Part of the commentary on last week’s presidential election included a post over at Mere Comments on the voting preferences of Muslim citizens of the United States. According to Michael Avramovich:
In a survey from last month of 600 Moslem-American citizens (of whom 97 percent were registered to vote), more than 72 percent said they were definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent were leaning that direction. Only 11 percent were for Romney. (The poll had a margin of error of 3.98 percent.)
Avramovich goes on to note a disturbing finding in the survey:
46 percent of the Moslem-Americans polled believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say that such an offense is so serious that violators should face the death penalty. And while this poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree. Even stranger to me, another 9 percent said they were unsure on the question.” So, we are now living in a United States where approximately one in five Moslems across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty. Is it just me, or shouldn’t this alarm others as well?
For my part I am not alarmed since I suspect that among theonomists, who even voted for Governor Romney, well over one in five favor the death penalty for adulterers, kidnappers, and even idolaters. Even some of Old Life’s readers who don’t consider themselves theonomic favor the death penalty for sins deemed a capital offense according to the Old Testament. While Avramovich is figuring out what to do about Muslims, he shouldn’t forget about one sector of the Protestant world that wants to apply the Bible to all of life in such an eschatological way.
Old Life 
I heard Adam Francisco mention how Joseph Smith said at one point, “I am seeking to do for America what Muhammed did for Arabia.” So maybe electing a Mormon president really would have sparked a “clash of civilizations”?
LikeLike
“He shouldn’t forget about one sector of the Protestant world that wants to apply the Bible to all of life in such an eschatological way.”
It’s a small sector, but should probably be bigger if Neocalvinists really thought their philosophy through fully. Still waiting for a good explanation of why the second table and not the first. The only attempt I have heard is Darrell Todd Maurina’s explanation that we can’t punish Catholics for their idolatrous mass because France and Maryland helped out during the Revolutionary War. Using this logic one might add Mormons because Brigham Young’s people helped out during the Mexican War. All of these explanations are pretty weak, though, if the goal is a “complete system of Christian cultural obedience” or whatever Dr. K is calling it this week.
If the Bible is your manual for public policy and you want the church to be promoting that notion, what is your hermeneutic for which parts of the Bible you are going to use and which parts you are not?
LikeLike
Well said. I wonder if you should make it clear to any of your readers who may be unsuspecting that the present American constitutional arrangements respecting, say, freedom of speech, are not at all integral to the 2K outlook. Its strength and uniqueness lies lin the fact that it ensures that Christianity is global, an export to all nations, though course it is much more pleasant and convenient to preach the gospel when one is free to do so, and the gospel-haters likewise.I fear that many who read your blog think that somewhere there are proof texts for freedom of speech, or that it is integral to natural law.
LikeLike
Paul Helm, just curious. What would make you think that 2k is bound up with a commitment to free speech. It strikes me that 2kers are much more willing than neo-Calvinists to consider that the early church, where free speech was in short supply, is arguably an option for the contemporary church. In other words, 2k purposefully avoids linking the “progress” of the gospel with social, economic, or political “progress.”
LikeLike
D.G. Hart quoting Avramovich: So, we are now living in a United States where approximately one in five Moslems across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty. Is it just me, or shouldn’t this alarm others as well?
D.G. Hart: For my part I am not alarmed since I suspect that among theonomists, who even voted for Governor Romney, well over one in five favor the death penalty for adulterers, kidnappers, and even idolaters. Even some of Old Life’s readers who don’t consider themselves theonomic favor the death penalty for sins deemed a capital offense according to the Old Testament.
RS: There is still a big difference between those who “believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say that such an offense is so serious that violators should face the death penalty” and those who favor a wider application of the death penalty. I don’t see a lot of Christians wanting the government to prosecute parodies of the OT prophets much less to execute them. What should alarm you is that a certain segment of the population might take these things in their own hands at some near point. I don’t know that those with theonomic leanings have the desire or zeal to take things into their own hands if the government will not.
LikeLike
from Jenson’s First Things Review of After Christendom (Stanley Hauerwas)
George Lindbeck: Christianity is now in an “awkwardly intermediate stage of having once been culturally established but not yet clearly disestablished.”
To be sure, about half of Hauerwas’ gravamen might better apply to a situation of Christianity’s unbroken establishment within liberal society than to a situation of in-process disestablishment from it. The way this works in Hauerwas’ thinking seems to be that Western society’s liberalization itself entailed Christianity’s disestablishment, so that Christianity’s establishment in modernity intrinsically means clinging to an establishment in process of dissolution. But does this mean that Christianity’s situation was less “awkward” when it was less ambiguously established in the pre-modern West?
LikeLike
Richard, what is surprising is that those who argue for OT law and favor the death penalty for kidnappers are not as concerned to protect the name of Christ. So the point is that if we expect Muslims to back off on physical punishments for religious wrongs, why can’t Christians back off having the magistrate enforce both tables of the law?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, what is surprising is that those who argue for OT law and favor the death penalty for kidnappers are not as concerned to protect the name of Christ.
RS: That would be correct on one level, but some might argue that is favoring the death penalty that they do so to protect those made in the image of God.
D.G. Hart: So the point is that if we expect Muslims to back off on physical punishments for religious wrongs, why can’t Christians back off having the magistrate enforce both tables of the law?
RS: I would still argue that there is a huge difference between Muslims and what they want punished versus Christians (theonomic types) and what they want punished. The Muslim wants those who blaspheme Muhammed (a prophet) to be executed. Christians desire that those who blaspheme God Himself be punished. The difference, as I see it, is huge.
I would also argue that the second table of the Law is also part of the Law we find expressed in nature. After all, it is the same God who created nature that gave us the Law. The desire to want the second table enforced is both the Law of nature and of the commandments. But then again, some of the attributes of God are also in nature so much so that Romans speaks of how men although they know God do not honor Him or give thanks. Another point would also be that apart from the true nature and character of God there is no logical or moral ground for making just and moral laws. Any society that tries to make laws apart from God (in some way) is simply making laws with no logical or moral basis that is rooted in reality.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, have you read Robert Spencer’s latest book on the origins of Islam (published through ISI)? He argues that Islam was invented by the leaders of the Arabian empire decades after Muhammed’s death in order to unite its peoples religiously. Now the actual historical origins of Islam are quite distinct from contemporary Muslims perception of their religion, but, if Spencer’s thesis is correct, couldn’t we at least say that historically the difference between theonomists and Muslims is that Muslims have attempted to use religion for political ends, while theonomists have attempted to use politics for religious ends?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart:
Your ongoing pertinacious pouting about fellow Christians who hold opinions contrary to your own regarding 2K issues is again displayed in your reflection on an entry of a very sharp blogger at Mere Comments, one Michael Avramovich. The item of his you link to is worthy of wide reading. I hope your link to it will bring many into his intelligent orbit.
So you aren’t alarmed about the many American Muslims (and their fellow-believers around the world) who believe, and whose leaders, when they can, are actually putting into practice capital punishments on the infidel, particularly Christians. Rather you want to make clear that the real issue is those dreaded theonomists who, if they ran the world, might put into practice the Old Testament punishments. That an historian could be so blind to world events as they exist right now and instead focus on those in the Christian community who might mistakenly believe that Old Testament punishments are still normative is amazing.
I am no theonomist, and don’t believe they have, or ever will have, the kind of cultural influence you attribute to them. The real cultural and political clout belongs to the Islamist fifth-columnists now operating in our government and culture. The President entertains Muslims on their special holidays, and has a Secretary of State whose chief assistant is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Certain powerful Congressional Republicans strongly criticized Michelle Bachmann and other House members when they even attempted to explore the ramifications of that situation. This unwillingness to see the dangers of the Islamic ideology that moves those holding it, who are intent on destroying our country from within and establishing Sharia law, is the type of willful blindness that Andy McCarthy warns about in a book of his by that title. Such false friends abhor our Constitution and the rights of religion and free expression enshrined therein. Worst of all is the almost total capitulation of our military establishment to Sharia compliant thinking and the military’s growing submission to it. Witness the murders of our soldiers in Afghanistan because of the policies for appeasing Islam put into place by the likes of the dishonorable Generals Petraeus and Allen while they had other things on their minds.
All this is taking place because Muslims believe in transforming culture. Yet you too often mock those Christians who believe the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should be “transformative” of the cultures in which they live, like Jonathan Edwards was in his time. You insist on a sharp distinction between the kingdoms and caution against engaging culture, leaving Christians to witness to their faith for a few hours on Sunday through Word and Sacrament. I don’t deny the absolute necessity of Word and Sacrament but please be a little more open to the possibility that Christian engagement with culture should not have to be so circumspect and only brought into play in very rare instances.
Perhaps your coterie of true believers and defenders might take the time to watch a panel discussion sponsored by the Center for Security Policy yesterday. Dr. Andrew Bostom, Diana West and Stephen Coughlin tie together and explain the significance of the current scandals surrounding Benghazi and, among other things, those dishonorable military leaders mentioned above. Here is the link: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p19146.xml?genre_id=1004
Maybe then an understanding of the threats we face will orient you all away for a little while from your favorite pastime of haranguing theonomists and others of us with your odd pressuring for Christian obeisance to your peculiar take on two kingdom theology. Remember Isaiah 44:4-6.
Sincerely,
June Engdahl, Editor/Research Assistant to Rev. Bassam Madany
Middle East Resources http://www.unashamedofthegospel.org/
LikeLike
The President entertains Muslims on their special holidays, and has a Secretary of State whose chief assistant is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.
We all know that women who are active supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood take jobs where they’ll be away from their children and husband for months at a time, marry secular leaning Jews and drink publicly. We should all be very worried.
LikeLike
Christian Zionists scare me more than Theonomists and Muslims.
LikeLike
June, you may have made a plausible point about certain forms of Islam, but when you talk about a fifth column within our government you lost me. I would like to think you would see a difference between Muslims who may be friendly with Obama and political Islam in Iran — not to mention Egypt. It strikes me that you perpetuate a simplistic view of Islam by lumping all these groups together, and you fail to see how many Muslim Americans have actually assimilated well to life in the United States.
But the point of my post in comparing political Islam to theonomy was not to suggest that theonomists are large or influential. It was to notice a similar hermeneutic — how both interpret ancient texts. For Christians it is even more surprising since the Qur’an doesn’t have a New Testament.
LikeLike
DGH says: But the point of my post in comparing political Islam to theonomy was not to suggest that theonomists are large or influential. It was to notice a similar hermeneutic — how both interpret ancient texts
*Ancient* texts? Is that the problem with God’s Law? Are you saying we shouldnt take the Law seriously because it’s to old?
Please flush that out
LikeLike
Doug – I’ll answer. The New Testament shows us a different way of engaging culture than the Old. Yet Neocalvinists & Theonomists seem to look at the Old as their model. If you doubt me, check out the (painfully) long back and forth on Kloosterman’s blog with the folks that think 2K arises from the mistaken belief of 2K advocates that the Mosaic Covenant was not gracious. They go from the idea that the Law of Moses WAS gracious to the idea that if we care about people we should want to see as much of it as possible reflected in U.S. law today (although they always seem back away from the first table of the Ten Commandments).
Wait a minute. I’m talking to Doug who was one of the guys I was arguing with there. Well, maybe someone else will be swayed. And yes, Doug, I know about your one New Testament proof verse for theonomy.
LikeLike
June,
Long, long way to go to Sharia law in the U.S. Having someone else have to deal with gay marriage, abortion, and Honey Boo Boo for a change might not be such a bad thing, though…
LikeLike
Doug, the NT is also old. As I said, the Qur’an has no NT. The first Christians had to wrestle with how to unite Jews and Greeks and so had to come to terms with how to interpret the OT. It seems to me that theonomists and those who sound like them haven’t really engaged NT sources on what to do about a faith that is no longer Jewish.
LikeLike
DGH says: It seems to me that theonomists and those who sound like them haven’t really engaged NT sources on what to do about a faith that is no longer Jewish.
Darryl that is quite a charge! What NT source have I missed? Where is the smoking gun?
Let me engage in a crucial NT passage Eph 2:14
“For he himself is our peace, who has made *us* both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross thereby killing the hostility”.
Which commandments did Christ abolish? Thou shall not kill? Thou shall not steal? Thou shall not lay with a man, like a women? Of course not! The next verse answers the question. He abolished the ordinances that separated Jew from Gentile, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two. He did this so he could save the whole world!
The New Covenant includes all men, who have faith like Abraham. And anyone who has faith in Christ is called *Abrahams seed*. Are we still commanded to be separate? Yes, but the separation in no longer divided by Jew and Gentile, its believer and unbeliever. So the Jewish dietary laws are still to be kept, not in the older form, (I enjoy shrimp!) but now in its essence. The NT explains what the dietary laws really meant. They were NOT moral obviously, because now its fine to eat bacon and eggs.
See Darryl? I’m more than willing to address passages in the NT that deal with changes in the Covenant. Please feel free to share any verses that you feel I have overlooked.
LikeLike
Which commandments did Christ abolish
To circumcise the male offspring (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3)
To put tzitzit on the corners of clothing (Num. 15:38)
To bind tefillin on the head (Deut. 6:8) (CCA9).
To bind tefillin on the arm (Deut. 6:8) (CCA8).
To affix the mezuzah to the doorposts and gates of your house (Deut. 6:9)
That a eunuch shall not marry a daughter of Israel (Deut. 23:2)
That a mamzer shall not marry the daughter of a Jew (Deut. 23:3)
That the newly married husband shall (be free) for one year to rejoice with his wife i.e. that a bridegroom shall be exempt for a whole year from taking part in any public labor, such as military service, guarding the wall and similar duties (Deut. 24:5)
To divorce by a formal written document (Deut. 24:1)
That a widow whose husband died childless must not be married to anyone but her deceased husband’s brother (Deut. 25:5)
Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22)
Should I keep going?
LikeLike
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[e] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you,[f] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
5 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Maybe it’s just me but I see Paul contrasting elemental working principles not mere abolishing ethnic distinctions. Something about the Law is NOT of faith.
LikeLike
@C.D. Host: I think you’re mistaken upon further review.
Christian Jews were still circumcising there children with Apostolic authority after Christ’s death at Calvary, see Acts 15. Only Gentile Christians were instructed to not circumcise there children. Paul was still performing many Jewish customs, as in washings, he shaved his head in Acts 21, and so on. Many of the Jewish customs did not stop until 70AD when God destroyed Jerusalem. Only the seperation of Jew and Gentile ended with Apostolic authority and the attempt by some to force Gentiles to become Jewish, as in the Judiazers.
So you are confusing, Christ’s death, with Christ’s judgment, and divorce Apostate Israel. (This is when the Son of Man came on the clouds. There was a forty year gap before the Old Covenant vanished. Remember, Hebrews tells us that it was old and obsolete, and ready to vanish, but it did not vanish until 70AD.
Have you asked yourself, why was it okay for Jewish Christians to circumcise there young boys, and not Gentile Christians?
So the ordinances that Christ abolished in his own flesh in bringing together Jew and Gentile could not have been circumcision! Galatians is the first book written in the New Covenant era, Paul could not have been contradicting something he would say years later in Ephesians.
Food for thought
LikeLike
Sean says: Something about the Law is NOT of faith.
Sean the Bible calls the Law good. And yet only God is called good. So what was the problem was it with the Law? I think Romans 9:32 captures the problem with Apostate Israel.
Romans 9:32
“But that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in teaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone”,
Who was the stumbling stone? They stumbled over Christ! The Mosaic Law was never a works righteousness arrangement! However, the Jews perverted that good law (as if it were based on works) the law pointed to Christ, the Jews pursued the law, as if it were based on works. Apostate Israel was faithless, not the good law.
The Mosaic Covenant was to be pursued by faith! Yet the natural man always wants to change the terms attempting to win God’s approval in his own strength, keeping his dignity intact. They missed the essence of serving God with a broken and contrite heart. Israel’s problem was pride, which goes before destruction!
LikeLike
Doug, you’re abiding the Jewish ‘misuse’ interpretation. Paul is instead arguing for an elemental or essential difference in working principle between the covenants, not a simple misuse or mistaken understanding of the mosaic. In fact Paul, as a Jew, writes the law serves this very evangelical purpose in imprisoning everyone under sin, and how that looked in a Jew’s life as they pursued the law-Rom 7:7-13( I didn’t know coveting until the law told me thou shalt not covet…………) The new covenant makes a hard break(discontinuity-the Law is not of Faith, and in fact is CONTRARY to grace and faith) from Sinai which is why Paul bounds it historically in contrast to the abrahamic and the NC in Gal. 3:17.
LikeLike
@Doug —
You’re absolute right I wasn’t distinguishing between “Christ’s commands” and NT later Christianity. If you want to assert that Jesus preached a form of Judaism and that the apostolic church decided to found a new religion you are mostly agreeing with liberal Christianity not conservative Christianity. The idea of conservative Christianity is that Paul’s attitudes and ideas are reflective of Jesus. We know Jesus through the word, and the word is an inerrant guide to the wishes of the triune deity. You are absolutely right I was taking that as a given.
So assuming I can take that as a given… in context what you were asserting was that Jesus/early church did not abolish Old Testament law. When in reality they abolished hundreds of old testament commands. In other words it was the intent of Jesus/early church to found a religion quite different with entirely different law.
Have you asked yourself, why was it okay for Jewish Christians to circumcise there young boys, and not Gentile Christians?
If you want my honest opinion, I don’t think it was OK. The entire book of Hebrews is a discourse on why the Jewish sacrificial cult was not optional forJewish Christians. Hebrews is absolutely unequivocal that engaging in those sorts of activities is spurning the Son of God and outright apostasy. I don’t know the author could be clearer that laying of hands, repentance through Jesus and not the blood of animals, belief in the resurrection are the new covenant and a return to the old is a rejection of the new. If Hebrews belongs in the bible than Jewish Christians should not engage in circumcision.
What I see when I read Act 15 is the Noahide covenant which was part of normative Pharisaic Judaism then and part of normative Orthodox Judaism today. Gentiles are not children of Jacob and as such are not bound by Mosaic law but only by the laws that apply to Noah. Paul in Romans with his notion that Jewish Christians are via. Jesus grafted onto the tree of Israel and thus part of the Mosaic covenant is I think at variance with James’ opinion that gentile converts to Christianity have the same status as God Fearers did in Pharisaic Judaism. My read of Acts is that Luke is trying to show an evolution away from James’ opinion towards Paul’s, for example Peter’s change of heart with regard to food.
But “why” is an aside. I wanted to just focus on the simple easy factual question.
LikeLike
Doug, the OT has many more commandments than THE commandments. In that case, you may want to check out Galatians, as in The Law is Not of Faith.
LikeLike
Sean says: Paul is instead arguing for an elemental or essential difference in working principle between the covenants, not a simple misuse or mistaken understanding of the mosaic.
Sean, lets take a closer look at Scripture, okay? “as if it were by works”, in other words Sean, it never was a works, righteousness, arragement! They tripped over Christ, just like reprobates do today!
And finally Sean, this flies in the face of Covenant theology which states that *all* of the post fall covenants are essencially *one* covenant of grace. If you don’t believe that, then your on the wrong website. To say what your saying is not Preysbyterian in the slightest. Your thinking just like a Baptist!
Please check this out!
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-not-according-mrt-792/
LikeLike
Doug, as you might imagine I’ll gladly be lumped in with the Westminster Cal. crowd. Thank you very much. Though they may not garner as much shine off the association. What am I saying, I’m awesome. Somebody let Dr. Clark know that he’s not presbyterian. (according to Doug, anyway).
LikeLike
So let me see if I can get the logic of this article right:
Muslims believe in enforcing the rules set forth in their scriptures.
The Muslim faith is false.
Therefore, any religion that believes in enforcing the rules found in their scriptures is false.
This doesn strike me as very logical. In fact it appears to be a non sequitur.
Muslims also believe in prayer. In prayer also wrong?
I don’t see how this article clarifies any difficulties with theonomy at all. All it does is poisons the well and advances an emotional, ad homenim attack against theonomists. But it doesn’t interact with their real beliefs or offer any actual arguments against them at all.
LikeLike
DGH says: Doug, the OT has many more commandments than THE commandments. In that case, you may want to check out Galatians, as in The Law is Not of Faith.
Darryl, it amazes me, that you of all people, who should know better, continue to understand the Mosaic Covenant just like a Baptist. If you really feel this way, why not be honest? Since you don’t see eye to eye with our Confession, why stay here and pester good men, who are faithful to the WCF? You’re obviously not on the same page with the rest of us. Why continue to pound a square peg in a round hole?
p.s. Did you read the post Mosaic Covenant the same in substance? If yes, then I would like to hear your feedback, if no, then read it!
LikeLike
@Sean; did you get a chance to read “Mosaic covenant the same in substance”?
LikeLike
Doug, yes. I’ve read Ramsey before and I found his explanation to be less convincing then either Moo, westerholm, Kline(subservient) or T.David Gordon. Ramsey doesn’t adequately account for strict justice and second Adam fulfillment much less Paul’s polemical contrasting of Sinai with the NC.
LikeLike
Doug, what you may want to consider is that Old Life is a blog that you go to. I write. You pester.
LikeLike
Jon, no, you’re missing the point. People who don’t believe in Islam are scared of political Islamists. People who don’t believe theonomy are afraid of theonomists. If you want to explain why you’re not scary, fine.
LikeLike
Doug keeps crying “baptist”, as if there were only (theonomic) way to be paedobaptist. Ramsey’s essay is best read without bothering to read Moo, Kline or David Gordon. That way you don’t have to look at the ignored rough spots.
John Murray’s Mono-Covenantalism, by David Gordon, in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (Crossway,2006, p121
“The language of ‘the covenant of grace is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language. Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow.
What John Murray jettisoned was the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it.
The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity. They believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration. ..My own way of discerning whether a person really has an understanding
of covenant theology is to see whether he can describe it without
reference to dispensationalism.
The word covenant is rarely employed in the Bible. Where it is used, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: And finally Sean, this flies in the face of Covenant theology which states that *all* of the post fall covenants are essencially *one* covenant of grace. If you don’t believe that, then your on the wrong website. To say what your saying is not Preysbyterian in the slightest. Your thinking just like a Baptist!
RS: Doug, if Sean is thinking like a Baptist (a covenantal Baptist), then he must be right. If he is saying things that are not Presbyterian, then he is on the right path.
LikeLike
Reached a profound conclusion last night: Arguing with people who are basically a church of one — Richard Smith, CD, Doug Sowers, Rabbi Bret McAtee, R. Martin Snyder, The occasional troll who posts here – Is a waste of the non-renewable resource also known as my life. Therefore I have decided to pretty much ignore them and say, “Good luck with your system, gentlemen”. I might even get all Bryan Crossity and only talk to D.G. (although I would miss my wise 2K brothers if I did that). I guess a good way to summarize this is to say, “farewell, knuckleheads!”.
LikeLike
Where else but blogs can these guys go to get attention? I’m sure the humans that they interact with in the flesh tuned them out years ago.
LikeLike
Darryl,
But isn’t scariness a subject term? Aren’t there good reasons to be scared and bad reasons to be scared? Doesn’t the Bible tell us that the law abided has nothing to fear from the magistrate who enforces God’s law?
LikeLike
McMark says: Doug keeps crying “baptist”, as if there were only (theonomic) way to be paedobaptist.
It’s this simple Mark, if one is in a denominaton that subcribes to the WCF, like the OPC, then you can’t logically side with Kline. By the way Mark, what New Testament passage can you provide for baptizing your infant children?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Reached a profound conclusion last night: Arguing with people who are basically a church of one — Richard Smith, CD, Doug Sowers, Rabbi Bret McAtee, R. Martin Snyder, The occasional troll who posts here – Is a waste of the non-renewable resource also known as my life. Therefore I have decided to pretty much ignore them and say, “Good luck with your system, gentlemen”. I might even get all Bryan Crossity and only talk to D.G. (although I would miss my wise 2K brothers if I did that). I guess a good way to summarize this is to say, “farewell, knuckleheads!”.
RS: In other words, you only want to discuss things with people who agree with you and therefore pump you up. I get it, life can be easier when people always agree with you and don’t use the Bible to show you where you are wrong. I must admit, though, what you are doing is the practice of some of the people in the Bible, but that would have been the Pharisees. They just wanted to hear themselves speak and read their own favorite rabbi’s. I mean, after all, they had the history and they had all the scholarly interpretations on their side. Then there was that party of One that came along who preached the Scriptures in truth with clarity and plainess. The Pharisees sneered at Him and kept following their own systems and their own rabbi’s. After all, the truly learned would follow them and not that One who did not follow their truly educated and learned system. Yes, Erik, you reached a profound conclusion. Just keep on talking about everything but the glory of God in Christ by the Spirit and keep on smugly thinking that anyone that does not agree with you is a troll. Do you think most of your conversations here really have anything to do with the love of Christ?
1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha.
LikeLike
dgh, Defending the Faith, p169—Mainstream Protestantism perpeutated the older ideal of providing moral and religious guidance to the nation….Most conservative Protestants believed just as strongly as mainstream Protestants in the idea of a Christian America.
mark: That’s why they voted for Republicans like Abe Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens. Not because of a libertarian conscience, but because they wanted to (approximately) enforce God’s law on the “others”. That’s why the revivalists were for Prohibition and at the same time indifferent and tolerant about ecclesiology.
Matthew 13: And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
LikeLike
Richard (whoever you really are) Smith. You are entitled to the last word.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Arguing with people who are basically a church of one — Richard Smith, CD, Doug Sowers, Rabbi Bret McAtee, R. Martin Snyder, The occasional troll who posts here – Is a waste of the non-renewable resource also known as my life.
Erik Charter: I guess a good way to summarize this is to say, “farewell, knuckleheads!”.
Erik Charter: Richard (whoever you really are) Smith. You are entitled to the last word.
RS: As you look down from your lofty all-knowing perch unwilling to engage those who differ from you, despite the fact that you rarely if ever quote the Bible, you think that you can entitle people to a last word or not. I will suggest to you that you might consider that you are too full of self to interpret things in a realistic way.
Matthew 7:28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;
29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.” 15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.
Acts 24: 24 But some days later Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife who was a Jewess, and sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present, and when I find time I will summon you.”
LikeLike
Bye bye Erik
I’ve enjoyed our back and forth, kind of 🙂 It’s ironic that we think so much alike in areas like economics and how we vote, yet have such different views regarding of the authority of God’s Word in the public square. But I do have something to get off my chest. The first time we had an exchange, you asked me where I see theonomy taught in the New Testament. I have a big problem with that question, but never got the chance to elaborate. You asked why *we* were picking on Dr Hart on his view of the Mosaic Covenant over at Cosmic Eye, you even said “so what if he does see the Mosaic Covenant like Kline”? Remember? Maybe I can help connect the dots for you.
It comes down to how we view the covenant of grace. The WCF understands the older covenants, including the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, as the same in substance as the New, and that has everything to do with why we baptize our infants. It’s also crucial to how we understand the nature of the New Covenant. Gentile Christians were crafted into the same covenant tree, as wild olive shoots, into the cultivated olive tree, with the root being Christ. See Romans 11. Talk about a picture of covenant continuity!
Asking me where I see theonomy taught in the New Testament is like a Reformed Baptist asking, where you see infant baptism taught in the New. It starts from our presuppositions about the covenant of grace being essenscially one in substance.
So the same principle applies to why I favor a theonomic perspective. I have presuppositions that understand God’s penal sanctions gave an eye for and eye, as in perfect justice in the socio political sense. They exhibited the very wisdom of God. They gave just the right amount of punishment to satisfy justice in the socio political sense. These are timeless and eternal axioms. When God says in such a such case, do such and such, we had better pay heed.
For me theonomy deals with what *ought* to be the case, not what necessarily is. Are all punishments equal? Shall we cut off the thief’s hand? Would that be justice? How should crime be punished in a socio political sense? By what standard are we to judge rather the punishment fits the crime? Does the Bible give us guidance? To that I give a hearty amen, and amen!
FWIW, I’m not sure, as to how we are to apply *all of* the general equity of God’s Law in a socio political sense. But I, for one, believe that should be the ideal of all Christians in society where we are allowed to voice our opinion. How we get there, will require much thought and prayer and fruit of the Spirit. Isn’t that what we pray for *more of* everyday? Thy kingdom come! Didn’t Jesus teach us his kingdom’s dominion would be slow, like leaven? Jesus said if we had faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains. He also lovingly said he would be with us to the end! Amen, and amen! Onward Christian solders!
LikeLike
Thanks, Doug.
You’re not a bad guy to dialogue with. I maybe shouldn’t have lumped you in with those other cantankerous fellows. Maybe it depends on the day.
What my decision comes down to is (1) I think I am in a really solid church (2) I pretty much know what I believe and at 43 will probably not be changing that too much (3) I have a wife, 4 kids, a good job, enough money, lots of interests., good health (4) In light of those three, why do I want to spend time arguing with people? I’m happy just doing what I’m doing. If the people I disagree with get unhappy, maybe they’ll ask me what I think. Until then, I’m good with letting them go their own way. If I disagree with my pastor or elders, that’s one thing. If I disagree with some guy online, who cares? This is especially true if they won’t even reveal who they are.
LikeLike
@Erik: The reason I wanted to explain where I was coming from is that you jabbed me a couple times, here and at CE, that I only have one verse in the New Testament to support theonomy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would point out our Reformed Baptists Brothers say the same thing to us regarding infant baptism. I know you don’t agree with theonomy at this point in your life, but I hope you can at least understand where I’m coming from. God bless you, and keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Richard – For a Christian who talks about experiencing Christ’s love you kind of seem like a really angry, disagreeable guy. This doesn’t impact me, but it might impact the people you care about. Just think about it before it’s too late.
LikeLike
Doug contines to repeat himself, even when it means ignoring the clear evidence of Scripture (old and new) that the law is not of faith. In his denial of the law-gospel antithesis taught by the Confessions, Doug claims that there is only a right way and a wrong way of pursuing the law, and that the gospel is the right way of pursuing the law.
A rebuttal to this idea is an essay by David Gordon in WTJ (Spring 1992): “Why Israel did not obtain Torah Righteousness; A note on Romans 9:32.”
Gordon writes that the verse should be translated not “as if it were”, but “because the law is not of faith” in line with Gal 3:12. “The qualification works-and-not faith in Gal 3:10-13 is parallel to the qualification works and not faith in Romans 9:32.”
“If one group attained what the other did not, the difference between them might lie in the manner in which they pursued it. This is now what Paul says however. The two groups did not pursue the same thing (the gentiles pursued nothing). Paul’s point therefore is NOT that the Gentiles pursued righteousness in a better manner (by faith) than the Jews. Rather, God’s mercy gives what is not even pursued.”
“When Paul asks why the Jews did not attain unto the Torah, his answer addressed the NATURE of the law- covenant (Torah demands perfect obedience), not the nature of the PURSUIT of the law-covenant.”
Those who say “we cause the death of Jesus to save us, and we do it the right way, with the faith and not works” do not understand the gospel. We don’t do it any way. God already did it at the cross, for the elect. God imputes that cross-work to the elect, and the elect believe this gospel. But Doug seems to think that gospel is about him being enabled to do the law. I suppose that entails God accepting imperfection satisfaction of the law.
LikeLike
Thanks McMark for flushing that out. I will respond later.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – For a Christian who talks about experiencing Christ’s love you kind of seem like a really angry, disagreeable guy. This doesn’t impact me, but it might impact the people you care about. Just think about it before it’s too late.
RS: I am not angry, but disgusted. I must admit to having a sense of pity mixed in with that and, though you may not believe it, your words concern me. You might also wonder where your concept of love comes from. True love is manifested in the acts and words of Jesus as seen below.
Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’
17 “You fools and blind men!
Erik Charter: What my decision comes down to is (1) I think I am in a really solid church
RS: Not really. I have listened to some of the stuff online. Sure, you could care less about my opinion, but I would argue that it is not that solid in terms of the Gospel.
Erik Charter: (2) I pretty much know what I believe and at 43 will probably not be changing that too much
RS: There is a difference between knowing what you believe and believing the truth. There is also a difference between knowing what you believe and having Christ as your life. I might also add that thinking you won’t change at the ripe old age of 43 can be in and of itself an arrogant statement. You don’t know all the truth (at best) and God can show you so much more (if He is pleased to do so in His sovereign pleasure) that you might think that what you know now can fit on the head of a pin with room for many angels to dance on as well.
Erik Charter: (3) I have a wife, 4 kids,
RS: They are in the hands of a sovereign God and the only reason they are not crushing you into the dust is the sovereign hand of God. That can be taken away at any moment.
Erik Charter: a good job,
RS: Which can go at any moment and is not a sign that one should be spiritually lethargic.
Erik Charter: enough money,
RS: Sounds like the rich guy in the NT who wanted bigger barns.
Erik Charter: lots of interests.,
RS: So you are not really seeking the kingdom with all your heart?
Erik Charter: good health
RS: Which you may not have at the moment but instead just don’t realize what you have yet. Good health is not a promise from God.
Erik Charter: (4) In light of those three, why do I want to spend time arguing with people?
RS: Because you don’t know as much as you think you do. Iron sharpens iron and God brings people you don’t agree with to either sharpen what you do know or show you things you don’t. An argument is when people present reasons for their positions, so why is some time spent arguing with people good for you? I am trying to learn more about 2k, paedobaptism, and Oldlife sorts. I would never find out as much about those things by reading people that write books against those things. You will also never really learn about things that you disagree with now and smugly dismiss unless you really study them and engage in arguments (not quarrels).
To repeat, I am not angry, but you sure come across (today) as one that is just satisfied with himself, what he knows, and all the material things that he has. It smacks of many things, but at least be aware that it smacks of a person that God will wake up. You are in a battle for your soul whether you know it or not or believe it or not. I will leave you with a few verses below. I led a study last night where we dealt with these verses. For what it is worth, this is a study that has been going on for four years. I am not a total loner. But your writing today makes me think of those verses and that you need to read and consider them on your knees.
Mat 13:22 this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world & the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, & it becomes unfruitful.
Eph 4:22 lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
2 Cor 2:11 so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes
II Cor 4:4 the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
II Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
Hebrews 3:13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
LikeLike
Daryl:
As for Muslim accommodation to life in these United States: Until statistics are available (which I don’t have at the moment, nor did you cite any of your own) this is unknown. The statistics that Avramovich lists about what Muslims actually believe should alert us to the power their religion, its tenets and its harsh punishments for the infidel holds over them. Try to envision life in our country if they were in control of our government. History is clear and current events substantiate how they do and will operate.
Andy McCarthy, Diana West, Janet Levy and many others have plenty of documentation to prove that several levels of our government are infected with Muslim influence. Insistence on political correctness in every area of our life has made it easier for Muslims to receive privileges denied other citizenry. At the same time there is much abject inattention by a body politic that is more interested in “personal peace and affluence” as Francis Schaeffer said so well, and to which can be added the resultant dreadful descent into moral degradation we witness in Western culture.
Ponder how our President was so willing to blame an American exercising his First Amendment rights after the Cairo and Benghazi incidents rather than tell the truth about what happened. He went to the UN and continued the fantasy and declared that the “Prophet of Islam” just cannot be criticized; his spokespersons lied with straight faces all over the place; Mrs. Clinton has made statements as well giving the effect that something just must be done about that inconvenient First Amendment that so hinders the politically correct thinking that is their working hermeneutic.
Your concluding statement was somewhat unclear. I think you meant that theonomists should not be going to the OT when we now have the NT fulfillment of our ancient text. The Muslims don’t even have a corollary NT to fulfill their ancient text. I asked Rev. Madany if he could give me his thoughts on the matter. Here are his remarks:
Hart: “For Christians it is even more surprising since the Qur’an doesn’t have a New Testament.”
Madany: It sounds rather strange and confusing. Obviously, while the Qur’an is not similar to the Bible with its OT & NT parts, yet Islamic scholars and Orientalists have always pointed out two different strands in Islam’s sacred text: The Suras (chapters) that “descended” on Muhammad in Mecca (610 – 622 A.D.) and those that “descended” in Medina (622-632 A.D.). The former tend to be short and rather religious in their nature, while the latter are lengthy, and have political and legal injunctions that inform Islamic Shari’a. Unfortunately, it’s the Medinan Suras that have propelled the march of Islam throughout history, marking it the only major world religion that spread primarily through its conquests.
In conclusion, I am sorry that you show little concern about the travesties I have described happening in the second kingdom. Your blog entries are replete enough with the many things in the cultural part of the second kingdom that you enjoy and interact with. You even link to some things (like movies) that many Christians would find of questionable taste and offensive. Yet you look askance at those in the Christian community who are proactive in the political realm of that second kingdom. It seems to me that more balance in your perspective on the two kingdoms would make reactions like mine less critical, and were you to be more “alarmed” about the inroads of a religion/ideology that is seeking to bring down Christianity it would indicate that perhaps you too see that our American principles and ideals need to be supported and defended from whatever line of attack presents itself. The Church should have much to say about this, not just its individual members, but its corporate witness as well.
June
LikeLike
@June —
Do you really have to make stuff up that’s so easily checkable:
Ponder how our President was so willing to blame an American exercising his First Amendment rights after the Cairo and Benghazi incidents rather than tell the truth about what happened. He went to the UN and continued the fantasy and declared that the “Prophet of Islam” just cannot be criticized; his spokespersons lied with straight faces all over the place;
First off the video was financed by Egyptian copts. Secondly what happened in Cairo was a protest against the video, he was telling the truth. What happened in Libya was more complex.
Third anyone who reads that line in context will see that he is defending not attacking free speech: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/25/president-obamas-prepared-remarks-at-the-u-n-general-assembly/ . He’s saying precisely the opposite of what you are attributing to him.
June the “travesties” you are describing aren’t real. They are happening in your head not in the world. Muslims are a tiny percentage of the US population. The US muslim population is mostly liberal muslims. If they wanted to live in Islamic states there are plenty they could live in, they are here because they like living in a secular state. There is no risk of sharia in American and there never has been.
I live near Paterson NJ where Muslims are about 1/6th of the population. The big fight is to get school off on Islamic holidays. In Dearborn, what freaked Sharon Angle out was that the city paid for footbaths. And these are the absolute worst examples of accommodation in the entire United States, in areas with a well above average concentration.
Are there not enough real problems in the world that you have to make up fake ones?
LikeLike
Richard – I know you love baiting people, but I’m not going to take it. My point is, I would rather spend time with my family and doing the good things I like than arguing with you and people like you who are basically just looking for a fight. After a point it becomes pathological. Almost an addiction. After spending a lot of time lately arguing with people like this it occurred to me that maybe I was becoming one. That and some wise words from my pastor.Berate me all you want, but I think to an unbiased observer it just makes you look small and sad. I’m sorry for being rougher on you in the past than was warranted. One good thing I did get from you & McMark was more respect for Reformed Baptists than I previously had. A man can have a sound understanding of Reformed theology and differ on this one issue and I can respect that. The biggest criticism I would have of your theology is I think that someone who really knows Christ really has an understanding of grace, and I don’t see you offering people a lot of that. Whatever people offer up it’s never good enough for you. When you understand your own sin you tend not to be as “disgusted” by the perceived sins of others.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – I know you love baiting people, but I’m not going to take it.
RS: I was not and am not baiting you. Neither am I aware of myself having a love for baiting people. What you think you know in this case, you don’t know because it is not true.
Erik Charter: My point is, I would rather spend time with my family and doing the good things I like than arguing with you and people like you who are basically just looking for a fight.
RS: Fine, it may be a good thing to spend time with the family. But you really need to stop making false accusations against me. I am not just looking for a fight, nor am I looking for a fight at all.
Erik Chartter: After a point it becomes pathological. Almost an addiction. After spending a lot of time lately arguing with people like this it occurred to me that maybe I was becoming one. That and some wise words from my pastor. Berate me all you want, but I think to an unbiased observer it just makes you look small and sad.
RS: I was not berating you as such. I would say, however, the way you came across was in a way that sounded like you needed to be spoken to. I was not angry and am not angry, but I would think an unbiased observer would notice that you certainly appeared to be high above some and looking down on them.
Erik Charter: I’m sorry for being rougher on you in the past than was warranted. One good thing I did get from you & McMark was more respect for Reformed Baptists than I previously had. A man can have a sound understanding of Reformed theology and differ on this one issue and I can respect that. The biggest criticism I would have of your theology is I think that someone who really knows Christ really has an understanding of grace, and I don’t see you offering people a lot of that.
RS: Then you don’t understand what is at the heart of what I have been saying and we have a different concept of what grace is. A person can only be convicted by sin in truth by the grace of God. A person can only be regenerated by the grace of God. A person can only be given a believing heart and therefore a heart of faith by the grace of God. A person can only grow in holiness by the grace of God. A person can only love God in truth by the grace of God. A person can only love another human being in truth by the grace of God. All of the fruits of the Spirit only come by the grace of God. However, if those things are not there, then there is no grace.
Erik Charter: Whatever people offer up it’s never good enough for you.
RS: I am not the one that people have to be please, but until what is offered up is biblical, then it is not enough.
Erik Charter: When you understand your own sin you tend not to be as “disgusted” by the perceived sins of others.
RS: Most interesting. How in the world do you know that? I thought I was the one around here that has been accused of (by you as well) as thinking that I can know the hearts of others. I am not sure you are aware of how many things in this post that are not true that you seem to think are facts. Perhaps that is why you appear to be on a high place looking down?
LikeLike
Richard – I assume you have been a pastor for many years. How many people do you have currently looking to you as an example of how to live as a Christian? Do you currently serve a church? What happened at your last church? I think it’s safe to say that the majority of the men here do not see eye to eye with you on much. Are they all not Christians? Are they all immature Christians? At what point do you begin to look at yourself and your self-appointed ministry to be the Holy Spirit to everyone? You point out others’ sins freely, but it is obvious to anyone that you are a very stubborn, prideful man who will not accept accountability from anyone. You accuse me of being a Pharisee but you take on far more characteristics of a Pharisee if you look at what Jesus actually accused them of. Piling burdens on people, pointing out others perceived sins while being blind to their own, setting up extrabiblical requirements for church membership. If you are going to accuse me of anything it would be “antinomianism”, which is what the Neocalvinists commonly accuse 2K guys of, but I don’t think this is true either. I believe that lawkeeping is a part of sanctification, not justification, and it is a long, slow process. The biggest weakness you have is you constantly point to holiness and fruit as the key, as if you have it, but clearly you don’t any more than all of the others sinners here. You are just blind to it. I think someone has hurt you deeply and it really impacts your approach to Christianity. It stinks if you have been hurt, but you can’t take that out on everyone else your whole life.
LikeLike
You also have a habit of throwing out Bible verses without giving any context or interpreting them in light of a confessional Reformed framework. What in the world does this prove? It reeks of fundamentalist biblicism. Yeah, you know some Bible verses. So what? So do I. I just don’t find it particularly helpful to throw them out without any context in an attempt to appear smart. I would be more interested to see you ground your Edwardsian approach to Christianity in the Reformed confessions, especially in the Three Forms since I just don’t think it is really there. Continental Reformed people put far more emphasis on looking at the objective work of Christ than they do at looking at subjective things within themselves.
You do this stuff full time — I don’t. I don’t think you do it any better than I, or the other laymen here, do.
LikeLike
My resolution not to argue with Richards is off to a great start…
LikeLike
I also apologize for calling you and the other guys “knuckleheads”. “People I seem to have a great deal of difficulty conversing with profitably” would have been much more charitable. I’m sure I am part of the problem.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – I assume you have been a pastor for many years. How many people do you have currently looking to you as an example of how to live as a Christian? Do you currently serve a church? What happened at your last church?
RS: Erik, we have been down this road before.
Erik C: I think it’s safe to say that the majority of the men here do not see eye to eye with you on much. Are they all not Christians? Are they all immature Christians?
RS: Arguing that one has the truth because a majority agrees with him is a logical fallacy. I have no idea who is and who is not a Christian on this board. It is not my job or desire to try to determine that over a medium such as this.
Erik C: At what point do you begin to look at yourself and your self-appointed ministry to be the Holy Spirit to everyone?
RS: I don’t have a self-appointed ministry to be the Holy Spirit to everyone or anyone. By the way, just listen (read) to yourself at this point.
Erik C: You point out others’ sins freely, but it is obvious to anyone that you are a very stubborn, prideful man who will not accept accountability from anyone.
RS: Where have I been so free in pointing out the sins of others? Why is it so obvious that I am a stubborn and prideful man who will not accept accountability from anyone? It sounds to me that you are pointing out what you think are the sins of another person at this point.
Erik C: You accuse me of being a Pharisee but you take on far more characteristics of a Pharisee if you look at what Jesus actually accused them of.
RS: Did I actually say that you are a Pharisee? Wasn’t it more like doing X is being like one? There is a big difference between the two.
Erik C: Piling burdens on people, pointing out others perceived sins while being blind to their own, setting up extrabiblical requirements for church membership.
RS: Piling burdens on people? You mean like holiness and love for God? Those are not burdens, they are what true freedom consists of. Yes, it is true, I think people should be regenerate and believe the Gospel from the heart rather than just say words. But I guess you think that is extrabiblical.
Erik C: If you are going to accuse me of anything it would be “antinomianism”, which is what the Neocalvinists commonly accuse 2K guys of, but I don’t think this is true either. I believe that lawkeeping is a part of sanctification, not justification, and it is a long, slow process. The biggest weakness you have is you constantly point to holiness and fruit as the key, as if you have it, but clearly you don’t any more than all of the others sinners here.
RS: Pointing to something is not the same thing as a claim to having it. My finger is pointing to Bill Gates right now and all of his money. But I make no claim to it being mine. Even if I did make the claim that I have holiness and fruit, I would be boasting in the cross and grace. True holiness and true fruit come by grace and not by the works of self. In an argument or discussion over what is needed for membership, those things have come up, but I don’t ever recall bragging that I have those things at all much less attributing those things to self.
Erik C: You are just blind to it.
RS: But again, you have no real basis for saying that.
Erik C: I think someone has hurt you deeply and it really impacts your approach to Christianity. It stinks if you have been hurt, but you can’t take that out on everyone else your whole life.
RS: I think that you should give up on your use of secular psychology (and being a prophet in the application of it) and get back to the Bible. I wasn’t aware that I was taking out anything on anyone. Have you been hurt in the past and so now you think all other people who disagree with you have been? If you have, then you need to repent of being hurt and bow in the humility that grace can work in your heart and not bear all those grudges.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: You also have a habit of throwing out Bible verses without giving any context or interpreting them in light of a confessional Reformed framework.
RS: You will have to take one verse and show me how I have done that before you can meaningfully assert that I have a habit of doing that.
Erik Charter: What in the world does this prove?
RS: If you are correct in that matter, it proves that I misuse the Bible. If you are incorrect in the matter, then it proves that you have not taken the time to prove your point.
Erik Charter: It reeks of fundamentalist biblicism.
RS: Thank you. It is a great thing to believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
Erik Charter: Yeah, you know some Bible verses. So what? So do I. I just don’t find it particularly helpful to throw them out without any context in an attempt to appear smart.
RS: You are right, it is not a great thing or a helpful thing to throw out verses in an attempt to appear smart. However, I have not been doing that. But again, how do you know the intent and attitude of my heart when I am using verses?
Erik Charter: I would be more interested to see you ground your Edwardsian approach to Christianity in the Reformed confessions, especially in the Three Forms since I just don’t think it is really there. Continental Reformed people put far more emphasis on looking at the objective work of Christ than they do at looking at subjective things within themselves.
RS: Like I have said repeatedly, the work of Christ in a person is an objective work of Christ. Many people in the Bible believed that Jesus did miracles and so believed in the work of Christ, but they were not converted. The objective things of the Gospel that were historical events when Christ was on earth can be and are believed by demons. The question for being a believer, however, is not just does one believe the facts of the historical events, but has God done a work in the soul of the human being. Believing the Three Forms never saved one person. Believing the historical facts never saved one person. The work of God in the soul as an application of what Christ has done saves souls.
Erik C: You do this stuff full time — I don’t. I don’t think you do it any better than I, or the other laymen here, do.
RS: You can and will believe as you want. However, when you stand before God on that day it will do no good to state the Three Forms by memory or anything like that. It will be of no benefit to state the Bible from memory either. The question is not how much one knows, but is one known by God and therefore have the living God in his or her soul. The question is not whether I believe the historical facts, but has the resurrected Christ cleansed my heart and now lives in me.
LikeLike
How do you really KNOW that Christ cleanses your heart and now lives in you? Are you the judge of that or is someone else? If you, how do you know you are not self-deceived? If someone else, how do you know that the resurrected Christ has cleansed their heart and lives in them? We seem to have some kind of subjective infinite regression going on here. If I see your fruit and question it, who’s to say I’m wrong and you’re right (and vice versa)? Why were the people who let you go from your last church wrong and you right? Why should I not trust the subjective judgment of that group of Christian believers? Why should I trust you over them?
LikeLike
Erik Charter: How do you really KNOW that Christ cleanses your heart and now lives in you? Are you the judge of that or is someone else? If you, how do you know you are not self-deceived? If someone else, how do you know that the resurrected Christ has cleansed their heart and lives in them?
RS: Interesting questions, but not enough space to answer here. If you ever so carefully read I John, the answers are there. But again, I John gives you objective reasons, though not all read them that way because they don’t seem objective to them. A few of the many verses from I John that tells us we can know, yet they don’t fit what many think follows the objective method. However, it is the Bible.
1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 3:19 We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him
24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Erik Charter: We seem to have some kind of subjective infinite regression going on here. If I see your fruit and question it, who’s to say I’m wrong and you’re right (and vice versa)?
RS: The Bible.
Erik Charter: Why were the people who let you go from your last church wrong and you right?
RS: I wasn’t let go from my last church.
Erik Charter: Why should I not trust the subjective judgment of that group of Christian believers? Why should I trust you over them?
RS: You shouldn’t trust them and you shouldn’t trust me. The Word of God has the answers and Christ Himself is the answer.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: “Richard Smith” – Yesterday when I said I “I think I am in a really solid church” you said: (Quoting) RS: Not really. I have listened to some of the stuff online. Sure, you could care less about my opinion, but I would argue that it is not that solid in terms of the Gospel.
Erik Charter: I attend Providence Reformed Church in Des Moines, Iowa. It is a church in good standing in the United Reformed Churches in North America. It is a member of the Central Classis. The minister there is an ordained minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America and was trained at Westminster Seminary California by D.G. Hart, Rev. Scott Clark, Rev. Michael Horton, Rev. Robert Godfrey, and several other men with excellent reputations in the Reformed world.
You, on the other hand, are an anonymous person hiding behind a screen name. You have now slandered an actual, visual Reformed Church and minister by saying that it is “not even solid in terms of the gospel”. That is a very serious charge. People know who I am and can easily find out where I am a church member (unlike you I would tell them).
RS: But I am not an anonymous person and I am not hiding behind anything. Your jumping to unwarranted conclusions is perhaps due to a touch of humor on my part at times, but you are rather jumpy when it comes to conclusions. I might also add that there have been several men trained at Westminster who are now Roman Catholic or have followed men like Norman Shephard. Is that a slam against Westminster? No, it is just an acknowledgment that where a person is trained is not a guarantee that they are preaching the Gospel.
Erik Charter: I would ask that you either retract and apologize for that statement or identify yourself to Dr. Hart (at least) and have the courage to make a formal charge. This is serious business – not just internet playing around. If you will not do that I would respectfully ask Dr. Hart to block you from commenting here and ask other men to do the same.
RS: How is it that I slandered your church? I am trying to think back of how many sermons I went online and listened to, but I can say it was not that many. I simply did not hear the Gospel preached. That is not a slander at all. It is simply what I did not hear. Making a formal charge in this type of thing would be less than sensible. Is it a crime to make a simple observation and not make a formal charge? I am not asserting that your pastor is a heretic and I am not asserting that he preaches a false Gospel. I am saying that in a limited number of sermons I didn’t hear the Gospel. But you could assert that this could be a problem on my part since I am an Edwardsean and a semi-revivalist.
LikeLike
McMark; you will say to me, “the law is not of faith”, and I will say to you, “all things are lawful”. These statements are both recorded in scripture from the mouth of Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why do I bring them up? There is an excellent analogy here waiting to be explored!
First of all, Paul is clearly using “law” in the ceremonial sense. Let me quickly prove this; could Paul have possibly been saying that it was “lawful” for him to commit murder? Of course not! So in what sense were all things “lawful”? Context, context, context. What was the burning issue of Paul’s day among the early believing Jews? It was rather the Jewish ceremonial laws were binding on Gentile converts. The ceremonial laws included rituals, washings, festivals, and Sabbaths exemplified by circumscion. Paul was saying it was lawful for him to eat bacon and eggs with his former Gentile Brothers! It was that sense that all things were lawful! Not the moral sense!
What the Judiazers couldn’t fathom was that the ceremonial rituals were provisionary! The ceremonial law was the school teacher that prefigured the work of Christ. Once Christ was exhibited in the flesh, and accomplished redemption, the ceremonial shadow laws with its rituals, was not of faith! Get it? In a sense, to hold on to sacrificial laws were inferring that Christ hadn’t accomplished redemption yet! Since the ceremonial laws were all forward looking! Once Christ accomplishes redemption, the shadows become obsolete.
It’s in the sense that Paul says that all things are lawful, but not profitable. Once again, Paul is confessing that the ceremonial law, with its washings, festivals, Sabbaths were no longer profitable, in that they were only shadows, and no longer of faith. Paul was talking directly to the Jewish mindset which he knew very well, since he was at one time the Pharisee of Pharisees.
I hope this helps you unlock those ruff passages that caused you to doubt the WCF.
God bless you, and keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Okay McMark you’re going to have to eat your words. Let’s take a look at what the WCF says on the covenant of grace:
“This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, as in the time of the gospel; under the law it was administered by promises, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and buld up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments, of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which through fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament, There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations”.
Me: Where do you see an antithesis between gospel and law? It’s not in the Bible, let alone the WCF. Moreover, to hold the Klinian position that the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works is un-confessional. In fact, the implications for how we understand the covenant have been drastically changed.
First off, was Paul inferring there was something wrong with this good Law? May it never be! So why did Paul say the law is not of faith? Paul is talking about the ceremonial laws with there ordinances and shadows that were realized in Christ’s atoning work. What part of the law taught the atonement by vicarious sacrifice? What part of the law taught they needed a savior? What part of the law taught the need for a great high Priest? What part of the law imprisoned Israel? The ceremonial law! So in Galatians Paul is most certainly talking about the ceremonial law, not the moral or even the justice of the penal sanctions.
The Judiazers were zealous to keep the “shadows with their festivals, washing, and sabbaths, which only pointed to Christ. To force Gentile Christians to become Jewish is to miss the point. They already had Christ! To go back to the shadows, was not of faith!
LikeLike
June, well, it looks like you have issues with OL beyond the posts here about Islam. If you don’t care for the movies I see, I’m not sure we don’t have a lot more disagreements. What I am saying about Islam, by raising it as an example of a politicized faith, could offer a corrective to Christians who also politicize the faith — even to the point of recommending execution of adulterers. I would need to see a lot more statistics to see your point about Islam in America. I don’t need to know much more about American politicians to know they will use a variety of circumstances to justify their errors of judgment or execution.
LikeLike
Richard – You said ” I would argue that it is not that solid in terms of the Gospel.”
You later retreat and say, “I simply did not hear the Gospel preached.”
I repeat my request that you retract and apologize for your original statement or provide the sermons that you listened to. If you won’t do that I request the name of the church of which you are affiliated and either a website or phone number so I can contact the elders to which you are accountable. My e-mail address is erikcharter@yahoo.com.
D.G, apparently won’t take any steps, which is his perogative – it’s his site and no one is making me interact here. I would argue, however, that it makes no sense to me to be 2K and to constantly point out the importance of the visible church, and then to turn a blind eye when a visible church is slandered. Especially one with which his church is in formal ecclesiastical fellowship.
My sad conclusion is that this is just a bunch of mental masturbation. I think I will retreat to the visible church and be content to dealing with these issues only in the context of the visible church. At a minimum I will only comment in forums in which people have accountability to their own visible churches or where I can be free to delete comments from unaccountable people (like my own blog).
So unless Richard retracts and apologizes I guess this is farewell for me.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – You said ” I would argue that it is not that solid in terms of the Gospel.”
You later retreat and say, “I simply did not hear the Gospel preached.”
RS: Erik, that is not retreating but clarifying. It is one thing to have a solid confession or solid confessions, but it is quite a different thing to declare that same Gospel on a regular basis from a pulpit. Again, I did not hear the Gospel in the preaching of the Word. But you must also remember that this is one of the differences between the OL types and (as Zrim says) semi-revivalists.
Erik C: I repeat my request that you retract and apologize for your original statement or provide the sermons that you listened to. If you won’t do that I request the name of the church of which you are affiliated and either a website or phone number so I can contact the elders to which you are accountable. My e-mail address is erikcharter@yahoo.com.
RS: I will go back and try to provide the sermons I listened to, but that will take some time. One that I recall is the one you highly recommended on Belgic 36. I think that is one, but at the moment cannot be absolutely sure.
Erik C: D.G, apparently won’t take any steps, which is his perogative – it’s his site and no one is making me interact here. I would argue, however, that it makes no sense to me to be 2K and to constantly point out the importance of the visible church, and then to turn a blind eye when a visible church is slandered. Especially one with which his church is in formal ecclesiastical fellowship.
RS: Could it be that a visible church was not slandered?
Erik C: My sad conclusion is that this is just a bunch of mental masturbation. I think I will retreat to the visible church and be content to dealing with these issues only in the context of the visible church. At a minimum I will only comment in forums in which people have accountability to their own visible churches or where I can be free to delete comments from unaccountable people (like my own blog).
RS: I suppose it depends on what you mean by a person being accountable or unaccountable. Being accountable to a group of elders does not mean that elders will bring forth church discipline on people for every word they speak, though God will do so. My giving of an opinion based on what I have heard, and I have admitted that it is not a lot, is really not something that church elders are going to react to.
Erik C: So unless Richard retracts and apologizes I guess this is farewell for me.
RS: What is it that I am supposed to retract? I did not hear what I did not hear. I cannot say that I am sorry for something that I am not sorry for. Remember the context, you were giving a list of things that you appeared to be resting in and were comfortable about. My response, whether you believe it or not, was a response of almost shock that you appeared to be resting in those things. I was trying to provide you an alternative and then say or point to that Christ is the only One to rest in and not those other things. It is not just okay to attend a church, whether it preaches the Gospel on a regular basis or not, but one must have Christ in reality.
LikeLike
Richard – So do you retract the statement that Providence Reformed Church of Des Moines Iowa “is not that solid in terms of the Gospel” or not?
If not, is it correct that you base your judgment on the October 7, 2012 evening sermon, “He is God’s Servant for Your Good” on Romans 13:1-7 and Belgic Confession Article 36, plus an uncertain number of other sermons that you have said you will try to recall and then give me as evidence?
Interested parties can find the October 7, 2012 evening sermon here: http://www.providencerc.org/news.cfm
I did not find an e-mail from you. From that can I conclude that you will not be providing me with anyone to contact to register a complaint against you? Keep in mind that whether or not they do anything with my complaint is not what I have asked you.
You say that your offensive comments against my church were spurred by the fact that I “appeared to be resting” in things that you found wanting and your goal was “trying to provide (me) an alternative and then say or point to that Christ is the only One to rest in and not those other things.”
I require that you show me how the following statement juxtaposes the things I cite against “Christ (as) the only One to rest in” rather than against “spend(ing) time arguing with people”? In other words, you need to show that you have not twisted my words and used them for your own deceptive purposes. Here is the direct quote:
“(1) I think I am in a really solid church (2) I pretty much know what I believe and at 43 will probably not be changing that too much (3) I have a wife, 4 kids, a good job, enough money, lots of interests., good health (4) In light of those three, why do I want to spend time arguing with people?”
I contend your statement is as illogical as if I had said, “It’s a beautiful day outside. I would rather go to the beach than spend any time on the internet today.” and you replied, “You need to point to Christ, not rely on good weather.” Your statement was a complete non sequitur.
Finally, I ask you to define what the gospel is. Do you agree or disagree with Heidelberg Catechism 60 & 61, which is how Providence Reformed Church of Des Moines, Iowa defines the gospel:
Question 60. How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
Question 61. Why sayest thou, that thou art righteous by faith only?
Answer: Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only.
LikeLike
@Richard, A soft work can break a bone.
LikeLike
Sorry guys, that’s word, not work! A soft word can break a bone. (a bone of contention)
LikeLike
Doug Sowers: @Richard, A soft work can break a bone.
RS: You theonomist types are always focused on works. Now we have soft works and most likely middle soft works and hard soft works and hard works.
LikeLike
One thing I have been incorrect about is believing (assuming) that Richard Smith is a fictitious name. Richard has said that is really his name and now I believe him. From 2006:
“Richard Smith is the Associational Missionary of Spurgeon Baptist Association. Richard lives in Lawrence KS. He has a B.A. in Philosophy from Kansas State, a M.A. in Theology from Reformed Theological Seminary. He is married with five children and is a huge fan of Jonathan Edwards. He has been a part of two church starts and is presently serving as an interim pastor.”
LikeLike
Man, you can not throw a rock without hitting an independent baptist church in Kansas:
http://militarygetsaved.tripod.com/ks.html
This all points out the silliness of Richard’s arguing with Word & Sacrament Reformed men. He has so many Baptists right in his own back yard to convince to become Reformed. Yet he would rather try to make us become Edwardsians instead. We are irrelevant men in irrelevant tiny churches. We are badly outnumbered. What harm are we doing to anyone?
LikeLike
I have his home address & phone number now, too, but I am not going to get personal.
LikeLike
I am not sure what’s news about an indendent credobaptist congregation preaching the false gospel of Arminianism. They may be your less smart) brothers, Erik, but I don’t consider them mine. Not all credobaptists are the same.
And I also hope that not all Reformed are the same. Because I live in a place where one reformed church conditions salvation on “just do it” at a heaven’s gate, hell’s flame presentation, another reformed church where the clergy promises that Jesus will die for you if you accept him, and then also a URC congregation where the pastor mocks the other churches for trying to play ball without a ball, and yet never talks about the truth of Christ having died only for the elect.
But the URC wears a robe, and reads a section of the law before a section of the gospel. That must make him special when measured against his Arminian brothers.
Oh, I forgot, there is one other Reformed congregation within two miles of where I live. It’s part of the Doug Wilson franchise. It spends its time promoting the federal vision of Norman Shepherd, in which works (of a certain kind) are a co-instrument in deciding who will be justified in the end and stay in the covenant. Adan they too are against atomism and individualism, just like the “high church” folks who opposed Machen back in the day.
I think this is a time for weeping, not for throwing stones.
LikeLike
McMark – No, I meant you can’t physically throw a rock without hitting their buildings – ha ha!
I’m not putting down Baptists, just making the point that Richard has a vast mission field right where he lives in Kansas of fellow Baptists who are not Reformed, yet he chooses to make it his personal mission to convert Reformed men here to Edwards. I guess that’s his right, I’m just saying it is a bit unbalanced. Oh, and Edwards baptized infants.
LikeLike
But Edwards crept back toward puritanism and the regulative principle. if you won’t give the water to the third generation, and start acting like the second generation without “a profession of faith” are not really “full members” of a church, then you simply won’t be able to maintain the good order which is Christendom.
Machen, God Transcendent, p 136—“How broad and comforting, they say, is the doctrine of a universal atonement, the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men there upon the cross! How narrow and harsh, they say, is this Calvinistic doctrine—one of the “five points” of Calvinism—this doctrine of the “limited atonement,” this doctrine that Christ died for the elect of God in a sense in which he did not die for the unsaved!
But do you know, my friends, it is surprising that they regard the doctrine of a universal atonement as being a comforting doctrine. In reality it is a very gloomy doctrine indeed. Ah, if it were only a doctrine of a universal salvation, instead of a doctrine of a universal atonement, then it would no doubt be a very comforting doctrine; then no doubt it would conform wonderfully well to what we in our puny wisdom might have thought the course of the world should have been. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed. To say that Christ died for all men alike and that then not all men are saved, to say that Christ died for humanity simply in the mass, and that the choice of those who out of that mass are saved depends upon the greater receptivity of some as compared with others—that is a doctrine that takes from the gospel much of its sweetness and much of its joy.
Machen: From the cold universalism of that Arminian creed we turn ever again with a new thankfulness to the warm and tender individualism of … God’s holy Word. Thank God we can say , as we contemplate Christ upon the Cross, not just: “He died for the mass of humanity, and how glad I am that I am amid that mass,” but: “He loved me and gave Himself for me; my name was written from all eternity upon His heart, and when He hung and suffered there on the Cross He thought of me, even me, as one for whom in His grace He was willing to die.
LikeLike
McMark is truly the anti-Richard Smith. He could totally be slamming me, my church, and the URC but I would not even know it because I am never quite sure what he said or what his point is. It’s actually a lot better approach. Like Jesus he speaks in parables & riddles…
LikeLike
I think the mistake Richard & McMark both make is that they hear “Confessionalism” or “Word & Sacrament” and assume, on their own, that that means cold, dead, orthodoxy. Not necessarily so, my friends…
LikeLike
I also think McMark is an equal-opportunity offender, which I can appreciate…
LikeLike
I don’t believe that orthodoxy is ever cold or dead. I am all for it. I am all for Tim Keller and the Reformed clergy in my area teaching the truth about election and Christ’s death only for the elect alone. But the response they would get from teaching what their Confession plainly says would be warm opposition. They don’t teach it. They sound instead like CS Lewis and Chuck Swindoll.
Does your pastor, Erick, tell you all that God forgives you all and has promised to save you all? Or does your pastor teach that Christ has already died for the sins of His elect alone? I don’t know, I am just asking.
Clair Davis, “Personal Salvation”, in Lillback, ed, The Practical Calvinist—-“Jesus didn’t die to open the door. He didn’t die to give you some help. He didn’t die to stir you up to make something of yourself. He died to save His elect from their sins. He died to set His elect free from their unbelief.” p32
LikeLike
Richard, D.G., Everyone – Just forget my complaints. I’m dropping the matter. The whole episode has taught me that if you mess with the bull (the internet) you get the horns (controversy). If you need forgiveness, Richard, I offer that to you and ask your forgiveness in return. We all have better things to do with our time than fight. I notice you have a wife and kids and I would rather you spend time with them than arguing with me. Same on my end. Sorry for all of the turmoil.
LikeLike
CD-Host:
You might want to reconsider these words of yours about the state of my head:
the “travesties” you are describing aren’t real. They are happening in your head not in the world”
if you take the time to read this:
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2252/The-Anti-Blasphemy-Anti-First-Amendment-President.aspx
June
LikeLike
June —
I linked to the entire speech in context, Diana West is just repeated the out of context quote. As for blaspheme laws who has proposed blaspheme laws? Lets take Obama’s comments in the very speech you are being critical of (sorry for the long quote here everyone):