Or, what hath Geneva to do with Colorado Springs?
For Whom Would You Vote? (I appreciate the avoidance of the dangling preposition) is a resource provided by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Here is the justification:
As the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to foster a Reformed awakening, we want to offer a free resource to help voters to think biblically about their responsibility. In his helpful booklet, “For Whom Would You Vote?,” Dr. Roy Blackwood argues that the checkered history of both good and bad Jewish kings teaches us to be discerning of the character (the just-ness or “righteousness”) of those who rule over us.
Aside from the anomaly of likening the voting process to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the naivete of thinking we can ever know our federal candidates’ personal qualities through the haze of sloganeering, advertisements, and photo-ops, is this really an instance of Reformed conviction and reflection? Or is it a case of Calvinistic evangelicals doing what evangelicals do, namely, bring God into the ballot box?
Protestants used to be bothered when Roman Catholics did this, and many American Christians don’t care for Muslim-Americans invoking Allah in public life. So what makes this permissible? What makes it Reformed?
Old Life 
Didn’t Mike Horton used to be affiliated with this group? Is he still? I’ve been longing for a return to the Christian Coalition Voter Guide.
LikeLike
I’m guessing the Republican candidates fare pretty well (which I don’t object to). It kind of points out the lack of necessity of the project, though. If you preach and catechize well Christians can draw their own conclusions.
LikeLike
Well, If the Covenant Community was involved at all levels of the Political Process (from the bottom to the top) then one could see the character of a man develop through the years as we watch our ministers and moderators of our General Assemblies. Is the process perfect? Nothing is perfect on this side and temptation is given into. That is why discipline and accountability are needed on both sides of the two fold Government of God. DGH makes this sound more disconnected then it should be and really doesn’t act like he read the pamphlet nor deal with it in my estimation based upon comments on this blog.
.http://www.swordandploughshare.com/main-blog/2011/8/18/a-two-kingdoms-hart-attack.html?currentPage=2#comments
He just might be baiting. Of course I honestly believe he has an antionomian dispensationalist bent but who am I to criticize. Right?
LikeLike
Martin – Can you translate your first few sentences for me? What do you mean by “Covenant Community” and the rest of your statement:
“Well, If the Covenant Community was involved at all levels of the Political Process (from the bottom to the top) then one could see the character of a man develop through the years as we watch our ministers and moderators of our General Assemblies. Is the process perfect? Nothing is perfect on this side and temptation is given into. That is why discipline and accountability are needed on both sides of the two fold Government of God.”
I think you are assuming a lot of knowledge of your little piece of the Reformed terrain by your audience here.
LikeLike
Just noticed that you have to pay $1 to get the book. This is what happens when Reformed (Dutch) fiscal tightness meets the evangelistic impulse. Just wait until our evangelical friends get a hold of this. It confirms all of their stereotypes. One dollar???
LikeLike
“I honestly believe he has an antionomian dispensationalist bent…”
Martin, do all the top-flight men of good character talk like that? If so, they’re somewhere behind the Democrats among my preferences.
LikeLike
Antinomian dispensationalist bent?! And it’s Darryl, who doesn’t read or interact accurately?!
Yeesh. We really need to get monocovenantalism deemed outside the standards
LikeLike
R. Martin, didn’t read the pamphlet. Didn’t want to cough up a buck plus handling. I just don’t think that evangelicals of a Calvinistic bent need to give tip on voting or how to evaluate candidates. How about how to sanctify the Lord’s Day and go to an evening service? If antinomians and dispensationalists advocated two services and the fourth commandment, then call me a dispie antie.
LikeLike
Dr Hart,
Please pardon me if this is out of place, but Dr Blackwood is one of the senior and most respected pastors in the RPCNA. Not that this meant to impress or intimidate you, but I don’t think he would have any 4th commandment or twice Sunday issues that you would disagree with. Some here have made very sarcastic comments towards a man that you would have much in agreement with. 9th commandment issues come into play here with some of these comments. Dr Blackwood has spent most of his life preaching and catechizing well.
LikeLike
After re-reading the comments I take back and apologize for my inability to read English in this statement:
“Some here have made very sarcastic comments towards a man that you would have much in agreement with. 9th commandment issues come into play here with some of these comments.”
LikeLike
James,
You have to point out and elaborate such “9th commandment issues” otherwise it just sounds like you’re whining. No offense intended. But the comments are regarding public statements and information, not pointed at the public character or conduct of Mr. Blackwood.
LikeLike
James, what does inability to read English mean?
LikeLike
Daryl said…
R. Martin, didn’t read the pamphlet. Didn’t want to cough up a buck plus handling. I just don’t think that evangelicals of a Calvinistic bent need to give tip on voting or how to evaluate candidates. How about how to sanctify the Lord’s Day and go to an evening service? If antinomians and dispensationalists advocated two services and the fourth commandment, then call me a dispie antie.
Me…
Daryl,
Sorry the page link evidently isn’t leading to a free pdf resource as it is supposed to. The Resource is supposed to be free according to the Blog. You can find the pdf on my blog in the following link. There is also a link to a resent blog on voting. Enjoy it. I am sure you will be able to comment further.. And I am not surprised you don’t think any evangelical of a Calvinistic bent need to give a tip on voting or how to evaluate candidates.” It is part of the reason I believe you to have a bent towards antinomianism as other things you have written. Note I didn’t say you were antinomian. I do believe you to have a leaning towards it, a bent.
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/why-not-voting-is-not-an-option/
I will respond to the comments tomorrow.
Sean,
MonoCovenantalism? Really? Wow! You obviously don’t know who I am. You are pointing a crooked finger and the gun site is misaligned also.
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/why-not-voting-is-not-an-option/
Daryl. Come on. Aren’t you above making wise cracks and shadowed attacks when you name a resource you haven’t read? As I noted above…. Baiting. You must be bored. Spend the dollar and support the Alliance. It is a great organization. You know how much it cost to run a internet site. Spend the buck. LOL. We need the good men the Alliance supports to be able to get out good Reformational doctrine.
Randy
Blue Presby Mike, A Democrat? Ouch! LOL. You must be either Libertarian, Independent, or Republican and someone Daryl doesn’t think should be giving election advice. LOL.
LikeLike
Randy, perhaps you can explain this line: “. . .if we have committed sins of omission, then the voting booth ought to become a prayer closet in which tears of confession are shed before King Jesus.”
Sorry, but that’s a little creepy — voting booth as prayer closet?
LikeLike
Hey Darryl,
Just in case you are interested in what an editor at Merriam-Webster has to say with ending a sentence with a preposition. There is some history involved, so I think you will like it.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0025-preposition.htm?&t=1351496620
LikeLike
Randy,
Just making adjustment for sanctimonious wind and spotters who claim the terrain is hilly and breaks up but then give coordinates as if it were flat. That tinny sound is bullet hitting can.
LikeLike
“but if we have committed sins of omission, then the voting booth ought to become a prayer closet in which tears of confession are shed before King Jesus.”
Where I vote the “booth” is more of a visor-type thing. I give the 70-year old volunteer workers about 30 seconds before they call the cops if I stand there praying and crying.
I’m confused because I thought “Covenanters” refused to vote at all until the U.S. more explicitly recognized the lordship of Jesus? Am I misinformed? Is this another Scottish-influenced group?
We had a guy in our church who left recently because we weren’t exclusive Psalm singers. Him & his wife had no problem voting for Obama, though, People are strange.
LikeLike
This guy also favored the original version of the Belgic and Westminster on the Civil Magistrate. Good luck getting the Democrats to enforce true worship.
LikeLike
Erik C: We had a guy in our church who left recently because we weren’t exclusive Psalm singers. Him & his wife had no problem voting for Obama, though, People are strange.
RS: Are you saying that the Regulative Principle should be applied to voting?
LikeLike
Randy, doesn’t everyone have an antinomian bent? But it’s the legalist bent that worries old life types.
You seem to like the idea that refraining is not an option. Not that I’m one of them, but I wonder what sort of room you make for those not inclined to vote? There are various reasons someone would abstain. Some just aren’t particularly interested. Others seem to be the victims of having had an overestimation of the power of politics in the first place, seen how it just never delivers and then swing from high octane optimism to the disillusioned cynicism. But whatever the case, are you inclined to suggest that opting out is somehow sinful? Or, to pick up from our conversation at PB, is it again a matter of wisdom instead of morality?
LikeLike
Richie – I’m saying it’s odd how people have scruples about some things but not others. Hymns – Bad! Politicians who support abortion on demand – O.K.!
LikeLike
Okay, First I can address Eric’s questions. Give me some time guys. I tend to take my time and try to be slow to hear and slow to speak. It isn’t because of wisdom. LOL. I am just slow. I aint in a hurry. I learn slow and I think slower. Even slower now days as I round old age. Sometimes that has proven good and sometimes it has proven inappropriate for others and for certain situations. We all have our gifts. Aye?
Eric, You seemed to want me to clarify what I meant by a phrase in relationship to Covenant Community. From creation to now the whole earth has been under the sovereign reign of Christ. It is now even if we don’t recognize it. He has ordained a twofold government. Both are interdependent as they stand in relationship to their Sovereign. Both are called to operate under the same Moral law. Our Confessional Standards recognize this. The Covenant Community is the Church. One of the two that operates in this world. She has members who are vocationally called to exercise their gifts in this world and she disciples (disciplines ie. trains) them and guards their souls and watches out for them in this world. She even defends them in this world from the other part of this two fold government when it has gone off track. I can say the same thing about the Civil realm also. Under the Authority of Christ that realm also defends the Covenant Community members from the Church when she has not done as she ought to in Her function I can testify of this from my own life. So they are both supposed to be operational under the one who has had all authority given to Him from the foundation of the World based upon His person and Work.
The Church has a function laid out in Ephesians. God has gifted her to mature the body of Christ so that she may function in all areas of life. Not just within her own sphere. That is a misnomer if one holds to that position. Her members are to Examine her Elders and follow them accordingly as Hebrews 13 notes. God does gift them with His law and fits them with helps for such tasks when they cry to Him for wisdom. God gives wisdom on how to implement His Truth according to His Law. As the Covenant Community examines men and women as they mature she should recognize their gifts and encourage them in their callings inside and outside the walls of the Church. She has been doing that for Millennia now. The Educational System has been used of God and the Church has assumed her position correctly in training men and women for their callings inside and outside of the Walls of the Church.
Note that I made a comparison on how we see young men grow up and are fit for the ministry in my first post above. Through the means of the whole organism of the Church it is a system that is most effective in noting who is worthy or appears worthy for positions vocationally in all areas. It’s first place it to command everyone everywhere to repent. From there the foundation of Christ and His authority sets up wisdom and promotes growth and knowledge. It should be noted here that the beginning of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord and to depart from evil is understanding as the book of Job states. That is relevant to all areas of life. That has to do with the Common Realm and the Church. I do believe in Common Grace. And when the unregenerate obey or do works accordingly to His Law it is beneficial for all as our Confession states in Chapter XVI.7 & XIX.5,6.
I am not a moralist. Christ came to save sinners. But I do believe that Society can be beneficial to the Church and the Church can be beneficial for Society. Christ is Lord over both a two fold government and both are to be subject to him.
I hope I cleared that up for you. I know I can be confusing.
Maybe this would benefit you.
It is Dr. Blackwood speaking on this subject.
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/the-mediatorial-kingdom-of-christ/
LikeLike
Darryl wrote….
Randy, perhaps you can explain this line: “. . .if we have committed sins of omission, then the voting booth ought to become a prayer closet in which tears of confession are shed before King Jesus.”
Sorry, but that’s a little creepy — voting booth as prayer closet?
Me…
That is okay Darryl, I understand it would be creepy to you. (Chuckling in humor, not at you but with you hopefully) I can ask Dr. Blackwood if you want specifically. I will see him soon as I spend time with him often. At 87 he still has a clear mind. I am blessed to have such a man of God in my life. He heavily influenced me in the mid 80’s. I am sure it is metaphoric. We are to pray for wisdom everywhere are we not? Wouldn’t that Wisdom call us to fear God and seek understanding? That most likely would have an effect upon us to repent and call for things to be different in our own lives as well as for us to intercede for those in authority during the election season. I imagine that is what is being stated. But if the statement is too confusing and creepy for you to gain understanding I will ask Dr. Blackwood and James Faris what is meant by the phrase. It really shouldn’t be that hard to understand in my thinking. But I am a bear like Pooh. I might have a little fluff in my ear. LOL.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Don’t you believe that one of the responsibilities of Government is to preserve civil order that the Church may prosper. If so, how can you oppose the application of biblical thinking, which maintains that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding, in choosing who would best promote preservation of the civil order in service of the Church.
Natural law and special revelation are not antithetical or autonomous as you seem to suggest in many of your posts, but the complimentary revelation of God.
LikeLike
Sean said…
Randy,
Just making adjustment for sanctimonious wind and spotters who claim the terrain is hilly and breaks up but then give coordinates as if it were flat. That tinny sound is bullet hitting can.
Me…
I hope I clarified that monocovenantalism has nothing to do with this brother. I think NAPARC has already called Mono-Covenantalism to be outside of our Confessional Standards. I actually think it is heretical based upon the Person and Work of Christ. He merited and worked. It was of debt He is owed his Children he purchased. Romans 4:4 says debt. Now we can discuss what kind of merit Adam worked for all day long. I really don’t care. The Confession is plain as I understand it and so is scripture.
I hope that clears this up and you are edified. Keep hitting the can. Keep setting your sights. Mine need to be adjusted often.
LikeLike
ZRIM said…
Randy, doesn’t everyone have an antinomian bent? But it’s the legalist bent that worries old life types.
You seem to like the idea that refraining is not an option. Not that I’m one of them, but I wonder what sort of room you make for those not inclined to vote? There are various reasons someone would abstain. Some just aren’t particularly interested. Others seem to be the victims of having had an overestimation of the power of politics in the first place, seen how it just never delivers and then swing from high octane optimism to the disillusioned cynicism. But whatever the case, are you inclined to suggest that opting out is somehow sinful? Or, to pick up from our conversation at PB, is it again a matter of wisdom instead of morality?
Me…
The Old life types I read were worried about both sides of the bent Z. That is what confuses me. I can’t wait till Mark Jone’s book comes out on Antinomianism. I think it will be quite eye opening. I think it will clarify what it is from a historical Reformed position in comparison to what is lazily called antinomianism today. I am willing to let the discussion wait till then unless you want to read Samuel Rutherford together.
Concerning the Refraining option, I haven’t fully made up my mind yet. Many of my good friends are going to choose that option. I personally do think that not participating in all of life is negligent and we will be held accountable. I believe we are in the mess we are in today (Moral Decline) because the Church hasn’t done her job. I do believe it is a moral issue. If someone doesn’t like the Providential status God has put us in, or we have put ourselves in by sin, then they can move to some Country where they can live out their convictions. They would readily be received most likely. There are Christian Countries from what I understand. At this time I do believe we are called to function in a two fold government of Christ and to neglect to function is omissive. Even when an Elder does not submit to Christ He should be dealt with. Is that not correct? I fear that this is one place we may have fallen short also. We allow our Elders and Members to go undisciplined sometimes and it works against us down the road. They say one thing in the Church then another to those outside. At least till they become bold enough to voice their sin openly in the Church. Does that make sense? I hope I am being understood.
LikeLike
BTW, Darryl.
It seems Samuel Rutherford addressed your question in the original Title of this blog. Questions 1-4 of Lex Rex have some pretty insightful things to say. Even something concerning the Republic. I suspect you knew that already though. To be honest with you I wouldn’t have known that unless I had finally picked up my copy and checked it out. As I said. I am slow.
LikeLike
Randy, for someone who hasn’t made his mind up you sure seem to promote an intolerance for political abstinence. You even suggest an “antinomian bent” for questioning the propriety of theologians giving political advice.
But isn’t political abstinence in your tradition’s own history, which is a fairly respectable history? I’m not convinced of those specific tenets, but just as respectable is the theologian who refrains from doling out political advice beyond the general principles of submission, etc.
LikeLike
Z,
You really need to read me more careful. I said “fully” made my mind up. I have been challenged to think this through a bit more clearly and I don’t think I have been intolerant of those who want to bow out. I do think they are wrong. Intolerant is your word. Not mine. It is your accusation and I believe you have misapplied it since you don’t really know me.
The dispensational antinomian bent had much more to do with other situations also. It wasn’t just a pollitical situation I was pointing out. Sean understood some of it as he pointed out monocovenantalism. The dichotomizing of law and grace plays a big part in this in my estimation. There is a root issue. It is permeating our Westminster Brothers because they don’t understand the Mosaic Covenant in light of the Confession of Faith. They are being taught by Professors and Elders in the URCNA who do not hold to the Westminster Standards and who hold the Mosaic as both an administration of the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace which our Westminster Confession denies. Some in the PCA and OPC are doing this also. Kline was a propagator of this thinking. The Old and New Covenants are of the same substance according to WCF 7.5,6. This was an error that has been discussed by Gillespie, Rutherford, and others. It is leading to a dichotomization that shouldn’t be between law and gospel. It is working its way into how we view Natural Law. Some are calling it Escondido Two Kingdom / Natural Law or something that is more putting off in my estimation, but yet applicable.
LikeLike
Randy, I’m not sure I understand your position, especially that last paragraph. Are you suggesting that churches discipline their members for not voting?
Also, you say, “I personally do think that not participating in all of life is negligent and we will be held accountable.” How much is “all of life?” That’s a rather encompassing term. How much of life participation suffices to fulfill “all?” It seems to me that we cannot possibly be expected to maximize every gift and opportunity God gives to us; to expect such as duty would be to overwhelm believers and vex consciences beyond any burden issued from Rome.
LikeLike
Darren, I am out the door brother. The discipline thing over not voting? Sins of Omission or Comission? How does the BCO deal with that? I believe the Elders are capable of discernment when those sins are committed and there is nothing that I know of that calls for this kind of level of discipline whether it be correct or wrong. In light of God’s word. Every word and thought will be judged. Sins of Commission and Omission. That ought to help us understand my context. I also believe that our Good works will be found in Christ as acceptable and pleasing to God as our Confession states in Chapter XVI. Even when we can’t logically keep our thought pure or any work pure. It is accepted as Pure in the Beloved.
I have to go for now brother. Might get back on tomorrow or later tonight. Who knows?. I have been neglecting other duties.
LikeLike
Don, perhaps you’ve heard the Luther line that he’d rather be ruled by a competent Muslim than an incompetent Christian. The wisdom that comes with fear of the Lord is not the same as running things.
LikeLike
Randy, fair enough but knowing you is impossible and irrelevant on a blog. I can only go by what you write, and, like Darren, I find some of your words confusing. But if your mind isn’t fully made up then maybe refraining from suggesting things like antinomianism would be a good idea. Still, for minds that are more made up, the sentiment you point to here that abstinence is a non-option and that voting is sort of moral imperative comes up every election cycle and seems to reflect a baptizing of modern political sensibilities that I’m never convinced either biblical Christianity or a Reformed understanding of liberty can sustain.
LikeLike
Adam,
‘You have to point out and elaborate such “9th commandment issues” otherwise it just sounds like you’re whining………James, what does inability to read English mean?’
I misread some things my first time through and spoke too quickly. I was attempting to apologize humbly
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yes, I have heard it and completely agree with it whether or not Luther actually said it. But I did not say that a Christian magistrate is necessarily better that a non-Christian magistrate. What I said was that wisdom is indispensable in deciding who would best promote preservation of the civil order in service of the Church. If the magistrate is a minister of God to us for good, should we not exercise wisdom in determining the good, and which magistrate best supports it.
Your second statement that “wisdom that comes with fear of the Lord is not the same as running things” makes no sense to me. If by “running things” you mean governing, then by your logic, wisdom that comes with fear of the Lord has nothing to do with running the Church as well as running a country. Since both are servants of God, I would think that wisdom that comes with fear of the Lord is is an essential prerequisite for both jobs. Because God is revealed by natural law, a Muslim as well as a Mormon may have wisdom that comes with fear of the Lord, though not a Christian, and thus govern the country well.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I understand the Luther statement has been shown to be a wives tale for the most part. Maybe there were some sympathetic things that might relate but Luther would never think having a Turk rule over the Nations was a good thing. Gene Veith just did a blog on that a few times over I think.
BTW, the wisdom that comes from the fear of the Lord shows that either one has understanding when he departs from evil or he doesn’t when He remains evil Darryl. Job 28:28. A tree is known by its fruit brother.
Z,
Getting to know people through communication and blogs is very possible. . I have learned to do it for many years now. Hopefully we can become friends and acquaintances, be edifying, and stretch each other for the benefit of those around us and each other. I am solid on the antinomian bent thing. I must not have expressed that enough or you are just skimming what I am saying. I believe it is a big problem in relationship to this situation. Remember this is about the original post. Remember the context I mentioned it in and how I related things to dichotomizing law and grace and its result in the post I discussed concerning Kline, some Professors of the URCNA, Escondido, and the WCF 7.5,6. You haven’t come close to interacting with anything I said. That I am very convinced about. The antinomian bent is not a maybe. And it is in relationship to this issue.
Be Encouraged friend. Please start addressing the things I said and what I am stating. Just don’t make implications that I am not hitting the mark or that I am confusing. Maybe you can ask me what I mean and how what I am saying applies. I think I have done that. But maybe I need to clarify it a bit better. I admit I need to learn how to communicate with you since I have just started and I don’t know the context you are in or where you come from. .
LikeLike
.I think I addressed your second part already Darren. I was in a hurry to get out the door. If I miss anything else you want me to answer just ask.
Darren asked…
Randy, I’m not sure I understand your position, especially that last paragraph. Are you suggesting that churches discipline their members for not voting?
That wasn’t what I was discussing contextually. I was speaking generally about church discipline and if the Church performed it on the level it should be done then a lot of our problems of struggle would be a lot less. We could also know those around us better and the faith could be held to with much more clearness. Our Confessional Standards speak to the Mosaic covenant and the issue I mentioned of dichotomizing.law and grace so far apart that they are in opposition to each other which the scripture in Galatians refute. Instead of just noting their distinctions they are in opposition and thus rendering a totally different understanding at a root level. The Law is bad and only condemns. Bavinck shows this to be the Lutheran understanding in light of how the Reformers know it. So does Anthony Burgess, Samuel Rutherford, and others. It is a redefinition of Natural Law and how the law should relate to us. This is a big root problem. I was actually cussed out because I noted that Dr. Clark and Horton held to this Lutheran view moreso than the Historical Reformed view and it was leading them to an antinomian bent. I was cussed out with the F word for noting that. From a PCA member. I touched a sacred cow. .
When we allow our Elders and Members to go undisciplined sometimes and it works against us down the road. We have seen many things creep in politically that shouldn’t have. We have to deal with women ordination, whether Adam was a man or what his origin was, the issue of homosexuality and abortion (murder) in the Church. These are all issues that if we would hold our Elders feet to the fire when they speak in opposition to truth, the Church would be much better off. I am not suggesting a hunt and seek. That is ridiculous. But a man can be judged my his words and actions on the outside of the Church walls. By the mouth of two or three notable men. Not gossips. Matthew 18 is very important here. It is done all the time. Just note an Elder who has a wondering eye. He should be helped and disciplined accordingly. That doesn’t mean kick him out or excommunicate him either. It means try by means to restore him to his office by examination and repentance and healing. He is gifted. We all sin. When an Elder starts spouting off things contrary to sound doctrine he should be examined and discernment made. It might lead to expulsion of office or even excommunication if he becomes unrepentant and starts teaching contrary to sound doctrine. It is for the health of the Church and Christ as King has made this means to keep us, mature us, and cause perseverance in us. Church discipline is a grace.
LikeLike
I need to go to bed. My sentences are run ons. Sorry. Poooooopppppppeeedddd out. I should know when to stop. Sorry.
LikeLike
Don, if you completely agree with Luther then how do you agree with yourself? You had said that fear of the Lord was the beginning of wisdom. Does this not suggest that you think a good governor will have a proper fear of the Lord, that he will not simply be competent?
And my point about running things is that atheists can be good administrators. Administration is not rocket science. But not everyone can do it.
LikeLike
R. Martin, so what are you doing to make the U.S. government kiss the son? Some of our leaders are worse than Turks. Can you in good conscience simply complain about 2k? Shouldn’t you be out there doing something about this, like your Covenanter forebears?
LikeLike
Randy, I am reading you closely. And what you keep saying is that distinguishing between wisdom and morality is a problem and that it owes to the dubious law-gospel distinction. But the problem is that the former isn’t a problem and it owes to triadalism (not dualism) and the latter isn’t dubious at all. Voting aligns with wisdom, not morality.
LikeLike
Darryl,
It is not I who suggest that a good governor will have a proper fear of the Lord, as opposed to simply being competent. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that competence in ruling and fear of the Lord go hand in hand. As R. Martin pointed out, the preponderant use of the phrase “fear of the Lord” in scripture refers to whether or not one departs from evil. So, for example, 2 Sam 23:3 He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. Paul makes it clear that one can, by the light of natural law do what is required under the law. Can you back up your statement through scripture that a ruler can be competent apart from fear of the Lord, or perhaps you are defining competence in a civil way that differs from the way God defines it in scripture. If that is the case, how can a magistrate be a “minister of good to us?”
Regarding your point about running things in terms of administering, then you are not talking about governing, and so your point is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Conor Friesdorf has a thoughtful piece on this issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/the-perils-of-arguing-about-religion-during-election-season/264274/
LikeLike
Don, Acts has several competent rulers who won’t do what the Jews want in locking up Paul and other Christian preachers. Acts 18 is one example.
But again, I am surprised how fundamentalist you sound — which doesn’t fit your Newbiggin recreation model of salvation. On the one hand (Newbiggin), all aspects of creation that conform to divine patterns are part of the nenewal of the earth that Christ inaugurated. On the other hand (fundamentalist) any competent ruler must follow Scripture.
I am a victim of whiplash.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Your first statement only supports my point that the competent ruler is the one who upholds justice in the face of evil. Rome consistently protected the Church against the Jews until Nero. Cyrus and Darius are also examples of rulers who defended the Church against evil. While Egypt remembered Joseph, the Church prospered. Nebuchadnezzar was restored to power and more greatness was added to him after he lifted his eyes to heaven and his reason was returned to him. These all demonstrate Newbiggin’s and scripture’s premise that all aspects of creation that conform to divine patterns are part of the renewal of the earth that Christ inaugurated or in the case of the old covenant, anticipating that renewal.
How can you possibly equate the scriptural principle of the good ruler as one who defends justice with a fundamentalist position? Would you vote for a ruler who is evil over one who defends justice?
LikeLike
Randy,
Would you explain your position on the law and gospel as opposed to what you see here and how you think it leads to antinomianism?
LikeLike
Darryl asked…
R. Martin, so what are you doing to make the U.S. government kiss the son? Some of our leaders are worse than Turks. Can you in good conscience simply complain about 2k? Shouldn’t you be out there doing something about this, like your Covenanter forebears?
Me,
That is a wonderful question! I do not simply complain about 2K. And let us distinguish Escondido Two Kingdom / Natural Law from language that even my predecessors and friends have used. It is different. So please allow me to make that distinction. 2K is not necessarily E2K / NL.
I am involved with and help host the Reformation Society of Indiana and whole heartedly support a work that goes on at our State House here in Indianapolis called Public Servants Prayer which is a ministry my Church is involved in that Matthew Barnes leads here. He attends the RSI and visits our church ever now and again. I endorse and support as best I can men who know and have a testimony for our King that are involved in Politics. Even some of my school buddies I grew up with on the Town Council here in my home town of Speedway. My Pastors regularly go down to the State House for Prayer and Preaching. Yes, that is still done here in Indiana. My buddy Mark Van Der Molen just ran for Judge. I do also pray for my friends. I am a Navy Veteran. I served my Country at an Early age and I love my Country. I love my Country as the Scots loved theirs. I also promote the materials that you have by now probably read on my blog. Maybe you didn’t take the time to do so. I am just assuming you did since you complained about spending the dollar and I ended up giving it to you for free in pdf. plus the quote that was creepy to you.
Just for your info, not that you care…
I may not be the most astute member of the Klan or the most aligned with my spiritual heritage but I am still learning it. There is a lot to learn!. What do you expect from a Dutch, German, Anglo, Cherokee who was born a Calvinist in the Reformed Baptist Tradition? I wasn’t born an Arminian to become a Calvinist. I was regenerate reading my Bible in a Navy Barracks the week of October the 25th 1981 and when I read John 15:16 I knew it was true by experience and word.
I wasn’t born Dispensationalist in the John Darby Tradition either. I was involved with the Navigators Military ministry (which was very diverse) and one thing I didn’t agree with that was taught to me by my Independent brothers was that the Church was a New Testament Parenthesis as plan B by God. I never bought into the definition of Grace as only being unmerited favor. Charis entails too much. There is no regenerative power in unmerited favor. It is totally unmerited and that is a definition of grace though I admit.
I also believe in Common Grace. I just believe that when people go against the grain of God’s law they get splinters. It is so much easier for the regenerate and unregenerate to do what is in accordance with the Law of God. It is loving. Forgiveness is a part of that Law by the way. Russ Pulliam and I were just discussing this the other night at Church. How could a Jew who knew not God forgive his enemies who killed his son in the streets and live a life without bitterness? It does happen.
I am like you in one way. I do believe that an unregenerate man can have wisdom and fear God’s judgement. But it is common grace and law that restrains him to do the correct thing. It isn’t a regenerate fear. But is a fear. And that aint all bad. LOL. It restrains. It also keeps others from experiencing the curses of reprobation pronounced in Romans 1.
As I said. I am still learning. I am trying to get more involved with my Community and even joined the American Legion. LOL. I am testifying of Christ’s Kingdom wherever I go. Maybe I am not that good at it but I do believe it. God commands every man everywhere to repent. That includes every man. Those in the civil realm and the Church. Me included.
Does that answer your question Darryl?
LikeLike
This is going to be a part of the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian.
Get your order in now……
http://www.cpjournal.com/products-page/subscriptions/the-confessional-presbyterian-volume-8-2012-subscription-forthcoming-approx-early-dec-2012/
I. Law and Gospel
By Michael S. Horton with Response by Mark Garcia
II. Two Kingdoms
By David VanDrunen with Response by Jeffrey C. Waddington
III. Republication of the Covenant of Works
By J. V. Fesko with Response by Cornel Venema
LikeLike
Don, so you’re saying it’s possible for a ruler to uphold justice and not know God? Rome didn’t confess Jesus, right, and yet it protected the church. The United States doesn’t confess Jesus and yet it protects the church (last I checked, Christians practice their faith freely here).
So the question is whether your original point actually makes sense since someone who doesn’t fear God can uphold justice.
Still whiplashed.
LikeLike
Z,
Dear brother, Where have I conflated Wisdom and Morality to the level that there are no distinctions between them? Wisdom does depend upon knowing the God of Morality and His Moral Law but it comes from God. There are distinctions even though they heavily rely upon one another. It is like the Sola’s. They are alone categorically but they are not alone. You can not separate them from God. You can not separate the Word of God and its authority from God. You can not separate salvation’s means, instrument, Person, or Purpose from each other but you can distinguish them categorically. It is the same way with Salvation. Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification are all a part of the Gospel and Salvation. They are categorically separated and tied together in Union with Christ. To dichotomize them so terribly far apart truncates the truth and life that is found in Christ.
LikeLike
Forgot this….
The CPJ has some great stuff coming up by some great contributors.
The Confessional Presbyterian Volume 8 (2012) Contents.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/chris-coldwell/volume-8-2012-of-the-confessional-presbyterian-journal/4247431381864
2. Editorial
Articles
3. Archibald Alexander & the Founding of Princeton Theological Seminary
By James M. Garretson
20. 1823–1830: The Establishment Of Princeton’s Polemic
By Allen Stanton
35. Samuel Miller’s Pastoral Theology
By Andrew J. Webb
44. Hodge and Thornwell: “Princes in Israel”
By C. N. Willborn
55. Old Princeton and American Culture: Insights from J. W. Alexander
By Gary Steward
65. The Old Testament at Old Princeton
By Benjamin Shaw
74. “Right Reason” and the Science of Theology at Old Princeton Seminary: A New Perspective
By Paul Kjoss Helseth
91. Princeton and Evolution
By Fred G. Zaspel
99. Some Personal Thoughts on B. B. Warfield’s Life and Significance: A Lecture
By Carl R. Trueman
109. The Reorganization of PTS and the Exhaustion of American Presbyterianism
By D. G. Hart
120. Archibald A. Alexander D. D. (1772–1851) An Annotated Bibliography
By Wayne Sparkman
LikeLike
Darryl,
You started out well with your first point, but ran off the track with your second point. Scripture is clear that it is the evil man (i.e., who flaunts the second table of the law) who does not fear God. The fear of God is only the beginning of wisdom. If it does not lead to faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, it is simply not redemptive. Witness the young ruler who subscribed to the second table of the law, and even called Jesus good, but did not subscribe to the first table of the law.
The fear of God is more like a rheostat than a simple on/off switch as you seem to imply. When the fear of God is completely removed from man (i.e, turned all the way off), all he can do is evil continually. Until then, the light of nature ensures some flow of the fear of God into the heart of man. When that flow is completely turned off, you end up with a Nero or Hitler.
LikeLike
@ R Martin Snyder;
What wise words! I have for some years, characterized DGH’s and Zrim’s perspective as a form of dispensational antinomianism. You have hit the nail on the head! Keep pressing on to the higher calling in Christ! Darryl and Zrim, I pray that God will open the eyes of your heart! This is very important stuff! When you get the foundation wrong, your WV is built on sand.
And yes, Kline is one of the main culprits (if not the foremost) as to why so many Presby’s are confused when it comes to law and grace. They attempt to dichotomize something that can not be separated. This untruth has caused many in the reformed Church to lose they’re bearings.
The Mosaic Law is NOT a recapitulation on the covenant of works, and the sooner *we* in the reformed camp understand that, the sooner *we* will become more pleasing to Christ our King. To miss this important truth, is to keep the Church in darkness, and cause us to falter in understanding our great commission; in my humble opinion.
Keep it up, Martin! You may be old and slow, but your salt is the exact prescription for many at Old life. In fact, your words are so right on, that all of Christ’s Church needs to hear this important truth.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Darryl said,
Don, so you’re saying it’s possible for a ruler to uphold justice and not know God? Rome didn’t confess Jesus, right, and yet it protected the church. The United States doesn’t confess Jesus and yet it protects the church (last I checked, Christians practice their faith freely here).
So the question is whether your original point actually makes sense since someone who doesn’t fear God can uphold justice.
Still whiplashed.
Me…
I am not familiar with Rome Protecting Christians before Constantine. I am also seeing a lot of persecution of Christian principles starting up here in the United States. Even so much that a child can not announce in passing conversation that homosexuality is sinful. He expelled from school and then he was vindicated. Why did that even happen?
LikeLike
Thanks Doug for the compliment but please know I am no fan of Doug Wilson or anyone who holds to Federal Vision principles or the New Paul Perspective. The CREC or whatever it is called today is a renegade denomination in my estimation and a place that harbors those who cannot submit to a Confessionally sound denomination. Notice I didn’t say that everyone in that denomination couldn’t submit to a Confessional Church. I am sure there are some good folk in that denomination. I have never recommended a Doug Wilson book or blog to my knowledge and will not to this day. Kline had the Covenant of Works correct in my estimation but went to far when he considered the Mosaic Covenant as an admixture of both the Covenant of Works and Grace.
I just want to clarify that.
LikeLike
Randy, your comments are terribly muddled. But the appearance of conflating wisdom and morality comes from thinking the point here is to dichotomize instead of distinguish them. You haven’t demonstrated that you understand the difference between behaving unwisely and behaving badly.
LikeLike
Don, you have made this a question of who to vote for—the one who fears God or the one who doesn’t. But Paul made it a question of submission to either. In fact, the entire NT doesn’t seem nearly as interested in how to select magistrates as it is in submitting to and obeying them (because to do so is to submit to and obey God himself). To boot, the only magistrates it could conceive were those who didn’t fear God because they thought they were the deity. Your reasoning doesn’t really do much to nurture the sort of citizenship the NT calls for.
LikeLike
David Gordon: What is “new” or distinctive about Sinai is not the (conditional) blessing; what is new or distinctive is the conditional cursing. And Paul, knowing (as any first century Jew would have known) Israel’s actual history under those conditions, knew perfectly well that the prophets were right for pronouncing judgment on a people who rather consistently failed to remain obedient to their covenant duties. So, even though in theory Sinai proffered either blessing or cursing, in plain historical fact it rarely brought anything but cursing.
We might wish to argue that Israel at Sinai was required not only to do but also to believe. This
is all well and good, but it is all pettifogging. Yes, Abraham was required to circumcise Isaac, but had God not already fulfilled His promise to give Abraham descendants, there would have been no Isaac to circumcise. So Abraham’s circumcision of Isaac was not a condition of getting Isaac;
God already fulfilled the pledge to give Abraham a seed before requiring that this seed be circumcised.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass…
LikeLike
Charles Hodge: Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic
covenant, it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people. In this aspect, the promise was national security and prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, “Do this and live.”
David Gordon: it was necessary for there to be a covenant that, at a minimum, preserved two things–memory of the gracious promises made to Abraham and his “seed,” and the biological integrity of the “seed” itself. Sinai’s dietary laws and prohibitions against inter-marrying with the Gentiles, along with Sinai’s calendar and its circumcision, set Abraham’s descendants apart from the Gentiles, saving them (in some degree) from their desire to inter-marry with the Am ha-Aretz until the time came to do away with such a designation forever.
And during this season of preparing the world for the coming Christ, it was necessary to have a covenant that preserved both memory of the Abrahamic promises, and the integrity of Abraham’s seed, until the “Seed” of Abraham came. Such a covenant would need, by the harshest threats of
curse-sanctions, to prevent inter-marriage and idolatry among a people particularly attracted to both. Sinai’s thunders did not prevent this perfectly, but they did so sufficiently that a people still existed on earth who recalled the promises to Abraham when Christ appeared, and the genealogy of
Matthew’s gospel could be written.
LikeLike
David Gordon: “Some may not like Paul’s opinion on the matter. What we must not do is evade the plain teaching of Paul that the Sinai covenant itself, as it was delivered by the hand of Moses 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant, was a different covenant, different in kind, characteristically legal, Gentile- excluding, non-justifying because it was characterized by works, and therefore cursing its recipients If this doesn’t sound like any bargain, recall that the original Israelites did not consider it a bargain either, and they resisted Moses’ efforts to engage them in it. All things considered, many of the first-generation Israelites, who received this covenant while trembling at the foot of a quaking mountain and then wandered in the wilderness, preferred to return to Egypt rather than to enter the covenant with a frightening deity who threatened curse-sanctions upon them if they disobeyed.
I do not blame them. Their assessment of the matter was judicious and well considered, albeit rebellious. The Sinai covenant was no bargain for sinners, and I pity the poor Israelites who suffered
under its administration, just as I understand perfectly well why seventy-three (nearly half) of their psalms were laments. Such a legal covenant, whose conditions require strict obedience (and threaten severe curse-sanctions), is bound to fail if one of the parties to it is a sinful people.”
LikeLike
Martin – “a child can not announce in passing conversation that homosexuality is sinful. He expelled from school and then he was vindicated.”
You just described how a rogue individual was corrected by higher authorities. That would be a proof of a structure that is opposed to persecution. Our freedom in this country is extensive, the Free Exercise clause is strong, and both are primarily executed by men and women who would probably not meet the character requirements set forth in the pamphlet. There is a civil wisdom possessed by unbelievers, and the two of us are blessed by it.
LikeLike
I don’t think re-capitulation is the right word, or at least, I don’t know any Reformed exegete that uses that term. WCF 19.2 simply says the Covenant of Works “as such, was delivered on Mt. Sinai” and, for just one other example, Charles Hodge calls the law of Moses a “re-enactment” of the Covenant of Works. That can be found in Hodge’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, page 57 where he expounds on chapter 3:6
If anything, Hodge’s “re-enactment” is a lot stronger than the usual “republication”, it seems to me.
LikeLike
Doug, you’re back. And here I thought you had been raptured.
LikeLike
Don, good. We’re straight. A little bit of fear of the Lord is enough to be wise. So a ruler doesn’t have to be a believer or enforce the Second (or First) table of the law. He can simply punish evil and that’s enough.
And Christians have to submit to rulers who are either a little bit wise or wicked like Nero because either way, God has established the civil authority.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Who are you going to pit against God in defining the evil to be punished?
Will you submit to a ruler who commands you to stop proclaiming Christ as King?
LikeLike
Z,
The first line of the post asks “For Whom would you vote?”. If the government wants me to vote, doesn’t submission dictate that I do so. If so, then you bet I will vote for the one who fears God over the one who doesn’t. Wouldn’t you? How does that fail to nurture the sort of citizenship the NT calls for?
LikeLike
Don, how exactly did we get to this? I brought up the competent political administration of a Turk. Now I’m backed into a corner by the ruler to disavow my Lord. Come to think of it, Nero did something like this and Paul told Christians to submit. There you have fear of the Lord but folly (according to Don Frank).
LikeLike
Don, it takes more than piety to produce administrative wisdom. I know many a godly man whom fear the Lord and yet, for all that, would make inadequate and foolish leaders.
LikeLike
Don, submission does not dictate having to vote. Privileges aren’t compulsory, like taxes. But even when I take advantage of the privilege, the fear of God isn’t a trait I much look for. If fearing God is no test for submission then how can it be for privilege? This is how your reasoning undermines the NT ethic for submission, by making the fear of God a test. But neither Caesar nor Nero feared God and both Jesus and Paul command unequivocal submission.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You ask, “How did we get to this?”
We got to this because in your previous response, you said “Christians have to submit to rulers who are either a little bit wise or wicked like Nero because either way, God has established the civil authority.” I assume you agree that when Nero or any man commands you to disobey God, that we must obey God rather than man. Because God has established civil authority, it remains subject to God, and therefore can never be established as separate and autonomous, as hard as Jefferson and those who subscribe to the complete privatization of our faith would like to do.
When government pretends otherwise (i.e., when the ruler has completely suppressed the natural fear of God), the wrath of God’s judgement will surely follow. Look what happened to Nero. There were revolts against him first by Vindex and the final one by Galba. He was deserted by his followers and fled to a freedman’s villa where he committed suicide.
LikeLike
Z,
Please tell me where I maintain that fear of God is a test for submission. I said that it is or should be a factor in deciding for whom we should vote. When you say that the fear of God is not a trait that you look for, I suspect you and I differ on the meaning of that term. I maintain, and believe that I have scriptural support, that the fear of God is in all men, by nature and natural law, but can be suppressed in part or completely by the purely wicked man.
As far as unequivocal submission to government, I hope and suspect that you would agree with Peter if you were commanded by the ruler to disobey God, and choose to disobey the ruler.
LikeLike
@Mark Maccully
Those David Gordon posts are some of the most confused, sad, twistings of reformed theologyI have ever read! Is it no wonder the reformed community is confused? Gordon is certainly not teaching material! This man shouldnt be allowed to teach Sunday school, let alone being given any serious consideration with adults. What a abomination!
Mark, I hope you only posted those excerpts to show how *out there* Gordon really is. Because, Gordon has abandoned reformed theologyand embraced a bazaar form of dispensationalism.
LikeLike
Doug – Are you a theonomist? I like Bahnsen’s apologetics, but I don’t get theonomy. Where in the Reformed world today is theonomy actually taught? Is it a small minority of a small minority (Reformed churches)? Where in the New Testament do you see advocacy for theonomy?
LikeLike
Adam,
I agree with you, though I do not equate fear of God and piety. I equate it with the beginning of wisdom, as I’m sure you would agree, but not necessarily with salvific faith.
LikeLike
Don, it’s the implication of your reasoning—if the fear of God is a test for the lower man-made privilege of voting then why not for the higher God-ordained calling of submission?
Yes, while we are called to obey the magistrate we are also called to obey God rather than men (note nothing about being called to disobedience). But I’ve yet to have any magistrate compel me to disobey God, though I have seen plenty of religionists who simply don’t like something their magistrates do cleverly concoct arguments to make it sound like they are being so compelled and justify disobedience, often accompanied by a false sense of persecution and martyrdom. Boo hoo.
LikeLike
Don, because God establishes rulers, and because you follow God, you still don’t have the power to overturn rulers whom you believe to be neither pious or wise.
LikeLike
@Erick:
Check out 1 Tim 1 through 13
Not only does Paul call the law *good* present tense; but he is talking about the penal sanctions! Which according to Paul are in accordance to the gospel of Christ!!!!!!
And what penal sactions is Paul talking about? Rape, homosexuality, murder, kidnapping, stealing. The very penal sanctions that theonomists are being ridiculed for still being valid.
LikeLike
@Erick:
Just as an aside; notice that Paul doesnt agree with Zrim, Darryl, or David Gordon. He says the law is presant tense *good*. Paul doesnt say, the penal sanctions *used* to be good, no no. He says there are presant tense good, and Paul wrote this after our Lord Jesus went to the cross. So Paul also says the law gave the right punishment for these crimes in accordance to the gospel of Christ. Notice Paul doesnt say, that since Christ went to the cross, we are to punish crime a different way.
LikeLike
Z,
Thanks for clarifying. I did not intend or consent to the implication, but can see how it might be drawn.
LikeLike
@Erick,
Sorry for not answering your qusetion. Yes, I tend to call myself a theonomist. But I see theonomy as a starting poing. I am not sure how to apply all of God’s law in a New Covenant context. I’m teachable, I hope 😉
LikeLike
Darryl,
No argument on that. But as long as I have the right to vote, I will cast my vote for the candidate who is wisest, Christian or not, which takes us back to where this post originally started: “For whom would you vote?”
LikeLike
@Erick:
Also, theonomy is not something to be taught per se. It’s a starting point we should all take for granted. As Paul says, “we *know* the law is good”. Do we all want and yearn for socio political justice? That’s theonomy!! In fact I would go so far as to say; all true Christians are theonomists, the question is, are we consistent theonomist? None of us, even Greg Bahnsen are consistent theonomists because we’re all sinners.The choice as I see it is; theonomy or autonomy; take you pick.
LikeLike
Erik, I apologize for misspelling your name 🙂
LikeLike
Doug – Thanks. May I ask what type of church you are in? Are your beliefs accepted there?
LikeLike
Doug – Were the Jews carrying out the specific punishments called for in the law of Moses at the time Paul wrote? How do you draw parallels between the 1st century Christian church, the 21st century Christian church, and Israel living in the promised land at the time of Moses? I see way more discontinuity than continuity there.
LikeLike
Z said…
Randy, your comments are terribly muddled. But the appearance of conflating wisdom and morality comes from thinking the point here is to dichotomize instead of distinguish them. You haven’t demonstrated that you understand the difference between behaving unwisely and behaving badly.
I am sorry you are having such a hard time understanding me. I am sure I can be muddled. I have been communicating for many years through this means and I haven’t had the same difficulty communicating with others as I have been with you or others who seem to be just skimming what I have wrote. BTW ZRIM, You just seem to be on attack mode with short Political type adds I see on the television right now instead of dealing with the substance of what I have written. Just an observation. I know you are above short Attack Bites. Please start quoting me more fully and asking me what I am saying about specific things like I take the time to do.
I didn’t know I was supposed to demonstrate that I understood the difference between behaving unwisely and behaving badly with relationship to wisdom and morality. First off I am not sure those really relate to the discussion. But to humor you I will attempt to clear it up. I believe I demonstrated that I wasn’t conflating wisdom and morality many times now to you. But let me proceed on.
Maybe we need to define Morality, Wisdom, Behaving, Unwisely, and Badly. I think I showed the connection between Wisdom, Fearing God, and Understanding. Do you remember that post? I mentioned Job 28:28 at one point.
Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs. She calls out. She is Right knowledge. If one is to behave unwisely then that person is behaving against Right knowledge. If someone is behaving badly they are behaving against Right knowledge. I think what you are trying to show me in your comparison of behaving unwisely and behaving badly is really the difference between poor judgment and acting out specifically in a sinful manner. It really has very little to do with this discussion but I have been playing along. Poor judgment is definitely poor understanding. Acting with poor understanding is definitely acting against wisdom. That is why we are told to ask God for Wisdom who does not want us to be unwise but wise. He gives wisdom as the book of James and Ephesians states. Wisdom will never act against morality. And case in point it will promote it.
It seems we are really discussing discernment and proper judgment. Now if you want to talk about wisdom from the sense of having a knowledge to work skilfully then that is another matter. That has to do with talent or a gift given from God. We are to operate within the means of our talents and gifts. But that is another issue I believe contextually.
Can you take things from my words in this post and now respond?
LikeLike
Mark Mccully,
Please understand that I was a Reformed Baptist for many years. One OPC Pastor friend of mine stated that he believed Meredith Kline would be recognized as having done more to contribute to Reformed Baptist Theology (concerning the Mosaic Covenant) than for Presbyterian Covenant Theology. I have been a well known Reformed Baptist for many years. I understand Covenant Theology from the perspective I am critiquing better than I know what I believe now probably. I learned it well and understand it. Maybe much better than you do. I mean that in all sincerity and not pridefully. I still have many of my resources up on my Puritanboard blog that promote positions very similar to what you are advocating from John Owen, John Tombe, Charles Hodge, and others.
When you have time look at a few of my blogs and writings. I sincerely believe that Gordon is a mess. It is not Confessional Presbyterianism and is just plain wrong.
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/possible-misconceptions-about-galatians-law-and-gospel-are-opposed/
James Durham
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/taken-frompract/
Samuel Rutherford
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/the-covenant-of/
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19, What is the Law?
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/westminster-confession-of-faith-chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/
Some two Kingdom’s thought and clarification maybe?
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/modern-day-reformed-thought-two-kingdoms-view-vs-the-biblical-one-kingdom-view/
LikeLike
@Erik: Doug – Were the Jews carrying out the specific punishments called for in the law of Moses at the time Paul wrote?
No, there were under Roman rule. Moreover, Isra were under a judegment from God himself. So, to try to take the judicial penal sanctions in there own hands would be an unlawful use of the law, regardless of the correctness of the punishment. Much like today; we all know that murder is a capital punishement offence according to the Bible. However in States that do not have the death penalty, we as Christians can not take the law in our own hands. Even though the murderer *should* be executed, it would be unlawful to usurp the Magistrate.
Some three hundred years later after Rome fell, the DP for many of the crimes found in 1 Tim 1-13 were in fact enforced; in a lawful way. When this happened, crime was being punished in an ethical manner, which is justr another word for *justice*. Can crime be punished in an unlawful way? I would say, of course. How should we punish crime? I think God’s word has much needed wisdom in just that area, after all who other than God knows what is an eye for and eye?
LikeLike
Doug – So this is pretty much all just pie-in-the sky then isn’t it? Now that American P&R churches are on board with separating the civil magistrate from the church it doesn’t appear anyone is going back. Why continue to fight such a losing battle?
LikeLike
At some point you become the conspiracy theorist guy at church that everyone kind of avoids.
LikeLike
Mike said,
“Martin – “a child can not announce in passing conversation that homosexuality is sinful. He expelled from school and then he was vindicated.”
You just described how a rogue individual was corrected by higher authorities. That would be a proof of a structure that is opposed to persecution. Our freedom in this country is extensive, the Free Exercise clause is strong, and both are primarily executed by men and women who would probably not meet the character requirements set forth in the pamphlet. There is a civil wisdom possessed by unbelievers, and the two of us are blessed by it.”
Thanks brother,
I agree with you. I do believe in a common grace as you can see from this post.
https://oldlife.org/2012/10/what-hath-jerusalem-monarchy-to-do-with-athens-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-60970
My poorly made point was that Christ is being persecuted in this country. The Homosexual agenda and supposed Pro Choice movement have made significant ground that I wouldn’t have imagined back in the 1970’s through 90’s. I am a Baby Boomer. On the back end of it but I am. Look at Canada! Wow! If we don’t start working from the foundation we have in the Church then Society is probably not going to pick up the slack since it needs to Church to proclaim God’s Word. As Peter noted, “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?”
LikeLike
I agree with Doug that he can’t do sqwat until in the providence of God he comes to live in a nation which confesses the true God revealed in Genesis 9. Even though the sacrifice that the God of Genesis 9 demands is not merely some political exercise, we in the meanwhile can only hope for a day when Christ’s death is not the one and only sacrifice accepted by God, so that there will be a truly holy war against God’s enemies and we ourselves can be the priests who offer the necessary blood sacrifices. It’s just too bad that the apostle Paul did not live in Constantine’s day.
I Cor 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
LikeLike
Martin, if you think the difference between poor judgment and acting out specifically in a sinful manner really has very little to do with this discussion and have just been playing along then I think we’re done because you’ve missed my point and added insult to injury by “just playing along.” And attack mode? Ok, but it doesn’t feel like that over here.
LikeLike
Erik says:How do you draw parallels between the 1st century Christian church, the 21st century Christian church, and Israel living in the promised land at the time of Moses?
Excellent question!!!
Israel was a type of the Church. God told Israel to invade the 7 Nations *slowly* just like the Church, much like leaven. The book of Hebrews is the antitype of Deuteronomy. Where Israel fought with the phisical sword, where the Church fights with the much more powerful sword of the Spirit ie the gospel.. But *faith* is the heart condition that holds on to the victroy for both Old Testament Israel, and the Church. But when it comes to socio political morality, by its very nature, it can not change. Justice is the foundation for any Nation that will stand. Therefore, when I call myself a theonomists I merely assert that I stand for juustice.
LikeLike
Erik
You are sounding like a Political Sound Bite without dealing with the substance of what Doug wrote. Just saying bud. Please quit the ad hominen. Address what he said. If I start to do that also correct me. I have been known to get frustrated and start doing that also. Thanks
BTW Erik, I have always appreciated this article by Sherman Isbell on General Equity. It might address some of the discussion you are having with Doug.
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/a-godly-society/the-divine-law-of-political-israel-expired-general-equity.php
LikeLike
Erik says:How do you draw parallels between the 1st century Christian church, the 21st century Christian church, and Israel living in the promised land at the time of Moses?
Excellent question!!!
Israel was a type of the Church. The 7 Nations are a type of the world.God told Israel to invade the 7 Nations *slowly* just like the Church after 70 AD, much like leaven. The book of Hebrews is the antitype of Deuteronomy. Where Israel fought with the phisical sword, we in the Church fight with the much more powerful sword of the Spirit ie the gospel.. But *faith* is the heart condition that holds on to the victroy for both Old Testament Israel, and the Church. However, when it comes to socio political morality, by its very nature, it can not change. Justice is the foundation for any Nation that will stand. Therefore, when I call myself a theonomists I merely assert that I stand for juustice.
LikeLike
It’s all pie in the sky until you get control. Then you can take hold of history and make it go the direction God would want it to go if God were in control.
Doug and Martin, do you both agree with Gary North that there is a “common grace” which decreases over time as you guys take over?
I commend to you this essay by Bolt from the Christian Reformed http://www.prca.org/articles/bolt.html
LikeLike
Z said…
Martin, if you think the difference between poor judgment and acting out specifically in a sinful manner really has very little to do with this discussion and have just been playing along then I think we’re done because you’ve missed my point and added insult to injury by “just playing along.” And attack mode? Ok, but it doesn’t feel like that over here.
The way you are accusing me of conflating Morality and Wisdom after I have addressed this to you a few times is getting old. You are not dealing with my addresses. Therefore it is having less to do with the topic and seems to be obfuscation to me. I am sorry. I have addressed your questions and you are not dealing with my answers. Do you see I am not conflating at least? I am not upset or frustrated. I am trying to learn how to communicate with you as pointed as I can without being a sound bite. I actually have defined things. I don’t see that from you at all. Just saying bud.
LikeLike
Mark asked…
“Doug and Martin, do you both agree with Gary North that there is a “common grace” which decreases over time as you guys take over?”
First off Mark, It isn’t about us guys taking over. LOL. Sorry, that isn’t the issue. It is about Christ, His Law, and His mediatorial reign that He was given by God the Father.
You can read about what that from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Website so that you can know what we are talking about.
A King and His Kingdom
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID560462_CIID2447338,00.html
pdf is here.
Click to access KingandKingdom.pdf
Just to let you know that I can not discern what God is doing or know what level of Grace he is placing upon a certain period of time. There are blessings and cursing for how we respond as Galatians 6:7 states. God is not mocked. That was written for us. If we walk with God we have much liberty of freedom in Christ and blessing. If we disobey Christ we should heed the warnings that are examples from the past according to 1 Corinthians 10.
I hope that adequately answers your question.
LikeLike
Doug & Martin – I’m just not buying it. The longer I remain a Christian the more of a minimalist I am becoming in what I affirm. I just don’t see theonomy (or even Neocalvinism) in the Reformed confessions (at least the Three Forms that I subscribe to).
LikeLike
I am getting tired again guys. Been sick. Doing the run on sentence thing again. Going to take a nap. I do enjoy discussing this with you all. Please don’t be frustrated with me. I am still learning and relearning also. Us older guys forget so much of what we learned in our youth.
LikeLike
Mark says: Doug and Martin, do you both agree with Gary North that there is a “common grace” which decreases over time as you guys take over?
Mark, you lost me bro. Pie in the sky? Huh?
Quick question: Is justice pie in the sky?
LikeLike
That is fine Erik. I am not a Theonomist. And you can see the difference as it is defined by Dr. Jack Kinneer on a radio program listed in this blog. http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/modern-day-reformed-thought-two-kingdoms-view-vs-the-biblical-one-kingdom-view/
LikeLike
Brother Erik; what arent you buying? And what do you mean by pie in the sky?
LikeLike
Erik says: Doug – So this is pretty much all just pie-in-the sky then isn’t it? Now that American P&R churches are on board with separating the civil magistrate from the church it doesn’t appear anyone is going back. Why continue to fight such a losing battle?
Erik, is justice pie-in -the-sky?
What do you make of the Bible when it says, whoa to those who call evil good? Isnt punishing crime with justice something we should all yearn for? Doesnt it grieve you to see evil acts legalized?
And finally Erik, arent we supposed to fight the good fight of faith? It seems as if both you and Mark, look around with your natural eyes and say “no way”! But is that Biblical? Did it look good for Israel on the other side of the Jordan?
LikeLike
@Erik:
And finally bro, while I love our confessions, they are not the standard, no? I just showed you in the New Testament where Paul affirmed that the penal sanctions found in the Old Testament are in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. What more proof do you need? I would think the command “love thy neighbor” should be enough to want to see justice in a socio political context, or is that just pie in the sky?
Here is a quick question for both you and Mark. Do you believe in socio political morality?
LikeLike
Doug, You talk about murder, which a lot of people (Christians & non-Christians alike) will affirm capital punishment for. What about the many other crimes that theocratic Israel issued a death sentence for? Do you say those should be punished with death in 21st Century America? If not, why not if the law is timeless when it comes to justice?
LikeLike
Erik, go to the New Testament bro. Look at 1 Tim 1:8 through 13. I would echo the Apostle Paul, that those evil deeds recieved the perfect punishment, as in an eye for and eye. Should we send a thief into adult time out? The law says no, they should pay back restitution. According to the New Testament all these punishments are in accordance to the Gospel of Christ. That’s good enough for me; how about you?
Now please Erik, what do you mean by pie in the sky?
LikeLike
Doug – I’ll spend about two minutes more of my life arguing with you since I think that is all you are really after. Here is a Wikipedia article that lists the capital crimes in the Torah. Do you think those should be capital crimes in 21st century America? If you do, and you are pursuing that objective, I would define that as pie in the sky. I would also advise any Christians who are hanging out with you to run away, lest they be associated with you. If I am misunderstanding your aims, you can tell me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Torah
LikeLike
I would respond to 1 Timothy 1:8-13 with 1 Cor. 5:9-13 – “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
You have a lot of dots to connect to get from the 1 Timothy passage to an administration of the Mosaic law like Israel had in the promised land. How do you connect those dots in the New Testament and in light of the Reformed Confessions? Have you subscribed to the Westminster in its current form (if some church was crazy enough to ordain you as an elder)?
LikeLike
@Erik:
Not only do I NOT want to argue with you about Theonomy, I didnt even bring it up, you did! You asked me where I see theonomy mentioned in the New Testament. I showed you. As a matter of fact the only bug-a-boo with theonomy are the penal sanctions. Even DGH believes the Law applies to the Church, LOL!. The burning issue is: are the penal sactions still lawful? The New Testament says yes, if they are used lawfully, in accordance wit;h the gospel of Christ.. So if you wish to continue this discussion explain 1 Tim 1 8-13. If not, I’m cool 🙂
LikeLike
“So if you wish to continue this discussion explain 1 Tim 1 8-13”. I did in bringing up 1 Cor. 5:9-13. I think the burden is now on you to interpret Paul in light of Paul.
The sanctions are a big “bug-a-boo”, as you put it. You need to get beyond theory and make this practical and talk about sanctions. Otherwise you’re just being an annoying gadfly.
LikeLike
Erik:
Sigh! Are you suggesting that Paul contradicted himself? Puleeze! Let me try to help you out by saying, context, context, context!!! When Paul was advising the Corinthians, Rome was still in power. Placed there by God himself!!! Does that mean that God approved of Romes laws? Does that mean that justice was pie in the sky? To even ask the question is to say of course not! Rome would have scoffed at changing they’re laws to conform to God’s will. Just to let you know Erik, Rome was not a democracy. LOL!
However, it only stands to reason, that once Rome fell, (by God’s judgmental hand) and Christian magistrates were placed in charge, (by God’s providential hand) they changed they’re laws to reflect justice. (which is a synonym for theonomy) Unless you’re suggesting that Romes laws were on par with God’s law.
LikeLike
Erik, from experience, you’ll sooner teach a pig to sing than convince Doug the errors of Theonomy. And I say that with all affection toward my theonomic brother.
LikeLike
“However, it only stands to reason, that once Rome fell, (by God’s judgmental hand) and Christian magistrates were placed in charge, (by God’s providential hand) they changed they’re laws to reflect justice. (which is a synonym for theonomy).”
No – it doesn’t stand to reason. Prove that to me using more New Testament passages or the Reformed Confessions. Is the 1 Timothy passage the only one you have? People have started all kinds of crazy sects by only looking at small passages of the Bible. All I have to do to explain that away is point you to context and say that the Mosaic law was appropriate in the context of Israel in the promised land but not beyond that. That is all Paul is affirming in 1 Timothy. Do we have a prophet today who can go and communicate with God on a mountain? Theocratic Israel was a special case, not a normative case.
If what you are saying is true, why do you appear to be unwilling to say that the same death penalties that applied in theocratic Israel should apply in the U.S. today? If you’re going to be a radical, be a radical. Don’t wimp out.
LikeLike
Adam – Do you know him? Does he get any traction with this in his church or is he regarded merely as a novelty?
LikeLike
Doug. You have the order of events wrong. And this is not a minor thing in terms of your argument. Christian magistrates were put in charge and then Rome fell. And no they did not change the laws to reflect divine justice. Roman criminal law more or less remains in effect till today. The largest overhaul where you do see broad changes away Roman law to modern law was under Henry II and Napoleon, not too much changed when Christians initial came to power in terms of criminal law.
LikeLike
Erik, I don’t know Doug outside of the little ghetto of the Reformed blogosphere, but I’ve had my go ’round with him before, it just doesn’t end. And generally, I’ve never encountered a theonomist who who finds the 2K position even the least palatable. Though I do find it disturbing that he belongs to an OPC that believes you can break the New Covenant.
LikeLike
mark: do you both agree with Gary North that there is a “common grace” which decreases over time as you guys take over?
Doug: Quick question: Is justice pie in the sky?
mark: It does seem to me, Doug, that you are rather lost in your attempt to make a case that we can make justice happen before Jesus comes again. Jesus Christ reigns now UNTIL His enemies are defeated. You already told us that you can’t do anything until you get control of the government from the pagans and the secularists. So why do you advocate “fighting the fight” when you know that you need more Christians to agree with you and your takeover before justice can happen. Do you get extra points for engaging in a futile battle? I don’t see why you should get points for shadow boxing theories.
Do you believe in “common grace”, Doug? Do you believe there is “common grace” for the non-elect in the new covenant? Or is there some kind of extra “covenant grace” for the non-elect in the new covenant? I mean, if you are going to have a theory, you need to get some of this stuff figured out. As Christians become epistemologically more self-conscious (and thus come to agree with you), will that result in more or less “common grace”? What happens to ‘common grace” for the rebels who become epistemologically more self-conscious about their rebellion?
Why can’t you trust Him who judges justly? Why can’t you wait?
LikeLike
Adam, I love you too bro 🙂
And I did not start this topic. Erik asked me if I considered myself theonomic, I simply told the truth.
All OPC churches believe that children of believers are in the New Covenant. The question is, can one be in the New Covenant and be lost? The answer is yes. Since the New Covenant and the Old are the *same* Covenant of grace.
LikeLike
Doug – Mark raises a good point asking, “why can’t you wait”. If you converted to Islam you could join the Taliban in their upcoming reconquest of Afghanistan and you would feel right at home.
LikeLike
@Mark Macculley
Do I believe in common grace?
Well, I guess it depends on how you define “common grace”, no? But what is grace? God’s undeserved favor. Does anyone deserve to enjoy a meal? No, so that’s grace. Does anyone deserve to enjoy the sun? No, so that;’s grace. Does anyone deserve to fall in love? No so that’s grace. So if that’s what you mean by common grace, then yes! What should be the response of any man who experiences joy? To thank God, no? So what is going to be the fate of those outside of Christs church? They will receive *more* punishment, BECAUSE they were not thankful for the gracious gifts that God gave, that they didn’t deserve in the first place.
LikeLike
@Erik
Why can’t I wait? I’m waiting bro! LOL! But if you ask me, what should we should we as a society do to kidnappers, I say it’s a Capital offence, “just like the Apostle Paul in 1 Tim 1 8-13. In accordance with the Gospel of Christ.
Your simply not asking the right questions! Do you desire socio political justice? Or are you indifferent?
LikeLike
@Adam:
I would be happy to toss theonomy aside, if you, Erik, Zrim, or Mark could give me one verse in the Bible that would suggest I should. Sadly, all I have heard to date is arguments from silence. Therefore I will stand on the Rock of God’s Word, as I understand it.
LikeLike
Doug, when you talk about the fate of those outside of Christ’s church, are you exempting the non-elect who will break the new covenant? For those who will one day be cut off from the new covenant (that you think they were once in, will their fate be worse or the same as those non-elect who were never in the new covenant or God’s choice?
daddy, you watered me but I walked away from it, and since you can’t get elected a confessional sheriff right at the moment, what are you going to do about it? Remember you got to fight the fight. You can’t just be passive and “do nothing”. So what are you going to do? Surely you can’t just wait for God’s negative sanctions, can you? Don’t you care about justice. Do something. Don’t be indifferent. Make me pay in a way that God won’t make me pay later.
People who are trying to take over usually don’t say they are taking over. They tend to say that good is taking over, or that Christ is taking over. But our hope is not Christ’s reform of His enemies but Christ’s destruction of His enemies,
I Cor 15: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[c] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 2: Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death….
LikeLike
Doug – All you have had the courage to assert is the death penalty for murder and kidnapping. I don’t disagree for murder and I could possibly agree for kidnapping, although I think that sanction often turns kidnapping into murder (watch “The Onion Field”). If that’s all you will affirm I guess we don’t have any problem. If you assert more capital crimes that might be another matter. I think you are being logically inconsistent (or cowardly) in only asserting capital punishment for those two crimes, however, given your presuppositions. Kind of a “liberal theonomist” or something like that.
LikeLike
Brother Mark,
When I speak of justice, I am speaking about socio political justice. You are confusing socio political justice with eternal justice on the last day. Who knows what punishment fits a particular crime? What are we supposed to do with kidnappers? Should we let child molestors run free until the judgement day? Shall we execute jay walkers? Thankfully God has given some much needed guidence. God had the nerve, to call his penal sanctions an eye for and eye. Meaning perfect socio political justice! This is what our brave Reformers meant by keepilng the general equity. Keeping the moral sactions found in God’s law. Why? Because they reflect perfect socio political moralityand justice. Which is the foundation for any Nation.
Amen and amen 🙂
LikeLike
Okay Erik,
Let me get more brave LOL! I think all of the crimes with they’re sanctions Paul mentions in 1 Tim 1 8-13 are still valid today. Now, ifyou want to find out what they are, you’ll have to crack open your Bible and read them 🙂
Yes adultry and blasphemy are in there. But please don’t get angry with me, I didnt write the Bible, God did. If it were up to me, just to get along I”d throw those two out. After all, I”m 55 and was raised in our culture just like you. But I don’t have the wisdom to tell God he’s wrong. Therefore I’ll stand on the Rock ofGod’s Word as I understand it. But if you have a compelling arguement from the Bible, showing me how I’m miss understanding things, I’m all ears.
LikeLike
Doug – The problem with giving you any New Testament passages is you will just dismiss them as saying, “well of course Paul (or Jesus) said that. The people he was writing to (speaking to) were living under the Romans.” You presume that theocratic Israel is the ideal state that we should all be longing to get back to (presumably based on one short passage in 1 Timothy — which actually says no such thing). That seems to be really weak, which is why your movement is a tiny minority (theonomists) of a small minority (P&R churches). It’s so small you are the first one I have ever encountered — either online or in person.
LikeLike
I follow your train of thought, but I really think you need more than that one passage to tie the sanctions back to theocratic Israel. You being 55 (as opposed to 25) explains a lot. You were around when theonomy was all the rage 30 years ago or so. I lived through the 70s & 80s, too. Disco also died out. I’m telling you – it’s a bad sign that you keep returning to one passage to support such a radical, all-encompassing view.
LikeLike
Mark Macculley says: Doug, when you talk about the fate of those outside of Christ’s church, are you exempting the non-elect who will break the new covenant?
Me: No, I meant Christ’s eternal Church, the Elect before the foundation of the world.
For those who will one day be cut off from the new covenant (that you think they were once in, will their fate be worse or the same as those non-elect who were never in the new covenant or God’s choice?
Me: It will be worse. Jesus said it will be worse for the Jews of his generation, than for Sodom on the day of judgement. And Hebrews tells us that it will be even worse for baptized Christians who forsake the blood of the New Covenant.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Full disclosure: I learned systematic theology from Greg Bahnsen 🙂
Mark Macculley says: daddy, you watered me but I walked away from it, and since you can’t get elected a confessional sheriff right at the moment, what are you going to do about it? Remember you got to fight the fight. You can’t just be passive and “do nothing”. So what are you going to do? Surely you can’t just wait for God’s negative sanctions, can you? Don’t you care about justice? Do something. Don’t be indifferent. Make me pay in a way that God won’t make me pay later.
Me: Mark you seem to be missing a complete category called socio political justice. You confuse that with God’s eternal judgment on the last day. Not all sins are crimes, except on the last day, when all sins, yes even thought crimes will merit God’s eternal displeasure. You seem indifferent as to *why* certain sins dash crimes merited God’s immediate sanction of death. But not now? Why? Maybe you can explain why only in Israel did God want a homosexual executed, but not now? Has God changed his ethical mind? Can God change?
When it comes to socio political morality and justice, is the Christian supposed to be mute? Must we divorce ourselves from God’s written law? Has God’s Word nothing to say, when it comes to punishing crime? I would say it does the instant someone acknowledges that Jesus is Lord! Now suddenly, Jesus is Lord over everything! Even the way we punish criminals. Who knows better than God knows how to make the punishment fit the crime?
Now, please understand, I am not trying to re create a new Israel. I fully understand that the Church is the New Israel that transcends physical boarders. I agree that OT Israel had a unique relationship with God that is not to be duplicated. With all that said, the essence of God’s case laws is eternal. They exhibit the very wisdom of God. And none of the early reformers felt the case laws were only for National Israel.
When God says, in such a case do this or that, we should pay attention. And guys, many of the Mosaic laws have lost there force with the destruction of Israel. Not all of the Mosaic sanctions would hold today in the New Covenant. Some were only for National Israel, not the Sojourners. I would say for the most part, the penal sanctions that were for both Israel and the Sojourners should stand. But I’m not sure, and am surely teachable.
But the most powerful argument for me, is the morality of an eye for and eye can not change. For something to be intrinsically ethical means its universal. And that is what I believe our brave reformers meant by the continuing force of the general equity.
In him,
LikeLike
Doug, you ask for one Bible verse to undo theonomy. How about looking at the verses cited by WCF 19.4 to support the Reformed confession’s notion that “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”
But I know, there are murderers and rapists and kidnappers still running about the world (oh my). They must be stopped at all costs, even at the cost of undermining messianic fulfillment.
LikeLike
Z said…
“…But I know, there are murderers and rapists and kidnappers still running about the world (oh my). They must be stopped at all costs, even at the cost of undermining messianic fulfillment.”
Now this is what I am talking about Z. At least you did provide some evidence for your position but then you went off the rails and just set up such a strange unknowable strawman that I don’t know anyone would recognize it. Maybe you know a few nut jobs, but I don’t. And it certainly doesn’t reflect anything I believe. It is ad hom bro…..
LikeLike
Randy, or maybe it’s getting right to the heart of the theonomic problem: a basic but lethal misunderstanding of messianic fulfillment. Jesus fulfilled the judicial and ceremonial laws. That’s why they are expired, as the confession teaches. Only someone who wants to revive them must think his work was partial.
And if you engage Doug as much as I and others have in the past, you might see that what drives this modern creature is also largely social, moral, cultural and political worries. It’s not coincidence that the theonomic project Doug is so aligned with rose up a decade or so after the cultural revolution of the 60s. Theonomy is Calvinism’s religious right (or further back, Methodism).
LikeLike
Sorry Zrim but your wrong as usual. You have yet to give a rational or scriptural reference proving how Jesus going to the cross means a society is not to punish crimianls. How does Jesus going to the cross mean we are to no longer bring murderers to justice? What are you smoking???
LikeLike
Zrim,
I am not aligned with any theonomy movement, please don’t miss characterize me. The only reason theonomy came up was because Erik asked me is I was theonomic.
BTW I believe one of the main reasons your theology is sub par is that you see as only personal. Salvation is both personal and corporate. Stay with me Zrim. God encompasses both personhood and community within his very being. While we all go to heaven by ones, Salvation is larger than you have surmised. All of creation is being affected by Christ’s work at Calvary. “The trees in the field will clap their hands”
LikeLike
Doug,
How long has your dog and plants been attending the means of grace? OK, I now I stole it Zrim but I did tell you ahead of time, so that makes it all good.
LikeLike
Sean, that’s the second time is as many weeks as you’ve stolen my line about dogs. I believe you owe me eight dogs as restitution. Or is it ten? Are dogs more like oxen or sheep?
LikeLike
@Zrim or Sean:
How does Jesus going to the cross and securing salvation for his people change the punishement of a child molestor? If I’m missing something please help me out.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m sure I don’t know. I no longer read the OT anymore except as it has been taken up in Christ and I don’t live in Palestine. Still, I’m sure I’m at least within the spirit of the Chicago manual of style by referencing you as a source for the combox quip. Plus, you prolly got it from me somewhere else and I just am not the type to keep score
LikeLike
Doug, Reformed orthodoxy doesn’t say that the cross makes hay of punishing crime. The WCF which undoes theonomy in 19.4 is the same one in 20.1 that confesses “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”
LikeLike
ZRIM,…
Randy, or maybe it’s getting right to the heart of the theonomic problem: a basic but lethal misunderstanding of messianic fulfillment. Jesus fulfilled the judicial and ceremonial laws. That’s why they are expired, as the confession teaches. Only someone who wants to revive them must think his work was partial.
And if you engage Doug as much as I and others have in the past, you might see that what drives this modern creature is also largely social, moral, cultural and political worries. It’s not coincidence that the theonomic project Doug is so aligned with rose up a decade or so after the cultural revolution of the 60s. Theonomy is Calvinism’s religious right (or further back, Methodism).
Me…
Z, I can appreciate that you don’t like some things about Theonomy. I surely have the same sympathies. BTW, if theomomist would actually study how law in the Ancient Near East was practiced they might view things a bit differently.
One of my good buddies Dr. Michael Lefebvre did his Doctoral Thesis on that subject. At the same time he can also address how ANE studies have been used incorrectly to come up with some of the reasoning modern day application is incorrect.
At the same time I will repeat as Jesus did that His Kingdom is not of this world. But this world is a part of His mediatorial Kingdom. And it is declared to be moreso because of his person and work. Just read Philippians 2:9-11.
(Php 2:7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
(Php 2:8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Php 2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(Php 2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
(Php 2:11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
As I stated before. Sherman Isbell did a wonderful job concerning General Equity in this article I believe. I have been edified by it for years.
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/a-godly-society/the-divine-law-of-political-israel-expired-general-equity.php
You might appreciate this Z….
This is a portion of the article.
Quote
“‘””The Confession affirms that the law given by God to Adam at creation is the moral law,(14) and that this is the law which was delivered in the ten commandments, and which forever binds all men and is not dissolved under the Gospel. Beside this law, the ceremonial and judicial laws were given by God to a particular group, namely the people of Israel, considered as a church under age and as a body politic. With the close of the preparatory period in redemptive history, the ceremonial laws were abrogated and the judicial laws expired. At four points in the passage, the Confession identifies the moral law as the mandate which permanently binds and obliges. The presence of moral elements in the ceremonial and judicial laws is acknowledged, though much in the ceremonial and judicial laws is other than moral; part of what the ceremonial laws held forth was instruction of moral duties, and there is an element of general equity in the judicial laws which continues to oblige. Immediately after the two paragraphs in which consideration is given to the temporary role of the ceremonial and judicial laws in redemptive history, there is a paragraph which contrasts the undissolved obligation of the moral law, and which cites Matt. 5:17-19 as proof of that proposition, indicating that the Westminster Assembly regarded Matt. 5:17-19 as referring to the moral law as distinct from the ceremonial and judicial laws.
In sum, the Confession 1) makes a threefold distinction of moral, ceremonial and judicial law, 2) characterizes the ceremonial and judicial laws as appointments for a given period in redemptive history, and 3) asserts that elements of the ceremonial and judicial laws remain obligatory only insofar as they embody the contents of the moral law which was given already at creation, republished in the ten commandments, and whose authority was strengthened under the Gospel.
Theonomy makes a number of claims which are difficult to reconcile with the teaching of the Confession.(15) 1) Theonomy denies the threefold distinction of moral, ceremonial and judicial laws, replacing it with a twofold distinction of moral law and “restorative” (or ceremonial) law.(16) Judicial law then is subsumed under the moral law and is held to carry the permanent obligation that belongs to all of the moral law.(17) 2) Instead of the confessional hermeneutic that regards the judicial law as such as having expired, theonomy claims that each judicial ordinance is binding today if it has not been explicitly retracted in the New Testament.(18) 3) Theonomy regards the ten commandments as ambiguous, and urges that the extensive and detailed provisions of the judicial law are necessary for discovering the meaning of the decalogue. The exposition of the moral law is left dependent upon the judicial laws, which become a primary standard for defining moral obligation.(19) By contrast, the confessional hermeneutic brings the judicial laws under examination by the moral law, esteeming the general moral law teaching in Scripture of sufficient clarity to function as the arbiter of perpetual equity in the judicial laws. Elements of the judicial law which go beyond the requirements of the moral law are not to be held as still obligatory. 4) Theonomy rejects the concept that a natural law given at creation embodies an obligation that is narrower and more permanent than that of the judicial laws given later to Israel.(20) 5) Theonomy regards the judicial laws as largely of universal application, rather than having respect to a particular nation and period in redemptive history for which they were given,(21) despite the Confession’s affirmation that the judicial laws as such expired together with the state of that particular people. 6) Theonomy teaches that the Mosaic ceremonial and judicial laws continue to be obligatory, and that we are to regard only the manner of observing them as different from the Old Testament.(22)””””
End Quote…
LikeLike
All the laws God gave are moral, and the cherry-picking which decides some of them are not moral is a weak instrument used by those who want to ignore the flow of redemptive history, in which not all covenants are the same and in which not all of God’s laws are given at one time.
Beginning in Genesis 12. Abram is promised a great nation (polis), and he can’t have a great nation without land, territory for many people, mostly all biologically related to Abram, a land with no other altars allowed except to Yahweh the King. God also promised blessings for other nations based on their relation to Abram’s nation, with curses for those nations which don’t relate favorably to Abram’s nation.
This is one reason we need to deny that the Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant, despite the continuity between some of the promises to Abraham and the new covenant. Promises to Abraham are fulfilled in the circumcision of Christ on the eighth day (Luke 2).
The sign of circumcision was not only about pointing to the bloody sacrifice of Christ, which cuts the justified elect off from legal solidarity with Adam. Circumcision was an initiation rite for every male in Abraham’s family (even if one parent did not go testify before the presbytery!). And what belonging to Abraham’s family means now and what it meant then is not the same thing.
Theonomists are promising us that, with the right attitude and understanding, we already have what the judiazers offered. But to understand the advance of redemptive history is to see that we don’t need what the judiazers offered, And also, we can’t have what the theonomists are offering. There is only one way now to be children of Abraham, and those who are non-elect and who do not believe the gospel cannot now be “children of Abraham”. They can’t be in the new covenant. Nor should they be in “the administration” of the new covenant.
Now that Christ has been born and circumcised, it’s not possible for jewish male infants to be born as types of the birth to come. The solution to this fact is not to divide the Abrahamic covenants into parts, some cherry-picked as “ceremonial” with other parts “moral”.
Sure, the promises to Abraham are typological. But they put non-Abrahamic people out of the territory,to make room for the biological-political heirs of Abraham. And the Doug Wilsons of the world, despite their optimism about future generations being mostly Christians, are no more averse than Augustine and Calvin to pushing people not in their “the church” out of their territory.
If it is not Christ who kept all the conditions of the elect being in (and staying in) the new covenant, then we need to hear a lot more from theonomic folks about the kind of “conditionality” involved in the new covenant. Is the new covenant “unbreakable” only in the sense that the covenant stands even if no individuals do what they have to do to “get connected” (and stay connected) with Christ’s death?
LikeLike
Randy, thanks. I’m a fan of Kline’s basic diagnosis:
To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of error from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the old and new covenants. Chalcedon’s error [theonomy], no less extreme or serious, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.
LikeLike
Mark Macculley says: All the laws God gave are moral,
Me: Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! There was nothing intrinsically moral about the Dietary laws. Proof being that it’s perfectly fine to eat bacon and eggs today. The Dietary laws were pedagogical, not ethical. For something to be ethical or moral, means that they’re obligatory for all people. Many, if not most of the Mosaic Covenant laws, with there days, moons, festivals, Sabbaths, and land directives were for Israel, and Israel alone. The moral laws, on the other hand were for both Israelite and Sojourner. For something to be moral, means it universal. If a Sojourner saved his beard, it was no big deal. If a Covenant Israelite cut his beard, it was a serious crime. But today, there is no such directive. This means that those laws were NOT moral laws.
I really wonder if you even know what the *moral* point of view means. It’s contradictory to say, “Well that was moral then, but not now”. To make such a statement is to show you don’t understand what the ethical or *moral point of view means. Mark I would suggest you take a course on Ethics. Greg Bahnsen has some great stuff at Covenant media foundation. You like reading people you disagree with, I challenge you to hear some of Bahnsens lectures on ethics. I bet you’d even like them.
Blessings
LikeLike
Randy, thanks. I’m a fan of Kline’s basic diagnosis:
To put the matter in a comparative perspective, this theory of theonomic politics stands at the opposite end of the spectrum of error from Dispensationalism. The latter represents an extreme failure to do justice to the continuity between the old and new covenants. Chalcedon’s error [theonomy], no less extreme or serious, is a failure to do justice to the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.”
Me.
Your welcome Z. I am learning from you and hopefully you will be learning what I am saying at least. Our communication will get better.
Kline was good on the Covenant of Works but I do believe he failed on the Mosaic in his latter days when it came to view the Moral law as being used as an admixture of both the Covenant of Works pedagogically and the Covenant of Grace in the Mosaic. That was unconfessional and what the majority of Divines rejected when they did the Westminster Confession. That is also something that I believe is causing some problems in our understanding today.
I’m outta here for the weekend. Going racing today out of town and then tomorrow is God’s day for me to behold the beauty of the Lord. Be Encouraged.
If your on Facebook Z. Look me up and look at my drag racing slot cars. Randy Martin Snyder
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: I really wonder if you even know what the *moral* point of view means. It’s contradictory to say, “Well that was moral then, but not now”.
RS: If God commands for it to be done, then morality demands that it be done. If God commands for it to stop, then morality demands that it be stopped. It is not contradictory to say it was moral at one point and not another if God commands one thing at one point and not another. It was the moral thing for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because God commanded it, but it is not a moral thing to do now because God commands us not to kill.
LikeLike
@Richard, nice try, but that won’t work.
Of course it’s moral to obey God, its called obedience! If God tells me to dig a ditch then I need to be obedient. But would that a moral commandment? Of course not! Is digging a ditch obligatory for all mankind? LOL! Your confusing obligatory morality with simple obedience!
If God says it’s not clean eat shell fish for a period of time, (which He did) and then later, says it’s clean to eat shell fish, then it wasn’t a “moral law. It was pedagogical; it teaches God’s people to be separate. For a law to be considered *moral* means it’s obligatory for all people, for both the Church and the world.
Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not lie. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not commit adultery; those are moral laws, obligatory for all men. If you and Mark can’t see the difference between God’s temporary land directives, and laws prohibiting sexual depravity then I will be shocked.
BTW Richard I strongly suggest you listen to some of Greg Bahnsens lectures of ethics. He will set you straight on what is entailed for laws to be considered *moral*. Both you and Mark Macculley are making rookie mistakes on ethical questions, not that your bad guys. Check out Covenant media foundation.
In Him,
LikeLike
I see that Zrim trotted out WCF 19:4 as if that precluded theonomy. Huh? Must I remind Zrim that Merideth Kline felt the WCF was theonomic as well as the revision. Zrim, please try to get your story straight. Perhaps your memoryhas faded, so let me remind you how Thomas Cartwright felt about the judicial law:
This is also for R. Martin Snyder:
Thomas Cartwright ranked as the most highly esteemed Puritan in English Presbyterianism. Listen to his perspective on the Law, and I quote:
“And as for the judicial Law, for as much as there are some of them made, in regard of the region where there were given, and of the people to whom they were given, keeping the substance and the equity of them as it were the marrow may change the circumstance of them as the times of places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any Magistrate can save the life of any blasphemers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, and incestuous persons and such like , which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny and I am ready to prove if that pertains to this question”.
Now Zrim, you can mock me all you want; BUT Cartwright would side with me, not you.
LikeLike
Doug, but Kuyper agrees with me instead of you:
Does it follow, therefore, that the sooner we stop our observation of life the better, so that we can seek the rules of state polity outside life in Holy Scripture? This is how some mistakenly think that we reason…However, the opposite is true. Calvinism has never supported this untenable position but has always opposed it with might and main. A state polity that dismisses and scorns the observation of life and simply wishes to duplicate the situation of Israel, taking Holy Scripture as a complete code of Christian law for the state, would, according to the spiritual fathers of Calvinism, be the epitome of absurdity. Accordingly, in their opposition to Anabaptism as well as the Quakers, they expressed unreservedly their repugnance for this extremely dangerous and impractical theory.
If we considered the political life of the nations as something unholy, unclean and wrong in itself, it would lie outside of human nature. Then the state would have to be seen as a purely external means of compulsion, and every attempt to discover even a trace of God’s ordinances in our own nature would be absurd. Only special revelation would then be capable of imparting to us the standards for that external means of discipline. Wherever, thus, this special revelation is absent, as in the heathen worlds, nothing but sin and distortion would prevail, which would therefore not even be worth the trouble of our observation…However, if we open the works of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza and Marnix van St. Aldegonde, it becomes obvious that Calvinism consciously chooses sides against this viewpoint. The experience of the states of antiquity, the practical wisdom of their laws, and the deep insight of their statesmen and philosophers is held in esteem by these men, and these are cited in support of their own affirmations and consciously related to the ordinances of God. The earnest intent of the political life of many nations can be explained in terms of the principles of justice and morality that spoke in their consciences. They cannot be explained simply as blindness brought on by the Evil One; on the contrary, in the excellence of their political efforts we encounter a divine ray of light…
…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and As though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.
-The Ordinances of God
And…
The question is also brought up and is of importance: does not a part of the work of reformation belong to the magistrate? The question is especially whether the magistrate is not called, authorized and obligated “to prevent and exterminate all idolatry and false religion.”
Our conviction in this respect does not agree with that of our fathers. We do not make a secret of this difference. Only God’s Word, not the word of the fathers, is finally authoritative for us. And it is on the ground of God’s Word that we are convinced in conscience not to follow our fathers in this subordinate part of their Confessions.
The reason for this is that these words from the Confessions designate and imply that the obligation rests on the magistrate not only to, admonish heretics if they refuse to perform their public duty, but also to arrest, imprison, and pass sentence upon them, andexecute them on the scaffold.
This actually is implied in these words.
The proof of this is Calvin’s writings: “that heretics must be executed with the sword”; Beza’s Essay, “that heretics must be corporally punished by the civil magistrate”; and further the sentiments of Maresius in his explanation of the Confession. Compare also the sentiments of our theologians: Voetius in his “Dispute. Theol.” III, 802-809, and II, 122; H. Alping in his “Script. Heidelb.” Tom. 2, p. 2, probl. 20, p. 335, f. 9; Spanheim, “Vind. Euang, ‘ ‘ 1, II, lot. 20; C. Van Velzen, “Pheol. Pratt.” II, 1, I, p. 632; Gerdesius, “Bibel, menstr. Belg.” m. Jan. 1742, p. 30; J. a. Marck, “Med Pheol.” C. XXIII, para. 32; De Moor, “Comm. a Marck” VI, p. 490f.; and Turretin, “Theol. Hand.” T. 1, XVIII, p. 84, para. 30.
All these theologians are unanimously of the opinion that Article 36 of our Confessions actually lays on the magistrate the obligation to execute a heretic on the scaffold in the final analysis.
They differ from Rome in this that they leave to the magistrate its own judgment. Rome teaches that the magistrate must pass sentence on the ground of the ecclesiastical judgment. Our fathers say, on the other hand, Let the magistrate decide for himself.
They also grant that as a general rule the magistrate should not resort to this extreme punishment except in the worst instances and with the worst heretics, etc.
Also, it was usually added since the time of a Marck that the magistrate ought not to do this to a heretic as long as he was not a threat to the Republic. But however mildly and however carefully their sentiments were expressed it finally comes down to this, that when other means have failed, the extermination of idolatry must be carried out by fire and sword.
We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed.
We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.
It is our conviction: 1) that the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.
2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.
3) That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice.
4) That the acceptance and carrying out of this principle almost always has returned upon the heads of non-heretics and not the truth but heresy has been honored by the magistrate.
5) That this proposition opposes the Spirit and the Christian faith.
6) That this proposition supposed that the magistrate is in a position to judge the difference between truth and heresy, an office of grace which, as appears from the history of eighteen centuries, is not granted by the Holy Spirit, but is withheld.
We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.
We readily testify that we therefore are not compelled by necessity through invincible testimony to let this difference come out.
We completely agree that those who accede to this paragraph in Article 36 have an easier position in this respect.
We admit that he who in this respect represents us in the church as deviating from the Confessions is true in his testimony.
Notwithstanding this serious objection which we do not consider lightly, we would nevertheless continue frankly to insist: In the name of the Lord we do not ash a scaffold for the heretic.
Because of this the church of our Lord Jesus Christ should understand and it should be sharply bound on the soul of the children of God who know love: Those teachers who claim to maintain this paragraph in Article 36, lay upon the people of God the demand that they shall approve of the execution of heretics. No, even more, if God wills it, they must confess and take upon themselves the responsibility for the blood of heretics once again.
If the children of God are of a mind to do this in their land, then naturally they must condemn us in this matter.
But a better testimony speaks in them: “I may not erect a scaffold for the heretic!” Let them then also have the courage openly to add their vote to ours so that the proponents and opponents of the burning and beheading of heretics may stand in clear and total opposition to each other.
As is known, we deny least of all that which is implied for the magistrate in Christ’s kingship and in both tables of the law. This, however, is treated in earlier paragraphs and need not be repeated here.
Permit us to add only this.
As much as our opponents must maintain that also Nero was obligated to burn the heretics according to his own judgment (i.e., the people whom he held to be heretics), they actually concede that this obligation can only be carried out properly by the magistrates who make profession of the Reformed religion.
And because there is no such magistrate who as yet has appeared in our land, we want the question asked if it is good to condemn brethren concerning such a painful question as the question of the scaffold for the obstinate heretics.
At any rate, we indulge in the hope that even those teachers who are zealous with respect to the preference for the maintenance of this “scaffold-sense” in Article 36, will be themselves the first to shrink back from the consequences of their position when the mayor of their town actually permits a heretic to be brought to the scaffold or the stake.
We think that in that hour they would, rather than to call for the blood of heretics, themselves carry water to extinguish the stack of wood, or in loving zeal cut the ropes which already are tied on the neck of their fellow citizens.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: @Richard, nice try, but that won’t work.
Of course it’s moral to obey God, its called obedience! If God tells me to dig a ditch then I need to be obedient. But would that a moral commandment? Of course not! Is digging a ditch obligatory for all mankind? LOL! Your confusing obligatory morality with simple obedience!
RS: What God commands is morally obligatory because we are to love Him with all of our being at all times. The highest moral obligation is to love God.
Doug Sowers: If God says it’s not clean eat shell fish for a period of time, (which He did) and then later, says it’s clean to eat shell fish, then it wasn’t a “moral law. It was pedagogical; it teaches God’s people to be separate. For a law to be considered *moral* means it’s obligatory for all people, for both the Church and the world.
RS: I understand that point. However, at that time it was morally obligatory for all the nation of Israel and for any other person in the world who would become an Israelite.
Doug Sowers: Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not lie. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not commit adultery; those are moral laws, obligatory for all men. If you and Mark can’t see the difference between God’s temporary land directives, and laws prohibiting sexual depravity then I will be shocked.
RS: The command is not to murder, yet we are commanded to put murderers to death. Of course there were temporary laws regarding the land, yet those commands were morally obligatory because they were given by God.
Doug Sowers: BTW Richard I strongly suggest you listen to some of Greg Bahnsens lectures of ethics. He will set you straight on what is entailed for laws to be considered *moral*. Both you and Mark Macculley are making rookie mistakes on ethical questions, not that your bad guys. Check out Covenant media foundation.
RS: What I am about to say may sound a bit arrogant to you, but so be it. Greg Bahnsen and his teaching was not and is not the moral standard. God Himself as displayed in Christ is. I have listened to many lectures by Greg Bahnsen and read his book on ethics. The nature of holiness is not the same thing as ethics. The nature of love for God is not the same thing as ethics. I would say it is somewhat of a rookie mistake to confuse ethics with holiness, though it is true that there are places that they intersect. We are commanded to be holy as He is holy.
LikeLike
Richard, you don’t sound arrogant. And of course Greg Bahnsen is not the standard, and he would be the first to agree with you on that point. BUT are you still trying to hang on to the Notion that all God’s laws are moral? Or that you don’t see a catigory called moral law? Please flush that out for me.
Do you, like Mark Macculley chaff at the notion of moral law? Because you seem to be defending his asserstion that all laws were moral.
LikeLike
Zrim, as usual you’re out in left field. You completely missed my point by a few hundred years! LOL! Kuper came a few hundred years AFTER the WCF 19:4! So who cares what Kuper said? Cartwright on the other hand is germane because his was the most influential reformed thinker of his day, and his opinion shaped our Confession. So to say your miss reading 19:4 is an understatement.
Just learn from your mistakes and quit using the WCF as if it backs up your perspective; because it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: And of course Greg Bahnsen is not the standard, and he would be the first to agree with you on that point. BUT are you still trying to hang on to the Notion that all God’s laws are moral? Or that you don’t see a catigory called moral law? Please flush that out for me.
RS: I think the main point I am trying to get at is that something is moral because of who God is rather than any other option. For example, the common old argument against God by some tells us that God chose His commandments in an arbitrary way or because He looked around Him and chose from some moral basis apart from Himself. My argument is that God commands what He commands with Himself as the standard. The heart of the commands is to be like God and we have no right to do anything contrary to what He says, though of course we have no power of obedience from the heart apart from His work of grace in our heart.
Doug Sowers: Do you, like Mark Macculley chaff at the notion of moral law? Because you seem to be defending his asserstion that all laws were moral.
RS: I don’t disagree with the notion of moral law in some respect, but again I would try to carefully distinguish between morality and holiness. Morality, at least as it is being used in our day, seems to govern the external man. Holiness, however, has to do with the inner man as well. My position, then, would say that a holy man sees that all that God commands would be the moral thing to do. But we must be careful to also say that keeping the law and being moral aquires no merit before God at any point.
Note to Dr. Hart: I am continuing to have to type my name and email address with each post.
LikeLike
@Richard Smith: Praise God, were on the same page! Now all we have to do, is talk some sense to Mark Macculley.
LikeLike