, but I would ask you to consider that perhaps my words require a more literal approach.
DGH: …if you used language other than what is so often said of justification and sanctification, “distinct but inseparable,â€
I would have thought you would appreciate that language. Haven’t you previously argued that justification is the motivation for sanctification? This is of a piece with that.
But if you don’t like my language, suggest some of your own, consistent with the Biblical data. I’d be happy to qualify or to adopt something better.
The point is to get it right, not to be the proud owners of correct language or the proud refuters of incorrect language. We don’t have to be locked in a death-match over this.
LikeLike
Jed,
You are absolutely clueless regarding Keynesianism.
I think I’ll put some Keynsian theorem quotes on Iron Ink.
LikeLike
Jeff, the masculine-feminine points were mainly speculation on how some things may correspond, so don’t go yelling foul yet.
But I do think there is something to the idea that the effort to make things about invisible motivation corresponds to heart religion (feminine in nature), while the satisfaction with things visible and bodily corresponds to ecclesiastical religion (masculine in nature), which seems to be what divides those in the paleo-2k camp from those from a more or less neo-Calvinist pov. The theology of glory impulse is to make what is unseen seen, after all. It is to make God say more than he does, which is really what I see in all your efforts here to parse out motivation, etc. A theology of the cross is satisfied with what is granted by faith to see, but that doesn’t mean it divorces the inward and outward.
Love and duty, for example, are not mutually exclusive, but heart religion places the accent on love while ecclesiastical accents duty. Yes, I’d like my kids to love going to church and memorize their catechism, but I require them to attend and don’t wait for them to love it. Heart religion winces at that outlook, but I fail to see how heart religion finally preserves the deposit of faith, maintains marriages and families or, as per this discussion, makes sure the innocent are protected and only the guilty prosecuted.
P.S. my home is filled with way more estrogen than testosterone, too. And, it’s “Zrimec.”
LikeLike
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.” ~John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of Peace, 1919.
LikeLike
Zrim (whom I know to be Zrimec, but I think of Zrim as your handle, zo to zpeak):
The theology of glory impulse is to make what is unseen seen, after all. It is to make God say more than he does, which is really what I see in all your efforts here to parse out motivation, etc.
Why don’t you just ask me, instead of “seeing” things that aren’t there?
What irony! You criticize me for something I don’t actually do … parse out people’s motivations … and yet you consistently use the language of “see”ing things in what I say.
Why not just stick to the plain text? I would be much more prepared to listen to a criticism based on what I say instead of what you “see.”
LikeLike
Bret,
I am afraid not hombre. If you mean I am ignorant of the Reconstructionist’s vitriolic hatred of Keynes, then OK. I haven’t read them, but I usually like reading real economists when I try to decide which approach works best. Most economists have models that you can scrutinize to see if the theory makes sense, I’d be surprised to see if Chilton or Hodge have such analysis. If they have spent sufficient time to develop an economic theory instead of plagurizing or baptizing Hayek, then I’ll read them, otherwise it would be a waste my time. Your cronies don’t count, because they are pastors and such, not trained economists. At least Hayek’s critique of Keynes is backed up with data, rather than weak inferences from what the Bible has to say about the modern economy.
Like I said earlier though, I am not Keynesian, but I am well versed enough in economics to call shennanigans on your insistence that it is theft. Wealth redistribution is not something I am in favor of. However, it is really convenient to say that it was ok in the bible, but not okay in the modern state. The fact that you are unable to separate Keynes from current economic policy, or even those who wear Keynes mantle shows that you misunderstand it Bret.
LikeLike
Bret,
Did you pull that quote from a Chilton book, or are you purposefully being misleading regarding the context of the quote?
The context of The Economic Consequences of Peace was Keynes’ critique of the Treaty of Versailles and the exorbitant reparations imposed on Germany by the Brittish & Co. after WW1, along with his analysis of the destabilized postwar economy. The passage you are quoting was giving a negative critique of how Lenin destroyed the value of the currency through inflationary policy. This was certainly not a economic policy he was in favor of – since his whole platform was the STABILIZATION !!! of the market economy, not the destruction of it.
While the validity Keynesian economics is certainly something worth discussing, it is totally ignorant to villify him. In fact, had he been able to wield more influence at Versailles, we may never have had WW2, simply because Germany would not have been subject to the debilitating reparations that humiliated the nation and flung the door wide open for the Nazi’s. The fact is, the allies of WW2 are partially responsible for creating the enemy that they paid so dearly to fight.
Now are you going to bring a qualified economic argument to the table or not?
LikeLike
Jeff, mine is a matter of interpreting what someone is saying, not seeing things that aren’t there. And to me it sure seems like you’re more interested in someone’s inward motivation than in his outward work. Again, this isn’t to say that those are mutually exclusive or to suggest “motive-agnosticism,†but only that while only God can judge both, the only thing we can judge are actual works. We have limits. You know, Creator-creature distinctions and all.
P.S. I was referring to the “Zimrich†spelling. That’s one of the most common but no less annoying butcherings. Just saying is all.
LikeLike
Zrim and Paul are starting to remind me of the Lazarus brothers from the original Star Trek series, locked in eternal combat in cyberspace. It might be interesting to see how it would go if you had a structure for resolving one of your debates. Perhaps as follows:
A fellow named Art Toukeigh votes against a constitutional amendment banning abortion. When asked why, he says he doesn’t believe it is the role of government to get involved in such things. The amendment, btw, loses by a wide margin.
Paul you could show how you would prosecute him in a church court. Bring forth your scriptures and your charges. Zrim could act as defense counsel. Paul gets an opening statement, Zrim gets an opening statement, then rebut as much as you want.
Paul, as wrongheaded as I think such a vote to be, you have a couple significant hurdles to overcome to win over the session/consistory. First, you would be arguing that someone sinned when that was not their intention, ie., the person did not say “I voted because I want more babies killed.” Second, causation could be an issue – this person’s vote was one vote among millions of others, and the vote was not close.
Zrim, the session/consistory is wondering how an abstract political philosophy can be given precedence over actual pre-born people.
It may be presumptuous for me to suggest this, but it may be a way of getting all the issues out in one dialogue rather than setting them forth piecemeal over multiple weeks in multiple blogs.
LikeLike
…the session/consistory is wondering how an abstract political philosophy can be given precedence over actual pre-born people.
MM, first a tweak, in the hypo that Paul conceives RvW is overturned, which doesn’t mean abortion is banned in every nook and cranny of the Union, rather that states are given back their sovereignty to govern themselves on this one whatever they decide, and now is put to the voters on a single-issue ballot: keep legal or outlaw?
Second, presuming this scenario, I’m not defending the vote Art casts since I oppose it. I am defending his right to cast it, just like any other vote he casts about any other matter of political policy. The fact that this one revolves around a third rail issue doesn’t change the rules about liberty of (political) conscience. It’s not a matter of giving precedence of abstract political philosophy over actual pre-born people, it’s a matter of binding someone’s conscience where God has not spoken, which is to say, God has not revealed how to vote on any particular issue.
LikeLike
Oh, yes, wow, I have been butchering the spelling. I’m sorry about that. Somehow, I latched onto the wrong spelling early on. I even wondered how it got transmuted for your handle! That was dim-witted of me.
—
Zrim: Jeff, mine is a matter of interpreting what someone is saying, not seeing things that aren’t there.
Respectfully, I have to say that this is hard to accept.
* For one thing, your interpretations are out of proportion to the evidence. I say “actions are a window into one’s motivations”, and you interpret that as “Jeff has a theology of glory impulse” and “you’re more interested in someone’s inward motivation than in his outward work” (your words above).
That leap from A to Z certainly doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the Creator-creature distinction!
* For another, your interpretations themselves are very heart-o-centric. You make pronouncements on my “impulses” and my “interests”, what I “seem to think” and “seem to believe.”
Some of this is just the nature of bloggery, so it’s not like I’m losing sleep over it. But it’s time to address the issue squarely, because you rightly profess a modest, cautious interpretation of the motives of others based on the Creator-creature distinction. So:
Dr. Zrimec, heal thyself. If it is cautious interpretation you want, begin by demonstrating it. If it is mind-reading you deplore, don’t practice it on me. If you truly believe that the motives of others are hard to read, don’t treat me as if I were an open book whose theological errors can be spotted a mile away. It’s contemptuous, maddening, and contrary to your stated beliefs.
There’s an easy way to do this. If something I say makes you think that I’m claiming to read hearts, then you can ask. “Can peoples’ motives really be read from their actions? Do you perceive true religion to be more an issue of duty or of the heart?”
Questions asked in this way do not create an aura of constant accusation hanging in the air. And they might even get me to rethink things.
That would be really helpful in improving our dialogue. And it would help us both to be more objective, less likely to jump to conclusions, in general to be sharper in our dialogue. I hope that we share those goals.
Thank you.
LikeLike
DGH: I mean, you really do sound like you want Christian plumbers not to go simply through the motions of fixing leaks but to do so to the glory of God.
I want them to be glorifying God in their plumbing.
Don’t you?
LikeLike
Jeff, an instinct or tendency is something like a verbal tick. Andy Reid, the coach of the Eagles, has a tendency to pass the ball. He says he has a motivation to run. But he passes most of the time. Call it habit.
LikeLike
Jeff, when I hire a plumber I want the leak fixed. I presume the glory of God will take care of itself.
Do you think I should only hire plumbers who are capable of glorifying God? Do only hire businesses from the Christian Yellow Pages?
LikeLike
Zrim, I’d offer an argument in response to your November 11, 2010 at 10:03 am post, but that would occassion name calling about how I “discern everything in elaborate philosophical terms and neglect common sense; you add up merit points instead of stepping back and being discerning; you think life is about the best argument winning.” We have no common ground. You won’t accept arguments and if I give you one with a valid form and true premises, you just deny the conclusion and assert you don’t have to show a problem with form or premise. If you won’t submit to the role reason plays in public discussion like this, then we simply can’t have a discussion since there is no point in me arguing for a position. But if you won’t listen to me, at least go talk to fellow Outhouse Sitter Rube. Tell him that you have an argument where you cannot show that a premise is false or that the form is invalid, but yet you still deny the conclusiuon. Other than that, I can’t help. It is interesting that you have a lower view of natural reason than even worldviewists and theonomists. Quite interesting indeed. If you don’t see the role logic plays in giving reasons, and the rules of rational discourse both parties tacitly agree to follow upon entering into a dialogue, then we really have way too much background stuff to cover that I have time for or you have interest for.
LikeLike
DGH: Do you think I should only hire plumbers who are capable of glorifying God?
Do you think the only proper way to think about plumbing is as a consumer?
LikeLike
DGH: (from previous): …what I am allergic to is people (sometimes you) who think they can read motivations (as in the surgeon who gives glory to God).
DGH: I am simply (I think) observing dispositions and tendencies.
DGH: Jeff, an instinct or tendency is something like a verbal tick.
I’m not buying. Sorry. Now, you are observing my verbal habits. Then, you were telling me what I think. Those are incompatible.
Look, I don’t actually begrudge you a certain amount of leeway to interpret and to try to understand what someone is thinking. That’s normal, it’s what we do, it’s what we must do in order to treat others with empathy.
It’s just that you’ve painted yourself into this corner by trying to dismiss any talk of motives as evidence of sinister theological tendencies (if Zrim is to believed, I’m Gnostic!). And my point is, you can’t live that way.
So please, stand down from the high ground of pure objectivism, and try to understand what I’m actually saying instead of my “tendencies and instincts.”
Pretty please?
LikeLike
MM,
In our story, it is a states right issue. The vote is a single issue vote. Something along the lines: should our state allow elective abortion, yes or no? (Details don’t really matter, things can be fixed accordingly if there are hang ups on technicalities here or there.)
My argument is based off the general equity of the 6th commandment as given in various Reformed Confessions/Catechisms. Relevant sections might be:
WLC
Q. 134. Which is the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.
Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, … and protecting and defending the innocent.
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
HC
Question 105. What does God require in the sixth commandment?
Answer: That neither in thoughts, nor words, nor gestures, much less in deeds, I dishonour, hate, wound, or kill my neighbour, by myself or by another
Question 107. But is it enough that we do not kill any man in the manner mentioned above?
Answer: No: for when God forbids envy, hatred, and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves; (a) to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness, towards him, (b) and prevent his hurt as much as in us lies; (c) and that we do good, even to our enemies. (d)
Now, if voting “Yes” isn’t a violation of the 6th commandment, assuming concepti and fetuses are human persons, then I don’t know if English language has much meaning anymore. Voting “Yes” quite clearly, as plain as the nose on one’s face, “tends to the desctruction of life of any.”
However, if the above is not enough to demonsrate my point, since we’re agreed that the fetus is a human, then we can stick any human into the same situation; and, if one is not to be ethically arbitrary, the claim that one may vote for the murder of concepti and not be subject to any admonishment or discipline (depending on cases) would translate to cases where a Christian votes to allow citizens of a state to murder Bob (because society and science and philosophy has found some arbitrary reason for not counting him as a human person), a 35 yr. old father of 3. If Zrim claims this political vote can be disciplined or admonished, then he cannot consistently say the vote to allow members of society to murder “the least of these” is not so subject.
LikeLike
Notice, the duties of the sixth commandment requite the believer to undertake:
“all . . . lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all . . . practices which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.”
Notice that if this came to a vote in the situation Zrim and I agreed to, then voting “No” would be undertaking a “lawful endeavor.” Since abortion is a “practice” that “tends to the unjust taking of life,” and since the fetus is, as agreed by Zrim and I, a human person, then the fetus fits into “any.” To vote “Yes” would be a clear violation of the sixth commandment as layed out by the LC. it would not be “resisting” a “practice” that “tended to the unject taking of life.”
The argument:
[1] For any action, x, if x tends to the unjust taking of any person’s life, x violates the 6th commandment. (Confessional statement)
[2] Abortion tends to the unjust taking of the life of human persons. (premise)
[3] Therefore, abortion is a violation of the 6th commandment (from 1 & 2).
[4] If any x is a violation of the 6th commandment, all Christians have a 6th-commandment-duty to undertake all lawful endeavors to perserve the lives of humans killed by x and lawfully resist all practices that tend to the taking of the lives of any human by x. (Confessional premise)
[5] Therefore, all Christians have a 6th-commandment-duty to undertake all lawful endeavors to perserve the lives of humans killed by abortion and lawfully resist all practices that tend to the taking of the lives of humans killed by abortion (from 3 & 4).
[6] Voting against the allowance of abortion [in our scenario] is a lawful endeavor that perserves the lives of humans killed by abortion and lawfully resists a practice that tends to the destruction of the lives of humans killed by abortion . (premise).
[7] Therefore, all Christians have a 6th-commandment-duty to vote against the allowance of abortion [in our scenario]. (from 5 & 6).
[8] To fail to keep a 6th-commandment-duty is to violate the 6th commandment. (premise)
[9] Voting for abortion [in our scenario] is to fail to keep the 6th commandment (from 7 & 8).
[10] Therefore, all Christians who vote for abortion [in our scenario] violate the 6th commandment. (from 8 & 9).
So, Zrim, since valid arguments are truth preserving, i.e., if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, then you must either show where the above argument is invalid or where it is unsound. If you cannot, reason compells you to accept the premise.
LikeLike
Paul,
Zrim is at the advantage when you chase his ignoring you
He is at his worse when you just lay your logical argument out
Zrim, cannot defeat you logically, unless you give him room (to lay Zrim out at 35k, which is he wants you to do)
LikeLike
Jeff, you’re beginning to just plain lose me, sorry. But maybe I can redeem myself and the conversation a tad, take your own advice and give you what you want me to give you by asking you what you propose: Can peoples’ motives really be read from their actions? Do you perceive true religion to be more an issue of duty or of the heart?
(In my own defense, though, when you finally externally expressed your inward belief that general revelation is insufficient to govern civil tasks, it wasn’t a surprise based upon the things you had actually said prior to that. Before you admitted it I was thinking it was likely the case because people who talked the way you did usually end up saying the same thing about GR. I wasn’t divining your inward belief, just piecing together outward stuff.)
LikeLike
So, Zrim, since valid arguments are truth preserving, i.e., if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, then you must either show where the above argument is invalid or where it is unsound. If you cannot, reason compells you to accept the premise.
Paul, I know this will drive you nuts, but this is simply a carefully crafted argument to bind consciences where God is silent. I can imagine just about any answer to any political question can be determined in the same way. But the premise of mine that you are constantly up against is the rejection that to act politically is to act personally. I know that’s not nearly good enough for you, but I cannot bring myself to bind a conscience where God is silent.
I understand that we are duty bound to preserve life, but I also think we owe as much to the liberty of believers. Your argumentation doesn’t seem to want to do much justice to the latter; it’s almost as if there is no such thing as political liberty in this whole train of thought. And this is the point I was trying to make to you the other day at my place: from the premise that the only thing that holds the world together is a good argument, you seem to want to find out where the greatest moral merits lie in a given scenario and forget about other worthwhile considerations. I understand that makes the lives we all live much easier, to locate the spot that seemingly has the greatest moral valuation and then carefully craft an argument that completely edges out other questions, but I just happen to think life is way more complex than that. You mention preservation of truth. In this hypothetical, I don’t see why you can’t be satisfied with my civil vote being just like yours in order to preserve life and my refusal to discipline Art in order to preserve liberty.
James, how do you know what I want, are you reading my heart?
LikeLike
Okay, Zrim, there’s nothing else to say then. Since logic is the precondition of reasonable dialogue, and you refuse to play by its rules, then reasonable dialogue is impossible with you. Parties to reasonable debate tacitly agree to follow the rules and dictates of reason. You are not arguing in good faith, then. You have said you’re not an irrationalist, or an anti-intellectualist, but for those who understand rules governing rational discourse, you have disproven your claims. Given your dismissal of logic, you have cut off dialogue since I cannot offer you any reasons (in the form of an argument) for my position. You take a valid argument with true premises and deny the conclusion. But if you do that, you really have no basis to trust any of your beliefs since the reasons you hold them for are, apparently, not truth preserving, and so don’t imply your conclusion. Given your distrust of logic and reason, your worldviewist/transformationalist/theonomist slip is showing.
Moreover, even your excuse to avoid my argument is fraught with problems. I showed “by good and necessary consequence,” that God has spoken on this matter. If that case doesn’t work for you, then you have a real problem: there is no verse you have that unambiguously and indefeasibly tells us the beginning of life. Jews had no idea of life at conception because they didn’t even understand it, and so no verses even speaks to that matter. Thus your requirements are too strong, viz., you cannot say jack to the woman who chooses to have an abortion. Moreover, the Confession doesn’t tell us when life begins. And as Darryl Hart says (though he was speaking about worldviews): “If the Confession doesn’t cover it, maybe it’s not important.”
LikeLike
Paul,
I have several comments about your syllogism.
First, it is not clear that a fetus is a life, such that its destruction necessarily falls within the ambit of the Sixth Commandment. The “tends to” language of the WLC refers to conduct that doesn’t directly lead to death but still diminishes the value of an extant human life, as is apparent from the context of the phrase within the sentence. Nothing in the WLC’s discussion of the Sixth Commandment suggests that the “tends to” language is intended to sweep in actions where the harm to another is speculative, such as is the case with abortion, the use of oral contraceptives, and the like.
Second, the list of sins proscribed in the WLC’s discussion of the Sixth Commandment is extensive. Even if one were to assume that your syllogism is valid, you could replace “abortion” with any of the sins that are expressly recited in the WLC. If you did that, some sins may lead you to vote for one candidate and others may lead you to vote for another. Because the act of voting is too far removed from the alleged harm, the voter finds herself in a situation where she violates the Sixth Commandment regardless of what she does.
Third, your phrase “voting against the allowance of abortion” is unclear. I’ll assume that you are referring to the enactment of statutes that would criminalize abortion. If so, your analysis takes no account of how such laws would be enforced and of what kinds of evidence would be needed to prove criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt. In voting for such laws, one would need to consider the likelihood that innocent people would be swept up in and harmed by the efforts to enforce such laws. One would also need to consider whether such laws would be so difficult to enforce that they merely become traps for the unwary. Thus, even if a voter were presented with an option of voting to enact a statute that criminalized abortion, one could probably not vote to enact such a statute without implicitly violating the Sixth Commandment in another way.
Fourth, it’s noteworthy that the WLC does not list “abortion” among its extensive list of sins that would violate the Sixth Commandment. Abortion was certainly known and practiced at that time. So, if it’s such an egregious violation of the Sixth Amendment, why does excessive meat-eating make the list but abortion doesn’t.
Fifth, my first through third points, above, illustrate why divine command ethics is useless outside of the simplest ethical situations. Even if a proposed premise, rule, or duty is valid, divine command theory simply doesn’t account sufficiently for the practicalities of how such rules/duties would be enforced and of the evidentiary requirements for prosecuting violations. Once one accounts for the practicalities of enforcement and for the complexities of human behavior, the actor inevitably finds herself stuck in a situation where she violates the rule/duty regardless of what she does. Thus, even if one can recite valid rules or duties, it’s not clear that they are of much value in determining whether a particular action is ethical or not.
LikeLike
Bob,
You’re coming in without knowing the situation.
“First, it is not clear that a fetus is a life, such that its destruction necessarily falls within the ambit of the Sixth Commandment.”
This is an agreement both Zrim and I share, and so that’s why it is taken for granted. On your objection, you should have an issue with Zrim’s position as well since he advocates for church discipline if a woman has an abortion, since he has committed murder.
“Second, the list of sins proscribed in the WLC’s discussion of the Sixth Commandment is extensive. Even if one were to assume that your syllogism is valid, you could replace “abortion†with any of the sins that are expressly recited in the WLC.”
Yes, Zrim also admitted this. Notice he said, “Here watch: people who continue to act in public ways that violate the 6th commandment, and do so repeatedly and without repentance, should be disciplined.” Furthermore, this isn’t a position where one is voting “for a candidate.” Zrim and I have agreed that this is a single issue, state’s right vote where the only issue on the ballot is whether said state will allow or disallow elective abortion in that state. And, is there any reason to assume my argument (it is not a syllogism, Bob, syllogisms have two premises and a conclusion, by definition) is invalid?
“Third, your phrase “voting against the allowance of abortion†is unclear. I’ll assume that you are referring to the enactment of statutes that would criminalize abortion.”
I am referring to the issue Zrim and I have previously agreed upon. Your concerns apply to all laws, and there is always the possibilty innocent people could get wrongly accused. This is true of our “jury” system. However, if a woman was not pregnant, she could not get accused. If a doctor did not perform an abortion, he could not be accused.
“Fourth, it’s noteworthy that the WLC does not list “abortion†among its extensive list of sins that would violate the Sixth Commandment.”
Yeah, it doesn’t list thousands of particular ways to kill, Bob. I see it doesn’t mention decapitation, are we to assume that the divines didn’t think death by decapitation wasn’t murder? Anyway, the church has long fought against infanticide and abortion:
http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html
“Fifth, my first through third points, above, illustrate why divine command ethics is useless outside of the simplest ethical situations.”
They illustrate no such thing, and DCT of ethics is a thesis about the justification of the wrong-making-properties putative ethical acts have. I would read Adams if I were you, perhaps Infinite Goods, or, read the new OUP book on DCT by Walls.
Anyway, I’m not a DCT advocate, Bob. So I’m struggling to even see the relevance of your comment.
LikeLike
As I have said before about many 2Kers, there are many who have questionable views on the life of the fetus. Darryl Hart banned several of my comments because he said my saying that was “slander.” But now we have Bob saying it. I’d like people to note it:
“First, it is not clear that a fetus is a life, such that its destruction necessarily falls within the ambit of the Sixth Commandment.”
LikeLike
To go along with my link above, I’d also recomment Abortion in the Early church:
Also, in the ESV study Bible, under the ethics section, there is an overview of early Christian literature opposing abortion.
E.g.,
“Early Christian Literature
Against the bleak backdrop of Roman culture, the Hebrew “sanctity of human life†ethic provided the moral framework for early Christian condemnation of abortion and infanticide. For instance, the Didache 2.2 (c. A.D. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.†Another noncanonical early Christian text, the Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. A.D. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.†There are numerous other examples of Christian condemnation of both infanticide and abortion. In fact, some biblical scholars have argued that the silence of the NT on abortion per se is due to the fact that it was simply assumed to be beyond the pale of early Christian practice. Nevertheless, Luke (a physician) points to fetal personhood when he observes that the unborn John the Baptist “leaped for joy†in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth came into the presence of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus at the time (Luke 1:44).
More than merely condemning abortion and infanticide, however, early Christians provided alternatives by rescuing and adopting children who were abandoned. For instance, Callistus (d. c. A.D. 223) provided refuge to abandoned children by placing them in Christian homes, and Benignus of Dijon (3rd century) offered nourishment and protection to abandoned children, including some with disabilities caused by unsuccessful abortions.”
LikeLike
Brother Zrim,
You don’t need to redeem yourself (done 2k years ago!), and you don’t owe me a pound of flesh. I am trying to
(1) request a change in conversational method, for the sake of peaceable conversation.
The phrases “You seem to think…” or “You seem to believe…” and other phrases that tell me my mental state are OK every once in a while, but as a verbal pattern, they are offensive. I can spell that out in detail offline if you’d like, but I probably don’t need to.
(2) hold up a mirror and show that your criticism of me as supposedly obsessed with motives, actually applies much more to you than to me.
If you believe I’m incorrect on that point, then I can live with that. But if you do reject the criticism, I request that you go back and look at what you say and just observe the number of times that you use phrases that describe my mental state.
And no, I don’t think you have got my position on sufficiency of natural law quite right, either. At least, you’ve not been able to articulate it in a form that I recognize. But even if you have got it right, one success is not the basis for a whole practice.
I’m reminded of my students who say, “Well, I didn’t study for that one test and I got a B, so why study for the rest?”
—
I think your two questions are good ones, and I’ll get to them later today.
LikeLike
Paul,
I am not persuaded by your syllogism either because it is unreal. If there was a vote whether God should punish murderers, then yes, a vote against would deny God’s revealed word about his character. But in law and politics we are dealing with sinners enforcing law against sinners, which introduces so many variables that it must call for liberty of conscience.
Laws need standards of enforcement. What if you disagree with the enforcement? In theory, based on Gen. 9, I am for the death penalty. But I can imagine many scenarios, based on who was enforcing it and how, where I would vote no if asked.
What if an abortion bill law included a 10-40 year sentence for women who obtain an abortion? I can imagine a Christian father of a daughter who got an abortion, the daughter lives every day regretting that decision while suffering awful consequences, both emotionally and physically, and thinking to himself, “I cannot vote for a law that puts my daughter in jail for twenty years. Maybe a better bill will be introduced I can vote for.”
Another believer might be convinced that abortion needs to stop, but believes certain laws in the long run will not help, but actually hurt. You may not agree with the reasoning but hardly a matter of church discipline.
Finally, the view expressed by Bob, in years past, was not one that needed to cause others to question his faith or committment to Scripture. You might read the OPC Minority Report on abortion http://opc.org/GA/abortion.html where Paul Woolley was allowed to express his view without anyone calling for discipline because an ordained man held such a view. Thank God for liberty of conscience.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, are you saying these Biblical normative moral standards cannot be used to measure the actions of unbelievers?
Mark, yes, because part of this involves matters of jurisdiction. I am saying that the Bible is the church’s book. Unbelievers have general revelation and, per Paul, it is sufficient, as sufficient to govern civil affairs as the Bible is to govern ecclesiastical ones (i.e. sola scriptura). The only people who get the Bible’s imperatives are those who enjoy its indicatives.
And this is where I see the parting from *revised* Belgic 36, which in a broad principial manner, clearly maintains the Word of God as setting the normative standard for evaluating obedience to the magistrate’s rule.
LikeLike
Todd: But in law and politics we are dealing with sinners enforcing law against sinners, which introduces so many variables that it must call for liberty of conscience.
You may be right. But I guess the question that you leave me with is this:
For every issue, are there always so many variables that there is always liberty of conscience?
—
What do you make of the fact that God judges nations other than Israel for their sins? Does that not imply that those nations should have ordered their affairs more justly?
LikeLike
I think we have run the gambit of the sticky issues involved in the abortion debate. The issue now with Zrim and Paul seems to be with “binding the conscience” in regards to the private act of voting on the abortion issue. Zrim refuses to admit that Paul’s reasoned argument that voting for abortion violates the implications of the 6th commandment and should be cause for binding the conscience of the individual. If the person was found to be voting for abortion they should be exhorted by the Church and if they still are found to not have changed their mind they should be put under Church discipline. I understand Zrim’s reluctance to go there. This is the type of thing that turns Churches into places full of congregants who are constantly watching others for signs of disobedience. I understand that this can done in the spirit of I am just watching out for my brothers soul but it rarely is done in that spirit. We have a tendency to kind of take pleasure in pointing out others sins.
That is the problem I had with reconstructionists, charismatics and the transformational reformed. They were good at pointing out sin but in all the years I read their materials I rarely heard the Gospel explained and articulated clearly on a regular basis. The emphasis was more on the Law then the Gospel when fighting the sin in the persons life.
I tried to attend some Reformed Churches in the Lake County, Indiana area when I lived there and was on my 10 year hiatus from Church. I knew I was in the wrong here (not going to Church) but it was difficult to find a Church whose teaching I was sure was biblically and reformationally correct when driving back and forth every weekend from the Chicago area to the Grand Rapids area where my kids lived. The couple Reformed Churches I attended were affiliated with the Mid American Reformed Seminary. I was never comfortable enough with the Pastor’s and the congregants to decide that I should become a member. And I had gone through an inquisition at the Charismatic Non-Denominational Church I attended when going through my divorce. I was very close to the Pastor and it was a very difficult thing to go through- especially when 5 kids were involved. The divorce was not a quickly decided matter either (we had gone through 2 years of marriage counseling together).
So, I ended up at Lutheran Church probably due to the persuasion of Rod Rosenbladt when listening to his teaching on repentance, faith and absolution. The Pastor of the Lutheran Church I attend has been extremely helpful in guiding me through my issues. This is why I side with the confessionalist whose emphasis is on the Gospel. And yes I do understand that you have to preach the whole counsel of God.
LikeLike
Paul, as others have pointed out, what you have actually shown is that when it comes to certain political issues there is no such thing as liberty of conscience, or at least the rules get re-written for liberty, and I don’t see what is to keep that from happening to any other political issue. I happen to think that this issue is a good one to see how liberty of political conscience fares these days, and if your argumentation is any measure, it looks sort of bleak to me. What you’ve shown is that you and I share a political answer to a political question, but unlike me you want our shared political answer to enjoy ecclesiastical sanction.
And to the extent that this is a form of legalism, I think John is onto something about the upshot of it: peering into peoples’ lives and upturning inward stones to see where they are running afoul.
LikeLike
And this [special revelation is for believers, general is for unbelievers] is where I see the parting from *revised* Belgic 36, which in a broad principial manner, clearly maintains the Word of God as setting the normative standard for evaluating obedience to the magistrate’s rule.
Mark, I take it you mean the following revised text:
“Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.â€
Is “everyone†and “we†inclusive of unbelievers? That seems dubious, given that the very nature of confessional formulation is to speak for its adherents, which would seem to only be believers. But Moses descended to the Israelites alone, not the Israelites and their surrounding neighbors. Israel gets the Decalogue, the Egyptians get the Code of Hammurabi.
LikeLike
Now, how about a debate on whether Keynesian economics violates the 6th commandment and whether someone who votes for a Keynesian should be placed under Church discipline. I kind of already went through this when I was attending Calvin Colleges Business and Economic Program. I became good friends with one of the professors there who believed that there was some merit in what the Keynesian’s were saying but was not totally convinced with all their ideas. He also had problems with their being a Christian view of economics. I went into the program persuaded that the Austrians had the last word on economics but left with reservations on what they were saying too.
I had already heard the Keynesian/Hayek rap; that ranks right up there with the rap on the Heidelberg confession over at Scott Clark’s Heidelblog. But a Econ professor doing stand up comedy beats them all.
Subject: Ten Principles of Economics – Translated
LikeLike
Paul, a member of the consistory/session is sympathetic to your position, but he is trying to work through a couple difficulties. First, in Art Toukeigh’s mind, he was not intending on harming babies, he was intending to effect a limited state power, or some other political end. Second, since he merely cast one, non-determinative vote, it is not clear that Art’s action has made any contribution at all toward any abortion.
Can you think of some other situation meriting discipline in which the alleged sin is a) not the intended goal of the accused, and b)is not really effectuated by the accused.
Of course, if you find these questions themselves flawed, you may point it out to the session/consistory.
BTW, what sanction do you propose? Admonishment? Excommunication?
Sorry, I cannot stay in the loop today.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ll answer if you answer my question. The point is that your position is very close to those who use the Christian Yellow Pages. Maybe that’s fine with you. But those pages disregard a long tradition in the Christian church of emphasizing what believers and unbelievers have in common.
LikeLike
Hi Todd,
“I am not persuaded by your syllogism either because it is unreal.
(Guys, as I mentioned to Bob, I did not offer a syllogism. A syllogism is an argument with only 3 propositions, 2 of which are premises, one of which is the conclusion. Syllogisms have given way to more powerful systems of logic. Almost all of my premises can not be translated into Aristotelian form.)
Just so you kow, in logic, there are two ways to disagree with the conclusion of an argument: deny it’s validity, deny the truth of one of the premises. What you (and Bob) are failing to consider is that this is a thought experiment agreed to by both Zrim and myself. Since Zrim is of the position that there is no possible scenario in which a church may discipline a member for a political vote, then I am free to use any possible scenario to rebut his view. Possible scenarios are judged by the laws of logic such that an impossible scenario is one in which a contradiction obtains.
“But in law and politics we are dealing with sinners enforcing law against sinners, which introduces so many variables that it must call for liberty of conscience.”
Yes, this is true, but I don’t see you objecting to any and all laws. When a man murders his wife and kids, he is dealt with with sinners who enforce a law against another sinner.
“Laws need standards of enforcement. What if you disagree with the enforcement? In theory, based on Gen. 9, I am for the death penalty. But I can imagine many scenarios, based on who was enforcing it and how, where I would vote no if asked.”
I am struggling to see the point here as to how it bears on any of my premises. Look, Zrim believes that the fetus is a human person. Zrim also believes that if it is aborted then it has been murdered. Zrim furthermore believes that if a female member of a church has an abortion, she may be disciplined. How do your comments have force against me but not against Zrim?
What you and Bob need to consider is that Zrim and I have an agreed upon scenario and I am making an argument from Confessional premises he supposedly endorses, some common sense premises, and the rest inferences from those premises. If neither you nor Bob share the context of dialogue Zrim and I do, that’s fine, but I’d make different arguments with you guys.
“What if an abortion bill law included a 10-40 year sentence for women who obtain an abortion? I can imagine a Christian father of a daughter who got an abortion, the daughter lives every day regretting that decision while suffering awful consequences, both emotionally and physically, and thinking to himself, “I cannot vote for a law that puts my daughter in jail for twenty years. Maybe a better bill will be introduced I can vote for.â€
Todd, in my scenario, the crime for a woman would fit under murder-for-hire laws. We already have these laws on the books. That a Christian father might think this is totally irrelevant to the normative, ethical, and legal issues here. I am sure the father would not like to see his daughter get life if she hired a man to kill her neighbor, but that’s the law. His daughter did wrong. Now, since Zrim and I (and you?) agree that the fetus is a human person, then there is no morally relevant difference between her hiring a man to kill her neighbor, Pete, and her hiring a man to kill her baby, Franky.
Moreover, this would not be an ex post facto law, so his daugther would not be punished. (And I also wonder where the outrage for the victims are in your scenario.)
“Another believer might be convinced that abortion needs to stop, but believes certain laws in the long run will not help, but actually hurt. You may not agree with the reasoning but hardly a matter of church discipline.
First, the laws that are already on the book would be used (murder, murder for higher). Second, whatever moral problems the voter has with the particular laws pale in comparison to the moral problems of her allowing babies to be murdered all because she wants to see some particular penal theory implemented. She lives in a society wich, presumably, already practices the penology she disagrees with, so there would be nothing to loose and everything to gain. But apart from this, this does not show any premise of mine to be false.
“Finally, the view expressed by Bob, in years past, was not one that needed to cause others to question his faith or committment to Scripture.”
I have not questioned his faith committment. Where did I do that and why would you say I did that?
“You might read the OPC Minority Report on abortion http://opc.org/GA/abortion.html where Paul Woolley was allowed to express his view without anyone calling for discipline because an ordained man held such a view. Thank God for liberty of conscience.”
Thanks, I am aware of this report and have read it. My position does not entail that people can’t have their “views.” My position stops them from taking *action* on those views. Are you suggesting Paul Woolley would be allowed to kill an infant? Surely not. But, is Paul Woolley free to hold to, say, Peter Singer’s arguments on the matter? Surely so.
Furthermore, your position here would allow liberty of conscience for a woman to have an abortion. But Zrim is against this, so you have a problem with him binding conscience, then. This is fine since this is a concession I wanted Zrim to make. I claim it is a consequence of his position, but he continues to deny this.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’d say you’ve upped the ante yourself by saying that I dismiss ANY talk of motives and regard them as SINISTER. I actually believe that most people who talk about motives are sincere. But the road to faulty faucets is paved with sincerity.
I don’t know what’s so bad about tendencies and instincts, or why they should be regarded as SINISTER. I have tendencies and instincts, as I’m sure you can tell. One of yours is to find biblical support for most of what Christians do. Why not own up so I don’t have to stand down?
LikeLike
Zrim and Mark, yes I fear that in Mark’s formulation of the Christian society and magistrate unbelievers may not live as members. Why an attorney can’t see this I do not know.
LikeLike
Mark, I take it you mean the following revised text:
“Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.â€
Is “everyone†and “we†inclusive of unbelievers? That seems dubious, given that the very nature of confessional formulation is to speak for its adherents, which would seem to only be believers. But Moses descended to the Israelites alone, not the Israelites and their surrounding neighbors. Israel gets the Decalogue, the Egyptians get the Code of Hammurabi.
Yes, that is the text. Unless words have lost all meaning, it is not dubious to say that “everyone regardless of status, conditon or rank” means *everyone*– which includes unbelievers. Under your construction, unbelievers would not be required to submit to governing authorities.
The key phrase is that such obedience {by everyone} is conditioned upon such rule not being contrary to the Word of God. There is no caveat in the confession that says the existence of this standard depends on whether the magistrate is a Christian. There is no caveat that says the existence of this standard depends on whether the peasant is a Christian.
The Reformed confess an eternal standard revealed in a Book that applies to EVERYONE in evaluating the action.
LikeLike
Michael Mann,
“Paul, a member of the consistory/session is sympathetic to your position, but he is trying to work through a couple difficulties. First, in Art Toukeigh’s mind, he was not intending on harming babies, he was intending to effect a limited state power, or some other political end. Second, since he merely cast one, non-determinative vote, it is not clear that Art’s action has made any contribution at all toward any abortion.
Would it matter to you if the vote were determinate? It doesn’t to Zrim. So why act as if this is a point that can rebut my argument. I’ll simply, to satisfy incidental details, make it into a situation where the determinate vote is caste. Zrim still says it is no problem. Moreover, it does not matter if Art was not intending to harm babies (apparently Art is rather slow). Intent isn’t sufficient for guilt or innocence.
Anyway, what say you to this session:
On an Island nation there are 22 people there, all of whom are citizens. There are 11 non-Christians, and 11 Christians. There is a Reformed church there, call it the OPCA, and all the Christians are members of it.
Now, due to various scientific and philosophical arguments (say based on considerations like size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency on others), there are some relevant person-making properties laid out as necessary and sufficient. As things go, one of the citizens, Sam, is found to lack some of these person-making properties, and so many on the Island to claim he is not a human person. Furthermore, it is shown, via statistical data (or, proofiness), that Sam is a burden on the lives of others, keeping the entire Island from it’s full economic and social potential. So there is a proposal to allow citizens of the Island to kill those in this deplorable state, those lacking the conjunction of the relevant person-making properties.
But, being a democratic society, they put matters to a vote. Since Sam, as it happens, is not a Christian, this means there are 10 non-Christians voting, and 11 Christians. As it works out, all 10 non-Chrisians vote to allow the state to kill those who lack the relevant person-making properties. Now, 10 Christians have voted against this(citing their Confession of faith and views drawn from their Bible). One Christian has yet to vote, his name is Ace. Ace, being two kingdoms and also enamored by all the “book larnin” of the elites, ponders things and finds the arguments from the elite philosophers and scientists persuasive. So Ace steps forward and votes that the state may kill those who lack the relevant person-making properties (it so happens that Sam does lack these properties and is the only known person to lack them, but there may be others down the road). Indeed, Ace doesn’t intend for Sam to be killed, that’s an unintended byproduct. What he really wants is the scientific and philosophical understanding of the world to be enforced, hating that backwoods fundamentalism of his father and mother. The vote goes through, and the state kills Sam, ridding itself of this economic and social dead weight.
So Sam dies . . .
Now, the session wants your healp, Michael. What do you recommend they do with Ace? What sanction do you propose? Admonishment? Excommunication?
LikeLike
“If the person was found to be voting for abortion they should be exhorted by the Church and if they still are found to not have changed their mind they should be put under Church discipline. I understand Zrim’s reluctance to go there. This is the type of thing that turns Churches into places full of congregants who are constantly watching others for signs of disobedience.”
Slippery slopes aside… of course, Zrim thinks we should punish and discipline a woman who has an abortion. Apparently Zrim is in favor of things that turn churches into places full of congregants who are constantly watching others for signs of disobedience.
LikeLike
Todd, let’s keep in mind the report you cite is written in the 1970s! A lot has changed in biology and embryology since then. Woolley’s claims need an updated defender. At best he made whatever point he made by calling it a “fertilized egg.” This egg has it’s own unique human DNA, is self-directed and goal directed, meets all the criteria of “life,” and so is a living member of the species homo sapien. Even Peter Singer grants that the conceptus is living and is a living human being. The only debate, then, would be *personhood,* and I don’t see how Woolley could make the argument go through here. He’d need to invoke, as Singer does, the concept of a human being that is not a person. But this totally destroys Reformed anthropology, because then being made in the image of God is not what is *unique* to all humans. Moreover, all the other criteria of personhood would allow for others besides concepti to be killed. It is exceedingly difficult to point to some “point” when the fetus gains “personhood.” Lastly, Kevin Corcoran, and others, have submitted powerful arguments that it is immoral to kill living human beings, whether they be human persons or not.
LikeLike
My position does not entail that people can’t have their “views.†My position stops them from taking *action* on those views.
So, people may have their political views until it comes time to put them into political action? Look, I don’t claim to understand how someone can bifurcate himself by morally opposing abortion but politically protecting it. But, similarly, I don’t understand how you can allow someone his political views but disallow him taking action on them, especially when you make the case that inward sin should be dealt with the same way outward sin should: you say if someone outwardly admits hatred for another he should be punished. Well, if he says he doesn’t have a problem with certain lives being taken why wait until he votes in a way that reflects that? But I say outwardly expressed hatred gets admonishment (when it maifests itself in bolder ways, punishment), and when either political views or actions are expressed merely politically opposed.
Furthermore, your position here would allow liberty of conscience for a woman to have an abortion. But Zrim is against this, so you have a problem with him binding conscience, then. This is fine since this is a concession I wanted Zrim to make. I claim it is a consequence of his position, but he continues to deny this.
Again, more confusion of the political with the personal. But more than that, you seem to be saying that the fault is logical instead of personal. It seems to me that all someone who is morally opposed but politically for is guilty of is inconsistent logic, not personal sin. Given your privileging of logic maybe this is really what you’re prosecuting? But since when was bad logic sinful?
LikeLike
I meant to say the 8th commandment not the 6th commandment
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, I’d say you’ve upped the ante yourself by saying that I dismiss ANY talk of motives and regard them as SINISTER … Why not own up [to having tendencies] so I don’t have to stand down?
This is substantially uncool. You’re simply wrong on the record. Back where this discussion started, in the Hollowness of Article 36, you said
Jeff, actually, we are not talking about the doctor’s relationship to God. None of us has that frame of reference and your mistake is likely that you think you do have that frame of reference either by virtue of regeneration or special revelation.
The ante was pretty high after that comment. It was an utterly unfounded and insulting accusation. I tried to give you a bit of slack so that you could retract it, but you moved right along.
Then you tried to tie me to your favorite theological bad guys. I said,
JRC: Actions and motives cannot be fully decoupled.
And you turned that into,
DGH: I also wonder about your understanding of human motivation. This is where I see an affinity between Framean biblicism and neo-Calvinism — always this search for authentic motives or beliefs which then will inform everything we do. I just don’t see many people living their lives that way. Maybe that’s wrong. But again, if the faucet is leaking I’m not sure a philosophical analysis of my motivation is a good approach.
An unremarkable and Scripturally unarguable statement by me gets twisted into evidence of “a search for authentic motives or beliefs” etc.
The ante was upped already; I just counted the coins.
If the lay of the land is that I have to “own up” so that you don’t have to back down from this, I’m not sure I want to do that. Should I? The cost to me will be to own up to your charges above (which are false) without any retraction from you. Aside from the truth issue, I might be willing to do so; but it sure would put a damper on the conversation.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’d interact further but you refuse to play by the rules of rational discourse. I also don’t find it helpful for you to simply string together a list of conclusions minus attendent arguments for those conclusions. If you could attach a “thus sayeth the Lord” to your unargued assertions, I’d listen. But since you can’t, you’re simply making assertions in search of arguments.
I will say this though, my objection is not that they are illogical, but since you ask how one can be sinful in using bad logic, I’ll simply refer you to W. Jay Wood’s, Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous for an answer.
LikeLike
I think there are a couple of good scriptural examples of those who emphasized the Law rather than the hope of the Gospel in the Old Testament and how they wanted to implement strict punishment on violaters of the Law (for the good of the person and the community of course). These examples are Caleb and the debate that arose when Solomon’s sons were fighting for power after Solomons death. I also go back to Davids dilemma when God asked him to choose a punishment for his sin of calling for a census of the people. It is interesting to me that David chose Gods punishment rather than falling into the hands of sinful people (who probably wanted to decapitate him).
LikeLike
Paul,
That’s the problem with unrealistic scenarios, there is no real way to debate them. It is a “what if” we cannot relate to. And I don’t agree with Woolley’s view of the fetus, but you did sort of call Bob out for his view.
Jeff,
“For every issue, are there always so many variables that there is always liberty of conscience?”
Not for every issue, but for every political issue. Now, it is possible how someone uses politics may be a window into their soul’s condition, but the church discipline wouldn’t be about the vote, but the heart. That’s true with anything with which we have freedom in Scripture.
—
“What do you make of the fact that God judges nations other than Israel for their sins? Does that not imply that those nations should have ordered their affairs more justly?”
God judging nations is an OT concept based upon the typology of nations outside of Israel. Once the typology has been fulfilled, in the NC we see that eternally God only judges individuals. A nation does not have a soul, a nation cannot be eternally judged, only a person can. Rev 20:12: “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.”
LikeLike
Yes, that is the text. Unless words have lost all meaning, it is not dubious to say that “everyone regardless of status, conditon or rank†means *everyone*– which includes unbelievers. Under your construction, unbelievers would not be required to submit to governing authorities.
But, Mark, consider the epistles. They are letters written to very specific people, the believers in churches. You’re forgetting the key point about jurisdiction. When I tell my daughters to obey me that doesn’t mean I don’t think my pagans neighbors’ kids are free from obeying him. It’s just that there are jurisdictional rules in place about who belongs to whom. This seems obvious, unless you make a habit yourself of telling your neighbor his kids fall under your jurisdiction to whatever degree.
The key phrase is that such obedience {by everyone} is conditioned upon such rule not being contrary to the Word of God. There is no caveat in the confession that says the existence of this standard depends on whether the magistrate is a Christian. There is no caveat that says the existence of this standard depends on whether the peasant is a Christian.
If you follow the prior point about jurisdiction, the point here isn’t to say that all people, regardless of religious status, are so duty-bound. Rather, the point is that all those who are Christian “regardless of [civil] status,†which means Christian magistrates and all the way down to Christian peasants are equally duty bound to be subject to the government, etc. Religious status of “Christian†is assumed and there is no exception for any of this dependant upon the believer’s civil status.
LikeLike
I have also fallen into the hands of the punishment of my brother who is a Willow Creeker and who runs a family business with me and does not like my Reformation Theology. He thinks folks like us and our emphasis on doctrine is ripping the body of Christ apart. I could talk about that for hours on end but I will refrain because I am trying to put it behind me. It certainly has caused financial difficulties for me.
LikeLike
JRC: “For every issue, are there always so many variables that there is always liberty of conscience?â€
Todd: Not for every issue, but for every political issue.
I’m sympathetic to this, but not sure I totally agree.
To push it further: what is the purpose of the magistrate?
LikeLike
JRC: “What do you make of the fact that God judges nations other than Israel for their sins? Does that not imply that those nations should have ordered their affairs more justly?â€
Todd: God judging nations is an OT concept based upon the typology of nations outside of Israel.
How do you know this? Not saying you’re wrong, just asking what the basis is for this belief.
So for example, there’s nothing in Amos that makes obvious that God is engaging in typological judgment. Is there?
LikeLike
And this is a real life example not a hypothetical.
LikeLike
John, I’m sorry to hear of your plight.
LikeLike
“How do you know this? Not saying you’re wrong, just asking what the basis is for this belief.”
Jeff,
Because the New Testament, which unveils the Old, teaches throughout that judgment is given to indiividuals according to what they have done.
“So for example, there’s nothing in Amos that makes obvious that God is engaging in typological judgment. Is there?”
An OT believer could live in a judged nation and suffer destruction under God’s OT national judgment, but that believer would not be eternally judged, so yes, we must distingush between an OT judgment of a nation and the eternal judgment of an individual. The NT ends those OT national categories because the typological gives way fully to the eternal. Amos ends with a prophecy of the true Israel which will never be judged, unlike OT national Israel. (Whether God brings temporary destruction in our age upon whole nations for their leaders’ sins is not revealed, but in God’s providence is surely possible.)
LikeLike
“To push it further: what is the purpose of the magistrate?”
Well, as a non-theonomist I would not say to enforce the true religion or the Bible as the lawbook of the land. That would be a misuse of Scripture and not living as aliens and strangers in this age as we are called. I would answer the same if you asked, what is the purpose of a hospital administrator? To run the hospital well, to do it ethically, treating people fairly and respectfully, and providing the best health service as possible. A magistrate is to order or lead society well according to his mandate given to him, ethically, treating people fairly and respectfully.
LikeLike
Zrim, with all due respect, you admittedly are assuming some things, and as a result, are importing language and qualifications into the Belgic that simply are not there. The jurisdictional issue addressed by the article speaks to who wields the sword, which we all agree belongs to the state. However, there is nothing in that article that limits the Bible to the jurisdiction of the church. The article states the Bible is the normative standard by which all men can evaluate the actions of the state in wielding the sword in its jurisdiction.
LikeLike
Todd, thanks for your responses.
LikeLike
Todd,
“That’s the problem with unrealistic scenarios, there is no real way to debate them.”
First, the situation is not “unrealistic,” assuming I even understand what you mean by “unrealistic.” It is “unreal” in the sense that it is not actually going on. But it is not “unreal” in the sense that it is certainly possible. It is perfectly conceivable. It’s not “unreal” in the sense that it is impossible. And, furthermore, there are ways to debate these things. Theologians and philosophers do it all the time.
“It is a “what if†we cannot relate to. And I don’t agree with Woolley’s view of the fetus, but you did sort of call Bob out for his view.
The problem is on Zrim’s end. If someone makes a claime that “there is no possible way x,” then the dialoectical context is very broad. WHat they are saying, in essence, is that there is no conceivable defeater to my position. When someone makes an austere statement like that, the open themselves up to being refuted by all manner of weird or counterintuitive defeaters.
I did not call Bob out. I simply pointed out that he publicly endorsed a view that I was censored by Hart for saying some 2Kers held to. I just wanted to point that out. I also criticized his view that because the WCF didn’t mention “abortion” that therefore they didn’t find it objectionable. I found that inference highly questionable. I also wanted to point out that the church has been against abortion since day one (and even before, see Baugh’s article in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World).
Anyway, at the end of the day I’ll just note that no premise of mine was shown to be false and the argument was not shown to be invalid. The conclusion goes through whether anyone likes it or not.
LikeLike
Paul,
Well, I could craft a hypothetical situation where a vote cast would call for church discipline. How does that help the debate whether our churches should do that in real life, which I thought was what the orginal debate was about. No?
LikeLike
Todd,
“Well, I could craft a hypothetical situation where a vote cast would call for church discipline. How does that help the debate whether our churches should do that in real life, which I thought was what the orginal debate was about. No?
Again, because Zrim said there are no such situations. The original debate was over his overreaching claims. We were never discussing a real situation. And I don’t get what you mean by “in real life?” Do you mean situations “not going on now?” Or do you mean possible situations that could occur? If the latter, it helps because the situation *could* come up. It also helps because we can set our limits using cases like this and so get an idea of where the Bible crosses over into the political and where it doesn’t. Where the Church should cross over into the political, and where it should not. I helps us sharpen the picture. It helps us find just where our disagreements, if there are any, lie. So long as someone wants to claim there can be no cases, I will construct such cases. They have given me the right to pull from all the resources of possible worlds.
I think there are no actionable issues in our current political climate (as far as I’m aware). So I’m obviously not about “confusing kingdoms” and trying to “take America back.” However, my tempered “worldviewism” (if you want to call it that) allows that there are *some* cases where the Bible would speak to these things. Zrim errs when he makes these bold and austere claims about the impossibility of their being such cases. He cannot allow this even in principle, for that would be a blow to how he has argued for his idiosyncratic view of 2K.
(Anyway, based on what you have said, and based on the OPC report, do you think Zrim is wrong for saying that a Christian woman who chooses to have an early term abortion can be punished by her elders? Perhaps she takes Bob or Woolley’s view?)
LikeLike
Paul,
Given what you said above I am not sure Zrim would even disagree. As for the early term abortion, like always with church discipline, it depends on the particuliar case; her will, knowledge, situation, repentance, etc…
LikeLike
Jeff, I apologize for giving offense. I still don’t see accusations in what I wrote. You came along in a lengthy discussion and told all of us that the discussion was about the surgeon’s relationship to God — this in the context of what actions give glory to God. When I said it wasn’t about the surgeon’s relationship to God but about how all of us — believers and non-believers — view the actions of another person, you agreed.
We clearly disagree about the import or usefulness of exploring motivations. But I didn’t say anything about sinister.
Either way, I’m not trying or hoping to offend. I regret that you have taken some.
LikeLike
Mark, so which is it? People “can,” “may,” or “must” evaluate the state on the basis of Scripture? Are you hedging?
LikeLike
Todd,
“Given what you said above I am not sure Zrim would even disagree. As for the early term abortion, like always with church discipline, it depends on the particuliar case; her will, knowledge, situation, repentance, etc…”
I’ve expressed this to Zrim several times. Zrim has never agreed with me on anything I have said, ever. As for the early term abortion, why is that? How about this situation: the girl is convinced by the philosophical arguments that a conceptus is not a person, and she finds any alledged exegesis for the fact lacking, especially since the topic is never broached. So the girl does not think she is killing a human person. She’s heard the arguments to the contrary, cites her own exegetes, and humbly disagrees with your position. May she have an abortion? Zrim flat out says “Christian Jane may’nt have an abortion.”
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, I forgive you. I’m sorry that I took offense where none was intended.
For the record, I think of people who claim special revelatory insight into others’ motives as somewhat creepy. The thought that you confused me for one of those was like being flung suddenly to a different planet.
LikeLike
Paul,
As for your debate with Zrim, I don’t know what to say. As for your question on the woman, I would never tell her she may get an abortion, I would urge her not to. The question of whether we would pursue discipline after the fact would depend, but we would take her desire to search the Bible first into account. It is very difficult to talk about what sins call for discipline because it is much more complicated than that; a session determines by expression, attitude and follow-up a repentant spirit; hard to quantify in an Internet debate.
LikeLike
Mark, so which is it? People “can,†“may,†or “must†evaluate the state on the basis of Scripture? Are you hedging?
No hedging. They may, can,and must.
I take your position to be that they may not, cannot, and must not.
LikeLike
Todd, if she did so would you say she violated the 6th commandment?
LikeLike
Zrim: Can peoples’ motives really be read from their actions?
Somewhat, badly, but the main thing is that it doesn’t matter. For the issue that drives me is NOT “How do I figure out if the other guy is glorifying God?” BUT “what am I called to do as the individual living before God?”
I can’t even determine if the plumber before me is genuinely a Christian plumber. And to what end? There’s no point to that question, much less asking whether he’s glorifying God by his faith or not.
But if I *am* the plumber, then there’s a lot of point to asking the question, How do I glorify God in my plumbing, or is that even possible?
And if I’m the plumber’s elder, then there’s a point to thinking about these questions also.
Zrim: Do you perceive true religion to be more an issue of duty or of the heart?
Both, inseparably. Our first duty is to love God with heart, soul, mind, strength. And if we love Christ, we will obey His commands. How (or why?) would you separate those?
Given the high value placed on emotion in our society, I can appreciate your desire to swing the pendulum towards duty. But an ethic of pure duty has been tried — by Immanuel Kant. While I have some appreciation for his deontologic ethics, it is generally agreed that duty is not a sufficiently Christian ethic.
The church at Ephesus was criticized for duty without heart, no?
So I would say, (true) duty and heart go together; there isn’t one without the other.
Do you disagree?
LikeLike
Paul
Good question I couldn’t say. I guess if you include motive to murder, then no, but in another sense, yes. Like I said, complicated and messy – just like ministry.
LikeLike
Paul,
Sorry for jumping in late and not recognizing the history of your discussion with Zrim. I suppose that’s bound to happen when the number of comments runs into the triple digits. Sorry too for accusing you of being an advocate of DCT. Still, I stand by my criticisms of DCT as a rather useless enterprise.
Also, I would say that my objections to abortion are similar to those articulated by Dr. Woolley. I doubt that the developments of modern science would change his mind. His objections are primarily rooted in Scripture’s ambiguity on the life status of the fetus. As far as I know, the words of Scripture have not changed since the 1970s. But to be clear, I am not making a categorical statement that abortion is not murder. I am simply saying that Scripture is unclear, and that I elect to withhold judgment of others on issues where Scripture does not proffer a clear condemnation. Also, I believe that it would be difficult to implement criminal prohibitions on early-term abortion. I never read your “banned” comments. But you have a habit of conflating an unwillingness to condemn an activity with an endorsement of that activity. I doubt that any 2K advocates endorse abortion; in fact, many of us have probably volunteered time to organizations that seek to counsel women on alternatives to abortion. But we may still have reservations about condemning abortion as a form of murder.
Further, I did not intend to suggest that the Westminster divines approved of abortion. But it is notable that abortion is not recited in the WLC among the sins condemned as violations of the Sixth Commandment. Because the divines would have been familiar with the practice of abortion, it should give us pause that they recited excessive meat-eating as a sin but not abortion. Such silence would be consistent with the common law’s refusal to criminalize early-term abortion.
LikeLike
Bob, wouldn’t it be plausible that they might not consider abortion to be a separate offense from murder in general, so that it would not be necessary to split it out?
I don’t see the sections on the WLC as providing exhaustive guidance as to forbidden and required acts, do you?
LikeLike
Jeff, not Darryl or DG? Dr.? What’s up with that?
LikeLike
Mark, Then you would be wrong. But your rendering of my position is typical of those for whom if the other guy doesn’t say it the way I do, then he’s an infidel.
LikeLike
Jeff, no, I don’t disagree at all that duty and heart go together. That was what I was trying to say with “love and duty are not mutually exclusive.” But I do think there is such a thing as having to accent things. And, simply stated, I am more comfortable with judging actions than hearts. And let me jump on the apology bandwagon: language and the people who use it are limited in their capacities to convey what they intend. I’m not trying to peer into your own motives, just say that your rhetoric can tend to accent what I think is more in keeping with what animates “heart religion” as opposed to “ecclesiastical religion.” For my part, I relish being associated with what could be called ecclesiastical religion.
Paul & Todd, this is the danger of debating hypotheticals and constructing realities. It can be fun and all, but not much really gets solved. My only point in all of this was to say something about liberty of conscience. Paul calls it “bold and austere and overreaching claims,” I call it painting in admittedly broad strokes to try and make the larger point. He also says that, as far as he’s aware, there are no actionable issues in our current political climate, which I think is important because it draws us back into reality (you know, where we all actually live). And even where we all live I think political liberty of conscience is in relative danger. One could speculate on the reasons, but it seems to me that if we cared as much about liberty of conscience as we do our particular politics much of this would be put into better perspective, that’s all. And for good measure, here is another friendly broad 2K stroke: liberty of conscience is a Christian concern, particular politics is worldliness.
LikeLike
DGH, I think of you as older than I and therefore to be given an honorific. It’s not meant unkindly.
LikeLike
Jeff,
When excessive meat-eating makes the list, I feel like there’s some effort to be exhaustive. Also, I doubt that they would consider abortion merely to be a subset of murder, as the criminal codes of the time made a distinction between abortion and murdering a post-birth human.
LikeLike
Mark, Then you would be wrong. But your rendering of my position is typical of those for whom if the other guy doesn’t say it the way I do, then he’s an infidel.
Darryl, infidel is your word, not mine.
So enlighten me then. May we, can we, and/or must we use the Word to evaluate the rule of the magistrate according to *revised* Belgic 36? A simple principial answer will do. The applications and qualifications can wait for another day.
LikeLike
Bob: Also, I doubt that they would consider abortion merely to be a subset of murder, as the criminal codes of the time made a distinction between abortion and murdering a post-birth human.
You may be right. English common law, IIRC, did not criminalize abortion prior to quickening.
On the other hand, I’ve seen some analyses of English law on abortion that claim that the quickening line was drawn, not because of doubt about the living status of the fetus, but for evidentiary reasons: Prior to quickening, there was no proof of actual pregnancy. As knowledge of embryology grew, so did the stance towards abortion change.
If this is so, then we cannot take silence about abortion in the WLC to mean that they did not consider abortion murder; nor that we should not consider abortion (in general) to be murder now.
—
I do have to disagree with you that presence of excessive meat-eating on the list shows that the list is exhaustive. If that truly is the case, then the sins listed in the WLC are the only sins which can be said to be contrary to Scripture.
But in fact, each discussion of a particular commandment ends with a “whatever else” clause. In this case:
“…and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.”
That suggests strongly that they did not wish us to be limited to the items on the list, but instead to be looking out for the general principle of avoiding that which tends to the destruction of the life of any.
LikeLike
Mark, if you are going to post comments from Pastor Vanden Heuvel here about how 2k is destroying the church, then infidel is a fitting implication. What, now you’re afraid to own up to what you post? Do you think 2k is destroying the church or not? If not, then why all the hysterical posts about what it is doing?
As to your question, the simple answer is you MAY draw that inference from Art. 36. I MAY also draw a different inference. Neither of our positions is binding on the other, and has not functioned as binding in the entire history of the Reformed churches — as in, someone who uses Natural Law is violating either Scripture of the Confession. The principial (sic) (I’m sure you know the meaning of sic from Dr. K’s reviews of VanDrunen) reason is Christian liberty. Scripture does not say that I must evaluate the magistrate on the basis of Scripture. And the practice of our churches has not been so. Not even the Dutch churches pre revision of Art. 36 functioned this way. Your view is novel and divisive.
LikeLike
Bob,
“But you have a habit of conflating an unwillingness to condemn an activity with an endorsement of that activity.”
Would you mind showing examples (to show “habit) of this?
“Also, I would say that my objections to abortion are similar to those articulated by Dr. Woolley. I doubt that the developments of modern science would change his mind. His objections are primarily rooted in Scripture’s ambiguity on the life status of the fetus. As far as I know, the words of Scripture have not changed since the 1970s.”
Right, I agree. This is why Zrim can’t make his claim about punishing woman who have abortions but not those who vote to allow it or keep it legal. Anyway, I don’t make my argument against abortion, or for the human personhood of the fetus from Scripture alone. I’m one of those weird Reformed guys who don;t have a problem with common grace and knowledge from fields outside scripture 🙂
However, and this is off topic, but I’d be interested in how this view of yours and Woolley’s handles the incarnation as well as the best, most sophisticated pro-life arguments. Merely saying Scripture is not fully clear on the metaphysics of personhood is insufficient to claim we do not know whether the fetus is a human person. And neither does the existence of people who disagree mean we cannot have knowledge. Something else is going to need to be employed to answer the best pro-life arguments, and all such employment I’m aware of relies on dubious assumptions as well as other anti-Christian views of personhood.
“Further, I did not intend to suggest that the Westminster divines approved of abortion. But it is notable that abortion is not recited in the WLC among the sins condemned as violations of the Sixth Commandment. Because the divines would have been familiar with the practice of abortion, it should give us pause that they recited excessive meat-eating as a sin but not abortion. Such silence would be consistent with the common law’s refusal to criminalize early-term abortion.”
Sorry, I just don’t find this argument from silence convincing. The history of the church viewed abortion as murder, and I see nothing substantiating a massive shift in thought when Luther swung his mallet. I also must point out that there are hundreds of methods of death the divines did not mention. Anyway, the problem is that the divines covered everything by use of universal language. They didn’t need to give a laundry list. Meat-eating was for effect, not for a list.
LikeLike
Zrim wants to make broad, absolute, and uncompromising claims and then not take any of the responsibility for those claims. I see. Must be nice.
LikeLike
Darryl:
DEFINITION: Prin`cip´i`al. 1.Elementary. No (sic) necessary.
Good to hear you acknowledge that we “may” use Scripture to evaluate the magistrate’s actions. This is progress. Perhaps we can work you toward “should”.
Also, I have no problem concurring with Rev. Vanden Heuvel’s warning that R2k is a threat to the Reformed world and life view. Your revisionist history on the Reformed churches’ view on God’s normative Word only again affirms his point. But you are being hysterical {in the funny sense} to suggest that this necessarily infers you are an “infidel”: a term associated with unbelief. I haven’t seen anyone suggest you aren’t a Christian. As you know, one can be a Baptist–a Lutheran–a Calvary Chapel– or even an R2k errorist —and yet still be a Christian! The commonality is that these aren’t Reformed, that’s all. Own up to it and let’s move on for the sake of the peace of the church.
LikeLike
Mark, while we’re admitting things, when will you admit that the worldview you love killed the CRC?
And then maybe you can try VanDrunen’s book and see that the rejection of dualism (along Kuyperian, Dooyeerdian, and Schilderian lines) is novel within the history of the Reformed tradition. And then maybe you can own up to the neo- in Neo-Calvinism.
At that point we can compare notes on who is Reformed. Here’s a clue — insisting that Christian schools are the only option for Reformed parents is not Reformed. It is neo-Calvinist, I’ll grant you. But as you might be beginning to see, there is a difference between being Reformed and being a neo-Calvinist. Just look at the CRC.
LikeLike
<when will you admit that the worldview you love killed the CRC?
The Reformed worldview I love didn’t kill the CRC. The worldview that killed the CRC wrt Biblical authority is much closer to your worldview than mine.
And then maybe you can try VanDrunen’s book and see that the rejection of dualism (along Kuyperian, Dooyeerdian, and Schilderian lines) is novel within the history of the Reformed tradition.
I’ve tried his book. I’m not fooled by his revisionist R2k history either. Apparently you’ve not read Venema’s review yet?
insisting that Christian schools are the only option for Reformed parents is not Reformed.
Like to know who insists Christian schools are the only option for Reformed parents.
LikeLike
Zrim: And, simply stated, I am more comfortable with judging actions than hearts.
I agree with you, when we’re talking about church courts and even more so with magistrates.
At the individual level — the individual living coram deo, not one person judging another — I think the individual is supposed to guard and to judge his own heart. That’s especially true if we’re going to live under liberty instead of the law: If we are free to read Lady Chatterly’s Lover or to watch Gladiator, then we must also watch out that we are not indulging the sin nature thereby.
Do you agree?
Zrim: And let me jump on the apology bandwagon: language and the people who use it are limited in their capacities to convey what they intend. I’m not trying to peer into your own motives, just say that your rhetoric can tend to accent what I think is more in keeping with what animates “heart religion†as opposed to “ecclesiastical religion.â€
I appreciate the spirit here. 🙂 (yes, that was irenic irony)
Maybe I could say this: from our conversations, you know a lot of what might be called “fundamentals” or “structural factors” about me — I’m a Reformed Presbie who takes a serious view of Scripture and the standards; I have a high view of the visible church and sacraments; I tend towards nerdishness and mathematical or scientific views of things.
Those fundamentals are more determinative than accent notes; they should provide the framework for understanding where I’m going.
Hope that helps.
LikeLike
Paul, I’ll take the bait but only because I’m hungry from no Wheaties this morning.
I don’t see why I can’t paint in broad strokes if you get to employ the absurd hypothetical of people on an island arbitrarily deciding to kill someone in service of your larger hypothetical. I mean, you’re the one who insists we engage our opponents in their best possible light, yet you use a hypothetical that suggest they simply are bloodthirsty and want to kill people. The upshot of their view may well be that one segment of the human population gets to decide at will and whim the life and death of another simply because the former houses the latter, but that’s hardly a charitable argument in my mind. It’s that kind of reasoning that incites the “holocaust rhetoric,†or what Robert Bork has described as the politics of “division and bitterness.†So, talk about taking responsibility for words, you might reconsider that kind of explosive language, especially when it seems to be what gets people worked up enough to walk into churches and gun down doctors.
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, of course, who could argue with guarding ourselves? But, and not that this is at all you, given how some make judgments about the non-actions of others of us, the problem isn’t so much this as it is how liberty seems understood. Or maybe I should say misunderstood.
LikeLike
Zrim: …when [explosive language] seems to be what gets people worked up enough to walk into churches and gun down doctors.
That, or mental illness, or the sin nature. Take your pick.
LikeLike
Zrim: …given how some make judgments about the non-actions of others of us, the problem isn’t so much this as it is how liberty seems understood.
Well, right, exactly. That’s why I think the Strict Scrutiny test is a good idea.
LikeLike
“I don’t see why I can’t paint in broad strokes if you get to employ the absurd hypothetical of people on an island arbitrarily deciding to kill someone in service of your larger hypothetical.”
Zrim, I explained this three times during this thread. In fact, the answer is embeded in your very question. I get to use those “absurd” (though this would need to be defined, my situation is certainly conceivable, and it is somehting that could happen, and it has all the relevant factors in common with examples you would call not absurd—and furthermore, they didn’t “arbitrarily decide”) example precisely because of your broad brushed, uncompromising, absolutistic statements. I get to because of the nature of what your statements logically imply. I get to pull from logically possible resources. I know you have disdain for logic, so I’m sure you won’t find the logical entailments of your statements that interesting.
LikeLike
“yet you use a hypothetical that suggest they simply are bloodthirsty and want to kill people.
Zrim, you’re confusing things now. I am not debating those people. I am debating you, and you admit it is murder. Moreover, my example did not at all paint them as bloodthirsty. I claimed that they had *reasons* that they thought indicated that “Sam” didn’t have the relevant person-making properties. You need to learn to actually engage the arguments you’re being given, it’s so much work have to constantly correct things I shouldn’t have to. The only thing I can think that explains this is that you’re grasping at any straw you can to avoid actually having to deal with the argument you’ve been given head on. As I said, must be nice.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Thanks for the nice blog. Isn’t it great that there are two kingdoms, one of this world and one “not of this world” (to quote Jesus), and that “the law is not of faith” (to quote Paul)? Are people who argue for the contrary worldly legalists?
Brent
LikeLike
Mark, I believe that would be Dr. K who is insisting that the URC maintain the CRC guidelines for church officers sending children to Christian schools.
So what killed the CRC was the decline of Biblical authority. That’s interesting. And where in the Bible is there authority to say that officers must send their children to Christian schools? Or where do the apostles say that dualism is wicked. The distinction between the eternal and the temporal (i.e. secular, as in age) is writ large in Peter and Paul.
2k is biblical.
LikeLike
That, or mental illness, or the sin nature. Take your pick.
Jeff, sure mental illness and sin nature are in the bag. But my point to take more responsibility for language that may exacerbate the already unstable.
LikeLike
Paul, you said to Todd that “Zrim has never agreed with me on anything I have said, ever.” You’re forgetting that in this contrived reality I am agreeing with you on the “outlaw abortion” part. Why doesn’t that count for anything, ever?
LikeLike
Mark, re Christian ed, you might also consider article 14 of the URC church order:
“The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practiced. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the minister(s) and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centered schooling, visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, engage in family visiting, exercise discipline in the congregation, actively promote the work of evangelism and missions, and insure that everything is done decently and in good order.”
Elders are to “promote God-centered schooling.” I have heard the weak argument that that simply is an extension of “assist in catechizing the youth.” But I’ve inhabited Dutch enclaves enough to know what “God-centered schooling” means. Plus, when I appeal to Dutch virtues of efficiency and suggest deleting that allegedly redundant phrase (to say nothing of promote liberty on a thing indifferent), it is roundly scoffed at. And that’s because there abides a basic confusion between curriculum and catechism.
LikeLike
Mark, I believe that would be Dr. K who is insisting that the URC maintain the CRC guidelines for church officers sending children to Christian schools.
So what killed the CRC was the decline of Biblical authority. That’s interesting. And where in the Bible is there authority to say that officers must send their children to Christian schools? Or where do the apostles say that dualism is wicked. The distinction between the eternal and the temporal (i.e. secular, as in age) is writ large in Peter and Paul.
2k is biblical.
Darryl, we’ve gone over this before. Recall last year you turned my advocacy of Christian education to be one limited to Christian day *schools*, thereby suggesting I’m a threat to Christian homeschoolers? I reminded you then, and will again, that the issue is providing our children a Christian education, as the URC church order points out. Even your fellow traveler Clark (thankfully inconsistent with his R2k) agrees with this Church Order duty along with Dr. Kloosterman.
Zrim, I’d agree with you that the “God-centered schooling” is not an extension of “catechizing the youth”. That is why elders are called to “promote” {rather than establish} this God-centered schooling, understanding that such Christian education belongs to the family sphere. At least in URC circles this is clearly understood.
LikeLike
Mark, I too agree with the need for Christian education. It’s just that I think parents may use public schools for the education of their children in non-
Christian subjects. Dr. K. doesn’t believe this. He also thinks he has biblical basis for his thought. But the Bible teaches Christian liberty on matters where it is silent. You are not biblical.
You are putting the words of man above the Word of God. If Paul allows the consumption of meat offered to idols, surely the teaching of secular schools is permissible.
LikeLike
Two questions:
(1) If the URC book of order calls for “Christian schooling” (as Zrim is interpreting it) AND the URC holds to the 3 Forms of Unity, does it not follow that at least one part of the visible church has officially declared that there is not liberty in the matter of schooling?
Which would imply therefore that pc-2kers in the URC would have to take exception at that point, yes?
Mind, my kids go to public school (and I teach at a Presbyterian school, so go figure), so I’m not pro or con the URC policy. Well, no, I’m actually “con” unless it means as Mark interprets it.
(2) Is it my correct understanding that Dr. Kloosterman is upholding article 14? Or is he going beyond it? (Sorry to be ignorant — I’m neither URC nor Dutch, unless one takes the one-eighth rule.)
LikeLike
That is why elders are called to “promote†{rather than establish} this God-centered schooling…
How does distinguishing between “promote” and “establish” solve anything, Mark? You still need to show where the Bible calls the church to “promote” anything about schooling. Purity of Word, sacraments, discipline, catechesis, visitation, evangelism, order, yes, but schools? And when AM offerings are taken up to off set the costs of God-centered schooling, then PM offerings for evangelism, it sure sends the message that the church is equally called to both. I mean, you can’t seriously be suggesting that churches don’t establish schools. In my experience, that seems like one tortured distinction.
LikeLike
If the URC book of order calls for “Christian schooling†(as Zrim is interpreting it) AND the URC holds to the 3 Forms of Unity, does it not follow that at least one part of the visible church has officially declared that there is not liberty in the matter of schooling?
Jeff, like I suggested to Mark, I’m puzzled as to where the Bible says anything about curriculum. But, yeah, though I’ve heard it tried, I’m hard pressed to see how anybody gets educational liberty from Art. 14.
The PRCA has recently raised the stakes and declared that officers mayn’t employ any sort of education other than the denomination’s schools. That includes home schools, by the way. As I understand it, the seminary here deployed two apostles to go around and preach the bad news to local congregations, which accounted for the influx of PRC homeschoolers to URCs:
http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/09/prca_church_synod_votes_to_req.html
And, if you ask me, the RCC seems to have a better grasp on educational liberty. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2229): “As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.â€
LikeLike
Zrim, there is a big difference between “establishing” and “promoting”. Establishing would have the church venturing into the sphere they should stay out of namely, the development of curriculum, hiring, firing, etc. Odd that you cite the Catholics, since they, as church, tread into this very area you object to, and into which no URC Kuyperian treads.
The Reformed don’t engage in fundamentalist search for proof texts on plumbing or math curriculum. The deacons don’t withhold benevolence funds from a member struggling to pay their car gas bills because the Bible doesn’t mention automobiles. We have a basic worldview difference from Lutherans and Anabaptists. Dr. Dennis Johnson of WSC describes it the same way Dr. Kloosterman would:
“[t]he education of Christians in every subject—philosophy, literature, history, music, sociology, political science, economics, architecture, engineering, chemistry, physics—belongs in the context of the biblical worldview that traces all things to the sovereign Creator.â€
Bringing every thought to the captivity of Christ is not a thing indifferent.
LikeLike
So, Mark, if the charge of elders is to “promote God-centered schooling” then what does an elder say to a member who doesn’t utilize it? Does he say the same thing to a member who neglects the means of grace or catechism? Does he exhort unto repentance, is discipline in view as a possibility?
And I’m not looking for a fundie proof text. I’m asking where the Bible at all addresses schooling (as in curriculum: philosophy, literature, history, music, sociology, political science, economics, architecture, engineering, chemistry, physics). I know neo-Calvinism addresses those things, but I’m unclear as to where the Bible does.
But I don’t know Mark, I employ Catholic medicine for my health care and the secularists for education (with relative satisfaction). I don’t rule out employing Catholic or neo-Calvinist education. It seems to me that 2k allows me this sort of liberty because it understands that both the body and mind, as important as they are, are still not the soul. They’re temporal, the soul is eternal. Meanwhile, neo-Calvinists also employ Catholic medicine and secular education, but I’m not sure on what grounds.
LikeLike
Zrim, what the elders say will depend on the answer given by the member when asked why he does not desire a Christian education for his children. Discipline could be in view if the member exhibited an unteachable, rebellious attitude toward the elders on the matter.
You say you don’t want proof texts, but then ask me where the Bible addresses educating our children. I could offer plenty, but none will satisfy you as being specific enough {i.e., ” where’s the mention of architecture, engineering, chemistry, etc. etc.”}. Despite your protest, you do demand a fundie proof text.
Your body/soul dichotomy, akin to the grace/nature dichotomy often seen in R2k, is likely the root of the disagreement.
LikeLike
MvdM: Despite your protest, you do demand a fundie proof text.
It’s a good point, and brings me back to earlier discussion:
On what grounds would we deny that 1 Cor 10.31 requires us to do all things to the glory of God?
Zrim has put forward the possibility that 1 Cor 10.31 is indicative instead of imperative. It’s a nice thought, but syntactically dubious — all English translations from Wycliffe on take ποιειτε as imperative.
DGH has put forward the possibility that 1 Cor 10.31 means simply “do not do things for your own glory” — which in context has some traction. But if we take that tack, then Scripture *still* is giving an imperative that applies to whatever we do.
And in that case, we still get back to the idea that Scripture is not silent on any activity.
Sorry to be so stubborn on this issue, but I do think it to be central to the question: Are we going to equate “lack of specific proof text” with “silence”? Or are we going to reject this method as woodenly literalistic?
LikeLike
Mark, this makes no sense. The church ought to stay out of curriculum, you say. It has no business there. But then you want the church to promote a certain kind of education, which involves an education in history, literature, etc., in a certain curriculum. You want it both ways. Come on over the 2k side of the street where recognizing such dualities is part of living in God’s good creation this side of glory.
LikeLike
…what the elders say will depend on the answer given by the member when asked why he does not desire a Christian education for his children. Discipline could be in view if the member exhibited an unteachable, rebellious attitude toward the elders on the matter.
Mark, two things. First, your answer seems to be coming back to this idea of judging motives, attitudes, etc. If someone isn’t attending the means of grace I would think it unusual to also discern a “teachable and submissive attitude†such that his non-attendance would be permissible. More likely is that he not attending because he’s in rebellion. And what we have to judge is only the actions, or in this case the non-actions. The language of the article seems primarily concerned with actions, which seems right, not attitudes.
Second, my point is that the language seems to suggest that attending God-centered schooling is of the same essence as attending the means of grace. If we can agree that not outwardly attending the means of grace more likely exhibits an inward rebellion, then can’t we say the same for God-centered schooling? I guess I’m wanting to see you own up to the high stakes the language suggests. I cannot conceive of when it’s ever ok to neglect Word and sacrament, but I can see when it is for neglecting Christian education.
Despite your protest, you do demand a fundie proof text.
If the Bible directly or indirectly addresses sociology, economics, architecture, engineering, chemistry and physics then it must also do the same for medicine. So should the church also promote God-centered hospitals? If not, why not?
Your body/soul dichotomy, akin to the grace/nature dichotomy often seen in R2k, is likely the root of the disagreement.
Probably. The confessional Protestant view is that grace renews nature (versus the Roman perfects, the Anabaptist obliterates and the pantheist/liberal equating of grace and nature), that creation is very good in and of itself and is not ontologically defective. The body corresponds to the temporal, the soul to the eternal. One upshot is that believers can employ the medicine (body) and education (mind) of idolaters but not their churches (soul).
LikeLike
Zrim: The confessional Protestant view is that grace renews nature
Can you spin out your understanding of what that renewal looks like, and how Scripture retains its “silence” on nature in the process?
LikeLike
Jeff, whatever else could be said about it, one way I understand “grace renewing nature” is that it’s necessarily more invisible and mysterious than visible and known. This seems to correspond with sanctification. So in light of asking “what’s it look like,” I think it’s worth pointing out the mysterious aspect of it, especially in an age that wants all manner of visible signs and wonders as proof.
Still, what external signals do we have that tell us inward sanctifcation is happening (i.e. grace renewing nature)? It seems to me that if the law is the structure of sanctification then sanctification is manifest by works, and the principal good work of any believer is worship or attending the means of grace, as well as keeping the moral law of God of course.
I’m not sure what you mean by Scripture retaining its “silence†on nature in the process. But Scripture seems pretty clear that though its condition is totally depraved, nature’s essence is yet very good, in constrast, for example, to the theology and piety of Rome and evangelicalism which seems to be about denying or overcoming humanity. Both have a sort of “scale of being” or ontological/metaphysical view of sin as opposed to the Protestant conception which is moral-legal.
LikeLike
Zrim, thanks for that. It helps me to understand a couple of things.
I think where I’m struggling to find coherence in the pc-2k package is (1) the affirmation that sanctification is manifest by works (which includes keeping the moral law), coupled with (2) the notion that Scripture is silent about our common activities.
For it seems to me that Scripture regulates our common activities in the second table. And that this is so is most profoundly seen in commands like “do good to all, especially those of the household of faith.” Or, “love your neighbor as yourself” (and we understand from the parable that our neighbor is not limited to the covenant community only).
So for individuals, at least, you seem to be affirming by (1) that Scripture is not silent, but by (2) that Scripture is silent.
Perhaps the resolution might be that (1) concerns individuals, but (2) is intended more for the magistrate. Is that how you resolve it?
LikeLike
Mark, this makes no sense. The church ought to stay out of curriculum, you say. It has no business there. But then you want the church to promote a certain kind of education, which involves an education in history, literature, etc., in a certain curriculum. You want it both ways. Come on over the 2k side of the street where recognizing such dualities is part of living in God’s good creation this side of glory.
Makes perfect sense when one has proper understanding of different spheres of authority, i.e. the church promoting a principle to be put into action by parents. If you think that makes no sense, tell it to Dr. Godfrey, who wrote:
“Since education is not neutral at any point, but either glorifies God or rejects him, Christian parents must seek a Christian education for their children.â€
LikeLike
Mark, look at Godfrey’s quotation, do you see the word “church”? Where did you learn how to read? I agree with Godfrey, and I also know how to distinguish the other spheres, and part of the way to do that is to distinguish between Christ’s rule as mediator and creator. That is the distinction missing from your attempts at clarity.
LikeLike
True, Godfrey does not mention church in that quote, but I assumed you knew he also adheres to CO Art. 14, which does prescribe the church’s promotion. So like Kloosterman, he believes in the necessity of Christian education and the church’s role in promoting it.
LikeLike
I think where I’m struggling to find coherence in the pc-2k package is (1) the affirmation that sanctification is manifest by works (which includes keeping the moral law), coupled with (2) the notion that Scripture is silent about our common activities…Perhaps the resolution might be that (1) concerns individuals, but (2) is intended more for the magistrate. Is that how you resolve it?
Jeff, I think what I would say is that Scripture speaks clearly to individuals, be they peasants or magistrates, about what they do in their personal affections and behaviors. But it is silent as to how they are to go about executing their common tasks and vocations. You may have one way of getting a common task done and I have another, but neither of us may break the law of God while going about our respective ways. Again, the tipping analogy: you might choose to be more generous in your gratuity, and I choose to be more prudent (both biblical virtues), but neither of us may skip out on paying our bill.
LikeLike
Mark, politics aren’t neutral either, so why not promote God-centered legislating?
I believe Godfrey also makes the famous anti-transformationist point that if the church doesn’t build hospitals someone else will; but if the church doesn’t hold out the gospel nobody will. Bingo. But I’ve always thought the same point could be made with schools as well. I hear the murmuring already, but the only way I can see that anyone would protest that is to assume that education corresponds to eternity in ways that health care doesn’t. But I put education into the category of the temporal-cultural, since education, like health care, can be found amongst the pagans. What cannot be found amongst them is the gospel. So, again, I’d ask you (and Godfrey, I suppose), how is education the charge of the church to promote?
LikeLike
Mark, fine, then why all the hostility to WSC? You’re still not making sense.
LikeLike
Darryl, it would probably be more fruitful for you to address your questions on Christian ed to Godfrey. Perhaps he can make things clear for you where I’ve not been able.
I’m opposed to R2k theology from wherever it emanates. Where there are good items coming from WSC professors, I am happy to encourage them in the way.
LikeLike
Mark, believe it or not, I have talked to Bob about Christian education and 2k. And for some reason, he disagrees some of the time but doesn’t find it a threat to the church or to veer from the Reformed tradition. Maybe you should try to learn some church history from him the way most of us 2k folk did.
LikeLike
Perhaps like you Godfrey hasn’t read the Venema review yet.
LikeLike
Mark, if Venema’s review had any smoking guns, Rabbi Bret would have posted them by now. As it stands, Bret has moved on to Kloosterman and Rutherford and Vines to attack — which is it — republication or 2k? Does it matter? In a world that avoids dualism, all distinctions are lost.
And you want us to turn our kids over to your teachers? Talk about scary.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, I think what I would say is that Scripture speaks clearly to individuals, be they peasants or magistrates, about what they do in their personal affections and behaviors. But it is silent as to how they are to go about executing their common tasks and vocations. You may have one way of getting a common task done and I have another, but neither of us may break the law of God while going about our respective ways. Again, the tipping analogy: you might choose to be more generous in your gratuity, and I choose to be more prudent (both biblical virtues), but neither of us may skip out on paying our bill.
So are these points of agreement? I’m fairly confident that we agree that
(1) Scripture speaks more definitely to individuals.
(2) Scripture leaves many details unspecified.
(3) The Law of God may not be broken in any case.
The sticking points:
(1) I can’t see a clean difference between “behavior” and “common tasks and vocations.” I would say that vocations are a subset of behaviors.
(2) Scripture does not appear to me to be uniformly silent on various behaviors. As I’ve pointed out before, it has a lot to say about family and money; almost nothing on plumbing (except for general passages like 1 Cor 10.31).
LikeLike
Jeff, fair enough on 1-3.
I understand what you mean about vocations being a subset of behaviors. But at least consider this: if there is no distinction between these things then there is only one way to tip our server (one way to teach math, one way to order society and only one way to raise children). Sorry, but that just doesn’t line up with reality. There is only one thing to do when billed for services rendered, pay up. So, either admit the 2k you actually live or hold me to being more generous in my tipping the same way you hold me to paying my bill.
LikeLike
Zrim: But at least consider this: if there is no distinction between these things then there is only one way to tip our server …
I know that you worry about this, but I don’t see it that way. In fact, the reason I don’t is that I don’t actually agree with the other:
There is only one thing to do when billed for services rendered, pay up.
That’s very American of you, but some societies would throw in room for asking to go on tab, or haggling, or bartering. Do we go Dutch, or Dutch Reformed?
And even in method of payment, there is still liberty: cash? credit? traveler’s check?
And the point is, that even with absolute norms like Do Not Steal, there might still be liberty in some of the details. And conversely, even with situations with large amounts of freedom, there are still norms. You and I might approach tipping differently (for instance, weighting the norm of generosity over the norm of thrift, or vice-versa). But we aren’t free to tip so much that we can’t provide for our families (if that were possible).
So you seem to say:
Tipping is a matter of common activity, on which Scripture is silent (because it is common). We therefore have freedom.
Paying the bill is a matter of personal behavior, which Scripture speaks to (Do Not Steal). We therefore do not have freedom.
I would say:
Tipping is normed by two norms (at least): be generous, and be thrifty. Within those norms is liberty.
Paying the bill is normed by one norm (at least): Do Not Steal. Within that norm, there is liberty.
How are we doing?
LikeLike
Or at least, can you see how I might simultaneously say
(1) Scripture speaks to tipping, but
(2) We have liberty in our tipping
and not be contradicting myself?
LikeLike
Mark, if Venema’s review had any smoking guns, Rabbi Bret would have posted them by now. As it stands, Bret has moved on to Kloosterman and Rutherford and Vines to attack — which is it — republication or 2k? Does it matter? In a world that avoids dualism, all distinctions are lost.
LOL…. surely you are not just relying on Bret’s reviews to see if there are smoking guns? You might want to read the review for yourself. Escondido Republication and R2k are intimately related. One is the spawn of the other.
And just to remind you that not all dualisms are bad. It’s just certain R2k dichotomous gnostic dualisms that have the smell of brimstone about them.
And you want us to turn our kids over to your teachers? Talk about scary.
I suppose coming from an R2k worldview, seeking to give a child Christian education can look downright frightening.
LikeLike
Paul: I appreciate the interaction. Thanks for clarifying.
LikeLike
Jeff, re all the tipping stuff, I won’t quibble much and analogies can only be reasonably pressed so far. You even up the ante (so to speak) by suggesting there is liberty within the absolute norm. Holy geez, well done. So once again, with all that said, I don’t see what your beef is against 2k. I do think your allergy against the sufficiency of general revelation to govern civil tasks is a major roadblock, but don’t let it be said that I don’t give credit where it’s due (more pun intended).
LikeLike
I suppose coming from an R2k worldview, seeking to give a child Christian education can look downright frightening.
Not at all, Mark. But it sure seems like from a neo-Cal worldview, seeking to give a child a secular education looks that way. As a “radical†2ker, I’d have no principled problem sending mine to the local neo-Cal schools (one benefit of the misguided idea that heaven implies earth is that its adherents can produce some pretty good earth), but I don’t think it would be too ambitious to suggest that neo-Cals have plenty of principled problems sending theirs to secular schools. That’s fine, but my problem is when you guys foist your principled problems onto others.
Your odd complaint is that 2k is seeking to take Christian ed away from everyone (boo!), but it sure seems like it’s the other way around.
LikeLike
Mark, “smell of brimstone.” My, that’s a nice touch from someone who regards me as a Christian.
If Venema has damning words, why not quote them Mark? Your internet connections seem to be working just fine.
LikeLike
Zrim: You even up the ante (so to speak) by suggesting there is liberty within the absolute norm. Holy geez, well done.
*bows slightly*
Seriously though, I think of norms as (hard) goals: If the norm is to be generous, then what that means is that I must accomplish generosity. The implementation of those goals is then at liberty.
(Note: with worship, not so — for Scripture has previously normed worship with the RPW. So worship is not an exception to the theory, but a special case of it).
Zrim: So once again, with all that said, I don’t see what your beef is against 2k.
Well, I don’t see pc-2k as antinomian. Rather, I just find it confusing — not in the broad strokes, but when one drills down to the details.
Even above, I can agree with you that there is a lot more liberty in tipping than in paying the bill. But when you explain that with pc-2k theory as “tipping is a common activity, but paying the bill is personal behavior, I scratch my head wondering how I could have predicted that ahead of time.
Seems like the whole meal is taking place in the common realm, so that everything from reserving the table to grabbing a mint on the way out the door falls under the rubric of common activities.
And some of those common activities (like paying the bill) are clearly normed by Scripture. Which seems to falsify “Scripture is silent on common activities”, which I take to be a fundamental theorem of pc-2k.
So perhaps I could distill the beef down to a point: I don’t think Scripture is silent on common activities. Some, it norms heavily; some, less so.
Oh, and a minor beef: pc-2k advocates often use “2k” as a shorthand. Trouble is, there are a lot of different 2k theories, so the shorthand becomes a kind of “squatter’s claim” to the term. I would prefer the long version so as not to disenfranchise other kinds of 2k-ers. Calvin, for example.
Zrim: I do think your allergy against the sufficiency of general revelation to govern civil tasks is a major roadblock…
Yes, I agree. I can’t get past this syllogism:
(1) Christians must obey Scripture when engaged in common activities;
(2) Therefore, special revelation is necessary for our common activities;
(3) Therefore, general revelation is insufficient for our common activities.
The sharpest criticism I can think of against that syllogism is that there might be some kind of equivocation between (1) and (2), but I don’t see it.
LikeLike
Jeff,
In practice you seem to be with us on liberty, but you are just uncomfortable with the way we express our 2k distinctions which lead to this liberty. You think they are unnecessary and confusing, and I can respect that. The important matter to me as a pastor is the liberty itself, not necessarily how you explain it. The criticism of 2k is often that we make too much of Christian liberty at the expense of obedience to the Bible in all of life. But Calvin rightly connected Christian liberty with the truth of the gospel itself. In the Institutes he begins his section on Christian Liberty with:
“We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation, in many must demur and fluctuate, and in all proceed with fickleness and trepidation…if the subject be not understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the soul, is properly known.” (John Calvin)
I would rephrase it this way: the true believer has enough guilt given the inward struggle with sin he is constantly dealing with that he does not need the extra weight of trying to determine if he is obeying God’s will in every common activity; hesitating and worrying if he is disobeying God’s will in the way he votes, in whether he can allow his daughter to date verses court, in who can teach his children math, whether the wife will be in sin if she gets a part-time job to help pay the bills, if she can use homeopathic medicine verses traditional, etc, etc…
So while the all-of-life theonomist affirms we obey out of grace and a right view of justification, this diminishing of Christian liberty in practical effect begins to nullify the power and beauty of the gospel to free us and give us confidence before God. (Though Calvin stated it much better – what a surprise!).
LikeLike
Jeff, to follow up with Todd’s point, and not to be unduly dismissive of your drilling down to the details, it could be that your drilling is leftover legalism. Bear with me. It has been said that when justified sinners are told in broad strokes to obey the law of God and they strain at gnats about what they may or mayn’t do that they are missing entirely the point. If I exhort you to not to steal or to keep the Sabbath and you present me a list of things you want to know whether you may do or not do then my exhortation dies the death of a thousand qualifications, lists start getting crafted, and before you know it the gospel is buried beneath all sorts of strictures.
I appreciate all your honest queries, but in them you seem to get in your own way and the liberty you obviously have a sense for gets snuffed. And to the extent that liberty corresponds with the gospel, it’s like watching the guy who gets the gospel but then, when he’s told that the Christian life is about obedience, wants all sorts of laws spelled out before he obeys. This way of speaking might be where charges of (public square) antinomianism come from (not you), but it has also been said that such charges are signs that the gospel, and in this case liberty, is truly being represented. Sure, anybody can use that line as an excuse for licentiousness, but it’s worth considering.
LikeLike
Todd, I agree with your analysis, and would put it like this: liberty (confessional!) is the main thing, and a particular theory of 2k (not obviously confessional) is secondary. Zrim wants them to stand or fall together; I’m not so sure.
Call me an “all-of-life libertarian.” 🙂
Or the term that I’ve been using: personal theonomy, which means that the individual lives his life coram deo, but not under the thumb of the pious opinions of others.
LikeLike
Zrim, by “drilling down to details”, I didn’t mean “the details of what I may or mayn’t do”, but rather, “the architectural details of the thought system.”
It’s not something I do as holdover legalism; it’s something I do as a professional purveyor of thoughts. In fact, it’s a feature of natural law. 🙂 I could no sooner turn that off mentally than to stop doing mental math.
Zrim: I appreciate all your honest queries, but in them you seem to get in your own way and the liberty you obviously have a sense for gets snuffed. And to the extent that liberty corresponds with the gospel, it’s like watching the guy who gets the gospel but then, when he’s told that the Christian life is about obedience, wants all sorts of laws spelled out before he obeys.
Take my queries in a different way. I’m not asking you to tell me what to do. I’m pushing the thought system around, with an eye towards how it will be used in practice.
I’m also pushing the thought system around to figure out whether — or not — a perspectivalist version of 2k could be harmonized with an OldLife version of 2k, and if so, what would have to give to make that happen. At a very deep level, the driving animus here is that I find the Frame-Westminster West fight to be distressing and not healthy for the church.
In practice, I don’t think my liberty gets snuffed. Perhaps you might think otherwise if you lived around me, but I would say that both at my school and at my church I probably look more like you than you might think.
LikeLike
Zrim, and to follow up, don’t forget the warning in the Confession: So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, I understand the pushing around of ideas, and I understand the risk of what I said to be dismissive of honest inquiry. But I hope that our pushing these ideas around for these last couple of years counts for something. My point is just that at some point honest inquiry begins to look like unnecessary strain and that the strain might indicate something unhelpful.
And, I’ve made this point before, but in my mind trying to get “a perspectivalist version of 2k harmonized with an OldLife version of 2k†just seems like trying to harmonize Amrinianism with Calvinism. I’ve seen it tried with the latter systems and it just doesn’t work because each system is inherently and internally consistent within itself and opposed to the other. And to keep the analogy going, contrary to your rather Erasmian assessment, I find the Frame-Westminster West fight very good for the church. Without such a fight we wouldn’t have had the Canons of Dordt; without such a fight we wouldn’t have had the Protestant Reformation. And so I discern in your pushing around of ideas a disposition that finally gets us no where, really.
And speaking of warnings, then, consider that if the Mark Vander Molerns win the fight then you and I who both have kids in secular schools could be exhorted to repent of that alleged sin. (Fortunately for now, Mark refuses to own up to these implications of URC CO 14, so it resides at the softer level. Then again, that implies neglecting Word and sacrament is adiaphora, so I’m sorta torn.)
LikeLike
Zrim: But I hope that our pushing these ideas around for these last couple of years counts for something.
Not to be remiss here: Yes, it does count for something. Despite our back-and-forths, I want you to know that I’ve grown in my appreciation for the regulative principle, for Christian liberty, and the value of catechizing.
During one trip through the catechism:
My five year old: “God doesn’t have a body? I thought he did!”
My seven year old: “Well, Jesus does, right?”
Also, y’all have stiffened my spine wrt the importance of Word and sacrament as a ministry plan.
So thank you.
LikeLike