527 thoughts on “Blame It on the Reformation (Part 1)”

1. This is why we should always ask the theonomist for his divine charter for ‘merica or the RC for the pope to raise the dead and heal the sick. Enough of this ASSuming, or presuming as the case may be.

   LikeLike

2. Nice piece. Interesting to consider the positive aspects of a “God who is beyond our ways” as opposed to the negative caricatures that we are always hearing. I think that when we realize that God is truly other we realize how special worship is and how special the church is. I am always a Christian, but I am not always worshipping as I do on Sunday and all of my activities are not holy as the work of the church is holy. The more we emphasize these things the more the light goes on for people.

   LikeLike

3. Can I safely assume Gregory is not including air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and penicillin among his complaints?

   LikeLike

4. Pingback: D.G. Hart – “Blame It on the Reformation (Part 1)” « Literate Comments

5. Let’s look at a flip side of this piece – If all of life is not worship, then worship is also not all of life. I can go to worship on Sunday morning in a humble, little, Reformed church where the surroundings may not be impressive, the minister may not be a great speaker, the music might not be the latest style, the people may not be very wealthy or well dressed, but where I hear the Word faithfully preached and encounter Christ and the gospel. I might have my own tastes in how I conduct my worldly affairs, but I can leave these at the church door on Sunday morning to worship with my Christian brothers and sisters of whatever tastes and worldly standing. When my standard for fellowship is the gospel and our confessions we can unite on those things and not superficial things or larger agendas.

   LikeLike

6. It is interesting how the drawbacks of secularization are drawn along almost exclusively religious and worldview-ish lines, while we all indulge in the benefits of secularization in ways that touch almost every area of our lives. For good or for ill, the rise of secularization has coincided with the rise and development of market economies, which has given us (through a long causal chain) the ability to argue these sorts of issues on the internet. Secularization has lead to immense developments in science and medicine, because these fields do not satisfy themselves with Divine activity to explain all phenomena, rather they seek to understand the processes of the material world with high degrees of precision, as they subject their inquiries to the rigors of empirical methods. In many respects the separation between secular and sacred has allowed both to develop more fully within the constraints of these spheres or kingdoms. Last time I checked, anti-secularists seem to have little problem sharing in the benefits of the modern secular world, they just cant seem to navigate the complexities and tensions that secularism has caused. Was a pre-modern world so desirable that we really want to go back?

   LikeLike

7. “Was a pre-modern world so desirable that we really want to go back?”

   Two words: “toilet paper.” I’ll stay right here, thank you.

   LikeLike

8. Jed,

   This is why I like you.

   LikeLike

9. MM,

   Tell me about it, we just switched out the Paschall family chamber pot for flushable toilets…viva la difference.

   Sean,

   Here I thought you dug me because of my killer stamp collection.

   LikeLike

10. I think it was Luther would said that “God could be found in his pea soup” (God is everywhere in His general revelation).

    But, in His saving revelation, He is only found where God wants to be found. In His Word. Preaching, teaching, Baptism, Supper, Scripture, and consolation of the brethren.

    __

    I’m with you guys. I don’t want to live without TP, either. And if the Barbarians are running around…one might need a lot of it.

    LikeLike

11. Jed and Sean, light in the loafers alert.

    LikeLike

12. And light bulbs, don’t forget light bulbs. Where would Xmas be without light bulbs?

    LikeLike

13. If the Environmentalists get their way, we will all be living in the middle ages.

    I have to order the light bulbs we need for our church in California, from out of state, thanks to those wackos.

    LikeLike

14. At the same time, though, Jed, I can recall an exchange once with one of my local neos who seemed to think that Christianity was single-handed responsible for any modern good (from toilet paper to paved roads to literacy to democracy), which is actually a fairly common transformationalist default setting. And when I demurred at the claim the next question was, “Do you seriously not prefer our time and place over Jesus’?” My response was that I certainly preferred our time and place, but because it’s mine, not because it’s objectively better. Big difference.

    My point is that neos who object to the sacred-secular distinction don’t necessarily want to do so because they think a pre-modernity that did so was better. Oftentimes they think modernity is superior, but because the cross set into motion social improvement–a sort of prosperity gospel.

    LikeLike

15. Steve, that car rental scene in “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.” Best.thing.ever. Thank you for giving comedic voice to the foibles of modern life.

    LikeLike

16. “Jed and Sean, light in the loafers alert.”

    Says the man in the bow tie with two cats

    Still, there was an empty bud light can in the trash this morning………………that’s a two-fer folks think about it.

    LikeLike

17. Is there nothing left which is sacred? Not even wiping my ass arse?

    I do wonder if the American empire is secular enough yet to go to war without getting a pope like Billy Graham to bless it. I mean, the motives may be merely economic or “real-politic” but the military still needs to wrap itself in some sort of sacred ritual. And then there’s that big monument to that war criminal Abraham Lincoln.

    sh: Reinhold Niebuhr, in the interest of making Christianity politically responsible, argued that in matters of politics Jesus must be left behind, because the political work necessary for the achievement of justice requires coercion and even violence. For Niebuhr, “justice” names the arrangements necessary to secure more equitable forms of life when we cannot love all neighbors equally. Justice so understood becomes more important that the justice of God found in the cross and resurrection of Christ. (p. 100)

    LikeLike

18. What’s the difference between “everything is sacrament” and “nothing is sacrament”?

    Those who want to flee back to creation away from redemption also like to skip over the the atonement and only talk about the incarnation, and they insist that since the Word became also human that Jesus wants to save all humans and has in some sense done so merely by incarnation.
    And then soon after “sacramental re-enchantment” comes an emphasis on “deification”

    Mike Horton, to his credit, is particularly concerned to make sure that ecclesiology does not usurp Christology. He rejects the “participation language” that conflates Christ and the church, as if churches were “incarnations of Christ”. Horton also warns against the Eastern doctrine of deification. Whether theologians spiritualize (the Lutheran ubiquity of the humanity) Jesus in order to make Him as present in the church as he ever was in the flesh (Origen and Schleiermacher) or by offering an over-realized eschatology where the church becomes a self-justifying institution appealing to no higher authority than itself Romanists), Horton sees such thinking as disastrous.

    “In Christ” language for Horton is not describing an infusion of created (habitual, dispositional) grace or some idea that the human presence of Jesus is somehow united with the church.

    Horton: “Christ is the representative head in a covenant, not the ‘corporate personality’ in whom his own identity as well as ours is surrendered to the whole.” ( Covenant Union, p 185)

    LikeLike

19. Can I safely assume Gregory is not including air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and penicillin among his complaints?

    Indoor plumbing was invented by the Romans. Its mass use in America was championed by the Catholic Democratic political machines in the North East. So an American 50% pagan, 50% Catholic.

    Air conditioning Protestant get. Willis Haviland Carrier is a direct descendent of Cotton Mather so strike one up for OPC but… his family became Quaker in the 18th century. I’m not sure whether you consider Quaker’s Protestant or not.

    And finally on Penicillin, Alexander Fleming was Catholic.

    LikeLike

20. Mark Lilla’s review of Gregory’s book is the most helpful essay I have read this year.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/107211/wittenberg-wal-mart

    LikeLike

21. all the life some of us guys have is bibliography

    See James K Smith’s review of Boersma’s plea for making the world “sacramental” again. The Boersma book is called Heavenly Participation.

    Calvin Theological Journal, 2012, p 152-One might suggest that Boersma’s worry about “antiheaven evangelicalism” is legitimate, precisely because a kind of generic Kuyperianism has begun to win the day. Boersma’s concern would resonate with a two kingdoms approach worried about an overvaluation of this-worldly life….

    p 153—“It seems to me that a sacramental ontology will often–and perhaps necessarily–be attended by a rather Constantinian politics. Every once in a while, Boersma let slips that he is interested in successfully redirecting societal trends in Western culture (103)”

    LikeLike

22. If you only kissed your wife on Sundays, it would over time become a lot more sacred.

    30. Q: What is a sacrament?
    A: A sacrament is something God does and you don’t do, and when you do it, then it helps you to be be more sure that you are really saved.

    31. Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
    A: It’s the time when we swallow the leader and thus are united to Jesus in a non-propositional way, so that Jesus not only gets inside of us but we get inside of Jesus.

    32. Q: What is baptism?
    A: Baptism is always with water because baptism without water would always be something gnostic even if God did it.

    33. Q: What is the Church?
    A: The Church is always universal and has nothing to do with local assemblies or individuals, but depends instead on clergy selecting the right clergy.

    34. Q: What is ordination?
    A: It’s the one extraordinary gift which continues into this age, by which clergy for life make other clergy for life.

    35. Q: What meaneth “The Priesthood Of All Believers”?
    A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth people in the bigger congregations can get rid of any clergy who make the mistake of talking about particular atonement.

    36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
    A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

    37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
    A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work since the time of Jonathan Edwards.

    38. Q: When will be the “Last Days” of which the Bible speaketh?
    A: The “Last Days” are these days in which we are now living, beginning when Ronald Reagan left office.

    LikeLike

23. Now a more serious comment. There are plenty of societies today which have the notion of God intermixed with nature and natural as sacred. Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism being prime examples. Mormons with their idea of spiritual imbedded matter and New Agish Christians offer weaker Christian forms of this belief.

    Islam clearly goes the further in this direction than even Calvinism, though I agree with DGH that Calvinism strives to go almost as far as Islam. I think in terms of Catholicism, Catholicism has always been more split on the transcendence of God and to what degree he is knowable through his creation. Catholics do have doctrines where God is uniquely present in sacraments and at the same time have doctrines where God is present in creation. There used to be wonderful Catholic rituals in rural Europe where a Catholic friar would lead a Druidic rite covered over with a thin Catholicizing veneer. Among African Americans up until a generation ago there used to be comfortable Voodoo practice all rephrased in terms of Saints and Catholic rites. I think Gregory is right that someone who is drawn to natural faiths can find an expressions that still remain firmly within the Catholic mainstream. I also think the comments are right that less naturalistic the faith the more science can thrive.

    That being said secularism is more of a reaction to Catholic social / political structures than a reaction against Protestant religion. So I don’t agree with his cause effect here.

    LikeLike

24. By not embracing “whole-life Calvinism” Neocalvinists accuse us of compartmentalizing the gospel, of trying to make it irrelevant to the pressing issues of the day. What we are doing, however, is preserving the gospel and not letting it or the Church be co-opted by those with agendas that go beyond what Christ & the church are primarily about. We are not antinomian, we are pro-gospel and pro-church.

    LikeLike

25. When we see God in everything we tend to try to make his activities our activities and vice-versa. We like coffee and we like rock music, so what’s wrong with having a coffee shop and a rock band in the church? We lose sight of the fact that God is wholly other, and maybe the way that He wants us to approach him in worship is wholly unlike the way we go about our activities the other 6 days of the week. Maybe we should even be a bit uncomfortable approaching a holy God.

    LikeLike

26. Darryl says “Gregory makes it clear that he is not comfortable with the disenchanted world of modern science. But what he does not apparently consider is that such disenchantment follows from a rigorously monotheistic faith where God is completely other, except when he intervenes miraculously to reveal himself to his creatures.”

    God says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

    LikeLike

27. Sean, if you work Bud Dickman into that comment, you’re exceptional (just like our nation).

    LikeLike

28. Don, how is this a reply? So men see God in nature and now know they have no hope to please him? That’s not disenchantment. That’s spooky.

    LikeLike

29. e lose sight of the fact that God is wholly other, and maybe the way that He wants us to approach him in worship is wholly unlike the way we go about our activities the other 6 days of the week. Maybe we should even be a bit uncomfortable approaching a holy God.

    That’s also been a tough thing. It is hard to imagine a God who is wholly other and wholly transcendent being interested in trivialities like how he is worshipped. Of difference to me is it what music the ants in my yard make when they chew the bodies of dead bugs from the last rain? And is not the difference between man and God far greater than the difference between an ant and myself? And if you keep going down that path you end up with a very sovereign God but quite a lot of trouble arguing why you should have a religion involving him.

    So ultimately you need to put some sort of intermediate in there and have a hierarchy or have a God that is far more personal that relates to you as if he were not so transcendent.

    LikeLike

30. “So ultimately you need to put some sort of intermediate in there and have a hierarchy or have a God that is far more personal that relates to you as if he were not so transcendent.”

    Thus the incarnation.

    It does not follow, however, that I should worship God by singing love songs to Jesus as if he was my boyfriend and as if I was not a dude like him. That’s a swipe at emasculating praise band worship if I was too subtle.

    LikeLike

31. I listen to rock music. I love rock music. It is suitable music for talking about sex, drugs, irony, and weirdness. It’s not suitable for worshipping God. I don’t import Fagen & Becker into to my church.

    LikeLike

32. In the words of Alexander Schmemann:

    It would be a great mistake, however, to think of secularism as simply an “absence of religion.” It is, in fact, itself a religion, and as such, an explanation of death and a reconciliation with it. It is the religion of those who are tired of having the world explained in terms of an “other world” of which no one knows anything, and life explained in terms of a “survival” about which no one has the slightes idea; tired of having, in other words, life given “value” in terms of death. Secularism is an “explanation” of death in terms of life. The only world we know is this world, the only life given to us is this life– so thinks a secularist–and it is up to us men to make it as meaningful, as rich, as happy as possible. Life ends with death. This is unpleasant, but since it is natural, since death is a universal phenomenom, the best thing man can do about it is simply to accept it as something natural. As long as he lives, however, he need not think about it, but should live as though death did not exist. The best way to forget about death is to be busy, to be useful, to be dedicated to great and noble things, to build an always better world.

    Secularism is a religion because it has a faith, it has its own eschatology and it own ethics. And it “works” and it “helps.” Quite frankly, if “help” were the criterion, one would have to admit that life-centered secularism helps actually more than religion. To compete with it, religion has to present itself as “adjustment to life,” “counselling,” “enrichment,” it has to be publicized in subways and buses as a valuable addition to “your friendly bank” and all other “friendly dealers”: try it, it helps! And the religious success of secularism is so great that it leads some Christian theologians to “give up” the very category of “transcendance,” or in much simpler words, the very idea of “God.” This is the price we must pay if we want to be “understood” and “accepted” by modern man, proclaim the Gnostics of the twentieth century..

    I too like toilet paper, but progress and happiness do not require separation of God from the world He created, but just the opposite. In the words of Paul, it requires recognition that all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, have been reconciled to God in Christ’s blood, and in the words of Solomon, to acknowledge God as the Giver:

    So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a person may labor with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What do people get for all the toil and anxious striving with which they labor under the sun? All their days their work is grief and pain; even at night their minds do not rest. This too is meaningless.

    A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

    If the Church is friendly to or encourages secularism, as Darryl teaches, then the church is no friend of God.

    LikeLike

33. Same thing with movies. I love movies. I watch a lot of them. Some of them are R rated and deserve the rating. They communicate interesting things. I don’t need videos or multimedia in church, though. A man standing there reading & preaching is good enough.

    LikeLike

34. Darryl,

    Its a true response to your false words that “God is completely other, except when he intervenes miraculously to reveal himself to his creatures.” He communicates every moment through His creation, as Paul unequivocally declares. The problem is that you only want to see Him communicating through miraculous intervention.

    LikeLike

35. “If the Church is friendly to or encourages secularism, as Darryl teaches, then the church is no friend of God.”

    Don – If you really think this, you have badly misread Hart. He doesn’t encourage “secularism” as Schmemann defines it. He simply argues that there are two kingdoms and God governs the two in different ways — the church through Word & Sacrament, the world through Providence. When we lump the two together we lose the important distinctives of each kingdom.

    LikeLike

36. “He communicates every moment through His creation, as Paul unequivocally declares.”

    Statements like this are utterly meaningless.

    I just flushed the toilet using modern plumbing technologies. What was God communicating?

    I just sent an e-mail using a modern computer. What was God communicating?

    I just played basketball with 10 guys. 5 are Christians, 5 are not. Was God worshipped through our game?

    LikeLike

37. Erik,

    I’m glad you are talking to me again. Perhaps you might answer the question I posed to you about a week ago. Is the visible church temporal or eternal?

    LikeLike

38. A lot of the debate boils down to is whether the synonym for “secular” is “godless” or “common”.

    LikeLike

39. Don, have you been taking lessons from Doug?

    According to the Shorter Catechism, God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. If that God is not remote from a finite world and creatures capable of choosing against God, I don’t know what is.

    Think burning bush, Don. Your god is too small.

    LikeLike

40. Don –

    From the Belgic Confession:

    Article 27: The Holy Catholic Church

    We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church– a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
    This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects.

    And this holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of men– as though it were snuffed out.

    For example, during the very dangerous time of Ahab the Lord preserved for himself seven thousand men who did not bend their knees to Baal.^74

    And so this holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain persons. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world, though still joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.

    ^74 1 Kings 19:18

    Articles 28-32 are also relevant.

    LikeLike

41. Don, Schmemann may lead you to the conclusion that God communicates through every moment in creation. But Belgic 13 would have you stop trying to figure out what is being said (beyond God exists and all flesh is accountable):

    “We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ’s disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.”

    What never comes through in those who approvingly follow Schmemann’s sacramental view of life is any sense of the doctrine of limitations that something like Belgic conveys.

    LikeLike

42. The reason it is relevant to the discussion to talk about things like music, and movies, and literature, and politics is that the Neocalvinist impulse is to try to “redeem” all of these things for Christ, to claim “every square inch” for Him. I disagree. Protect the church and the gospel ministry, but don’t think that we need to dominate culture and the common sphere like muslims do. If a Christian wants to do music, just do it really well technically. If a Christian wants to make movies, make them really well alongside unbelieving colleagues. If a Christian wants to write, develop your craft. Don’t feel the need to do (often subpar) “Christian” knockoffs. Just strive to be excellent.

    LikeLike

43. Erik asks “I just flushed the toilet using modern plumbing technologies. What was God communicating?”

    Don: That you are a sinful creature, whose crap stinks because it is the product of corruptible flesh. By God’s grace, we have better ways to deal with our excrement than God’s instruction given in Deuteronomy 23:13: “As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.” You see, Erik, He even cares about your crap.

    Erik asks “I just sent an e-mail using a modern computer. What was God communicating?”

    Don: That man was made to fill the earth and subdue it. The computer is essential to our God-given task.

    Erik asks “I just played basketball with 10 guys. 5 are Christians, 5 are not. Was God worshipped through our game?”

    Don: I will answer this with a question. Are we to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, our true and proper worship, only when we are in the church pew?.

    Don:

    LikeLike

44. Erik asks “I just flushed the toilet using modern plumbing technologies. What was God communicating?”

    Don: That you are a sinful creature, whose crap stinks because it is the product of corruptible flesh. By God’s grace, we have better ways to deal with our excrement than God’s instruction given in Deuteronomy 23:13: “As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.” You see, Erik, He even cares about your crap.

    Erik asks “I just sent an e-mail using a modern computer. What was God communicating?”

    Don: That man was made to fill the earth and subdue it. The computer is essential to that God-given task.

    Erik asks “I just played basketball with 10 guys. 5 are Christians, 5 are not. Was God worshipped through our game?”

    Don: I will answer this with a question. Are we to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, our true and proper worship, only when we are in the church pew?.

    LikeLike

45. There is only one mediator, the God-man, Christ Jesus.

    Carlos Eire, A Very Brief History of Eternity, p 144—“If in fact all Christians had a share in the priesthood, why should clerics be exempt from taxes or from the justice of secular courts? Why should popes claim a higher place than temporal rulers when, in fact, absolutely everyone including the pope was totally outside of eternity, stuck in this secular realm?

    Ozment, Reformation in the Cities, p 87—Why should clergy turn themselves into “sacred cows….claiming all kinds of exemptions and privileges from heaven”?

    Pope Boniface (1303)—“Spiritual power surpasses in dignity and nobility any temporal power whatever….It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    LikeLike

46. Darryl says “According to the Shorter Catechism, God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. If that God is not remote from a finite world and creatures capable of choosing against God, I don’t know what is.”

    Don: I am not arguing with whether or not God is other. I get that. I am taking issue with your point about God not being other only when He reveals Himself in limited (miraculous intervention) ways. He is still other even when He reveals Himself miracuously, but in this miracle, He reveals Himself by faith in Christ who was born, lived, died, was crucified, and raised from the dead in history. Miraculous intervention is the means by which we “see” the God revealed in creation as God revealed in His salvation of the world. God does not circumvent, but rather acts through creation when He miraculously reveals Himself as God of salvation.

    LikeLike

47. Don – Note that Romans 12:1-7 is in the context of the church.

    LikeLike

48. The guys I play basketball with are a mix of Christians & non-Christians. When the game started years ago it was mostly Christians. The tradition of praying before the game has continued on. This is problematic for me because inevitably someone behaves like an ass (even me sometimes) and there is no form of “church discipline” for a wayward player. When we import spirituality into the common realm it is too often a least-common-denominator spirituality without any real accountability or real teeth. Not so in the church where church discipline is available for the wayward.

    LikeLike

49. Erik,

    You’re going to have to help me understand how I am in disagreement with the Belgic confession.

    LikeLike

50. It seems appropriate that a thread about the secular should become profane about “common crap”

    Philippians 3:8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as common crap, in order that I gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,

    3:18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

    Most commentators on Philippians 3:18-19 focus on the word “belly” and assume that it only means immorality and greed, not only for too much food but the lust for money (more profit, less tax) They do not connect “belly” here to the desire to have one’s own righteousness from the law, even though legalism is clearly the topic of paragraphs before and after in Philippians chapter three.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with tasting not and touching not. Simply because we do not agree with a theonomist about what God’s law teaches is no excuse to call her a legalist. The problem is when a theonomist thinks that her obeying law brings her a blessing which the imputed righteousness of Christ did not bring. The problem is when a theonomist makes assurance of justification (and covenant status) something to be conditioned on the justified person’s obedience.

    The law of God should not be blamed for The UNLAWFUL desires of the flesh to condition blessing on their law-keeping ( though God has predestined even the abuse of the law). When a conditionalist thinks that his not tasting and his not touching brings him blessing, that person is not only a legalist but also at the same time an antinomian, because that person is thinking that God rewards something less than perfect satisfaction of the law.

    The only way that God can be (and IS) pleased with the good works of a Christian is that the Christian knows that these good works are not a supplement to Christ’s righteousness. The Christian knows that there is not a second righteousness, created (infused, imparted) in their own dispositions. The sin which deceives us all by nature is that we want our “common crap” to be taken up by God and used as part of our salvation. Of course we will give God’s “grace” the credit for helping us produce our crap.

    I don’t want to sound too much like Freud or Norman Brown her, but (like Cain) we want to take this crap we have produced and offer it to God as some small part of what God will accept it as His means of grace.

    That which is highly esteemed among humans is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:15

    LikeLike

51. Don, God reveals himself in nature as creator, not as redeemer. For the message of the gospel to happen, it has to be outside nature. Otherwise, we worship trees or cats. I adore the latter, but they are not a theophany.

    LikeLike

52. CD-Host “So ultimately you need to put some sort of intermediate in there and have a hierarchy or have a God that is far more personal that relates to you as if he were not so transcendent.”

    Erik: Thus the incarnation.

    Yeah but here is where the Catholics wanting to be on every side of every issue screw that up, the Trinity. Have Jesus be a subordinate deity and then God the father is the Theos a fully transcendent and unchanging deity his only begotten son is subordinate the Logos, and then you can even go further that the Logos was infused the person of Jesus and thus adopted him into the family of God… But with the Son being consubstantial he should be just as transcendent while at the same time a hypostatic union of God and man which is more like a demi-God… Nah, I don’t think your version of the incarnation solves the problem.

    LikeLike

53. Erik says Note that Romans 12:1-7 is in the context of the church.

    Don: Ok, but the church is in the world. Surely you are not restricting Paul’s instruction to prophesy, serve, teach, encourage, give, lead, and show mercy only when in church and only to fellow Christians.

    LikeLike

54. 11Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;(AC)
    let the sea resound, and all that is in it.
    12 Let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them;
    let all the trees of the forest sing for joy.
    13 Let all creation rejoice before the Lord, for he comes,
    he comes to judge the earth.
    14He will judge the world in righteousness
    and the peoples in his faithfulness.

    Nature being religious. Hmm…

    LikeLike

55. We already have all that the victims of the Great Disenchantment are trying to recover. It is in our true country, “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22). We are told to desire it. We are told to look upon it. We are told to speak of it. But we are also told it is not here. We have it but we have it not. Faith sees this and is not disappointed. Strangers and exiles are we. Of course it does not follow that all that is here – from street lights to waste water treatment plants – is somehow solely the product of corrupt mortals. God rules the streets below too. But here is so not there that heavenly citizens must sanctify their use of things here by faith through thanksgiving – “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:4-5).

    LikeLike

56. Don – What is your church affiliation & background?

    LikeLike

57. “Theophany” would make a pretty cool cat name, though.

    Thelonious & Theophany. Catchy.

    LikeLike

58. “Don: Ok, but the church is in the world. Surely you are not restricting Paul’s instruction to prophesy, serve, teach, encourage, give, lead, and show mercy only when in church and only to fellow Christians.”

    When I see people prophesying on the street I generally try to avoid them.

    LikeLike

59. We’ll have to figure out if the trees take issue with wine or grape juice. I wonder if there’s a debate in the forest as to whether seedlings need be cognizant to receive baptism or whether their offspring are covenantally considered. The RC’s do have a patron saint of Animals after all. Rome-constantinian-ww-dutch reformed. There’s a link in there somewhere.

    LikeLike

60. Since we’re just rapping here I’ll give you another story. I got a letter yesterday from a husband & wife who I have supported as missionaries for years, I met her in college at Northwestern. She had transferred from a Bible college. They work for a missions organization that uses the one-on-one Navigators type method of sharing the gospel. Their letter talked about the disciples they had made and the disciples those people had made, etc. in China. No mention of any churches at all. The husband has written in the past about how the church basically gets in his way. Did Christ give the great commission to his church or to us as individuals? I am going to stop supporting them at the end of the year and will give the money to some type or Reformed church planting effort. Am I just a Reformed jerk or am I on to something? This guy is also pretty hostile to Calvinism.

    LikeLike

61. Z,

    God’s Word says a whole lot more than simply that “God exists and all flesh is accountable.” Beside saying that God created the heavens and the earth, His word also says “Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves therein.”

    Schmemann faults secularism because it is the religion of those who are tired of having the world explained in terms of an “other world” of which no one knows anything. The church is to teach the nations to obey everything that Christ commanded which is consistent with the sacramental view that all creation is to praise him (Ps 69:34) without regard to comprehension. If any church encourages secularism (which last I understood is defined as the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied to any particular religion), then she is in conflict with God, and therefore a synagogue of satan,

    LikeLike

62. Erik —

    Far be it from me to advise you on what missionaries to support. But under Chinese law no social organization operating in China can have foreign allegiance. The Chinese government has setup their own Protestant and Catholic churches. The Protestant one is called “Three Self” and has in its charter, “self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation”. So there couldn’t be a Protestant missionary getting support from an American that was legal in China. That means your missionary must be setting up underground house churches.

    There are a bunch of independent churches that are tolerated but those are rather theologically diverse and most are Pentecostal. What you are looking for, a well organized institution that would allow you influence doesn’t exist and can’t exist.

    LikeLike

63. Erik,

    To your quesiton about my church affiliation & background, I am a member of the PCA denomination. I subscribe to the three forms of unity.

    LikeLike

64. CD – If he was doing that (setting up underground house churches) I would actually be excited. I suspect he just tells them to read the Bible and make more disciples. No church needed.

    Don – PCA churches are free to choose the Three Forms over the Westminster? I did not know that.

    LikeLike

65. Erik says “When I see people prophesying on the street I generally try to avoid them.” Me too, but true prophesy was declared “on the street” before the cannon of scripture was complete.

    LikeLike

66. Erik,

    PCA churches all subscribe to the Westminster confession, but we also hold to the three forms.

    LikeLike

67. Don, yes, all flesh is accountable to render praise, as in the first two commandments. I’m unclear as to your point. But if your beef is with irreligious secularism then it is agreed. But there is such a thing as Christian secularism. It’s not as nasty as you imagine. It’s actually the way the west has conceived things lo these many centuries, Constantinianism notwithstanding.

    But you claim to subscribe Belgic. How dost thou harmonize a sacramental worldview with Article 13? It seems to me the former blurs the Creator-creature distinction, while the latter draws pretty bright lines. Square pegs and round holes and all that.

    LikeLike

68. Darryl says “God reveals himself in nature as creator, not as redeemer. For the message of the gospel to happen, it has to be outside nature. Otherwise, we worship trees or cats. I adore the latter, but they are not a theophany.”

    Don: Again, you seem to confuse Jesus’ words that my Kingdom is not of this world” with the untrue doctrine that His kingdom is not for this world. If it were true, I cannot imagine why the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed unless the creation harbors a wish for extinction.

    As to your statement that God reveals Himself in nature as Creator, not as Redeemer, are we to worship a different God than the Creator God after we have been redeemed?

    LikeLike

69. Z,

    Christian secularism is a contradiction of terms. What you are defending is a public life that conceals its love of Christ. This is what God says about a so-called secular christian:

    These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

    LikeLike

70. I have been a part of this debate for several months now and I think the biggest distinction I would make between 2K folks and non-2K folks is that 2K folks have the mental ability to draw lines and make distinctions and non-2k folks don’t. I think we just have different kinds of brains. I think I know exactly where Neocalvinists are coming from and I just disagree. I have run across few Neocalvinists who can even accurately repeat what 2K people believe. They just can’t grasp it. The closest I have come is probably Darrell Todd Maurina and even he chooses to demagogue the movement (at least he did 8-9 months ago when he told us that Jed was “waiting tables”).

    “Jed Paschall, who dropped out of Moody Bible Institute and now waits tables while being a member of Christ PCA in Temecula, Calif.”

    LikeLike

71. sec·u·lar
    [sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA

    adjective

    1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

    2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred ): secular music.

    3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

    4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular ).

    5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.

    LikeLike

72. Don – If Hart wrote a book called “A Secular Faith” using the term “secular” as you are definining it, how does he remain an elder in good standing in the OPC? You would think he is Christopher Hitchens using your definition.

    LikeLike

73. Don – Have you read “A Secular Faith” or David Van Drunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” or “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms”?

    LikeLike

74. Don, you are going to have to do more than assert this: “The church is to teach the nations to obey everything that Christ commanded which is consistent with the sacramental view that all creation is to praise him (Ps 69:34) without regard to comprehension.”

    Can I buy a qualification or two? Don’t trees already praise God without the church evangelizing them?

    LikeLike

75. Erik says: If Hart wrote a book called “A Secular Faith” using the term “secular” as you are definining it, how does he remain an elder in good standing in the OPC? You would think he is Christopher Hitchens using your definition.

    Erik, its because a bunch of people don’t know where the heck DGH is coming from. I personally like Dr Hart, he’s witty, and a great writer, BUT I don’t think he should be teaching in the OPC. I will say this for DGH, he lets his opponants like me, say what they will.

    LikeLike

76. Don, we’ve been here before but you are not following the Bible, a book you piously beat me with, when it comes to marriage, which will be extinct in the new heavens and new earth. Our Lord said so. So before you start dissing on extinction, you may want to temper your consideration about continuity between the creation we now have and the one that is coming. If something to the survival of the human race is going to be extinct, we are going to have a different world order. So forcing me to comply with this age in my conception of salvation is downright worldly.

    As for worshiping a different God, of course not. But do you not see that your question implies that someone who worships the creator already worships the true God without an incarnation or atonement.

    Beware the continuities.

    LikeLike

77. John says We already have all that the victims of the Great Disenchantment are trying to recover. It is in our true country, “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22). We are told to desire it. We are told to look upon it. We are told to speak of it. But we are also told it is not here.

    Don: Not so, John. What we are told is that it is not now. Clearly it is here that the kingdom has been inaugurated, otherwise the nations would continue to be subject to the powers of this dark world. But satan has been cast down to earth and this is where the struggle will remain unitl all enemies are made His footstool.

    LikeLike

78. Doug – As a theonomist you are one of the few credible opponents out there. At least you have a philosophically consistent position. As you know, however, both 2K folks & Neocalvinists take issue with you.

    Have you actually read Hart’s book or the two Van Drunen’s book though? Did you stop learning when Bahnsen passed on?

    LikeLike

79. Don – Are you postmillennial? Do you see that in the Three Forms (especially Belgic 37)?

    LikeLike

80. Don, you may have a point–what I am unapologetically defending is a piety that is ill-at-ease with wearing it on the sleeve, which is why your worldviewism is a form of exuberant bumper-sticker Christianity. But from where I sit, this is actually a disrespectful way to treat faith and its object, to parade it around and make a scene. The object of my temporal love, my wife, is better served when I conduct myself with decorum. Concealing faith and love isn’t to be ashamed, it’s to know when and how it’s appropriate to reveal it. 24/7/365 is actually a little lazy, not to mention potentially undignified. I know, this sounds like ho-hummery, but aren’t we supposed to have that behaves like an adult and not an adolescent?

    LikeLike

81. No Erik, I guess I”m going to have to break down and buy “Secular faith”.

    LikeLike

82. Darryl,

    Scripture teaches that creation praises God, thus we are to teach all the nations.

    LikeLike

83. Darryl,

    But the unredeemed cannot worship the creator, only the creation. (Rom 1) It is only the redeemed who are able to worship God as both Creator and Redeemer.

    LikeLike

84. Erik,

    The closest I have come is probably Darrell Todd Maurina and even he chooses to demagogue the movement (at least he did 8-9 months ago when he told us that Jed was “waiting tables”).

    “Jed Paschall, who dropped out of Moody Bible Institute and now waits tables while being a member of Christ PCA in Temecula, Calif.”

    That was one of the most bizzare developments in these 2k debates. That debate was over the whole gay marriage debate, when one of the more vocal 2k critics continually pestered me for how I would hope the church would respond to the issue. Basically I said that I would hope a church would have a stance on the issue that deals with the spiritual ramifications of gay marriage, meaning that they would call sin for what it is, and refuse to conduct gay marriages or endorse them, but that the church otherwise should leave the political side of the matter alone. And then DTM somehow makes me to be public enemy numero uno as he sent his quixotic ramblings all over the internet. What’s so funny about the whole thing is how big of a deal I really am not, just a member of a small church, taking the kind of job I have to to support my family while working through school, and I enjoy discussing some of these issues on the internet.

    I thought about making a bigger deal of the whole discussion, but frankly, I have had enough interaction with DTM in the past to know his MO, and I felt it would be an unproductive waste of time. The problem with some of these self-appointed watchmen of the internet, is they grossly overestimate the importance of their task. If well meaning 2kers haven’t been able to reasonably convince the DTM’s, and others who are sympathetic to his views yet, I doubt they ever will. I’ve been part of Reformed congregations for all of about 4 years, and at the congregational level, I have never seen politics be any sort of test for orthodoxy. But, with some on the internet, it sure as heckfire is – I sure got the impression from DTM, and others like him, intended or not, that nothing is more dangerous to the Reformed cause than not toeing the line of Republican orthodoxy. I have absolutely no issue with whether or not one is a Republican, I sympathize with many Republican issues and cultural values, but when it becomes a litmus test for the quality of one’s confessional or spiritual convictions is where I get a burr in my saddle.

    The whole issue I have, is that there is absolutely no room for nuance on political matters amongst large factions in the Reformed camp, and what ends up happening is that political matters end up being used in power plays. I hold the views I do, not because I am a sympathizer with the gay community or their activism, but because I think it is important for the church to maintain a vital witness to all people, which is hard to do when political matters are treated as matters of orthodoxy. Sure, the church needs to call sin what it is, but this isn’t with the aim of affecting changes to political policy, it is to call sinners to repentance and faith in Jesus. But there is a huge faction in the Reformed world that only pays lip service to this notion, because on the first hand not only do they want sinners to repent, but, secondly they want to tell them what sort of society they can live in as well. And with respect to their rhetoric, I sure wonder if their priorities aren’t in practice more geared to the later aim, rather than the former.

    LikeLike

85. Erik and CD-Host,

    I wonder if you saw Matthew Tuininga’s post the other day on Calvinism in China: http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/calvinism-thriving-in-china-is-calvins-two-kingdoms-doctrine-the-reason/

    LikeLike

86. Doug – Just make sure & buy it new so D.G. gets the royalties. Tell your wife that it will make a lovely Christmas present.

    LikeLike

87. Jed – I like both you and DTM, but that was not his finest moment. He totally betrayed the Reformed notion of the dignity of nonreligious vocations in my opinion. Putting down intelligent laymen who think about theology while pursuing honorable secular vocations is not what we are about.

    Oh, and I highly doubt you learned your 2K thinking at Moody…

    LikeLike

88. David R. – Interesting piece. Thanks.

    LikeLike

89. And, Jed, a lot of the neoCal talk is bully rhetoric. Like, don’t we know that everyone agrees with them?Implicit charges always seem to be a sentence away, like a gun pointed through the coat. Then, there’s always the “Misty Irons” card dropping out of their sleeves.

    And, yes, the discrediting, as if what someone does to put food on the table makes their insights less worthy of consideration. But all these are right out of a political playbook from people who have lost a sensitivity for distinguishing what is political from what is spiritual both as to substance and tactics.

    LikeLike

90. I think I’m glad I didn’t grow up in the American protestant world, otherwise I fear I would have gone to Rome for legibility and coherence of my faith. I read the theonomists or even the rhetorically potent but substance challenged neo-cal w-w, and I hear Rome soteriologically(sans the sacraments). Quite frankly, it’s disturbing. Is the reintroduction of works soterically not obvious when you recast the gospel in terms of transformation, never mind the wholesale grafting of the Siniatic working principle as grace and gospel?

    LikeLike

91. Darryl says “we’ve been here before but you are not following the Bible, a book you piously beat me with, when it comes to marriage, which will be extinct in the new heavens and new earth.”

    Don: I have not been referring to the consummated kingdom after Christ returns, but to the kingdom inaugurated by Christ at His first coming, and which is coming “on earth as in heaven”. That kingdom, as Christ teaches in the kingdom parables is organic (the growing seed planted in the ground), growing (the mustard seed growing to the largest tree), penetrating (yeast mixed in a lump of dough), and mixed (field in which wheat and tares grow together until the harvest).

    If I were talking about the kingdom after Christ returns, your argument is specious. If Christ tells us that there will be a point of discontinuity at the resurrection, this does not prove that there will be no continuity. In fact, it could as easily mean that there will be much continuity, but not in this one point. Furthermore, with regard to continuity, I certainly hope that there will not be perfect continuity — we will after all have incorruptible bodies.

    LikeLike

92. Erik,

    I am an optimistic amillenialist.

    LikeLike

93. @Don: Traveling tags like “strangers and exiles” tempers all my hopes that the kingdom will be showing up here in anyway that changes my status as pilgrim. The kingdom is “here” and “now” in so far as the sojourning citizens of heaven are here being ruled now by Word and Spirit. The kingdom is not here and now in a city council decision to allow a Chik-fila a building permit. The glory of our humanity, a sacramental world aflame with the beauty of holiness, a material world full of grace, the subjection of all things – all these unseen things now reside above in our ascended Priest and King.

    LikeLike

94. MM & Erik,

    Yeah, I noticed the veiled insult over my profession, but that is just the nature of my line of work. Some people, in the church and out of it, equate intelligence or character based on one’s profession. If I had a dollar for every time I have been poorly treated or insulted by someone who by virtue of station in life thinks they’re above me, I wouldn’t have to wait tables any more. I don’t even sweat it anymore, I know why I do what I do, and I apologize to no-one for it, and I try to do the best I can to be a good server and enjoy the job as much as I am able to. 2k doctrine, and a deepening understanding of a Protestant notion of vocation has helped me to keep my vocational priorities and ambitions in check. Some of the smartest, most thoughtful people I have ever met work in hospitality or food service – and all have their own reasons for why they are in their line of work. You get a real sense of someone’s character by serving them, and by in large the people I serve are great, and a lot of fun to interact with, but there are always people who are rude, boorish, or elitist (or all 3) – in those cases you do your job and thank God when they have paid their bill and leave.

    And Erik, no, 2k is not a point of theological emphasis over at Moody. But some of the nonsense I endured there, as a flagship evangelical institution, definitely opened me to 2k ways of thinking.

    LikeLike

95. Jed,

    Great points. To buttress your point, there seems to be no dilemma for neo-cals and theonomists to align themselves against NL2kers, when the gulf between them is as great as the gulf between neo-cals and us. Theonomists want to the state to enforce Christianity – thus the first table, but neo-cals tend not to want other religions legally suppressed by the state, thus not wanting the first commandment enforced. That is no small difference. And yet what does the Scripture say:

    II Kings 17:10-12 “They set up sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. At every high place they burned incense, as the nations whom the Lord had driven out before them had done. They did wicked things that aroused the Lord’s anger. They worshiped idols, though the Lord had said, “You shall not do this.”The Lord warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: “Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your ancestors to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets.”

    So according to theonomy, if the state fails to outlaw idolatry and tear down the altars, shouldn’t the state expect God’s judgment? If the theonomists say yes and neo-cals say no, why such an easy alliance between them? Why are not pluralist neo-cals called public square anti-nomians also? Could it be that at least politically both groups want the church to engage in the culture wars in the same way?

    There definitely is a plantation mentality among – not just Reformed, but conservative American Christians, not just for churches to take political stands, but the “right” political stands, and a SOTC doctrine is clearly stepping off the plantation – so we should expect more than simply disagreement. I find that their emotions and disgust for SOTC to be so strong that debating them is usually fruitless, they simply wish to discredit with an abundance of accusations. I have found a few that actually want to understand first, but not many. I wish that weren’t the case, because such debate is necessary, especially in our day. But it feels good to step off the plantation at times.

    LikeLike

96. The other day, while doing family devotions, we came across the following:

    “15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.”

    …and people have been trying by force to make him king ever since. There is nothing new under the sun.

    LikeLike

97. “The kingdom is not here and now in a city council decision to allow a Chik-fila a building permit.”

    Beautiful. You will fit in well here. Forgive me if you are an old-timer and I have missed you.

    LikeLike

98. Jed – My dad is a very smart man who had & wife and two kids to feed before he could finish college. He quit a semester short and worked as a UPS driver for 35 years. He told me the other night that when he retired at a year or two past 60 he was the oldest guy he knew of in his center to last that long. When I was in college he took on a few morning paper routes to be able to afford his first new car that him & my mom ever had. I think he got up at 4:30 or so for the 5-6 years that he did that. God does not judge these things as man judges them.

    LikeLike

99. Jed, if it helps, maybe I should offer myself up to DTM as a sacrifice and let him know that I am a cog in the wheel of standardized state assessments. You know, state “education,” where most of our time is devoted to devising trickier and trickier ways of making children serve the devil and his minions. And stupid.

    LikeLike

100. Jed, I didn’t go to law school until I was 27. Up until then I did manual labor, mostly landscaping and painting. Here are some precious things that were said to me:

     “It’s great that someone with just a little bit of talent can work hard and do such a good job.” (customer)

     “Are you the kind of person who’s so smart he’s kind of dumb?” (co-worker)

     “I’ve spied on you before, and &%^*, it looks like there’s three guys working. But other times, it’s like you’re thinking about Nietzsche or somethin’.” (boss)

     For a time I rehabbed real estate with a fellow philosophy major. We would play roles all day. One time in small-town Maine, he played the part of a Marxist and tried to raise the class consciousness of the other workers on the site. I had to step in before they physically attacked him.

     Sorry for the story telling, folks, It’s a mood that will pass.

     LikeLike

101. MM,

     The whole bit about role-playing philosophy majors is classic. I work with a philosophy major, who has a particular affinity for Nietzsche, I’ll tell him about that, I am sure he’ll get a kick out of that story.

     LikeLike

102. Don, sorry, but an intellectual wollop that powerful needs more than a bumpersticker. Teaching all the nations does not necessarily follow from creation praising God (unless you’re trying to say Schemmann a lot).

     LikeLike

103. Don, why can’t the unredeemed worship the creator as creator. They are creatures, aren’t they? Or do they only become creatures once they are redeemed?

     Does not Derek Jeeter praise God as a ball player?

     LikeLike

104. Don, how organic is Paul saying he’d rather die and be with Christ than live and be apart from Christ? You’re not doing justice to the otherworldly character of biblical teaching.

     LikeLike

105. John says “Traveling tags like “strangers and exiles” tempers all my hopes that the kingdom will be showing up here in anyway that changes my status as pilgrim. The kingdom is “here” and “now” in so far as the sojourning citizens of heaven are here being ruled now by Word and Spirit. The kingdom is not here and now in a city council decision to allow a Chik-fila a building permit. The glory of our humanity, a sacramental world aflame with the beauty of holiness, a material world full of grace, the subjection of all things – all these unseen things now reside above in our ascended Priest and King.”

     Don: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field” (Mt 13:24); “the field is the world” (Mt 13:38). “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20)

     The kingdom is most definitely here — Christ Himself declares it so. But you can only see it with eyes of faith, until we are raised imperishable.

     LikeLike

106. Philippians 1: 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart AND be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith,

     I Corinthians 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the RESURRECTION of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, THEN AT HIS COMING those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last ENEMY to be destroyed is DEATH.

     I Corinthians 15: 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal PUTS ON IMMORTALITY, THEN shall come to pass the saying that is written:
     “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
     55 “O death, where is your victory?
     O death, where is your sting?”
     56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the LAW.

     LikeLike

107. Darryl says Don, sorry, but an intellectual wollop that powerful needs more than a bumpersticker. Teaching all the nations does not necessarily follow from creation praising God (unless you’re trying to say Schemmann a lot).

     Don: Its really not so difficult. Scripture teaches that all of creation sings the praise of God. Since man is the crown of God’s creation, when Jesus commanded His disciples to teach all the nations what He has commanded, logically, the nations need to be taught that they should lead the choir of creation in those songs of praise.

     You, however, teach like some of the Pharisees in the crowd who said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” Jesus replied “I tell you if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

     LikeLike

108. Darryl says Don, why can’t the unredeemed worship the creator as creator. They are creatures, aren’t they? Or do they only become creatures once they are redeemed?

     Does not Derek Jeeter praise God as a ball player?

     Don: Scripture says, without faith it is impossible to please God. How does Derek praise God if not with his heart and mouth for it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

     LikeLike

109. Don, if someone needs faith to praise God, then how does a tree praise God. You elided ever so neatly from “praise” to “please.” When a prince rules a nation, does he please God if he has no faith? But then why would Paul and Peter commend to Christians under Nero to honor the emperor if that emperor in part of his human existence was not bringing glory to God.

     It seems that you have an either-or view of human persons (but not of creation, hence your affinity for Newbiggin and Schmemann) where if they don’t have faith they can’t “praise” God. What I am having trouble understanding is the way you switch back and forth from an expansive view of redemption as in the renewal of all of creation (which groans) and a narrow fundamentalist-like view which sees nothing pleasing in Derek Jeeter. Believe me, as someone who has a strong prejudice against the Yankees, I’d love to agree with you on Jeeter.

     LikeLike

110. Don, as for sounding Pharisaical, you seem to have the posture of a Pharisee since you returned. Why the hostility? Have you and Doug been communicating? Watch out, Old Bob may lecture you about love.

     LikeLike

111. Nice piece on “Philadelphia Bibliophilia” (The Rosenbach Library) in yesterday’s Journal. The whole “Lesiure & Arts” page was great. I posted all three articles on my blog.

     LikeLike

112. Darryl,

     Your question about “how organic is Paul saying he’d rather die and be with Christ than live and be apart from Christ?”, and your conclusion “You’re not doing justice to the otherworldly character of biblical teaching.” led me to a contemplation about how you, D.G. Hart would have responded to the rich young ruler asking about salvation. I think it might go like this:

     A certain ruler asked D.G Hart, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

     DGH thought, “This man must have read my book on secular faith to call me good.” DGH answered. “The best rulers are those who rule competently without allowing the exclusivity of truth in showing a preference to the truth of any religion, except of course secularism which perfectly separates the rule of others from belief in anything but what works the best for all people in the near term. For we have no idea what God is doing in the long term, so don’t get your panties in a wad over that. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’

     The ruler answered “All these I have kept since I was a boy,”

     When DGH heard this, he said to him, “You silly twit, you still lack one thing. You are totally insensitive to the prevailing thought around you. The commands I have just recited are not meant to be taught publicly, but kept privately within your own family and the church. In public administration, you must remember that salvation is other worldly, so just make sure that the greatest number of people are happy so that order may be maintained. After all, what difference does it make in getting all hung up about the Law in this world, for surely every jot and tittle of the Law will be totally irrelevant when the the earth is destroyed. All you need to worry about is keeping this ship afloat so everybody can just get along and practice their religion secretly.

     Therefore, DGH concluded, sell out on everything you have been taught from scripture and encourage secularism so that technology and consumerism can prosper, keeping perfect order in the here and now. This is the best way to help the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven when you flutter off to be with Jesus. So come, follow Jesus, but just make sure you don’t let it become public such that the people over whom you rule will accuse you of being intolerant and find out that you prefer the teaching of Christ over every other religion’s truth.”

     When he heard this, he became very happy, because he was very wealthy, and now understood that ‘hey, it is possible to have the best of both worlds, this one and the other-worldly one.’

     LikeLike

113. David —

     interesting. Though I’m not sure how to measure the relative degree. Chinese intellectuals getting interesting in Calvinist Christianity I think is different than lots of Calvinist Christians. I do agree that Pentecostalism is appealing to the poor. It is picking up the masses. I also agree with the article that Catholicism is a terrible choice for China, though some sort of Orthodox form might work.

     LikeLike

114. Darryl,

     You say, Don, if someone needs faith to praise God, then how does a tree praise God.

     Don: A tree is not given a mouth or a heart, but simply responds in accord with how it was designed by the Creator. Not so with man, the crown of God’s creation. He was made man with a heart and a mouth to consciously serve and glorify God as creation’s choir director.

     Darryl: You elided ever so neatly from “praise” to “please.”

     Don: I just figured you were smart enough to make the connection that if one does not please God, then his praise is not authenic.

     Darryl: When a prince rules a nation, does he please God if he has no faith?

     Don: Of course not.

     Darryl: But then why would Paul and Peter commend to Christians under Nero to honor the emperor if that emperor in part of his human existence was not bringing glory to God.

     Don: Obviously because God has ordained the ruler and His purposes and ways in doing so elude us completely, though may be come clear afterwards. Clearly, in the case of Nero, God showed His judgement upon the stiff-necked nation of Israel.

     Darryl: It seems that you have an either-or view of human persons (but not of creation, hence your affinity for Newbiggin and Schmemann) where if they don’t have faith they can’t “praise” God. What I am having trouble understanding is the way you switch back and forth from an expansive view of redemption as in the renewal of all of creation (which groans) and a narrow fundamentalist-like view which sees nothing pleasing in Derek Jeeter. Believe me, as someone who has a strong prejudice against the Yankees, I’d love to agree with you on Jeeter.

     Don: I think I’ve addressed this point. And, just so you know, I’m a Phillies fan. However, I appreciate the talent of Jeeter as much as you do, and I praise God that he was so fearfully and wonderfully made. That is not the same as saying that Jeeter praises God.

     LikeLike

115. Darryl,

     You say, Don, as for sounding Pharisaical, you seem to have the posture of a Pharisee since you returned. Why the hostility? Have you and Doug been communicating? Watch out, Old Bob may lecture you about love.

     Don: I really am not trying to be harsh, but using rhetoric, as you often do, to make my point. I do not believe you are in any way a Pharisee, but you have a lot of influence over people, and I believe some of what you teach/say needs to be challenged by Scripture. I appreciate the fact that you do not censor anyone, except for good reason, and hope that our dialogue would produce as much light as heat.

     I believe Bob would not object. Doug and I have never actually communicated except in this forum, but I often find myself in agreement with him.

     LikeLike

116. @Don Frank concerning your DGH parody, very good! Quite funny! I just hope it will prick Darryl’s heart.

     LikeLike

117. Don, since you haven’t read A Secular Faith, how can you parody it?

     Believe it or not, I’m not wild about athletes like Jeeter making more money in one year than entire denominations spend. I read Wendell Berry and recommend him to others. I write for Front Porch. I try to be a good cultural conservative (which is not what Doug is by any means — how you agree with Schmemann and Doug Sowers is truly having the best of both worlds). You have not in any way pigeon holed me properly.

     But I don’t think Front Porch is going to bring in the kingdom. Nor do I think that Berry’s concerns from God’s revealed will in Scripture. Lots of writers out there, who are not Christian, are critical of technology and consumerism. Have you ever heard of the New York Times or the New Republic? So you don’t need to be a Christian or read Schemann to think that limits and responsibilities are important considerations for how to live in this world. But if you do think you need to be a Christian to live like that, then you have seriously misunderstood salvation by an alien righteousness.

     LikeLike

118. D. G. Hart: But I don’t think Front Porch is going to bring in the kingdom. Nor do I think that Berry’s concerns from God’s revealed will in Scripture. Lots of writers out there, who are not Christian, are critical of technology and consumerism. Have you ever heard of the New York Times or the New Republic? So you don’t need to be a Christian or read Schemann to think that limits and responsibilities are important considerations for how to live in this world. But if you do think you need to be a Christian to live like that, then you have seriously misunderstood salvation by an alien righteousness.

     RS: Dr. Hart, I have a question for you. As one who is trying to understand 2K theology, I am asking this as far as I know as a genuine question. If I understand Scripture correctly on one matter it is that all or the slaves of satan or they are the slaves of Christ. All are under the dominion of darkness and the evil one until they are tranlated into the kingdom of the Beloved Son. I can only see two kingdoms in Scritpure. One is the reign that the ruler of this world has (the devil) and the reign that Christ has. How does 2K fit in with that? Indeed God is sovereign over both in an ultimate way, but I have been trying to figure out how 2K theology fits with the kingdom (2K if you will) theology of the Bible. Thanks

     LikeLike

119. RS,

     If I understand Scripture correctly on one matter it is that all or the slaves of satan or they are the slaves of Christ. All are under the dominion of darkness and the evil one until they are tranlated into the kingdom of the Beloved Son. I can only see two kingdoms in Scritpure. One is the reign that the ruler of this world has (the devil) and the reign that Christ has. How does 2K fit in with that?

     I am sure Darryl will add his own comments here, but I would be more inclined to say that while 2k doesn’t deny that there is the Kingdom of God characterized by righteousness, and the kingdom of this world, that isn’t the particular emphasis of 2k theology. What you have described is more akin to the structures laid out in Augustine’s City of God, where there is the heavenly city and the carnal city, and as far as the contrasts being drawn in the City of God, I don’t think anyone has improved on Augustine’s arguments.

     It seems to me that Scripture is a little more nuanced than what you present here. Certainly the reality you are describing of kingdoms at odds with each other, one under God’s rule and the other under Satan’s is a theme that is very present in Scripture. However, this is not the only description of human kingdoms, they are also presented in a positive light as well, even if they are passing and will ultimately give way to the unchallenged reign of God in his eternal kingdom. For instance, as early as Genesis, we see the physical salvation of Egypt under Joseph’s administration as a good thing, even if this did not lead to the conversion of Egypt. We see God’s word through Jeremiah for the Babylonian captives to seek the good of their new exilic home, because as Babylon prospers, God’s people will prosper as well. Isaiah, and books such as Ezra and Nehemiah present the reign of the Persian empire, and Cyrus in particular in very positive lights. Then Peter and Paul present the governing authorities as keepers of civil order and a minister of God for good. Jesus, in contrast to the stark dualism of the Essenes in the Qumran community, seems more or less permissive of Roman rule because the message of his Kingdom transcended the “this worldly” concerns of the various religious groups of his day, and even that of his disciples, who conceptualized the coming kingdom as a physical means of casting off Roman occupation and the prominence of Davidic Israel over all other nations.

     I don’t think that Scripture shies away from the depravity of human kingdoms, or from criticizing the Satanic source of these kingdom’s rebellion against God. However, as with the case of depravity on the individual scale, it is not the case that in every way human kingdoms are as bad as they possibly can be in the sense of maximal social evil, rather at no point are human kingdoms as good as they should be. All suffer in varying degrees with evil. 2k is simply articulating how the Christian individual, and the Church navigates living as it were in 2 kingdoms, recognizing that the earthly kingdom will always be a source for good, and for evil. And it lends more weight to Christian activity in and on behalf of the Spiritual Kingdom to strengthen the Church and call fallen individuals to repent and gain citizenship in God’s everlasting Kingdom, rather than transforming the structures of the fallen human kingdoms so that they can be changed into the kingdom of God. By the virtue of the temporal and fallen nature of earthly kingdoms, 2kers generally do not think it desirable, or Scripturally defensible to believe that the earthly kingdom will ever be anything other than what it already is. 2k simply conceives how to be in these earthly kingdom without being of them.

     LikeLike

120. Richard – I think you would appreciate Van Drunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”. He makes a good biblical case for 2K. Think about God’s covenant with Noah and God’s covenant with Abraham and how they were different. This is a central theme for Van Drunen. He also makes the case that Christ was the new Adam and we are not. Being new Adams who improve upon the first Adam’s performance is a Neocalvinist idea that 2Kers reject.

     Hart’s “A Secular Faith” is good, too, but it’s been longer since I read it. If you buy Hart’s book, buy it new so he gets the royalty. Someone has to keep the lights on around here.

     If you became a 2K guy we might me able to get you to read some non-theological books and watch some movies. Maybe we could even get you to grow a beard, start smoking a pipe, and drink a beer or some Scotch from time-to-time. This is a project I can rally around!

     LikeLike

121. On judgment day there will be a clear separation of the sheep & the goats. Until then, we are kind of meandering around in the same crap-filled pasture together.

     LikeLike

122. Erik,

     You asked me if I have read DVD or DGH? I have read DVD’s LGTK. My reaction to that book is that he began with a premise and selected or twisted passages of scripture to support his premise. I don’t have the book in front of me, but I was surprised that he would take the covenant with Noah and treat it as the proof text for God establishing a kingdom over which God rules all as Creator, separate from the kingdom over which Christ rules the elect as Redeemer. Sounds a lot like Nestorianism to me.

     Then he uses 2 Pet 3:10, a symbolic passage, which I would argue refers to the end of the old covenant age, to argue that this world will be totally destroyed and replaced by a new and different world, rather than, as is more commonly accepted (even by Calvin), that it will be transformed and renewed. And he does not even touch the many passages that support this latter view.

     I was far from convinced of the validity of his perspective.

     BTW, you still have not answered my question about the visible church — is it temporal or eternal?

     LikeLike

123. Erik Charter: If you became a 2K guy we might me able to get you to read some non-theological books and watch some movies. Maybe we could even get you to grow a beard, start smoking a pipe, and drink a beer or some Scotch from time-to-time. This is a project I can rally around!

     RS: If that is what it takes to be a 2K guy, then count me out. That sounds more like hell on earth than heaven on earth.

     LikeLike

124. Darryl,

     Fair enough — I have not read your book yet, and based my parody solely on what you write on this blog. So, you got me to read DVD on LGTK, now I guess I will have to read your book. Hopefully it is available on Kindle 🙂

     As far as needing to be a Christian to live in accord with natural law, we have been through that and I think we are in general agreement.

     I suspect you are a Dabney fan and I believe I echo the same concerns he did with how the federal government reconstructed the south after the civil war, or as he would say, the war of northern agression.

     LikeLike

125. DGH says: (which is not what Doug is by any means — how you agree with Schmemann and Doug Sowers is truly having the best of both worlds).

     Why am I not a good cultural conservative? Darryl, are you pigeon holing me correctly?

     LikeLike

126. Richard – You’ll be a beatnik by the time we’re done with you. From Baptist to Beatnik in six weeks!

     Don – I gave you Belgic 27 (plus 28-32) as an answer. If that’s not good enough for you, take it up with Guido in heaven. I love being confessional!

     LikeLike

127. Don said:
     /A certain ruler asked D.G Hart, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

     DGH thought, “This man must have read my book on secular faith to call me good.” DGH answered. “The best rulers are those who rule competently without allowing the exclusivity of truth /

     Don, how did you miss that Jesus said nothing to the young ruler about how to rule but only addressed his personal transgressions? Your analogy is a non-starter and your intepretation says a lot more about the grid through which you see scriptures than it does the scriptures themselves.

     LikeLike

128. Don & Doug – Can you show me where Two Kingdoms Theology violates the Three Forms? Don seems to be some kind of biblicist or fundamentalist and Doug, as we all know by now, is a Theonomist. Make the Confessional case that we are wrong.

     LikeLike

129. I asked some Neocals at Kloosterman’s blog to make the case for Neocalvinism from the Three Forms and what they came up with was mighty thin.

     LikeLike

130. Erik, DGH subcribes to the Westminster confession of faith, like me. Were both OPC.

     LikeLike

131. Richard – What church did you grow up in and what led you to RTS?

     LikeLike

132. Doug – What, so you can’t read the Three Forms? O.K., use the Westminster if you have to.

     LikeLike

133. Oh man, here comes the complete butchering of wcf 19:4. ‘I know that’s what it says but that’s not what it means’. Nevermind the historical circumstance. It’s like talking to RC’s about scriptural legibility; ‘well we don’t abide the lexical tradition’. ‘Oh, ok. but you’ll render official judgement about ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe’ being burned into an overcooked tortilla? ‘Well, that’s different, look at the response of the community and the outpouring of pious veneration, certainly that tortilla has been drenched in the tears of our dear Mother.’

     LikeLike

134. Erik, part of the problem, is you insist on using *2K* as if you have a handle on the term. Theonomists, NeoCals, RC’s, Charsmatics, and scads of Christans in the middle all believe in 2K. We just don’t believe this radical brand of 2K which says we can’t apply the Bible in the common sphere. To be honest, I don’t think you do either. I think you’re better than your theology.

     But I will check my WCF and see if can come up with something

     LikeLike

135. Sean, you need to stay off the hard liquor. You’re not making a bit of sense. Erik asked me about 2K, not theonomy.

     LikeLike

136. Doug,

     You just don’t like that I went all Dubya on ya and went preemptive and then poured RC salt on the wound for good measure.

     LikeLike

137. But hard liquor sounds good ’bout now.

     LikeLike

138. Sean, I knew you’d say that lol!

     LikeLike

139. Mike,

     He was a ruler. Jesus was saying what scripture, if you’re willing to hear, clearly teaches: Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling. Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment.

     LikeLike

140. Erik,

     I was looking for a simple, one word answer and you throw three articles of the Belgic confession at me. Its really not that difficult a question.

     As to your labels biblicist and fundamentalist, they are definitely easier to dismiss than real ideas and thoughts.

     LikeLike

141. Don, here’s what Jesus told him:
     You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words [a]he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

     Not a word about how to rule. The same advice would be appropriate for anyone with his personal spritual estate. Your golden proof text – in which Jesus would sieze the opportunity to tell him how to rule – is not there. It’s a passage against you.

     LikeLike

142. M&M, All Don need to do, is change the opening question.

     Good teacher, how should I rule in the kingdom of God? And the rest is apropos, no? Moreover M&M, I thought your kind was into improvisation, no? LOL! Are you a literalist all of a sudden?

     In all seriousness, Don was having a little fun illustrating how absurd radical two kingdom theology is, practically speaking. Quit being so uptight daddy-o, lighten up!

     LikeLike

143. “We just don’t believe this radical brand of 2K which says we can’t apply the Bible in the common sphere.”

     Doug,

     I like you because you are very honest about your beliefs and that is refreshing, but let me correct you about our position if I may. What you state above is not the NL2k position. The Bible has much to say about how Christians are to live in the common sphere. For example:

     work:
     Under authority – Col. 3:22&23
     As an authority – Eph 6:9
     Just weights – Prov 11:1

     Marriage and family:
     Eph 5:22-6:4, I Peter 2:5-7

     Government – Rom 13:1-7, I Pet 2:13-17

     Entertainment – Eccl. 5:18&19

     Relationships with unbelievers – Col 4:5, Matt 5:16

     There are many more verses of course.

     We just don’t believe the Scriptures teach about the government what you say it does. You admit the Bible is not a medical textbook, that we do not find in it the cure for common diseases that ravage the body. We also do not believe the Bible provides a cure for society’s ills, beyond the cure of a changed life through the power of the gospel.

     Also, we do not believe, as is commonly alleged, that the common realm is neutral. According to Revelation, the governments of this world will always persecute God’s people at some level – they are servants of the beast, they are never neutral. The question is, what is the answer to this problem? It is not, as the anabaptists alleged, separation. Nor it it, as the theonomists allege, theocracy. The answer is the return of Christ.

     LikeLike

144. @M&M; and please don’t take “your kind” the wrong way; I mean you “blues loving” folk. Be cool daddy-o!

     LikeLike

145. Mike,

     The only way you can deny that Jesus’ words had nothing to do with the man as ruler, is to isolate one text from another. Jesus knew that he was a ruler and you want me to believe that what he has said about rulers throughout scripture should in no way be connected to what he said to this ruler or that Jesus wasn’t making this connection in His own mind. But even if this were the case, Jesus was still saying to that ruler exactly what scripture says to all rulers. Kiss the Son or face His wrath.

     LikeLike

146. Doug – I am talking about Hart & Van Drunen’s 2K. I really don’t know of any other version that Reformed people are arguing about these days. If it’s “radical” explain why in light of the Confessions. How a guy who is light in the loafers and hangs put with cats can come up with anything “radical” is beyond me…

     LikeLike

147. Doug, there you go again unifying what should not be unified. Improv is for jazz, not for the scriptures.
     It was gallant of you to jump in and try to rescue Don, but Don is digging in his heels. Don, imputation is what Christ does for us, not what we can do with the scriptures.

     LikeLike

148. Don – I’m afraid that’s the best I am going to do.

     If you don’t like biblicist or fundamentalist, tell me who your influences are. If it’s just you and Jesus, you can say that. If it’s Edwards you can say that. Richard does (every chance he gets).

     LikeLike

149. Somebody point out to me where Don parodied Hart. I can’t find it. Perhaps I was distracted by neither of them being able to spell “Jeter”.

     LikeLike

150. Todd – Good answer, good answer.

     LikeLike

151. Erik, 12:50 today is Don’s “parody.”

     LikeLike

152. Thanks, MM. I read it.

     Don says – “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’

     Where is the prohibition against idolatry & Sabbath keeping? Why did you leave those out, Don?

     I don’t think we allow murder, stealing, or perjury now, do we?

     How do you want the magistrate to enforce the laws against adultery and honoring parents? Do you want to extend the laws against adultery the way Jesus did? What is the civil penalty for lustful looking?

     Flesh these things out for us.

     LikeLike

153. Erik, its a quote. Jesus left them out.

     Who said anything about enforcing adultery or honoring parents? I am talking about the church teaching the nations, including rulers, what Jesus commanded. The church is responsible for that; the state is responsible for enforcing laws.

     And talk about fleshing things out — you won’t even answer a simple question, but instead cite 3 articles of the Belgic confession which don’t even address the visible church.

     LikeLike

154. Darryl,

     I just downloaded your book to my Kindle. I could not help noticing that two of Amazon critics’ highest praise came from a secular humanist and an ardent supporter of Gene Robinson of gay Bishop fame. What are you getting me into?

     LikeLike

155. ‘For man as originally created, there was no separation between his culture and his loving worship of his Lord. Culture and religious duty were one. All cultural activity was self-consciously pursued as an act of loving obedience. Not only the internal attitude of man in these activities, but the invention of the very cultural structures themselves was bound to be a deliberate act of service to the Creator. Just as God’s will and creative word called real planets and trees and birds and fish into being, so man’s will and intellect would effect the establishment of real art and science and agriculture and social structures. This was the sort of wholism and unity many of us long for: no shadow between culture and devotion.

     But then the Fall occurred.’

     LikeLike

156. Don – If the Belgic doesn’t address it, is it a good question?

     LikeLike

157. M&M; Well, you would know better than me, but I’ve always thought there was a strong blues jazz connection, no? What’s a blue note, mean?

     LikeLike

158. Todd, thanks and I like you too 🙂

     Todd, I know we agree that God’s word has much to say about how we are to live within the common realm, but respectfully that’s not the point. I’m talking about how we should *apply* the God’s eternal moral principles found in the Bible, in the common realm. That’s what’s missing from you NL2K guys! You say we may *not* apply Biblical moral standards in the common realm. Good luck to that bad idea! (Can anyone remember Sodom and Gomorrah?) What happens to nations when everyone does what is right in there own eyes? Do I hear an echo?

     What besetting sins/crimes are front and center in America today? Legal abortion, legalized sodomy, legal hard core pornography, free birth control pills handed out (as young as) Jr. High girls without parental consent. Should I go on?

     These are the same sin/crimes that have caused God to judge nations in the past! And yet, you’ all NL2K fellows don’t have a solid, let alone a Biblical answer to rebut the Politically Correct crowd that is ramming this depravity downs society’s collective throat.

     Teaching young *depraved* souls that sodomy is a gender issue? That sex is morally neutral, as long as it’s consensual? Not only is that a lie straight from the pit of hell, it’s just begging for disaster! If our society or Nation (corporately) had more respect for God’s law, this wouldn’t be happening. I don’t hear anyone from your side, making a Biblical argument why our Nation should repent and return to the moral standards found in God’s law. Worse yet, you act as if God will no longer do, what he did in times past. Judge a nation that has turned away from his law!

     LikeLike

159. Don Frank says: Darryl I just downloaded your book to my Kindle. I could not help noticing that two of Amazon critics’ highest praise came from a secular humanist and an ardent supporter of Gene Robinson of gay Bishop fame. What are you getting me into?

     LOL! The problem with Darryl’s conception of 2K is that he omits special revelation from the Magistrates consideration. (No peeking at God’s Word!) Therefore, the door is left wide open for legalized sodomy, bestiality, gang bangs, hard core porn, child pornography, adultery, and God knows what else. DGH says the Magistrate can’t use the Bible to condemn these acts, so by what standard is the Magistrate supposed to punish evil doers?

     I have yet to hear a coherent answer from anyone on his side.

     LikeLike

160. Richard, those two kingdoms are at the root of the antithesis and correspond to Augustine’s earthly and heavenly cities. But the Bible also talks about the rule of kings, parents, and church officers. So on top of the antithesis — a spiritual reality — we live a world with various authorities and with unbelievers. 2k is about the differences between the spiritual and temporal powers in this age, those who hold the keys of the heavenly kingdom and those who bear the sword of justice.

     LikeLike

161. Doug, conservatives and Vossians do not immanentize the eschaton. You do.

     LikeLike

162. Doug, that’s interesting that all these folks believe in 2k. When Richard Gamble’s talk in critique of 2k came out, a talk in which he actually used the language of 1k, all of 2k’s critics went ga ga with glee to have another critic.

     LikeLike

163. Don, what can I say? Mencken was a fan of Machen. In the 2k world, confessionalists and secularists have much in common, because we live in the same world, not in the eschaton.

     LikeLike

164. Doug, have you ever considered the consequences of applying God’s moral law (whether it was interpreted well or not is another matter). Have you ever thought about the bad policy of Prohibition? Or what about Christian Europe’s treatment of Jews even well before Hitler?

     If you ever thought about the hard cases on your side, you might back off and look for another way to be faithful. But you want us to execute kidnappers.

     That’ll work.

     LikeLike

165. Doug, THE BIBLE SAYS submit to the powers that are. The power in the U.S. is the Constitution. The Constitution forbids the establishment of religion. Can you possibly explain how a magistrate enforces special revelation and also upholds the Constitution?

     Protestants used to think that Roman Catholics couldn’t be loyal to the pope and to the Constitution. But they always thought they could be loyal to the Bible and to the Constitution. And they were stupid to think that their allegiance to a divine authority was compatible with a secular political order. All believers in the U.S. have to negotiate laws that forbid any religion from being entrenched in laws and policies.

     If you don’t like it, take it up with the founders (and then with God’s providence).

     LikeLike

166. D. G. Hart: Doug, THE BIBLE SAYS submit to the powers that are. The power in the U.S. is the Constitution. The Constitution forbids the establishment of religion. Can you possibly explain how a magistrate enforces special revelation and also upholds the Constitution?

     RS: But the Constitution forbids the establishment of a particular religion (most likely, any denomination of Christianity was the real intent) and not the establisment of righteous laws.

     D.G. Hart: Protestants used to think that Roman Catholics couldn’t be loyal to the pope and to the Constitution. But they always thought they could be loyal to the Bible and to the Constitution. And they were stupid to think that their allegiance to a divine authority was compatible with a secular political order. All believers in the U.S. have to negotiate laws that forbid any religion from being entrenched in laws and policies.

     RS: But that is not the same things as having laws that are righteous laws and at least recognizing that the true God will judge all men.

     D.G. Hart: If you don’t like it, take it up with the founders (and then with God’s providence).

     RS: But establishing righteous laws is not the establishment of a particular denomination or religion.

     LikeLike

167. DGH says: Have you ever thought about the bad policy of Prohibition?

     Yes I have, and like Machen, I would be against Prohibition. The Bible doesn’t prohibit drinking wine or strong drink for Christians let alone anyone else; moreover the Bible says that God gave wine as a blessing to the nations.

     So yes Darryl! We need good theology; we need humility, wisdom, and the fruit of the Spirit, in applying the law in a proper new covenant context. I never said it will be easy, or that there aren’t issues that are hard to discern. But look at what we’ve been able to accomplish so far:

     Was it hard discerning the hypostatic union?

     Was it hard discerning the doctrine of the trinity?

     Of course, but since when do we quit because the task is hard? Didn’t Jesus say if we have faith, we can move mountains? So let’s pray that God would open the eyes of our hearts, collectively, and seek his wisdom in applying Godly statutes in a good and proper mannor.

     Onward Christian solders!

     LikeLike

168. Richard – “RS: But the Constitution forbids the establishment of a particular religion (most likely, any denomination of Christianity was the real intent) and not the establisment of righteous laws.”

     Erik – What is your source for this belief? Why such scant mention of Christ in the Declaration and the Constitution? Compare these documents to the 20th Century Irish Constitution. Why was Jefferson allowed to write the Declaration?

     Your final statement begs the question.

     LikeLike

169. Don – Who do you want doing this public instruction in morality? Since we don’t believe people can be good lawkeepers (the way Jesus explained lawkeeping) without the Holy Spirit do we want public instruction in the gospel as well as the law? Whose version of the gospel? Rome’s? The Mormon version? The pentecostal version? Reformed churches are pretty small in the U.S.

     Without the gospel to go along with law all we are left with is the sword-bearing magistrate to rule by force. What laws do we want enforced via the sword?

     LikeLike

170. Doug needs to watch “The Onion Field” for an illustration of how capital punishment for kidnapping leads to murder.

     LikeLike

171. Richard, are you serious? You think righteous laws are just generically out there, some store of morality upon which everyone will agree, and oh, by the way, they conform to the teaching of Scripture? I’m all for a generic morality and think we do the best we can in finding our way there. But to think that you can abstract morality from religion is the chief conceit of the Enlightenment — not to mention “righteous” morality.

     LikeLike

172. Doug, lol. We need wisdom and humility and we also need to execute kidnappers (and bully Christians who refuse to sign on). Like I say, lol.

     LikeLike

173. Erik,

     Since it is obvious you are floundering on my question, I’ll give you a little help, straight from the confessions which, according to your thought, answers all questions — I guess we don’t need the Bible anymore.

     I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

     II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

     III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

     IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

     V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

     VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[14]

     LikeLike

174. Sean says

     ‘For man as originally created, there was no separation between his culture and his loving worship of his Lord. Culture and religious duty were one. All cultural activity was self-consciously pursued as an act of loving obedience. Not only the internal attitude of man in these activities, but the invention of the very cultural structures themselves was bound to be a deliberate act of service to the Creator. Just as God’s will and creative word called real planets and trees and birds and fish into being, so man’s will and intellect would effect the establishment of real art and science and agriculture and social structures. This was the sort of wholism and unity many of us long for: no shadow between culture and devotion.

     But then the Fall occurred.’

     Don: Wonderfully stated!!!

     LikeLike

175. Don – “I was looking for a simple, one word answer”

     Erik – After which he writes 7 paragraphs the next day…

     Don – “Since it is obvious you are floundering on my question, I’ll give you a little help, straight from the confessions which, according to your thought, answers all questions — I guess we don’t need the Bible anymore.”

     Erik – Arrogrance & condescension are unbecoming for a Christian. Your view of confessions vs. the Bible are odd for a Presbyterian.

     I’ve asked you about 10 questions, none of which you have answered and you complain about the one question you have asked that I did answer?

     Are you really up for this debate?

     LikeLike

176. Don,

     You’ve also never told us what the point of your question was.

     LikeLike

177. Don,

     To what use are the Confessions put in your PCA church? Are they taught to children? Are they ever taught to adults in Sunday school? To new members? Are they ever used in worship? Does your pastor ever preach through them using relevant biblical texts?

     The point of my question is that you don’t seem to think through a lot of issues confessionally. You really do resemble an independent evangelical or Bible church member more than a Presbyterian.

     LikeLike

178. The PCA is kind of an odd duck in my experience. PCA churches seem to be all over the place. My parents attended a PCA church plant for awhile before it failed. Very little distinctively Reformed about it. Meanwhile I was going to a URC studying the Heidelberg in Sunday school, hearing catechetical sermons on Sunday nights (which included going through the Belgic and parts of the Canons). If we don’t have a strong confessional framework as conservative P&R people we are really lacking a vital anchor to our thinking.

     LikeLike

179. Erik says: Doug needs to watch “The Onion Field” for an illustration of how capital punishment for kidnapping leads to murder.

     Erik, should God have watched “The Onion field” before he wrote the law?

     LikeLike

180. Erik says: Don – Who do you want doing this public instruction in morality? Since we don’t believe people can be good lawkeepers (the way Jesus explained lawkeeping) without the Holy Spirit do we want public instruction in the gospel as well as the law? Whose version of the gospel? Rome’s? The Mormon version? The pentecostal version? Reformed churches are pretty small in the U.S.

     Without the gospel to go along with law all we are left with is the sword-bearing magistrate to rule by force. What laws do we want enforced via the sword?

     Don: Oh ye of little faith. Did not Jesus tell you to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

     I sense that you are not comfortable with the church simply teaching all, including the magistrate, that Jesus is the King and all rulers are vice regents (actually referred to as sons of God in the OT) under Him. Jesus has made it abundantly clear in scripture and throughout all of history that nations, when they fail to believe this teaching will ultimately face His wrath. All Christian denominations believe that Jesus is King and the decalogue is His royal decree. But be sure that the Lord enters into judgment with the elders (think teachers) and princes (think magistrate) of his people for it is they who have devoured the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in their houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?” says the Lord God of hosts.:(Isaiah 3:14-15)

     This is perpetually true for Jesus is with us (both elders and princes) always, to the very end of the age.”

     I guess I’m just too much of a biblicist getting in the way of your man-centered, don’t-bother-me- with-the-gospel-rule of this world.

     LikeLike

181. Doug says:

     The problem with Darryl’s conception of 2K is that he omits special revelation from the Magistrates consideration. (No peeking at God’s Word!) Therefore, the door is left wide open for legalized sodomy, bestiality, gang bangs, hard core porn, child pornography, adultery, and God knows what else. DGH says the Magistrate can’t use the Bible to condemn these acts, so by what standard is the Magistrate supposed to punish evil doers?

     These are the same sin/crimes that have caused God to judge nations in the past! And yet, you’ all NL2K fellows don’t have a solid, let alone a Biblical answer to rebut the Politically Correct crowd that is ramming this depravity downs society’s collective throat.

     Teaching young *depraved* souls that sodomy is a gender issue? That sex is morally neutral, as long as it’s consensual? Not only is that a lie straight from the pit of hell, it’s just begging for disaster! If our society or Nation (corporately) had more respect for God’s law, this wouldn’t be happening. I don’t hear anyone from your side, making a Biblical argument why our Nation should repent and return to the moral standards found in God’s law. Worse yet, you act as if God will no longer do, what he did in times past. Judge a nation that has turned away from his law!

     So yes Darryl! We need good theology; we need humility, wisdom, and the fruit of the Spirit, in applying the law in a proper new covenant context. I never said it will be easy, or that there aren’t issues that are hard to discern.

     Don says, Amen!!! Preach it brother. You be a givin some new life to this old life society.

     LikeLike

182. Darryl says: In the 2k world, confessionalists and secularists have much in common, because we live in the same world, not in the eschaton.

     Don: I’ve never heard you say that before, Darryl. I think we can work with this. Erik, did you hear what Darryl said. We live in the same world. This world is temporal. So the visible church is __________? Come on Erik, you can do it.

     LikeLike

183. Doug – We are not in Kansas anymore, nor are we in Theocratic Israel.

     LikeLike

184. Erik, I recently talked to a fellow Christian who told me, “I used to be for the death penalty for murder, BUT since DNA tests have proved some murderers are actually innocent, I’m for life imprisonment”.

     Huh? Well by all means let’s throw the baby out with the bath water!

     The Christian I spoke too sounds like he’s using your logic, based on current events, in your case it was “The Onion Field”. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning? Your saying, (in so many words) you are wrong God! Your law will encourage murder! I know better than you!

     But are you right? I think not.

     God knows better than us. His wisdom in unimpeachable! His ways are higher than our ways. God foreordained the events in the onion field before he wrote the law on kidnapping! Therefore, I will go with God’s evaluation on punishing kidnappers, rather than yours, even though you’ve seen “The Onion field”.

     LikeLike

185. Erik, I am well aware that America is not Israel, but why do you suppose our Nation had the DP for murderers, kidnappers, sodomites, child molestors, when we were first founded? Did our founders think we were still Israel?

     Come on Erik, that’s a straw man.

     LikeLike

186. Don – How does the church teach the Magistrate? Which church is he supposed to be listening to?

     Don – “Jesus has made it abundantly clear in scripture and throughout all of history that nations, when they fail to believe this teaching will ultimately face His wrath.”

     Where did Jesus make it abundantly clear in Scripture? in history? If we are talking about “ultimately” why are you bringing that into this present age?

     Don – “All Christian denominations believe that Jesus is King and the decalogue is His royal decree.”

     Um, have you ever read Machen’s “Christianity & Liberalism”?

     Don – “I guess I’m just too much of a biblicist getting in the way of your man-centered, don’t-bother-me- with-the-gospel-rule of this world.”

     Did you know that P&R churches have modified the articles in the Belgic & Westminster regarding the Magistrate?

     What exactly is the “gospel rule of this world”? What does the gospel have to do with sword bearing Magistrates (who could be pagans)?

     You like Doug, but do you favor the Magistrate punishing false worship? Are you now a Theonomist?

     Don & Doug – Are child pornography & bestiality legal where you live?

     Doug – “And yet, you’ all NL2K fellows don’t have a solid, let alone a Biblical answer.”

     Get back to me when you have read Hart or Van Drunen’s books.

     Who here is teaching that homosexuality is o.k.? If you want the Magistrate to punish homosexuality are you in favor of him punishing Adultery & fornication the same way? Do you want to start a federal agency of bedroom policemen?

     You need to distinguish between sins & crimes.

     Doug – “I don’t hear anyone from your side, making a Biblical argument why our Nation should repent and return to the moral standards found in God’s law.”

     How does this even work? Do we call a press conference? Buy a newspaper ad? Buy time on TV? How about just minding our churches instead.

     You guys are absolutely all over the place.

     LikeLike

187. Sorry Don, when you can give a short answer to what the church is, maybe I’ll follow. Your last attempt was seven paragraphs. You probably need to move on.

     LikeLike

188. Doug – Do you really trust our political leaders with that kind of power? Who do you think would be enforcing these laws? What is your penalty for false worship? How many Cathlolics, Mormons, JW’s, & liberal protestants will be punished? Where do CRC members with women officers fall? And how will these folks be punished? What was the penalty for false worship in Israel? You need to go all the way if you are going down this path.

     If colonial American law was the gold standard, why did it change?

     LikeLike

189. So, Doug and Don, what is it you think will happen once the Bible is applied to civil life? It’s almost as if you think certain societal ills will all but vanish. But as long as there are human beings at play the Bible won’t really have this effect. General revelation is as much God’s revelation as special revelation. So on top of wondering why you’re so dismissive of one of God’s books (and that to rule the side of life it was ordained to rule), I also wonder if you fathom the reality of human depravity. The Bible doesn’t solve the problem of actual human sin. Sure, it clearly says adultery is bad. But it also clearly says justification is by faith alone, apart from works. And yet Roman Catholicism persists even larger than Protestantism. So what makes you think social ills will go away by cracking open the Bible?

     All 2k is saying is that natural revelation is ordained to rule civil life and special revelation spiritual life. By this, i’t’s not saying there is an impermeable wall such that special cannot be referenced in civil life or natural in spiritual life. But 2k also takes into account that while the two books are sufficiently designed for the two kinds of life, deficiency lies within human beings and neither book will overcome any of it. Why is this so hard?

     LikeLike

190. The Salem Witch Trials didn’t work out so well. Do we need to start accepting testimony that even though perpetrators were confirmed to be in once place, they can still be convicted because they appeared elsewhere in spectral form?

     The reason we want a restrained magistrate is because the magistrate is sinful too. Once again, this is not Theocratic Israel where God has spoken to us on the local mountain.

     LikeLike

191. Zrim – It’s so hard because Don only has two categories – biblicism & secularism. The first is good and the second is bad and everything has to neatly fit in one of the two.

     LikeLike

192. Pingback: What Laws do Christians Want Enforced Via the Sword? « Literate Comments

193. Don, yes, I see. Schmemann was reading Bahnsen.

     LikeLike

194. Don, but your agreement with Don means that you would use the sword against kidnappers, which is a type of divine justice at the eschaton. I don’t see a consistent position on your side. Theonomy one comment. Eastern Orthodoxy the next. What seems to hold it all together is anti-VanDrunen and Hart. Glad I can do my part in making your world coherent.

     LikeLike

195. Darryl, right after I agree with you on something, you pick up the pistol again.

     LikeLike

196. Z says, All 2k is saying is that natural revelation is ordained to rule civil life and special revelation spiritual life. By this, i’t’s not saying there is an impermeable wall such that special cannot be referenced in civil life or natural in spiritual life. But 2k also takes into account that while the two books are sufficiently designed for the two kinds of life.

     Don: But Z, this sounds so neat and tidy, but it is patently false.Deuteronomy 23:13 is special revelation, is it not? It says “and you shall have a stick with your weapons; and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it, and turn back and cover up your excrement.

     That doesn’t sound very spiritual to me.

     But I do agree with you that deficiency lies within human beings and neither book will overcome any of it. That is not so hard?

     LikeLike

197. If someone kills me or steals my stuff it becomes difficult to live my life (obviously, in the first instance).

     If the guy down the street wants to go to a false church (or no church), or if he wants to shack up with his boyfriend, that doesn’t effect me directly. I may disagree with his choice, but I don’t think he has broken any law.

     For most of the problems Doug & Don decry the only solution is for people to become Christians, and even then the problems will still be with us to some extent. This is why 2K people focus on the church. If the energy that some devote to being a culture warrior was spent on being faithful churchmen, that would be a step in the right direction. Not coincidentally, the decline in our society has followed the decline in our churches.

     LikeLike

198. Don, your agreement with Doug invalidates agreement with me.

     LikeLike

199. Don – “and you shall have a stick with your weapons; and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it, and turn back and cover up your excrement.

     Send me some photos of your back yard and your bathroom sans toilet. What in the world does that comment have to do with anything?

     No one denies the Bible says practical things.

     LikeLike

200. Darryl, what if Doug agrees with you too?

     Doug, here’s your opportunity 🙂

     LikeLike

201. Don, you say “neat and tidy” with a sneer. But more Belgic for you:

     We know him by two means:

     First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.

     All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.

     Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

     I know you subscribe, but when will you add to your subscription listening? Is the Belgic also being patently false?

     LikeLike

202. So, Don, if GR is sufficient to judge men eternally then why not sufficient to govern them provisionally? Again, why so hard?

     LikeLike

203. Darryl,

     I also downloaded Secular Faith to my Kindle last night. I would love a signed copy of the hard cover version. I would definitely share it with Ken Myers.

     LikeLike

204. Z,

     You know I subscribe and I do listen. Remember how I kept defending WCF 23.3 against everyone? And I hear what Belgic is saying about GR and SR. I have been touting Rom 1:20 frequently. But remember that Jesus says “But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”

     I am not contradicting Belgic when I say that since so much more is given to us in SR, we are required to teach the nations, including the magistrate, what they do not know; or receive a more severe beating.

     LikeLike

205. Richard,

     To your question about 2k, you have heard from Jed, whom I respect as a very level-headed 2k guy. He said:

     2k is simply articulating how the Christian individual, and the Church navigates living as it were in 2 kingdoms, recognizing that the earthly kingdom will always be a source for good, and for evil. And it lends more weight to Christian activity in and on behalf of the Spiritual Kingdom to strengthen the Church and call fallen individuals to repent and gain citizenship in God’s everlasting Kingdom, rather than transforming the structures of the fallen human kingdoms so that they can be changed into the kingdom of God. By the virtue of the temporal and fallen nature of earthly kingdoms, 2kers generally do not think it desirable, or Scripturally defensible to believe that the earthly kingdom will ever be anything other than what it already is. 2k simply conceives how to be in these earthly kingdom without being of them.

     I agree with Jed’s characterization of the 2 kingdoms as temporal and eternal, rather than other ways in which it has been characterized on this blog.

     I also agree with Jed that thinking that man, with or without God’s help, can transform the structures of the fallen human kingdoms into the kingdom of God is completely misguided in the light of scripture.

     Where we differ slightly (Jed may say significantly) is the degree to which the church should teach and guide the magistrate. You are probably familiar with my position from what I have written.

     With regard to the eschaton, I know that Jed and I agree that it will be ushered in when Jesus returns to judge the nations and we arise imperishable. I, however, would say that the arrival of the eschaton will be less catclysmic than Jed as in “we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.” (1 Cor 15:51-52)

     This will certainly be cataclysmic in the sense that the change will be incomprehensibly magnificent, but until that time I take seriously 1 Cor 15:25 which says “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Both amillenialists and post-millenialists agree that Jesus is reigning now — they just differ in their optimism about the progress made in this world before it gives way to the eschaton.

     LikeLike

206. Don – “Jesus says ‘But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.’

     “I am not contradicting Belgic when I say that since so much more is given to us in SR, we are required to teach the nations, including the magistrate, what they do not know; or receive a more severe beating.”

     What is your scriptural or confessional support for jumping from your premise in paragraph 1 to your conclusion in paragraph 2?

     What is your scriptural or confessional support for the requirement that the church is required to teach the magistrate what they do not know?

     LikeLike

207. So you are arguing that Jesus is jumping from, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.” (Luke 12:22-23 ESV)

     to an instruction in the following paragraph to teach the Magistrate? It seems more logical that in light of what he has just taught Jesus would say something along the lines of “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, not with a program to teach Caesar.

     LikeLike

208. Don, if by teaching the nations (including the magistrate) you mean the church is obligated to hold out the unfettered gospel and not hide it under a bushel in order to bring them into fellowship with Christ and his church, quite agreed. But I get the sense you mean that plus more. The problem is that “the more” has the effect of actually hiding the gospel under a bushel. What I mean is that when the church thinks she’s supposed to tell the magistrate his political business, not only does it violate something like WCF 31.5, it also obscures the gospel by aligning it with specific political conclusions. Rightists have a hard time seeing this until it’s pointed out how this was the problem with Protestant liberalism. But then the rightist seems to think that that social and political gospel is only a problem when it’s the other guy’s social and political gospel. In other words, Falwell and King are just two sides of a skewed coin. Maybe you agree, but the problem for you is how you sound like both of them.

     LikeLike

209. Erik, your main argument seems to be, it’s very hard and messy applying God’s law! Using your logic, how could the church have ever come into agreement on the hypostatic union? How we apply laws in a proper new covenant framework pales into simplicity next to the mystery of the Trinity. What’s *hard* got to do with moving mountains? Erik, the Great Commission is impossible save for the mighty hand of God! Who can turn a mans heart to God? The same God who can turn a nation’s heart back to him. What’s too hard for our God?

     It’s going to take unity of purpose, faith, boldness, and strength in the Holy Spirit by God’s faithful. (Even if Darryl wants to sit this one out) It’s going to take God moving mountains in our mist. It’s going to require the miracle of the new birth. Thankfully Jesus promised he would be with us to the end of the age. We proclaim the truth with boldness, and God does the heavy lifting. The zeal of the LORD will accomplish the mission. All we need do is be faithful to the full counsel of God’s Word, and trust in his mighty hand. After all Erik, we are ambassadors of God!

     LikeLike

210. D. G. Hart: Richard, are you serious? You think righteous laws are just generically out there, some store of morality upon which everyone will agree, and oh, by the way, they conform to the teaching of Scripture?

     RS: Can the God who created nature (and therefore, natural law) and breathed forth Scripture contradict Himself?

     D.G. Hart: I’m all for a generic morality and think we do the best we can in finding our way there. But to think that you can abstract morality from religion is the chief conceit of the Enlightenment — not to mention “righteous” morality.

     RS: I am not sure where you got that from what I wrote. My argument had to do with the state not establishing a particular branch of Christianity over another. I don’t think they had anything like Muslims and so in mind. I do not think you can abstract morality from religion, which is one of the reasons I continue to have questions about 2K. The laws of nature will always be misinterpreted by fallen man apart from Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture, but it also interprets the laws of nature.

     WCF Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture
     I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

     LikeLike

211. Z said:

     Don, if by teaching the nations (including the magistrate) you mean the church is obligated to hold out the unfettered gospel and not hide it under a bushel in order to bring them into fellowship with Christ and his church, quite agreed. But I get the sense you mean that plus more. The problem is that “the more” has the effect of actually hiding the gospel under a bushel. What I mean is that when the church thinks she’s supposed to tell the magistrate his political business, not only does it violate something like WCF 31.5, it also obscures the gospel by aligning it with specific political conclusions.

     I think where I might sound like I mean what you said in your first sentence plus more is that I believe that what you said in your first sentence means more than what you believe, but not the way you believe I believe. Does that make sense. 🙂

     The way you perceive politics is different than the way I perceive it. What I mean is that God is fundamentally concerned about justice and everything He does is about bringing that about. Therefore, it is inevitable that the church will have much to say which may sound political, but is really an explication of God’s law (the decalogue). The church is responsible for exegeting God’s law without compromise, and the magistrate duty is to make and enforce laws that comply with God’s law. Because I firmly beleive this, I firmly believe that radical 2k theology is wrong.

     LikeLike

212. Don, you said “The church is responsible for exegeting God’s law without compromise, and the magistrate duty is to make and enforce laws that comply with God’s law.” What does that look like in, say, our local communities? Here in Albemarle County the local LDS congregation just built a new building; what was the duty of our local OPC and PCA elders in this situation? Should they have gone before the board of Supervisors to voice opposition to allowing the Mormons to construct a new facility dedicated to false worship? Did they fail by not doing so?

     LikeLike

213. Doug – “Erik, your main argument seems to be, it’s very hard and messy applying God’s law!”

     No – my main argument is that 2k is biblical and neocalvinism/theonomy is not. I just want you to tell me how your vision works in practice. I am not that interested in discussing pure theory all the live-long day. If you want to see how my vision works, come to my church or come to my home or workplace. I live it out 24/7/365.

     LikeLike

214. 2K doesn’t require a lot of radical things to take place before it can come to fruition. It’s just going to church and living.

     LikeLike

215. D.G. wearing a bowtie, stroking his cat, drinking a scotch, smoking a cigar, and reading his Bible. That’s the 2K poster child! Just don’t burn the cat, D.G.!

     LikeLike

216. Oh my, that’s a blog post that absolutely no one but the guys here will understand…

     LikeLike

217. j-heetderks,

     I know someone by your name with a first name of Jim, nickname Jud. You’re not him are you?

     To your question about an LDS building, I would answer, absolutely not. Rather, I would offer to help them with their building just like the adversaries of Israel when they were released from exile to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 4) For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:8) The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

     In other words, the church does not use politics to demolish strongholds.

     LikeLike

218. Erik says: No – my main argument is that 2k is biblical and neocalvinism/theonomy is not.

     Puleeze! Why Hart is under fire with the whole reformed community? Because he’s just following God’s word? Why havent I ever seen this biblical proof? I’ve dialoged with Darryl for years! And he’s never been able to come up with one Scripture to even remotely prove his case! Hart ask silly questions like, why didn’t Jesus or Paul try to change Roman law? Ironically, Jesus did bring down the Roman Empire, amen? But he did it, “in his time”. Slowly, like leaven, much like his kingdom is establishing dominion.

     Erik, I have searched the Bible front to back and have never seen one solitary verse that even would hint that socio political justice has run its course. Jesus said not until heaven and earth pass away, will one jot or title pass from his good law.

     Chapter and verse, please, just don’t come up with arguments from silence. Because they are always fallacious.

     LikeLike

219. Erik, what is your blog’s name?

     LikeLike

220. Erik Charter: Oh my, that’s a blog post that absolutely no one but the guys here will understand…

     RS: Or, perhaps, some do understand and shudder. Do you think the folks at College Heights would understand?

     LikeLike

221. Erik says:Get back to me when you have read Hart or Van Drunen’s books.

     While I havent read Hart’s book per se, I’ve probably read enough of DGH to make up ten books! I’ve read Darryl for years! I think I”ve heard the best Darryl has to offer. Morever, the men I look up too and respect, think his book was a tragedy. (That is basically 90% of the reformed community) But I will break down and buy a copy very soon.

     LikeLike

222. Zrim says: So, Don, if GR is sufficient to judge men eternally then why not sufficient to govern them provisionally? Again, why so hard?

     That is the most asinine statement I’ve heard in ages! Zrim, you’ve already admitted you haven’t a clue on what punishment a child molester should receive, so don’t give us this balderdash that general revelation is sufficiently clear to govern! Yea, clear as mud!

     This is the same Zrim that said he would probably vote for sodomites to legally marry.

     Our society is currently debating the proper age of young boys, before sodomites can have relations with them. NABLA wants the age lowered to eight. And you have the unmitigated gall to say general revelation has the answer? Zrim you are beyond the pale, shame on you!

     LikeLike

223. Erik says: If the guy down the street wants to go to a false church (or no church), or if he wants to shack up with his boyfriend, that doesn’t affect me directly. I may disagree with his choice, but I don’t think he has broken any law.

     Erik, if you’re correct, then why was it, when Israel had wise kings who feared God, they tore down the high places, and the people repented and worshiped the LORD. But when Israel had wicked kings who built alters to false gods, the people responded wickedly as well. My point is, there does seem to a connection, and I would like your feedback. If the moon affects human behavior, (dramatically) why shouldn’t culture also have a dramatic affect?

     LikeLike

224. “Morever, the men I look up too and respect, think his book was a tragedy. (That is basically 90% of the reformed community)”

     Psst…hey Doug, come over here and let me whisper something to you…98% of the reformed community disagrees with your brand of theonomy.

     Ergo you are wrong, right?

     LikeLike

225. Just when I thought we now had a kinder, gentler Doug, he rediscovers the exclamation point on his keyboard, brings out “asinine,” breaks out the majority/bully rhetoric, and puts Hart outside the camp. Too much heavy metal today, Doug?

     But it really does leap off the page that, though you speak in such unequivocal terms, you know DGH only through this blog. I read Rushdoony’s IBL (my first “reformed” book, or so I thought), a book by Bahnsen, and probably twenty hours of Bahnsen lectures before I repented. And you can’t read one book by DGH? Buy one! Maybe he could buy an extra cigar or something.

     LikeLike

226. Erik says: If the guy down the street wants to go to a false church (or no church), or if he wants to shack up with his boyfriend, that doesn’t affect me directly. I may disagree with his choice, but I don’t think he has broken any law.

     Erik, if you’re correct, then why was it, when Israel had wise kings who feared God, they tore down the high places, and the people repented and worshiped the LORD. But when Israel had wicked kings who built alters to false gods, the people responded wickedly as well. My point is, there does seem to a connection, between alters to false gods, and people’s behavior; but I would like your feedback. If the moon affects human behavior, (dramatically) why shouldn’t culture also have a dramatic affect?

     LikeLike

227. Don, while we agree that God is fundamentally concerned about justice and everything he does is about bringing that about, we disagree about the means by which he does so. You say through politics with the help of the church, but I say through the cross alone.

     LikeLike

228. Doug, you’re forgetting that I have Kuyper on my side when he says that “…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and as though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.”

     PS, you keep getting my Prop 8 vote wrong. It’s abstention. It’s what one does when, on the one hand he does not think homosexuality shouldn’t enjoy the sanction of marriage, but on the other is just as opposed to the antics of culture war.

     LikeLike

229. Doug – You can just click on my name and that takes you to my blog.

     Van Drunen’s whole “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” is a biblical argument for 2K.

     LikeLike

230. Richard – I don’t know what College Heights is.

     LikeLike

231. Doug – “Morever, the men I look up too and respect, think his book was a tragedy. (That is basically 90% of the reformed community) .”

     95% of the “Reformed Community” don’t even know there is a debate. Notice how it’s about 20 of us wingnuts fighting about this all the time?

     LikeLike

232. Doug – “NABLA wants the age lowered to eight”

     Leave the National Association of Buick LeSabre Automobiles out of this.

     And please spare us and don’t correct the acronym…

     LikeLike

233. Doug – “, when Israel had wise kings who feared God, they tore down the high places, and the people repented and worshiped the LORD. But when Israel had wicked kings who built alters to false gods, the people responded wickedly as well. My point is, there does seem to a connection, and I would like your feedback. If the moon affects human behavior, (dramatically) why shouldn’t culture also have a dramatic affect?”

     #1 – We’re not Theocratic Israel

     #2 – You don’t change culture through politics. You change culture by doing smart cultural work. Smart cultural work isn’t necessarily overtly or clumsily Christian.

     You guys look for some kind of shortcut to fix our culture but you look in vain. If you want to fix our culture look at your church. It’s the only hope.

     I have a friend who is a Christian church elder and an internationally respected researcher in parasitology. He has traveled to Africa many times. He has concluded that Africa is basically an unfixable mess and the only hope is the church, so this is where he focuses his attention. The church.

     LikeLike

234. And when I say “focus on the church” I mean, serve as a deacon or elder, support your pastor with prayer, support your church financially, give to the missions efforts of your church, attend services, invite someone, partake of the sacraments. If you are married, lead your wife and children in family worship, teach your children your confessions and catechisms. If you have any time left, go vote in the next election. Other than that, relax, you have done your part to save the culture.

     LikeLike

235. Don, Yes, one and the same!

     Maybe I misunderstand. When you say “the magistrate duty is to make and enforce laws that comply with God’s law” which laws do you mean?

     I’d help the Mormons build their building too, but probably only if I was the general contractor.

     Come on down sometime!

     LikeLike

236. M&M, Ahhh yea, I need to exercise some self control. Thanks for the reminder 🙂

     LikeLike

237. Z says: while we agree that God is fundamentally concerned about justice and everything he does is about bringing that about, we disagree about the means by which he does so. You say through politics with the help of the church, but I say through the cross alone.

     Don: Sounds more like a Dracula movie. When injustice occurs, brandish the cross. How bout rosary beads?

     LikeLike

238. Erik Charter: Richard – I don’t know what College Heights is.

     RS: Sorry, Grand Avenue

     LikeLike

239. Jud,

     Wild. Yeah, we should definitely get together. Next time we visit Ken, lets do it.

     So, what I am saying is that God defines justice, has revealed it in the decalogue, and incarnated it in Christ. The role of the church is to perpetuate the incarnation of the law by imitating Christ, and obeying His commission to teach the nations. The magistrate, as the servant of God, is responsible for making and enforcing laws that uphold justice as revealed/incarnated by God and taught/mediated by His church, the body of Christ.

     Your question really boils down to, pardon the slogan, what would Jesus do. He certainly would not have run to Caesar, but rather, with love and authority, engage the sinner with truth. In the same way, the church should seek and exploit opportunities to engage the magistrate with the truth that he is a servant of God. No easy task, and one that does not happen overnight. This is what Jesus’ kingdom parables were teaching.

     LikeLike

240. M&M, by the way, what brand of theonomy am I? I find it amusing that people think they know, when I’m not sure myself. FWIW, the way I define theonomy puts me in the large majority of reformed brethern. Dr Kloosterman is a soul mate to me, we might disagree on a few issues, but I feel very comfortable with his theology. And if you will recall, Dr K said he’s much closer to me, than Hart. Your right about one thing, being in the majoritydoesnt make one right or wrong. Anyway, feel free to admonish me, if I fly off the handle in the future, strike me on the head, let it be oil for my head.

     Keep pressing on!

     LikeLike

241. #1 – We’re not Theocratic Israel
     Erik, I hope you know, that I know that. My point was to see that alters caused problems in the past, not that I wanted to create another Israel.

     #2 – You don’t change culture through politics. You change culture by doing smart cultural work. Smart cultural work isn’t necessarily overtly or clumsily Christian.

     I fully concur! The; cuture must change *before* our laws will. What I would love to see from you, is a heart to pray for our culture to change, so our society would revere God’s law. I know it sound incredible, but can’t our God move mountians?

     God bless you brother

     LikeLike

242. Richard, if you have questions about interpreting the law apart from Scripture, then you have questions about the United States, a society that does not use the Bible, right?

     LikeLike

243. Doug, you’re right. The book on Machen was all about tragedy.

     LikeLike

244. Doug, I concur that things are quite comfy between neoCals and theonomists. Sometimes I wonder if neoCals look at theonomists with a bit of envy or admiration for pressing on where they can’t go. IMO the current cozy relationship is, in part, due to having 2K as a common bad guy.

     Life is full of curious things, and this is one of them. In the big picture, 2K’s are clearly more churchly than thenonomists, who have well-earned the reputation of being divisive and cantankerous in the church. But then the neoCals doodle Hitler mustaches and devil horns on 2K’s, which tells me neoCals and theonomists put a high priority in using the state to coerce “those people out there” to be more holy even though the requisite political tactics are likely to keep such people out of the church where they might hear the gospel. But that makes me wonder about how high a priority the gospel really is.

     LikeLike

245. D. G. Hart: Richard, if you have questions about interpreting the law apart from Scripture, then you have questions about the United States, a society that does not use the Bible, right?

     RS: I do have many questions about the United States in that regard. But again, the fact that the Constitution says that the state should not establish a religion is not the same argument as to say that it should ignore truth and justice that Christianity alone has. If the Word of God alone can interpret nature (same author) and the Bible in an accurate way, then the state has no real access to the true way of looking at the laws of nature. Each member of the state is also a person that will answer to the living God on the final day (and every day before that as well) for all that he has done (not to mention the other things). It seems that if a man or woman will answer to God for the laws he passed on earth and his intents and motives in doing so, that the Church should at least inform that person of the coming judgment for what s/he is doing.

     I am not trying to argue that the United States be set up with the Bible as its Constitution, but am simply saying that any realm that men operate in and any single thing they do will be brought into judgment. Since that is so, shouldn’t they be informed of the basis on which that judgment is to come?

     LikeLike

246. Don, cute. But the point wasn’t that the cross has anything to do with provisional law and order. It was to emphasize divine justice and forgiveness. You seem more interested in the former than the latter. Weird for a Biblicist, since for the Bible it’s the other way around.

     LikeLike

247. Z,

     Sorry for the snide remark. What I meant and should have said was that the cross is not where it ends, but where it or through which it begins , i.e., forgiveness and reconciliation with God. We both agree that Jesus also rose from the dead, and ascended to the right hand with all power and authority to rule and reign until He physically comes again after all His enemies are put under His feet according to 1 Cor 15:25. In the meantime, what are we to be doing? God makes it clear that, in Christ, using weapons that have divine power to demolish strongholds, we are to acknowledge and live out God’s word in Isaiah 42.

     “Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
     my chosen one in whom I delight;
     I will put my Spirit on him,
     and he will bring justice to the nations.
     2 He will not shout or cry out,
     or raise his voice in the streets.
     3 A bruised reed he will not break,
     and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
     In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
     4 he will not falter or be discouraged
     till he establishes justice on earth.

     On earth as it is in Heaven.

     LikeLike

248. Actually, Don, I think the meantime is structured by the Great Commission. My sense is that you think it is structured by a mix of that and the cultural mandate.

     LikeLike

249. Zrim, when Jesus went to the cross, he was deserted by all his followers, save his mother. He was the single seed of a new race of man. Today some two thousand years later more people call themselves Christian, than any false religon. Even today Barrak Obama claims he’s a Christian. Christianity (in the broad sense) with all it’s flaws is the fastest growing religion in the world, and it’s not even close.

     For you to insinuate that culture isnt better today than since 70AD is absurd. The world is zillions of times better off since Christ’s Great Commission.

     Let’s press on brothers!

     LikeLike

250. Richard, you wrote:”If the Word of God alone can interpret nature (same author) and the Bible in an accurate way, then the state has no real access to the true way of looking at the laws of nature. Each member of the state is also a person that will answer to the living God on the final day (and every day before that as well) for all that he has done (not to mention the other things). It seems that if a man or woman will answer to God for the laws he passed on earth and his intents and motives in doing so, that the Church should at least inform that person of the coming judgment for what s/he is doing.”

     Do you see any sign in the New Testament that Jesus and the apostles followed your logic?

     LikeLike

251. D. G. Hart: Richard, you wrote:”If the Word of God alone can interpret nature (same author) and the Bible in an accurate way, then the state has no real access to the true way of looking at the laws of nature. Each member of the state is also a person that will answer to the living God on the final day (and every day before that as well) for all that he has done (not to mention the other things). It seems that if a man or woman will answer to God for the laws he passed on earth and his intents and motives in doing so, that the Church should at least inform that person of the coming judgment for what s/he is doing.”

     Do you see any sign in the New Testament that Jesus and the apostles followed your logic?

     RS: I see plenty of NT references to the fact that all unbelievers will face judgment for all they do and that all people are held accountable to God for their sins both here and in eternity. The laws that men pass that cause the little ones to stumble will bring great judgment on them.

     WCF Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture
     I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;

     RS: All that the light of nature can do is to leave men unexcusable in a general way.

     WCF: yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.

     RS: If we are to proclaim the Gospel to all people, then we have to proclaim the knowedge of God and of His will which are necessary for people to be saved.

     WCF: Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

     RS: God has declared His will to the Church for the better preserving and propagating of the truth. Other methods of of revelation have now ceased but we have the Scriptures to teach us His will and to propagate the same. The Great Commission teaches us that we are to make disciples of all the nations (people groups) and we are to do that by teaching them all Christ taught His disciples.

     LikeLike

252. Richard – Would you join Doug in supporting the expansion of capital punishment to cover crimes that were punished with capital punishment in Old Testament Israel?

     If so, exactly what does proclaiming the gospel to all people have to do with expanding capital punishment?

     Sometimes it seems to me that we are sending mixed messages when we are pushing for righteous laws on one hand, and proclaiming the gospel on the other hand. We act as if unsaved people can be good lawkeepers when we know they can’t. What level of lawkeeping are we expecting?

     LikeLike

253. But, Doug, isn’t the culture warriors who love to tell us the sky is falling, which is why we need to unleash the Bible on society to shape things up? So what do you mean the world is a zillion times better since Jesus came? But to my amil mind, the world is in the same shape it ever was since sinners were sent packing east of Eden, no better or worse as time either retreats or goes forward. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again, and there is nothing new under the sun.

     LikeLike

254. In other words – proclaiming the law of God – good. Proclaiming the gospel – good. Demanding that the Magistrate punish lawbreaking with maximum severity – maybe not so good. Many people who are lawbreakers go on to be saved and to lead changed lives.

     LikeLike

255. I would say we have the full revelation of the gospel now, as well as modern technology, which is nice (unless we are talking about nuclear weapons & surgical/chemical abortion). I would rather be alive today than in A.D. 70. Life was nasty, brutish and short then. Today it’s only semi-nasty, semi-brutish, and a little bit longer.

     LikeLike

256. Z,

     With due respect, I suggest you are trifling with me. I am aware of the debates to which you refer, but I contend that they are nothing more than the enemy’s tool to get the church’s eye off the ball. However you look at justice prevailing on earth as scripture assures us, call it the great commission or the cultural mandate — it does not make a lick of difference. And don’t tell me that Christ has already done it on the cross, for again, scripture makes clear that He is doing it now in His millennial reign, through His body, the church, with weapons of divine power, until His return when God will be all in all.

     LikeLike

257. Erik Charter: Richard – Would you join Doug in supporting the expansion of capital punishment to cover crimes that were punished with capital punishment in Old Testament Israel?

     RS: I would argue that we should examine the crimes that should be punished with capital punishment and perhaps expand them, but not necessarily follow all the laws that OT Israel did. The first word of God on the matter is that all sin deserved death. While all sin still deserves death, that does not mean that human beings are to put them to death for them now.

     Erik Charter: If so, exactly what does proclaiming the gospel to all people have to do with expanding capital punishment?

     RS: Well, for sure the person being put to death might want to hear it. The Gospel is only understood in the context of the dark background of sin. Capital punishment is not contrary to the Gospel, but instead the Gospel shines out with that punishment in the background. The Gospel (simply put at the moment) is about Christ saving sinners from the eternal, unceasing, and unmitigated wrath of almighty God. There is nothing contradictory about proclaiming the Gospel while pushing for capital punishment unless there is something contradictory about God commanding the Gospel to be preached at the same time He is calling people into eternity.

     Erik Charter: Sometimes it seems to me that we are sending mixed messages when we are pushing for righteous laws on one hand, and proclaiming the gospel on the other hand. We act as if unsaved people can be good lawkeepers when we know they can’t. What level of lawkeeping are we expecting?

     RS: If we are not pushing for righteous laws, then unrighteous laws will be passed. Sooner or later your comfortable life will be hit too (as it will for all of us). Justice is an important issue in any nation and apart from righteous laws justice cannot be carried out. But again, the Gospel is for those who have broken the law and the Savior is One who kept the law perfectly. The Gospel is not contrary to the law at all unless it is said that the law is a means of saving self.

     LikeLike

258. Don, not a lick of difference between the cultural mandate and the GC? That’s like saying not a lick of difference between law and gospel, a difference that undergirds sola fide. And so you keep affirming my suspicions that neo-Calvinism is the culturalist version of works righteousness.

     LikeLike

259. Zrim says: But, Doug isn’t the culture warriors who love to tell us the sky is falling, which is why we need to unleash the Bible on society to shape things up?

     No sir, you’ve got it backwards, as per usual. It’s because of the churches indolence (Machen) that our nation has walked away from basic standards of morality; much like a bad parent, raising hellion children. Your just tone deaf enough to not get it. We, in the church need to repent of our idols and get our corporate act together before we attempt to change society by external laws. Thenomy looks to God’s law as a standard for good and evil. And when we see deviants running amuck, with out shame, that is a judgment by God, in and of itself. We don’t change society by external laws anymore than we do in our personal sanctification. It starts with repentance, both personal and corporate.

     Until you grasp that there is both a personal and corporate dimension of responsibility, given the church in teaching every nation all of God’s commandments, your going to keep missing it. Obviously Christians today have way more clout in the public arena, living in a democratic republic; than when the church was first born. This means our responsibility is greater; to whom much is given much is required. Let’s look at this timeless text.

     2nd Chronicles 7:14

     “If my people who are called by name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from there wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, forgive there sin, and heal their land”.

     That is just as true today as it was for Israel. Erik asked a good question, was Colonial America the gold standard for public justice? No it wasn’t, but I have a better question, how did our nation go from punishing sodomy by death, to later legalizing, and now calling it Marriage? This is all happening on our watch, so to speak! How did our nations public values degrade all the way down to calling sodomy, marriage? Was it an accident? I think we (the church in America) need to fall on our collective knees ask God to forgive us for not being the salt and light Jesus called us to be. Remember it was Jesus who warned us, that if we lose our saltiness, we will only be good for being stepped on by the foot of the Gentile.

     And isn’t that what’s happening? Groups like Queer Nation are making public statements that would have been unthinkable just fifty years ago. Our public schools teach that sodomy is a gender issue. I hear the PC crowd calling the Bible hate speech! And what’s the 2K’s response? I can’t hear you! I don’t hear a blasted thing! Other than you want to retreat in side your church, like an ostrich, pretending what’s going on doesn’t have anything to do with us. Well, the head in the sand approach to public morality is what got us in this mess, in the first place. I call it dereliction of duty. We need to start fighting the good fight both in our personal and corporate lives. We need to realize, this is primarily going to be a spiritual battle. The weapons of our warfare are powerful to break these strongholds, if we will understand that the prayers of the righteous avail much. If one can drive a thousand to flight, two can drive ten thousand. I want to see the larger body of Christ in America come together in faith and ask God to give us the wisdom and faith to combat these evil forces.

     I think we all need to pray and reflect about this, because the sky is not falling, but we are under a judgment from God right now as we speak. Let’s all pray 2nd Chronicles 7:14 in corporate heart felt faith and watch God move mountians.

     LikeLike

260. Queer Nation? NAMBLA? Doug – Have you not witnessed what has gone down at Penn State with Sandusky over the past year? Rather than constantly feeling the need to react to the latest fringe group, which is exactly what they want — attention — why not just do what we do as conservative P&R churches come what may? The “culture war” and its affiliated political groups are mostly just scams to make money on both sides. Just chill out and stick to the basics of the faith.

     When you see an election that is basically 50/50 you know that the political machines have done their jobs — split the issues up to raise the maximum amount of money on each side.

     You just need to adjust your paradigm, man. You’ll be much happier.

     LikeLike

261. Murder, adultery, sodomy, and every other sin has been around since the beginning. So has the church. Nothing new is going on with any of this. Jesus seemed way more concerned with false religion than he was with sin. He was concerned about sin, but he pointed to himself as the answer, not cleaning up Rome.

     LikeLike

262. I know of what I speak because I used to be on these bandwagons – thinking that cleaning up the Republican Party & defeating the liberals was the answer. Thankfully my pastor, Hart, Horton, & Van Drunen showed me another way of viewing these things.

     LikeLike

263. Z,

     I was first exposed to this impenetrable dividing wall between law and Gospel theology when going on about 20 years ago, I was an avid fan of Horton’s White Horse Inn. As I listened to Horton’s explanation about how the law always says “you must do this” but the Gospel is God always saying,”I did it for you”, I could not square his teaching with my knowledge of scripture. Of course I knew that we are not justified/saved in any way, shape, or form by the law, any good work that we do, or even by our own faith, but by Christ alone. But I also knew that we were created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

     This law/Gospel hermeneutic for neatly dividing all of scripture does not work with so many passages of scripture like:

     For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

     So, I challenge your premise that the law and gospel difference undergirds sola fide, but rather justification by Christ alone. Having reconciled God to man, God continues His project of putting all his enemies under his feet and bringing justice to all the nations through Christ, the head in heaven and His body on earth.

     This is exactly what Geerhardus Vos, one of DGH’s heros says:

     Now, this new creation, in the objective, universal sense, is not something completed by a single act all at once, but is a history with its own law of organic development. It could not be otherwise, inasmuch as at every point it proceeds on the basis of and in contact with the natural development of this world and of the human race, and, the latter being in the form of history, the former must necessarily assume that form likewise. It is simply owing to our habit of unduly separating revelation from this comprehensive background of the total redeeming work of God, that we fail to appreciate its historic, progressive nature.

     So, in summary, general revelation continues to unfold as God’s new creation progresses through history, and God makes it clear that Christ will reign as head in heaven until all His enemies are put under His feet.

     LikeLike

264. Don – You sound way more postmillennial than amillennial. Christ could come back tonight, could he not? Or does he have to wait until we see the fruit on Earth of which you speak? This is what premillenialists & postmillennialists have in common – Jesus having to wait until X happens.

     And why does “in us” not simply mean imputation? The way you interpret it kind of sounds Roman Catholic.

     LikeLike

265. Whenever people in conservative P&R churches start to sound like CREC postmillennialists, evangelical cultural warriors, or Baptists revivalists I get the willies. These are all things I fled to get to where I am at. I don’t want to go back. We are in a unique place in the American religious landcape as Christ-focused, imputation affirming, law & gospel differentiating, Word & sacrament focused, confessional Christians. I am not surrendering these things to join the masses.

     LikeLike

266. Whenever people in conservative P&R churches start to sound like CREC postmillennialists, evangelical cultural warriors, or Baptist revivalists I get the willies. These are all things I fled to get to where I am at. I don’t want to go back. We are in a unique place in the American religious landcape as Christ-focused, imputation affirming, law & gospel differentiating, Word & sacrament focused, confessional Christians. I am not surrendering these things to join the masses.

     LikeLike

267. In fact, it’s so important to me I apparently needed to say it twice.

     LikeLike

268. Richard, you wrote: “I see plenty of NT references to the fact that all unbelievers will face judgment for all they do and that all people are held accountable to God for their sins both here and in eternity. The laws that men pass that cause the little ones to stumble will bring great judgment on them.”

     This is true regarding all men. Is it true that the NT writers speak this way about the United State (or the Roman Empire)? After all, Jesus had plenty of chances (not to mention Paul) of instructing Jewish and Roman authorities about their biblical responsibilities. Did they take the opportunity? Or is it possible that you say one thing to all people, but say something different about the duties of magistrates?

     LikeLike

269. Don, I’ll see your Vos and raise you a Tuininga:

     How then does the kingdom advance in the New Testament? In every case the expression of Christ’s universal lordship is explained not in terms of social or political power but in terms of the proclamation of the truth (John 18:37) and the preaching of the gospel to all nations, that they might keep his commandments (Matthew 28:19-20). It is the preaching of the gospel and the biblical administration of church discipline, the “keys of the kingdom,” that open and close the kingdom of heaven (16:19; 18:15-20). The transformation for which the creation groans is contingent upon the proclamation of the gospel and the revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19). Christ’s headship over all things – the existence of all things in him – is sure, but he has been given as head to the church (Ephesians 1:22-23), not to the world (or to put it another way, to the world, but only through the church). Only by believing the gospel and holding fast to Jesus (seeking first his kingdom) can anyone secure his or her participation in that headship (all these things will be added to you). The people of the world have their “minds set on earthly things” (Philippians 3:19) but believers set their hearts and minds on “things above, where Christ is” (Colossians 3:1-4) because they know that the future transformation of all things, the new creation, exists in his body, whose return they await. “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Philippians 3:20-21).

     LikeLike

270. Doug & Don (and maybe Richard, although I don’t think you are fully on board with those two) – What is distinctly Reformed about what you guys are advocating? Does it not concern you that you have so much in common with the approach of say, the late Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

     LikeLike

271. Erik Charter: Whenever people in conservative P&R churches start to sound like CREC postmillennialists, evangelical cultural warriors, or Baptist revivalists I get the willies.

     RS: But a person’s willies are not the standard. The standard, according to Scripture and the confesssions, is Scripture.

     Erik Charter: These are all things I fled to get to where I am at. I don’t want to go back.

     RS: Which is not the same thing as saying that you have arrived at perfect truth. No, you didn’t claim that.

     Erik Charter: We are in a unique place in the American religious landcape as Christ-focused, imputation affirming, law & gospel differentiating, Word & sacrament focused, confessional Christians.

     RS: But again, these are not the same things (necessarily) as having arrived at the truth in all cases and in all ways. A person can be Christ-focused in words and theology and not be focused on the true Christ or have a heart that is focused on the true Christ. One can affirm imputation as a doctrine and not trust in Christ alone and grace alone. One can differentiate law and gospel and still not believe in the true Gospel. One can be focused on Word and Sacrament and still not be focused on the Word and one can be focused on the Sacrament more than Scripture does. One can be confessional and not be Christian.

     Erik Charter: I am not surrendering these things to join the masses.

     RS: No need to join Roman Catholicism to come over to the truth.

     LikeLike

272. Erik Charter: Murder, adultery, sodomy, and every other sin has been around since the beginning. So has the church. Nothing new is going on with any of this. Jesus seemed way more concerned with false religion than he was with sin. He was concerned about sin, but he pointed to himself as the answer, not cleaning up Rome.

     RS: But if one reads the Sermon on the Mount, the issue certainly included sin. Jesus came to redeem His people from every lawless deed and purify a people for His own possession. That sounds like some concern for sin.

     Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

     LikeLike

273. Erik Charter: And why does “in us” not simply mean imputation? The way you interpret it kind of sounds Roman Catholic.

     RS: Because Christ Himself lives in His people and the people of Christ are the temple of the living God. That is true regardless of who believes it. In fact, Christ being in His people is a part of the Gospel itself.
     Colossians 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

     LikeLike

274. D. G. Hart: Richard, you wrote: “I see plenty of NT references to the fact that all unbelievers will face judgment for all they do and that all people are held accountable to God for their sins both here and in eternity. The laws that men pass that cause the little ones to stumble will bring great judgment on them.”

     D.G. Hart: This is true regarding all men. Is it true that the NT writers speak this way about the United State (or the Roman Empire)? After all, Jesus had plenty of chances (not to mention Paul) of instructing Jewish and Roman authorities about their biblical responsibilities. Did they take the opportunity? Or is it possible that you say one thing to all people, but say something different about the duties of magistrates?

     RS: I would argue that we are to preach the Gospel (and therefore the law that is the background for the Gospel) to all men regardless of their position in life. No one has the right to pass laws that violate the laws of God and in fact we are told that those who approve things that are worthy of death are listed as part of those in the list that God gives over to hardened hearts. Paul did speak to Felix about righteousness and the coming judgment when he had the opportunity. Jesus spoke to Pilate as well and in a way that made Pilate nervous.

     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

275. “RS: But a person’s willies are not the standard. The standard, according to Scripture and the confesssions, is Scripture.”

     O.K. – How about if it makes my antennae tingle?

     Sad couple of days in Kansas City. What a shame. It shows how money and fame are in no ways the keys to happiness.

     LikeLike

276. Richard – I hear where you are coming from and I don’t see you as a “culture warrior”, necessarily. What did you think of Billy Graham taking Mormonism off of his ministry’s list of cults shortly before the election? Do you agree that it is a problem when Christian leaders are willing to sacrifice sound theology and doctrine for the sake of Republican Party unity? How about Pat Robertson endorsing pro-choice Rudy Giuliani or my local evangelical Christian talk radio host castigating Romney only to endorse the twice-divorced, now Catholic Newt Gingrich? Can you see how politics gets in the way of doctrinal purity in a way that confuses Christians and potential Christians?

     LikeLike

277. “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.”

     Our modern-day Pauls would flatter Felix, do some revisionist history on his past misdeeds, and seek a seat at the table in his next administration. Oh, and send out a fundraising letter using his name.

     LikeLike

278. Darryl,

     I’m beginning to think that you are not really reading, or perhaps simply skimming what I have written, and for that matter, what Tuininga has written in the article from which you quoted.You really ought to read it, and what I am about to put forward, more thoroughly..

     What I have been railing against is the radical brand of 2k theology that you (at least based on your blog writings — I have downloaded but not yet read your “Secular Faith) and DVD (whom I have read) are advocating. The three main tenets of that radical brand of 2k affirm 1) That the 2 kingdoms refer to church and state; 2) That the earth will be destroyed when Christ returns, and 3) that the church should not concern itself with trying to influence the state, but rather ensure complete separation.

     Now, lets look at what Tuininga, is saying, and with which I agree:

     Yet Jesus declared that his kingdom is not of, or from, this world (John 18:36). His point was not that the kingdom does not pertain to material things (it will transform all things!) but that it is not of or from this age (i.e., secular). (1) In terms of politics, that means the kingdom of Christ is not like a secular kingdom……..

     Paul writes that Jesus was seated in sovereignty at God’s right hand, “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age [i.e., secular authority] but also in the one to come [i.e., the kingdom of God].” :

     Here, clearly, Tuininga is saying that the two kingdoms refer to this temporal age (i.e., secular) and the age to come, not the church and state which together exist in this age, the temporal kingdom. He does say, and I agree, that the visible church is the only corporate expression of the kingdom in this age, but is not equating the church with the age to come. Thus, Tuininga does not affirm the first tenet of your radical theology.

     Next, he says:

     Christ is not only head over “all things” (1:22) but in him “all things, whether on earth or in heaven,” are reconciled (Colossians 1:19). Indeed, in him “all things exist” (1:17). The entire creation is therefore groaning, waiting for the transformation that is coming (Romans 8:19-22). As Abraham Kuyper said, there is no square inch of creation over which Jesus Christ does not claim, “Mine!”. Similarly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that outside of Christ there is only abstraction.

     Here, Tuininga affirms the transformation, not the destruction of creation as the second tenet of your radical theology maintains.

     Later in the article, he says:

     The call of the Christian life is therefore not to establish the Lordship of Christ through conquest or external cultural transformation but to witness to Jesus’s lordship by imitating him in his sacrificial service. When we conform to Christ’s example faithfully the effect on our various vocations and communities will indeed be profound. Those in government will recognize the Lordship of Christ (Psalm 2) and seek to use their power to secure peace and justice for those under their charge, rather than self-aggrandizement, and to protect the church in order that it might fulfill its task (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Those in positions of economic power will serve those placed under them rather than dominate them (Ephesians 6:9). Husbands will sacrifice themselves for their wives in imitation of Christ, recognizing their equality together in him (Ephesians 5:25-33). Those who have been given gifts, talents, or riches will use those resources to provide for those who are in need (Ephesians 4:28; 1 Timothy 6:18). About all of these cultural affairs, in which believers engage in common with unbelievers, Scripture has much to say.

     This point, of course, clashes with the rhetoric of some two kingdoms advocates who want to emphasize how little Scripture says about political or cultural engagement. And to be sure, there is distinct danger at both extremes here. On the one extreme are those Christians who find the need to seek explicit Scriptural justification for every little thing that they do, an approach that creates the enormous temptation to read into Scripture things that simply aren’t there, or to apply passages in ways they were never meant to be applied. But it is just as problematic to overreact to that mistake by pretending that Scripture has nothing to say about Christians’ vocations, social life, or political engagement, or by requiring pastors to refrain from teaching what Scripture clearly teaches.

     Here, Tuininga explicitly decries the third tenet of radical 2k belief that the church is to enforce strict separation between church and state, saying instead that the church should engage the state with its teaching of scripture and in its imitation of Christ.

     In conclusion, Tuininga is not contradicting anything said in the Vos quote or anything that I have been saying in my comments on this post.

     LikeLike

279. “3) that the church should not concern itself with trying to influence the state, but rather ensure complete separation.”

     Don, sometimes articulation makes a difference. How about:

     3) that the church be the church and not the state.
     3) that the church should not meddle in the affairs of the civil magistrate.
     3) that the church bind only where the Word of God binds; the Word of God can seldom be dogmatically applied in the political realm.
     3) that synods and councils should petition the magistrate only in extraordinary circumstances.
     3) that preoccupation with conquering the world through politics diverts resources from and impedes fulfilling the Great Commission.

     LikeLike

280. Don, you say you’ve not read VanDrunen or Hart and yet you describe three tenets of 2k belief. At least you’re doing better than John Frame. He’s read the books and he garbles 2k the way you do.

     First, no 2ker says that the kingdoms correlate directly to church and state. Read VanDrunen.

     Second, I’m not sure what all 2kers say about the earth being destroyed, but Peter did talk about the earth being destroyed. So I’m not sure why all the talk of redeeming or renewing all things takes into account clear biblical teaching.

     Third, no one says the church should ensure separation between church and state. What 2k says is that the church has a task to perform that the state doesn’t. The state doesn’t bring the kingdom. The church does. And the kingdom doesn’t come through culture. It comes through the keys of the kingdom.

     Why do you keep tilting at windmills.

     I do know what Matt also says and I plan to interact with it. The point of quoting Tuininga was to say that Vos is not the last word. Your words would receive more consideration if you actually represented my views accurately.

     If you want to say (and object) that I am advocating an otherworldly faith, fine. I’ll stand with Jesus and Paul.

     LikeLike

281. Richard, you are stretching. Paul and Jesus spoke to no one about their duties as magistrates or how they were supposed to use God’s law as rulers. Don’t make it up.

     LikeLike

282. Don – When you start out with “you really need to read me” and then go to “you’re promoting something radical” chances are you’re not going to get read. Tuininga was Van Drunen’s research assistant, I believe, so you are going to have a hard time setting the two against each other. You’ve posted a lot of comments lately so I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding you, just disagreeing with you.

     LikeLike

283. “At least you’re doing better than John Frame. He’s read the books and he garbles 2k the way you do.”

     He accidentally bought the Spanish language versions.

     LikeLike

284. One note on Van Drunen. In “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” he spends very little time talking about politics, and it’s at the very end of the book. It’s the other side that is really into politics, not 2K.

     LikeLike

285. Erik Charter: Richard – I hear where you are coming from and I don’t see you as a “culture warrior”, necessarily. What did you think of Billy Graham taking Mormonism off of his ministry’s list of cults shortly before the election?

     RS: I am not a fan of Billy Graham (his theology and his practice) and think he should have kept out of politics in both the Church and in our nation. He has been off the mark for a long time and the Moromnism think is of no real surprise.

     Erik Charter: Do you agree that it is a problem when Christian leaders are willing to sacrifice sound theology and doctrine for the sake of Republican Party unity?

     RS: It is wrong for anyone to sacrifice sound theology and doctrine for anything or anyone.

     Erik Charter: How about Pat Robertson endorsing pro-choice Rudy Giuliani or my local evangelical Christian talk radio host castigating Romney only to endorse the twice-divorced, now Catholic Newt Gingrich?

     RS: If Pat Robertson endorses them, I would have to think a long time before voting for that person. A person that focuses on politics will make political choices.

     Erik Charter: Can you see how politics gets in the way of doctrinal purity in a way that confuses Christians and potential Christians?

     RS: Of course politics can get in the way of doctrinal purity and about anything else. However, I don’t see (at least not yet) why that should keep Christians from being salt and light in their society and preach the Law and the Gospel to them. I would argue that the Church should stay out of politics as such, but that is not the same thing (I think) as preaching the truth of God’s righteous standards and the Gospel to them. I would agree that the Church has appeared to sell out to one party or another, but that does not make it wrong to preach the truth.

     LikeLike

286. Re: Tuininga – I will agree that he seems to want to be the mediator in this debate (note his reporting of Horton’s mugging atop Lookout Mountain). So perhaps he has moved away from Van Drunen a bit.

     “When we conform to Christ’s example faithfully the effect on our various vocations and communities will indeed be profound.”

     Actually, Matt, people could just ignore us or mock us. We attempt to conform to Christ’s example nonetheless, however. The one thing to be aware of with Tuininga is that he is still awfully young and has spent most of his time in academia. Once he has served as a churchman for a decade or two he might have different views (as we all do as we gain experience).

     LikeLike

287. I hear what you are saying Richard, and I think you are saying some sound things. Since you are coming at this from outside of P&R churches (you are not dealing first-hand with Dutch Neocalvinism) you have a little bit different angle on this than many of us do. You will more likely deal with evangelical political activism than Neocalvinism in your ministry. Your Edwarsianism will irritate the politcal activists in your congregation the same way a 2K emphasis on Word & sacrament will irritate the Neocalvinists in ours. “Why is he focusing inward while the culture is going to hell?”

     LikeLike

288. I have been in the business world for 20 years now. I have worked for and with Christians and the religiously indifferent. Most people I work with are pretty trustworthy and ethical because you learn pretty quickly in business that if you are dishonest and unreliable you lose business. As long as we have free enterprise as opposed to crony capitalism this will probably remain the case. There is also constant fear of the plaintiff’s bar which keeps you from trying to unfairly take advantage of people. My faith has an impact on my honesty, but I don’t know that I am that much more honest than most of the other people in my profession (accounting). I don’t know that the effect on my vocation or my community has been “profound” but I have fed my family and the people I have worked for have been able to stay in business. We need to have humble expectations about these things.

     LikeLike

289. D. G. Hart: Richard, you are stretching. Paul and Jesus spoke to no one about their duties as magistrates or how they were supposed to use God’s law as rulers. Don’t make it up.

     RS: I suppose you could think that I am stretching to make a point while I think you are stretching to get away from it. I don’t think that I am making it up. The text tells us that Paul was “discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come” and Felix became frightened. If person A is talking about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, person B will see how that applies to all areas of life.

     Psa 9:17 The wicked will return to Sheol, Even all the nations who forget God.
     18 For the needy will not always be forgotten, Nor the hope of the afflicted perish forever.
     19 Arise, O LORD, do not let man prevail; Let the nations be judged before You.
     20 Put them in fear, O LORD; Let the nations know that they are but men. Selah.

     Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.
     28 For the kingdom is the LORD’S And He rules over the nations.

     LikeLike

290. Richard, the point is whether Paul was speaking to Felix as magistrate. Can’t you see that the Bible has various layers? This actually seems to be a common thread in objections to 2k — a habit of reading the Bible as all morality all the time, with a cup of grace thrown in to avoid works righteousness. When Paul speaks to husbands in Ephesians, is that something that is universal and a truth that a magistrate needs to consider in his work as magistrate?

     A lot of this does go down to how to interpret the Bible. If we want to know what God thinks of math, do we go to passages about weights and measures or do we say the Bible nothing to say about math as we know it (same with science, art, finance).

     But you seem to think, because the Bible addresses the conditions of all men (it hardly addressed all men before the inventions of mass publishing and the rise of literacy), and magistrates are men, then the Bible addresses politics.

     This is a common mental mistake that I encounter frequently among freshmen.

     LikeLike

291. Erik said: ” I don’t know that I am that much more honest than most of the other people in my profession (accounting).” I’m with you on that. And weirdly, some of our best clients have been more or less pagans (or other religions), and some of our most difficult (and ethically-challenged) have been professed Christians.

     The AICPA is nice, but how about we form CPAS4NL2K? You’d be a Charter member, of course.

     LikeLike

292. D. G. Hart: Richard, the point is whether Paul was speaking to Felix as magistrate. Can’t you see that the Bible has various layers?

     RS: Of course the Bible has layers, but there is no need to add layers where there are none.

     D.G. Hart: This actually seems to be a common thread in objections to 2k — a habit of reading the Bible as all morality all the time, with a cup of grace thrown in to avoid works righteousness.

     RS: No, the Bible is all grace for the people of God all of the time. The very good works a believe does has been ordained for them to do by grace and it is only grace working in them that will enable them to do works in a way and love that is not to obtain righteousness.

     D.G. Hart: When Paul speaks to husbands in Ephesians, is that something that is universal and a truth that a magistrate needs to consider in his work as magistrate?

     RS: It would be helpful if magistrates understood marriage much better and so their laws reflected a better understanding of the truth of marriage. It would also be good for them in their personal lives.

     D.G. Hart: A lot of this does go down to how to interpret the Bible. If we want to know what God thinks of math, do we go to passages about weights and measures or do we say the Bible nothing to say about math as we know it (same with science, art, finance).

     But you seem to think, because the Bible addresses the conditions of all men (it hardly addressed all men before the inventions of mass publishing and the rise of literacy), and magistrates are men, then the Bible addresses politics.

     RS: But your argument here demonstrates more than you would want. If you take your argument to its logical end, it would say that what the Bible addressed before mass publishing has no point to men now. In His sovereignty God planned where and when His Word would come forth. No one deserves to read and hear the Word of God, but the truth in it applies to all and for His glory we should proclaim it to all. The Bible reveals true justice and it would certainly do our magistrates a lot of good to know what true justice is.

     D.G. Hart: This is a common mental mistake that I encounter frequently among freshmen.

     RS: But it is not a mental mistake among your freshman. It is a logical error with their prof.

     LikeLike

293. I just wanna know how many people can define the gospel as the life(2nd adam), death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Transformation sells comfort, success, and confidence but confidence in an end supposedly procured by Jesus for ‘Our best World Now.’ Mormonism sells comfort and confidence(burning bosom and planetary triumph), RC sells comfort and confidence and security through priestly and saintly mediation, superstition and magisterial authority(I believe what the church believes). But what happened to embracing Jesus Christ by faith alone, and the end of our faith being comfort in the object of our faith(Jesus) and hope for glory and consummation while this life may be fraught with difficulty, persecution, and loss (the son of man has no place to even lay his head-pilgrim people), but fret not for Jesus has overcome death. Seems like death is a much more dire opponent than anything else this life coughs up. And how is that NOT optimistic, comforting and secure?

     LikeLike

294. Richard, when Christ says turn the other cheek, all men are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? So that is something the magistrate should do too?

     You’re trying too hard. But it gets you points with Edwards who was all about trying hard.

     LikeLike

295. sean: I just wanna know how many people can define the gospel as the life(2nd adam), death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Transformation sells comfort, success, and confidence but confidence in an end supposedly procured by Jesus for ‘Our best World Now.’ Mormonism sells comfort and confidence(burning bosom and planetary triumph), RC sells comfort and confidence and security through priestly and saintly mediation, superstition and magisterial authority(I believe what the church believes). But what happened to embracing Jesus Christ by faith alone, and the end of our faith being comfort in the object of our faith(Jesus) and hope for glory and consummation while this life may be fraught with difficulty, persecution, and loss (the son of man has no place to even lay his head-pilgrim people), but fret not for Jesus has overcome death. Seems like death is a much more dire opponent than anything else this life coughs up. And how is that NOT optimistic, comforting and secure?

     RS: But the primary reason that Jesus died to save sinners is not the comfort and security of men. He did this for the glory of God. All things have their primary purpose of being to the glory of God. The purpose of magistrates, governments, and all things is the glory of God. Whe Christians proclaim the glory of God it has to do with more than the Gospel, but it has to do with who God is and His purposes in all He has done. The glory of God is the best world now and not our comfort and security now.

     LikeLike

296. D. G. Hart: Richard, when Christ says turn the other cheek, all men are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? So that is something the magistrate should do too?

     RS: Yes, the magistrate should turn the other cheek as well.

     D.G. Hart: You’re trying too hard. But it gets you points with Edwards who was all about trying hard.

     RS: But Edwards was not all about trying hard. Now that is a freshman mistake. But going back to a previous post;

     D.G. Hart: A lot of this does go down to how to interpret the Bible. If we want to know what God thinks of math, do we go to passages about weights and measures or do we say the Bible nothing to say about math as we know it (same with science, art, finance).

     RS: We say along with the WCF that what the Bible speaks directly to it speaks with authority. We then say that the Bible in speaking to matters of truth, justice, honesty and how to treat others speaks of how we are to do math, science, art, and son on.

     D.G. Hart: But you seem to think, because the Bible addresses the conditions of all men (it hardly addressed all men before the inventions of mass publishing and the rise of literacy), and magistrates are men, then the Bible addresses politics.

     RS: While the Bible does not specifically set out a political theory as such, it certainly tells us that the magistrates are to be honest rather than corrupt and seek justice versus injustice. A corrupt man will answer to God for his corruptness and a woman that is unjust will answer to God for her lack of justice. A magistrate can be blinded by the desire for contributions and perhaps being accepted by a group, but that is sinful. While it may not be the job of the Church or the minister to get to specific details in politics, surely as salt and light we are to proclaim the truth against the sins of corruptness, selfishness, and injustice.

     I truly am trying to understand your position. It seems so right in saying that Christians should focus on the Church rather than politics, but then seems to go back the other way in saying that the eternal truth of God should not be proclaimed in all situations.

     LikeLike

297. Erik Charter: Your Edwarsianism will irritate the politcal activists in your congregation the same way a 2K emphasis on Word & sacrament will irritate the Neocalvinists in ours. “Why is he focusing inward while the culture is going to hell?”

     RS: My spiritual gifts are evidently in the areas of irritation.

     LikeLike

298. Richard,

     It’s an unnecessary and unbiblical dichotomy you erect in your response. The WCF talks of our justifying faith RESTING in Christ. Jesus presents himself to his people as shepherd, Hen to chicks, ‘come unto me you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest’, not snuffing out a broken reed, our adoption which translates us from God-creator-judge to ‘ABBA’. Our response to God is not born of realizing God’s highest ultimate rational reason for being , and God does not appeal to our ‘naked sense’ of the majesty of God, but rather to our cursed situation and the need for ultimate remedy in overcoming death and eternal torment. Is there more to God than Fatherly love? Sure, but in maintaning the creator-creature distinction, He in no way diminishes Himself in His loving, comforting, assuring, wooing appeal to us as lost sheep and prodigal children. It’s the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. You’re trying too hard.

     LikeLike

299. I think Richard is arguing with Richard:

     Richard Smith

     Posted December 3, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

     D. G. Hart: Richard, when Christ says turn the other cheek, all men are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? So that is something the magistrate should do too?

     RS: Yes, the magistrate should turn the other cheek as well.

     Richard Smith

     Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

     Erik Charter: Richard – Would you join Doug in supporting the expansion of capital punishment to cover crimes that were punished with capital punishment in Old Testament Israel?

     RS: I would argue that we should examine the crimes that should be punished with capital punishment and perhaps expand them, but not necessarily follow all the laws that OT Israel did. The first word of God on the matter is that all sin deserved death. While all sin still deserves death, that does not mean that human beings are to put them to death for them now.

     Erik Charter: If so, exactly what does proclaiming the gospel to all people have to do with expanding capital punishment?

     RS: Well, for sure the person being put to death might want to hear it. The Gospel is only understood in the context of the dark background of sin. Capital punishment is not contrary to the Gospel, but instead the Gospel shines out with that punishment in the background. The Gospel (simply put at the moment) is about Christ saving sinners from the eternal, unceasing, and unmitigated wrath of almighty God. There is nothing contradictory about proclaiming the Gospel while pushing for capital punishment unless there is something contradictory about God commanding the Gospel to be preached at the same time He is calling people into eternity.

     LikeLike

300. RS: My spiritual gifts are evidently in the areas of irritation.

     Amen.

     LikeLike

301. Richard – Exactly how do you think the church should “proclaim the eternal truth of God” to the Magistrate? Invite politicians to church? Go and talk to them at the Capitol? Write letters? Hold press conferences? Be specific. And whatever your answer is, do you do it?

     LikeLike

302. Richard, if someone attacks your son, do you want the district attorney responsible for prosecuting the attacker to turn the other cheek? Might it not be possible to distinguish duties that are acceptable for some and not acceptable for others. If you don’t do this, then you end up an Anabaptist and say that Christians may never use the sword.

     LikeLike

303. sean: Richard, It’s an unnecessary and unbiblical dichotomy you erect in your response. The WCF talks of our justifying faith RESTING in Christ. Jesus presents himself to his people as shepherd, Hen to chicks, ‘come unto me you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest’, not snuffing out a broken reed, our adoption which translates us from God-creator-judge to ‘ABBA’. Our response to God is not born of realizing God’s highest ultimate rational reason for being , and God does not appeal to our ‘naked sense’ of the majesty of God, but rather to our cursed situation and the need for ultimate remedy in overcoming death and eternal torment. Is there more to God than Fatherly love? Sure, but in maintaning the creator-creature distinction, He in no way diminishes Himself in His loving, comforting, assuring, wooing appeal to us as lost sheep and prodigal children. It’s the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. You’re trying too hard.

     RS: But I think you are not trying hard enough. The only way you can rest in and on Christ alone is to rest on Him by grace alone. The only way we can rest on Christ alone by grace alone is to know and realize that God shows grace to the glory of His name and not for any reason found in us at all. God saves sinners by grace but to the praise of the glory of His grace. As long as I think He is showing me grace because of anything in me, whether because of self-righteousness or because of need, I am not looking to grace alone.

     LikeLike

304. Erik Charter: I think Richard is arguing with Richard:

     RS: Then you are not thinking (hard enough, at least in this case).

     Erik Charter quoting the truth stated by Richard Smith 1: Posted December 3, 2012 at 10:02 am | Permalink

     D. G. Hart: Richard, when Christ says turn the other cheek, all men are supposed to turn the other cheek, right? So that is something the magistrate should do too?

     RS: Yes, the magistrate should turn the other cheek as well.

     Erik Charter quoting the truth stated by Richard Smith 2: Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

     Erik Charter: Richard – Would you join Doug in supporting the expansion of capital punishment to cover crimes that were punished with capital punishment in Old Testament Israel?

     RS: I would argue that we should examine the crimes that should be punished with capital punishment and perhaps expand them, but not necessarily follow all the laws that OT Israel did. The first word of God on the matter is that all sin deserved death. While all sin still deserves death, that does not mean that human beings are to put them to death for them now.

     Erik Charter: If so, exactly what does proclaiming the gospel to all people have to do with expanding capital punishment?

     RS: Well, for sure the person being put to death might want to hear it. The Gospel is only understood in the context of the dark background of sin. Capital punishment is not contrary to the Gospel, but instead the Gospel shines out with that punishment in the background. The Gospel (simply put at the moment) is about Christ saving sinners from the eternal, unceasing, and unmitigated wrath of almighty God. There is nothing contradictory about proclaiming the Gospel while pushing for capital punishment unless there is something contradictory about God commanding the Gospel to be preached at the same time He is calling people into eternity.

     RS: Notice, Erik, a major difference or lack of distinction between what Dr. Hart asked and my response the the cap punishment issue. Should the magistrate turn the other cheek? You can take that question as referring to the magistrate as a private person, a public official, or perhaps as both. My answer to Dr. Hart was that of a private person. The magistrate should turn the other cheek in the context that Jesus meant it, since it was referring to private people. Let us then look at the magistrate as a public official upholding righteous laws. He should uphold righteous laws in a righteous way. Turning the other cheek, in the context Jesus gave it, was addressed to personal insults and not to situations where a magistrate was required to uphold the law. Therefore, should a magistrate turn the other cheek? Yes, in matters where people insult him. That has nothing to do with him applying righteous laws in a righteous manner.

     LikeLike

305. D. G. Hart: Richard, if someone attacks your son, do you want the district attorney responsible for prosecuting the attacker to turn the other cheek?

     RS: Yes, I would want him to obey God. But again, my wishes and wants should follow the Word of God as should all things.

     D.G. Hart: Might it not be possible to distinguish duties that are acceptable for some and not acceptable for others.

     RS: “Turning the other cheek” was not given to magistrates as something to follow as a public official. It was given to people as to what they should follow from the heart as to when one person insulted another person. The duty of a magistrate as a private person is to turn the other cheek which is the context of the text at hand. The duty of the magistrate is dispensing justice is a different issue.

     D.G. Hart: If you don’t do this, then you end up an Anabaptist and say that Christians may never use the sword.

     RS: I am just saying let “turn the other cheek” be left in its own context and applied to how private people respond from the heart to insults.

     LikeLike

306. Erik Charter: Richard – Exactly how do you think the church should “proclaim the eternal truth of God” to the Magistrate? Invite politicians to church? Go and talk to them at the Capitol? Write letters? Hold press conferences? Be specific. And whatever your answer is, do you do it?

     RS: When politicians are on the campaign trail, they might invite themselves to church (never happened with me). I would argue that pastors should preach and teach on righteous laws. In doing that, they are getting the word on that out. If a person has the opportunity to speak with politicians, then speak to them at that time. Write letters to the editors. At times God raises up men (private individuals) who go into politics. They should use that opportunity to speak of what righteous laws are. I do write letters and I do speak to people around me in various settings. No, I don’t think political activism by the churches is the right answer. But speaking about issues of justice and morality and making those things known is a way that the church should not remain silent.

     LikeLike

307. Richard – When we are discussing “The Magistrate” it is probably safe to assume that (most) everyone is talking about his public duties. I don’t care much what he is doing when he is off the clock.

     LikeLike

308. Richard – “No, I don’t think political activism by the churches is the right answer.”

     You stand with 2k guys and against (many) evangelicals/Neocalvinists/theonomists in this regard. Welcome to the club. Most of the things you are saying I don’t have a big problem with.

     LikeLike

309. Your tee-shirt and commemorative beer stein are in the mail.

     LikeLike

310. You’ll learn the secret handshake at the next meeting.

     LikeLike

311. Richard,

     You’re still trying to hard. BT says I’m in Christ, even elect, because He loves/loved me from eternity.

     LikeLike

312. Richard, right, and all I am doing in a 2k way is leaving the Bible in its redemptive-historical context — the movement from Israel to the church — not using it as a manual of earth, life, historical, or political sciences.

     LikeLike

313. Is the New Testament more focused on Christians teaching the law to their non-Christian neighbors or is it more focused on Christians serving their non-Christian neighbors?

     LikeLike

314. Erik Charter: Is the New Testament more focused on Christians teaching the law to their non-Christian neighbors or is it more focused on Christians serving their non-Christian neighbors?

     RS:
     Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

     LikeLike

315. Erik Charter: Richard – When we are discussing “The Magistrate” it is probably safe to assume that (most) everyone is talking about his public duties. I don’t care much what he is doing when he is off the clock.

     RS: But what if, while he is off the clock, he is being wined and dined by those who are suing you? What if, while off the clock, he is taking drugs or drinking heavily? What if the man is a perpetual liar while off the clock? Do these things matter while he is on the job? I think so.

     LikeLike

316. Richard, so we baptize them before we teach? You’re appealing to Scripture rather haphazardly today.

     LikeLike

317. Darryl: Don, you say you’ve not read VanDrunen or Hart and yet you describe three tenets of 2k belief. At least you’re doing better than John Frame. He’s read the books and he garbles 2k the way you do.

     Me: Again, Darryl, you have not digested what I said. I will say it more loudly. I HAVE READ DVD’S LGTK AND TOOK EXTENSIVE NOTES ON WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN. I have downloaded but not yet read your book, but am very familiar with your thinking based on this blog.

     Darryl: First, no 2ker says that the kingdoms correlate directly to church and state. Read VanDrunen.

     Me: If you buy into DVD that is what you are buying into. Specifically, on page 29, he says:

     Christians live under two kingdoms, governed respectively by the Noahic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant. Civil governments, families, economic associations, and many other cultural institutions continue to exist under the covenant with Noah, and Christians and non-Christians alike participate in them and, in many respects, cooperate in their activities. At Christ’s return these institutions and activities will come to a sudden and radical end. Yet Christians belong especially to the church, the New Testament manifestation of the special covenant community created in Abraham. Through the church they are citizens of heaven even now. This church — God’s redemptive kingdom in the present age — has a distinct membership, faith, worship, and ethic.

     DVD is separating out the visible church (as a worshiping community) into a completely separate kingdom from the kingdom that includes civil governments, families, economic associations, and many other cultural institutions. Instead of the term “state”, DVD uses the word common kingdom, or secular kingdom to characterize the non-Church kingdom, but there is essentially no difference in the terminology.

     Tuininga does not separate the church into another kingdom but rather says that “the visible church is the only corporate expression of the kingdom in this age”. In other words, the visible church is not equivalent to the eternal kingdom, but rather an expression of the eternal kingdom, still part of the temporal kingdom, or this secular age.

     His notion that his two kingdoms are governed by different covenants, Abrahamic covenant for the church, and Noahic covenant for all people actually made me laugh in light of how the Noahic covenant was established. God has just wiped out the entire human race, and now is making His covenant through the only righteous man and his family left on earth. This makes just the opposite point fromDVD’s explanation that God is making His covenant with the entire human race (which he has just wiped out) and the entire creation. No He is not!! He is making His covenant, as He makes all covenants, with His righteous man so that His covenant community will grow like the mustard seed becoming the largest tree in the garden, and establish justice on earth.

     I don’t have time to address your other points, but hope to later.

     LikeLike

318. “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you”

     And what did Jesus command his disciples regarding non-believers? Let’s start with his eating with tax collectors & sinners, the parable of the good Samaritan, and the parable of the prodigal son.

     LikeLike

319. Don, your use of “separate” twice doesn’t make it so that DVD separates them. The quotation you use actually undermines your point about two kingdoms and church and state. He mentions a variety of institutions and see them all as having authority of some kind. He does distinguish the church from other spheres. But that doesn’t qualify as separation unless you alone are the Webster of Webster’s Dictionary. I would hope you would also distinguish the church from the state, just as I would hope you’d distinguish the Abrahamic from the Noaic covenants.

     LikeLike

320. D. G. Hart: Richard, so we baptize them before we teach? You’re appealing to Scripture rather haphazardly today.

     RS: Horrid, perish the thought. Disciples were to be baptized. But Jesus told them that all authority hade been given to Him and that they were to make disciples of all the nations. At some point, then, all must be told the commands of Christ.

     LikeLike

321. Don – Were all Noah’s offspring “righteous men”? Has God broken the covenant he made with Noah or is it still in existence? Who does it apply to today?

     LikeLike

322. Richard: But what if, while he is off the clock, he is being wined and dined by those who are suing you? What if, while off the clock, he is taking drugs or drinking heavily? What if the man is a perpetual liar while off the clock? Do these things matter while he is on the job? I think so.

     I would hate to be your barber, your heating & cooling guy, or your garbage man. You have high stanards for those that serve you in the common realm.

     I don’t want a reprobate for a Magistrate either, but some “clean living” politicians like Jimmy Carter & George W. Bush have been pretty lousy Presidents.

     LikeLike

323. Erik Charter: “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you”

     And what did Jesus command his disciples regarding non-believers? Let’s start with his eating with tax collectors & sinners, the parable of the good Samaritan, and the parable of the prodigal son.

     RS: He commanded them to make disciples of all the nations and to teach them all that He taught them. One thing He taught them was that the law applied to the depths of the soul (see Matthew 5:16-48) and that if a person loved Him they would obey His commands. I added a few verses for those with understanding. Others may complain that I did not take the time to interpret each one.

     John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
     1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha.
     1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
     1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

     LikeLike

324. Richard – I affirm the passages you cited. How do you interpret the passages I cited?

     LikeLike

325. Hint – Do you hold unbelievers to the same standard that you hold yourself? If so, why? If not, why not?

     LikeLike

326. Erik asks: Christ could come back tonight, could he not?

     No he could not Erik, have you considered Psalm 72? What verse do you see teaching an any moment in of the age?

     LikeLike

327. Richard, you wrote: “The duty of a magistrate as a private person is to turn the other cheek which is the context of the text at hand. The duty of the magistrate is dispensing justice is a different issue.” Now you’re beginning to make distinctions between people and offices. Careful, next you might end up saying it’s one thing to behave personally and another to behave politically, as in it’s impermissible for a Christian civilian to kill but a Christian cop may do so and he may be the same man. Or you might end up saying this one may have a political view on legislation that involves human life that zigs one way while another zags another but neither may take life in their own persons.

     In any case, doesn’t turning the other cheek depend on what sort of enemy we have? If our enemy is one who mows down our children’s classroom, law is applied (eye for eye). If our enemy mows down our church, gospel (turned cheek). I’m not saying it’s always easy to discern when to use force in response or passivity, but I get the sense that American Christians can get it quite backward, as in fighting for religious rights and letting plain bad behavior go in the misguided name of forgiveness.

     LikeLike

328. Richard, but the text says baptize and then teach. Why won’t you be biblical?

     LikeLike

329. Richard, too many holy affections yesterday? Think about it. If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Teach that to a magistrate. Say hello to theocracy.

     LikeLike

330. Erik Charter: Richard… I would hate to be your barber, your heating & cooling guy, or your garbage man. You have high stanards for those that serve you in the common realm.

     RS: I would hate for you to be my barber, heating and cooling guy, or garbage man. I must admit, however, that you have given a lot of garbage. I would have to hold you to account if you were doing those things.

     Erik Charter: I don’t want a reprobate for a Magistrate either, but some “clean living” politicians like Jimmy Carter & George W. Bush have been pretty lousy Presidents.

     RS: Men who are given to false religion are not necessarily clean living politicians. The may be cleaner on the outside like whitewashed tombs, but in the inside…

     LikeLike

331. Erik Charter
     Hint – Do you hold unbelievers to the same standard that you hold yourself? If so, why? If not, why not?

     RS: The standard is the same since the standard is God Himself. All people are commanded to love God with all of their being, both the inner and outer man.

     LikeLike

332. D. G. Hart: Richard, but the text says baptize and then teach. Why won’t you be biblical?

     RS: But of course, sir, before one baptizes them they must be taught the Law so that they can see what vile sinners they are and so are in need of Christ. It is like Paul who as a religious man he thought he knew what it meant to covet, but then when the Spirit gave a spiritual insight he died to the law as a way of salvation.

     LikeLike

333. D. G. Hart: Richard, too many holy affections yesterday?

     RS: No, not enough.

     D.G. Hart: Think about it. If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Teach that to a magistrate. Say hello to theocracy.

     RS: But if we don’t teach that to a magistrate, then we are not teaching people the Gospel. Say hello to disobedience. God makes His people willing in the day of His power, but we don’t know when that day will be. So we are to proclaim the standards of the living God and tell people the Gospel regardless of their position in life. Are you more afraid of people that love God with all of their heart than of those who hate Him? I would think that if we are to seek for and pray for His kingdom above all that we would want others to be in that kingdom as well regardless of their position in life. Surely what you are afraid of is a theocracy where the OT laws are forced on people. But what if God changed their hearts and were made willing to follow Him in love? Would that be so bad? Would it be so bad to have an increasing number of true believers as magistrates who sought to have righteous laws out of love for God and man? Are you afraid that they will take away your alcohol and cigars?

     LikeLike

334. Zrim: Richard, you wrote: “The duty of a magistrate as a private person is to turn the other cheek which is the context of the text at hand. The duty of the magistrate is dispensing justice is a different issue.”

     Zrim: Now you’re beginning to make distinctions between people and offices. Careful, next you might end up saying it’s one thing to behave personally and another to behave politically, as in it’s impermissible for a Christian civilian to kill but a Christian cop may do so and he may be the same man. Or you might end up saying this one may have a political view on legislation that involves human life that zigs one way while another zags another but neither may take life in their own persons.

     RS: I don’t think my position necessarily involves doing that, though Joe Biden says it is true of him. But please don’t put those chains back on me. It is not permissible for a Christian cop to kill for personal reasons though it is permissible for a Christian cop to kill while on duty or off duty in self-defense or in protecting the lives of others.

     Zrim: In any case, doesn’t turning the other cheek depend on what sort of enemy we have?

     RS: Perhaps, but in the context of what Jesus was saying it was more in the line of a personal insult. A slap in the face was an insult more than an assault. So turn the cheek means to accept the insult rather than try to get revenge.

     Zrim: If our enemy is one who mows down our children’s classroom, law is applied (eye for eye). If our enemy mows down our church, gospel (turned cheek).

     RS: Murder is murder regardless of where it is. All are made in the image of God.

     Zrim: I’m not saying it’s always easy to discern when to use force in response or passivity, but I get the sense that American Christians can get it quite backward, as in fighting for religious rights and letting plain bad behavior go in the misguided name of forgiveness.

     RS: I would quite agree with your what you say just above, which makes me wonder if I have misunderstood you.

     LikeLike

335. Richard – When the tee-shirt & commemorative beer stein arrive, mark “return to sender” on the package. You were close, but I don’t think you’re quite ready yet.

     Doug – So you’re postmillennial as well as a theonomist? I should have known. You need to move to Moscow. They are anxiously awaiting you.

     LikeLike

336. Erik Charter: Richard – When the tee-shirt & commemorative beer stein arrive, mark “return to sender” on the package. You were close, but I don’t think you’re quite ready yet.

     RS: I will put “return to sinner” on the package.

     LikeLike

337. Erik Charter quoting RS: My spiritual gifts are evidently in the areas of irritation.

     Erik Charter: Amen.

     RS: See, you are still a fundamentalist Baptist down deep. Grand Avenue style.

     LikeLike

338. Richard, we are a long way from the United States, which was the point of origin for this banter. You said you had questions about the U.S. as a secular polity. Do you believe that secular polities are wrong, illegitimate in the sight of God? You seem to think so. And that suggests that you think a government needs to promote Christianity to be legitimate. The way to do this, reading between the lines of your comments, is to teach the magistrate God’s law. This will apparently lead the magistrate to implement God’s laws and undo a secular society.

     But none of this squares with the legitimacy of magistrates who persecute Christians (Rom. 13). Nor does it square with this period of human history where believers live in societies with non-believers. We don’t live in Israel any more.

     All you seem to keep saying is the law of God, the law of God. You don’t actually address the circumstances in which the NT was written, what the Bible actually says about politics, and the difference between the nation of Israel and the spiritual government of the church.

     The church proclaims God’s law in a host of ways. I am part of a congregation and denominational committee that does so. We don’t rent buses to travel to Washington and hold special training sessions for federal officials in God’s law. I’m not ashamed of God’s law. Folks who don’t know what to do with it in a society comprised of believers and non-believers make me a little jumpy.

     LikeLike

339. Richard – I grew up going to Grand Avenue Baptist Church (in high school, at least). It’s now Grand Avenue Church. There is a church in Ankeny called Saylorville Baptist Church that is also dropping the “Baptist”. What is going on with churches dropping “baptist” from their names? Maybe instead of Providence Reformed Church my church should go with “Providence Church” or just “Providence”? There is an RCA church in Ankeny called “The Ridge”. I’m not sure if it’s a church or a geological feature. We all need to knock this off and quit trying to be hip. Once we suck people in and they learn we are not down with women ministers and homosexuality the veneer of hipness will have worn off anyway.

     LikeLike

340. D. G. Hart: Richard, we are a long way from the United States, which was the point of origin for this banter. You said you had questions about the U.S. as a secular polity. Do you believe that secular polities are wrong, illegitimate in the sight of God? You seem to think so. And that suggests that you think a government needs to promote Christianity to be legitimate. The way to do this, reading between the lines of your comments, is to teach the magistrate God’s law. This will apparently lead the magistrate to implement God’s laws and undo a secular society.

     RS: I would not argue that secular politics as such are wrong or illegitimate. I also don’t argue that a government needs to promote Christianity to be legitimate. However, I am arguing that nature and the Bible have the same author and the Bible interprets nature. I also argue that if a magistrate wants true justice and righteous laws s/he will need to hear from the Church to do so. Along the same lines, as all people will be judged by righteous standards, the magistrate needs to hear that s/he will be judged by the standards of God. On the other hand, since Christ resides in the heart of His people and thus His kingdom is primarily spiritual, the only way for a true theocracy to happen is for all people to have Christ. One cannot pass laws and make Christians.

     I do not claim to have a perfect balance of even to have much understanding on this issue. I am honestly trying to understand it. But it seems quite basic that all men will answer to God for how they live and that includes passing just and righteous laws. It also seems quite basic that the Bible is needed in order to understand justice and righteousness. Another basic is that the Church is to proclaim the kingdom of God and be salt and light in the society. How that fits together I can’t quite see and am looking at 2K, but it seems to come short of some of the basics in this paragraph while being quite strong in teaching the Church not to try to advance the kingdom through politics.

     D.G. Hart: But none of this squares with the legitimacy of magistrates who persecute Christians (Rom. 13). Nor does it square with this period of human history where believers live in societies with non-believers. We don’t live in Israel any more.

     RS: God has established all governments and will continue to do so. I can’t and don’t argue against that, but it still seems that if we are going to proclaim the Gospel to the nations that the magistrates would be included. Indeed we don’t live in Israel and I am relieved to hear it.

     D.G. Hart: All you seem to keep saying is the law of God, the law of God. You don’t actually address the circumstances in which the NT was written, what the Bible actually says about politics, and the difference between the nation of Israel and the spiritual government of the church.

     RS: The Law is good and holy. The Law is good and holy. But of course there is a difference between the nation of Israel (then) and the spiritual nature of the Church. But the Church is supposed to proclaim the kingdom of the living God and His sovereign rights over all, though of course that does not mean forcing external obedience in all things through the Law. But it does not mean that we should not proclaim the truth of the holiness of God and the coming judgment upon all and so the Gospel is a must.

     D.G. Hart: The church proclaims God’s law in a host of ways. I am part of a congregation and denominational committee that does so. We don’t rent buses to travel to Washington and hold special training sessions for federal officials in God’s law. I’m not ashamed of God’s law. Folks who don’t know what to do with it in a society comprised of believers and non-believers make me a little jumpy.

     RS: You must be a very jumpy fellow with a lot of tics here and there. Edwards gives you the willies and now all these other people make you jumpy. It is enough to arouse my sympathetic affections.

     LikeLike

341. Erik Charter: Richard – I grew up going to Grand Avenue Baptist Church (in high school, at least). It’s now Grand Avenue Church. There is a church in Ankeny called Saylorville Baptist Church that is also dropping the “Baptist”. What is going on with churches dropping “baptist” from their names? Maybe instead of Providence Reformed Church my church should go with “Providence Church” or just “Providence”? There is an RCA church in Ankeny called “The Ridge”. I’m not sure if it’s a church or a geological feature. We all need to knock this off and quit trying to be hip. Once we suck people in and they learn we are not down with women ministers and homosexuality the veneer of hipness will have worn off anyway.

     RS: Another thing is that people now see denominations as bad and they are trying to take out all distinctions.

     LikeLike

342. DGH quirries: Do you believe that secular polities are wrong, illegitimate in the sight of God?

     Bingo! Now you’re catching on! Darryl, perhaps you can explain how secular polites are good or glorifyng to God?

     LikeLike

343. Richard, the hang up here appears to be your insistence that justice and righteousness only come from the Bible. In a sense, that’s true. In an ultimate sense, Scripture is the norm the gospel is our only hope. But in a proximate sense for living between the times, do we try to implement or even expect ultimate justice and righteousness. We don’t even have that in the church. How would we ever expect that in society?

     Then again, I do not think the Bible is necessary or sufficient for proximate justice in the political realm. Would you really refuse to go before a civil judge who was not a believer or who refused to use the Bible as his norm? It wouldn’t even work for lawn tennis. Umpires and line judges are not using the Bible even though they try to be just and fair in their judgments.

     LikeLike

344. Doug, if you’d read any book on 2k you’d know that secular does not mean anti-God. It means temporal, as in the age between the comings of Christ. This is an Augustinian (even Pauline) construction. All governments this side of glory are secular, even ones that claim to be Christian. The church is a holy institution but it will because secular also pass away or consummated in a different form. Any government that maintains a modicum of order is honoring God whether intentionally or not. If Christians could honor Nero, you can honor governments that don’t execute kidnappers. Sure you can.

     LikeLike

345. Erik asks “exactly how do you think the church should “proclaim the eternal truth of God” to the Magistrate? Invite politicians to church? Go and talk to them at the Capitol? Write letters? Hold press conferences? Be specific. And whatever your answer is, do you do it?

     How about the greater body of Christ joining together in unity and praying the Lord’s Prayer in faith? Isn’t the battle primarily spiritual anyway? What was the early church doing when Peter was freed from jail? Praying together in unity and seeking God’s face, amen? I almost get the feeling, (I hope I’m wrong) that you don’t think prayer, is doing anything. How can we pray in unity, when you don’t even seem to believe God could or will change our nation collectively? The battle belongs to the Lord; let’s press on to the higher calling found in Christ Jesus! Be of good cheer, nothing is to hard for our God.

     Rest in his completed work,

     LikeLike

346. D. G. Hart: Richard, the hang up here appears to be your insistence that justice and righteousness only come from the Bible. In a sense, that’s true. In an ultimate sense, Scripture is the norm the gospel is our only hope. But in a proximate sense for living between the times, do we try to implement or even expect ultimate justice and righteousness. We don’t even have that in the church. How would we ever expect that in society?

     RS: While we don’t expect perfect justice in the church, surely we should strive for that as the goal. If that is not the goal, then we have less than perfection as the standard we go by and so when we miss that we have an even lesser goal and… It is not that we expect society to practice perfect justice either, but if there is no real goal of justice then there is no goal at all other than simply getting by or perhaps lining the pockets of those in power.

     D.G. Hart: Then again, I do not think the Bible is necessary or sufficient for proximate justice in the political realm.

     RS: I would argue that the Bible sets out what justice is and gives us the perfect example of it. All realms should look to that. I would also argue that apart from the Bible no one can interpret true justice from the natural realm either. Fallen creatures interpreting true justice from fallen creation doth not even a decent standard of justice come from.

     D.G. Hart: Would you really refuse to go before a civil judge who was not a believer or who refused to use the Bible as his norm? It wouldn’t even work for lawn tennis. Umpires and line judges are not using the Bible even though they try to be just and fair in their judgments.

     RS: No, I would not refuse to go before a civil judge who was not a believer, but I would also recognize the fact that he is not interested in true justice. Unbelievers are motivated out of self-interest, though that is hidden beneath many layers at times. If umpites and line judges do not have the God of the Bible as their standard, then they have no real reason to be just and fair in their judgments. Their hearts are deceptive and while they may try to be just and fair, they can be moved and/or blinded by other things. Fallen men are fallen in all areas of life apart from redemption and apart from the character of God revealed.

     LikeLike

347. DGH says: Doug, if you’d read any book on 2k you’d know that secular does not mean anti-God.

     Nice try Darryl, but no cigars. Our secular school teachers, teach the Bible is a myth, (like believing in Zuez) that sodomy is a gender issue, that all sex is morally neutral as long as it’s consensual. They hand out birth control pills to girls as young as twelve for consenual sex without their parents permission. That is anti-God to the bone! How can you even argue the point? How can teaching behavior God calls an abomination be suddenly morally okay? Moreover, these secular teachers say it’s hateful to testify to God’s Word, they call it hate speech. And you have the gall to say secular is not anti-God?

     LikeLike

348. RS: I would argue that the Bible sets out what justice is and gives us the perfect example of it. All realms should look to that. I would also argue that apart from the Bible no one can interpret true justice from the natural realm either.

     Good job Richard! You just expressed the heart of what I think it means to be theonomic. By what standard should we determin what socio political justice is, if not God’s own word? To bolster your statement, DGH is clueless on the correct punishment for a child molestor today. Why could that queston flummox him, so?, Because he refuses to look at Secial Revelaion to instruct our naton today! What a tragedy!

     LikeLike

349. Darryl: Don, your use of “separate” twice doesn’t make it so that DVD separates them. The quotation you use actually undermines your point about two kingdoms and church and state. He mentions a variety of institutions and see them all as having authority of some kind. He does distinguish the church from other spheres. But that doesn’t qualify as separation unless you alone are the Webster of Webster’s Dictionary. I would hope you would also distinguish the church from the state, just as I would hope you’d distinguish the Abrahamic from the Noaic covenants.

     Me: Of course I distinguish the church visible from the state, but the church visible is still part of this age, not identical with the heavenly kingdom in the age to come. I am totally comfortable with Tuininga’s expression that “the visible church is the only corporate expression of the kingdom in this age, but DVD most definitely treats the church as though it is the same as the heavenly kingdom on earth and therefore necessarily separate from the state or “common kingdom”. To back up this claim here are just a few, of multiple statements he makes in LGTK:.

     The church is the only institution and community in this world that can be identified with the redemptive kingdom and the covenant of grace. (102)

     The church, as the kingdom of heaven on earth, must imitate the Lord Jesus . . . (114)

     Want to see the kingdom of heaven here and now? Look at a faithful church of the Lord Jesus Christ. (116)

     The church is the only earthly institution that can identify itself with the redemptive kingdom. To have fellowship with the church is to have fellowship with the kingdom of heaven. (133)

     The church is the redemptive kingdom here on earth. (141)

     The statements above are completely consistent with what DVD says in Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms where he declares,

     According to this doctrine, God rules the as redeemer in Jesus Christ and rules the state and all other social institutions (the civil kingdom) as creator and sustainer, and thus these two kingdoms have significantly different ends, functions, and modes of operation.

     In other words, he justifies the difference in the ends, functions, and modes of the church on the basis that it is the “spiritual” and “heavenly” kingdom which by definition (not Webster but scripture and confessions) separates it from the physical/non-spiritual and non-heavenly state or common kingdom which is only of this age, and temporal.

     Of course, this thinking is in direct opposition to scripture which clearly refers to the visible church as a mixed bag of wheat and tares not to be sifted until the future harvest when the visible church gives way to the heavenly kingdom. This is also why, contra DVD, the church is to view itself as being the yeast mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough, i.e., this common, temporal kingdom. If the church is the heavenly kingdom already, of course it must remain separate, as DVD teaches.

     If this is how the visible church is viewed, I fear that the church might return to disciplinary violence to rid itself of any impurities.

     LikeLike

350. Erik says: When we are discussing “The Magistrate” it is probably safe to assume that (most) everyone is talking about his public duties. I don’t care much what he is doing when he is off the clock.

     So it was okay for Pesident Bill Clinton to commit adultey with Monica Lewenski?

     So it was okay for General Peteraous to commit adultey as long as he was off the clock? Should we change the law and legalize adultrey for our officers in our MIlitary? If not, why not?

     LikeLike

351. Doug,

     Do you have a category of wisdom? You understand that in Clinton or Patraeus’ case these aren’t legislated so as to uphold God’s righteous standard, but to guard against exposure to blackmail, espionage, morale (don’t sleep with the other general’s wife, it hurts brigade cohesiveness and necessary comaraderie). Don’t sleep with your intern cuz it’s an abuse of power and undue influence-sexual harassment. These aren’t legislated with God’s judgement in mind, but temporal and safety concerns.

     LikeLike

352. Doug: These aren’t legislated with God’s judgement in mind, but temporal and safety concerns.

     Me: But Doug, don’t forget that 2k believes that the church is already the heavenly kingdom, so don’t worry about temporal and safety concerns unless they prevent the church from living in its heavenly realm. And they can’t really do that because the church is the spiritual kingdom, so how can the physical realm possibly keep the spiritual realm from being spiritual and heavenly.

     And don’t worry if the culture goes down the tubes, because the church, as a heavenly kingdom is not part of this worldly kingdom, That is the same as saying that the church should concern itself with earthly things which will only impede us from focusing on the really spiritual things.

     So Doug, like Paul advised Timothy to take a little wine for his ailment, you will probably need a lot of wine and maybe a little LSD to really free yourself from this earthly existence and join the heavenly realm.

     LikeLike

353. Doug – I tuned in some local conservative talk radio yesterday. The host was “sounding the alarm” as you are always doing. The question is, why does it surprise her and you that sinners sin? Other than the gospel going forth, what is the remedy? I affirm what you are saying about prayer, but are you really content with only that? If so, we don’t disagree. You seem to have a larger agenda, though.

     LikeLike

354. I for one am tired of playing the whack-a-mole game with the political, cultural, and religious left. God’s judgment awaits these fools, I’m not going to spend my life trying to hasten it.

     LikeLike

355. Sean says “Do you have a category of wisdom?”

     Me: Yes, that takes care of everything in this temporal realm. Wisdom without any connection whatsoever to scripture.

     LikeLike

356. Don why can’t individual citizens involve themselves in culture? Why must the institution of the church – which necessitates politicization of the pulpit – be responsible for culture?

     LikeLike

357. Richard, if you read more straight (as opposed to theological) conservatives, you might realize that some of the most bloody regimes in human history were striving for perfect justice. Don’t immanentize the eschaton (theologically or politically). Did Paul want perfect justice? Or did he want to die?

     LikeLike

358. Doug, I can argue the point because I read more than newspapers. What you call secular I call public.

     LikeLike

359. Don, you misread VanDrunen. He is saying nothing different from the Confession which talks about the visible church as the kingdom of Christ, church officers as holding the keys of the kingdom, and church councils as not meddling in civil affairs.

     If you want Newbiggin and Schmemann, fine, have them. But you can’t portray DVD or me as saying anything different from what the Confessions teach about the nature of the church and its functions, which are distinct from all other institutions, and which are holy compared to the common ones of other institutions.

     No 2ker would deny that the church is made up of wheat and tares. It’s still the kingdom of Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

     LikeLike

360. D. G. Hart: Richard, if you read more straight (as opposed to theological) conservatives, you might realize that some of the most bloody regimes in human history were striving for perfect justice.

     RS: But of course I would argue that. One cannot be a bloody regime and from the heart be striving for real justice with a real standard.

     D.G. Hart: Don’t immanentize the eschaton (theologically or politically).

     RS: I don’t think I do, though I see why you would argue with that. I do, however, see that restraining grace uses the Law and perfect justice to do so.

     D.G. Hart: Did Paul want perfect justice?

     RS: Yes, I think he did.

     D.G. Hart: Or did he want to die?

     RS: He did not want to die but instead He wanted to live which is to be with Christ. Whatever the case, he said it would be better to depart and be with Christ, but he thought it was better for others (and the glory of God which is what is good for others) that he would stay. Either way, he just wanted more of God.

     LikeLike

361. Darryl,

     So are you saying that the WCF equates the visible church with the spiritual/heavenly kingdom as DVD does?

     You are the one who raised my Vos quote with a Tuininga quote, and Tuininga is not willing to go as far as his mentor. Tuininga says “the visible church is the only corporate expression of the kingdom in this age”. I suggest this is one coherent way to refer to the visible church as the kingdom of Christ.

     You could also say that the visible church is the kingdom of Christ because it is the only institution on earth that professes Christ as King which flows from the immediately preceding statement of WCF which says that the visible church “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion.”

     But as soon as you equate or identify the visible church with the spiritual/heavenly kingdom, you have taken it out of the visible realm, which is clearly incoherent.

     Perhaps that is why you just can’t get your head around any kind of sacramental view of creation.

     LikeLike

362. DGH says: Did Paul want perfect justice? Or did he want to die?

     Is that really a fair either, or? Paul did say, the law is good if it’s used lawfuly. And what would be a good use of God’s good law for Paul? Why for punishing evil doers who commit rape, sodomy, child molesting, murder, children who beat their parents and thieves. See 1 Tim 1:8-13

     Paul said that these penal sanctions were in accordance with the gospel. How could you have missed this new covenant theonomic testomony.

     LikeLike

363. Doug, you speak of secular schools the way my fundies do. But believe it or not, most teachers are just trying to get Johnny and Suzie to grasp the 3Rs. And most find culture war rhetoric of whatever variety nothing but a distraction to fulfilling their common vocation. Yours is just one more example of a special interest group that wants to make education about more than the 3Rs. Again, more in common with liberals than with conservatives. Have you ever read WA Strange’s “Children in the Early Church”? You with modern inclinations would be shocked, just shocked, to learn how early Christians sent their children to common schools that promoted paganism. If not, here’s a taste:

     The early Christians lived in a society whose values were inimical to them in many respects. The pagan society around them was underpinned by a religion which they considered false, if not demonic; it was characterized by moral values they could not share; and it was entered into by an education steeped in paganism. So we might expect the early Christians to try to protect their young by providing some alternative form of education which would keep them free from the temptations and snares of the pagan world in which they lived. They had, after all, the example of the Jewish synagogue schools. But, rather surprisingly, the Christians did not take that course for several centuries. There was no fiercer critic of paganism than Tertullian (c. 160-c.225), but even he accepted the necessity for young people to share in the education on offer at pagan schools. His chosen image to describe the Christian pupil’s situation as he read the pagan authors whose work formed the ancient syllabus, was that of someone offered poison to drink, but refusing to take it (On Idolatry 10).

     The young Origen (born c.185 AD)…is said to have received extra instruction in the Scriptures from his father, Leonides, each day before he set out for his secular schooling (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.2.7f.)…Here was a devout Christian father, later to be martyred for the gospel, who was nonetheless willing for his son to attend school, and follow the normal curriculum of the pagan classics. Origen himself became an enthusiast for secular education as a preparation for Biblical study, and in later life urged it on those who came to him for instruction (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.18.4: NE 192).

     “We hear of no Christian schooling outside the home in the early centuries. A century after Clement had written to Corinthian fathers and husbands to ‘instruct the young in the fear of God,’ the same pattern of family responsibility can be seen in Origen’s Alexandria. Christian parents were still content for their children to share a common education with their pagan neighbors, and the church was slow to copy the synagogue in providing an alternative pattern of schooling. Even when John Chrysostom (c.347-407) wrote the first Christian treatise on the education of children (On the Vainglory of the World and on the Education of Children), he addressed himself to parents, and said nothing about sending children to specifically Christian schools. The first Christian schools seem to have been those founded by the monasteries from the fourth century onwards (Marrou 1965 472-84).

     “It is worth asking why Christians did not take the opportunity to create their own schools. If we take the comparison with the Jewish community, one reason must have been that there was no need for Christian children to learn a sacred language; their Jewish contemporaries had to learn Hebrew. Those who spoke Greek could read the New Testament in its original language, and the Old testament in Greek translation. And the New Testament Scriptures were rapidly translated into the various languages of the Mediterranean. Further, Christians did not see themselves as culturally distinct from their neighbours. An anonymous writer of the late second century expressed eloquently how Christians were in the world, but not of it:

     For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind by country, or by speech, or by dress. For they do not dwell in cities of their own, or use a different language, or practise a peculiar speech…But while they dwell in Greek or barbarian cities according as each man’s lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the land in clothing and food, and other matters of daily life, yet the condition of citizenship which they exhibit is wonderful, and admittedly strange…Every foreign land is to them a fatherland, and every fatherland a foreign land. (Epistle to Diognetus 6.1-5: NE 55).

     “To set up their own separate educational provision would have been to withdraw from the common life they shared with their pagan neighbours. And, while they recognized the dangers and allure of paganism, the early Christians saw no need to do that. They let their children ‘share in the instruction which is in Christ’ (1 Clement), and they allowed them access to education for the wider pagan society. They were not trying to create a Christian ghetto, but to be salt and light in their world. Their attitude to their children’s education was an expression of this open yet critical attitude.

     The early church seems to have had a better grasp on the understanding that secular does not mean anti-God.

     LikeLike

364. Doug – Does a day go by that you don’t think or write about sex crimes? Even I am getting a bit queasy.

     LikeLike

365. Wow, Zrim. Mindblowing stuff.

     The Neocals just issued a fatwa with your name on it.

     The best inoculation for a Christian against the things that go on in public school is going to public school. By the time you are done with it you are pretty wise if you have survived the experience. It’s like the OPC – the best church around — if you can stand it.

     LikeLike

366. Only in public school do you truly learn what a real idiot looks like. You also learn there are an endless number of places where teenagers can go to drink keg beer. The people setting up those affairs learned valuable lessons in entrepreneurship. A $2 cover charge beats working at McDonalds any day of the week. Ames High Aims High!

     LikeLike

367. Zrim says: Doug, you speak of secular schools the way my fundies do.

     So? Machen was for christian schools, was he a fundie?

     LikeLike

368. Doug, being for Christian schools doesn’t a fundie make. Opposing secular schools because secular is synonymous with anti-God does.

     LikeLike

369. Erik, neo-Cal fatwas are so gay.

     LikeLike

370. Erik,

     I’ll one up ya. Try catholic school girls and boys trying to live down their choir boy/girl reputations. Never mind the nuns who didn’t care for the male gender at any age or Irish catholic priests fresh off the boat who knew nothing off the potential legal ramifications of corporal punishment and their preference for boxing your ears when they’d had enough or you fell asleep in their class.

     Doug,

     The catholic educators get their biblical theology wrong but they happen to be great educators.

     LikeLike

371. MM asks Don why can’t individual citizens involve themselves in culture?

     Excuse me for jumping in Mike, but we can and do involve ourselves in culture all the time, every day. but if someone wants to press the issue on what’s proper for our general society, on basic moral issues, then I’m ready to stand of the Rock of God’s word for moral principles values and precepts. The Bible should be the final court of appeal when it’s clearly understood. Now, if I’m not applying God’s word correctly, then I need to be shown the err of my thinking But if we can’t appeal to God’s word, we are going to waste a lot of time. By what standard do you determine basic moral precepts if not the written word of God?

     LikeLike

372. Don, I don’t see any different between the church holds the keys of the kingdom (the only institution to do so) and the church is the only expression of the heavenly kingdom in this era. But your concern seems to be — you haven’t really explained what your view of the kingdom is, you simply come here to kvetch — that 2k says the church is not visible or of this world. Well, I said the VISIBLE church is the kingdom of Christ. That’s what the confession says. I am visible. I am an officer in the church. I exercise discipline. But these visibilities are only expressions of spiritual realities. You can’t see the Spirit.

     You also seem — again, you don’t explain yourself positively — to think that if the church is visible or in this world then somehow that allows you to affirm Schemann and Newbiggin and all the recreation stuff. I don’t see how that is the case. The church’s means are limited. It’s not redeeming cities or aerobics. Cities and aerobics haven’t sinned.

     LikeLike

373. Darryl: Don, I don’t see any different between the church holds the keys of the kingdom (the only institution to do so) and the church is the only expression of the heavenly kingdom in this era.

     Me: You don’t seem to be following what I thought I had pretty clearly said. What I said is: “Tuininga says ‘the visible church is the only corporate expression of the kingdom in this age”. I suggest this is one coherent way to refer to the visible church as the kingdom of Christ.”” To make it clearer to you, I agree with Tuininga but Tuininga is not going as far as his mentor in saying that the church is a spiritual (i.e., invisible) kingdom. By saying that the church is the only institution that holds the keys of the kingdom is not saying that the visible church is the spiritual kingdom, but holds the keys (word, sacraments, and discipline) to the spiritual kingdom.

     Darryl: But your concern seems to be — you haven’t really explained what your view of the kingdom is, you simply come here to kvetch — that 2k says the church is not visible or of this world. Well, I said the VISIBLE church is the kingdom of Christ. That’s what the confession says. I am visible. I am an officer in the church. I exercise discipline. But these visibilities are only expressions of spiritual realities. You can’t see the Spirit.

     Me: Kvetch??? Do you mean that only people who agree with you are allowed to interact with you? Or, more likely, you mean that I only take delight in throwing logical impediments into your arguments. Since you allow me to continue interacting, I’ll assume the latter and say that I actually don’t like to cause conflict, but, for the sake of the Gospel, I am compelled.

     As far as explaining my view of the kingdom, I have on several occasions referred to Christ’s own words in the kingdom parables which portray the kingdom as one that will be distributed throughout the earth as seed, grow to be the largest in all the earth, penetrate into every crevice of creation, and comprise believers as well as non-believers who falsely profess Christ. I have said that the weapons this kingdom fights with are not the weapons of the world, including politics, but have divine power to demolish strongholds.

     According to Christ and the apostles, the kingdom is very physical and visible in the world not only in worship, but in acts of mercy and kindness (the parable of the good Samaritan), hospitality (I was a stranger and you invited me in), healing (I was sick and you looked after me), visiting the despondent (I was in prison and you came to visit me), teaching all (Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you), etc. You will argue that these are individuals, not the church, but that is to misunderstand the church as I maintain DVD does when he restricts the church only as a spiritual kingdom gathered for worship or to administer discipline. Jesus himself views individuals, whether in worship or not, as Christ when He asks Paul “why are you crucifying me?” Perhaps the best analogy of the visible church is as a light that is not meant to be hiddent in a clay jar or put under a bed , but on a stand, so that all may come and see the light.

     You rightly say that “these visibilities are only expressions of spiritual realities”, but you don’t seem to want to go as far as DVD to say that the church is a spiritual kingdom for as you say “You can’t see the Spirit. ” Amen — sounds like we are in perfect agreement.

     LikeLike

374. Don: “Jesus himself views individuals, whether in worship or not, as Christ”

     What???

     I don’t recall dying on a cross to save people from the Father lately. I also don’t recall living a sinless life or being born of a virgin.

     LikeLike

375. Theological systems where everyone is responsible for everything without distinction are not very helpful. We are finite beings with only 24 hours in a day. Similarly, systems where we are told to constantly plumb the depths of our own soul are not helpful. Be humble, realize our limits. You still have a meaningful faith when you are circumspect about it. Some people will just not rest in Christ. They always have to be stirring themselves, the church, and everyone around them up. They wear me out (and not in a good way).

     LikeLike

376. Don: “and say that I actually don’t like to cause conflict, but, for the sake of the Gospel, I am compelled.”

     Me: Don, two questions; 1) Do you believe that 2k puts the biblical gospel at risk?
     2) Do you likewise believe Amillenialism obscures and places the gospel at risk?

     LikeLike

377. Don, you’re doing a John Frame. Because believers, who are members of the kingdom, do works of mercy or through their vocations glorify God (which 2kers affirm), you seem to want to conclude that the kingdom is everywhere and is physical. This conflicts with Jesus’ own words that his kingdom is not of this world.

     Bottom line: what is the problem the 2k creates? If the church is only spiritual, only known by word, sacrament, and discipline, what happens? What goes wrong? I can think of plenty of things that go wrong when you view the kingdom as visible and physical. Constantine, the Social Gospel, the Religious Right, for starters.

     LikeLike

378. Don – Church as institution/church as organism is by no means a new idea. Go over to Kloosterman’s blog and you’ll find a roughly 20/80 split in emphasis between the two.

     LikeLike

379. Dave Brubeck died. Bummer. “Take Five” is one of the best songs ever.

     LikeLike

380. I love this “secular” music. I hope there will be plenty of TIME on the new earth (after Jesus comes again) to listen to more jazz

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc34Uj8wlmE&feature=share

     LikeLike

381. DGH says: The church’s means are limited. It’s not redeeming cities or aerobics. Cities and aerobics haven’t sinned.

     People make up cities, and they most certainly do sin, moreover, we are instructed to disciple every nation and teach all of God’s commandments. God has always put limits and boundaries on the corporate sin within a given nation. Look at how God describes his displeasure with cities.

     “Moreovre, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.” (Lev. 20:23)

     “It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart thta you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord you God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and jacob.” (Deut. 9:5)

     Pay extra close attention to this next passage!

     “For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.” (Deut. 18:12)

     Darryl, God doesnt have a double standard of morality, one for the Old Testament nations, and a new standard today.

     If God judged “cities” in times past, why wouldnt he do the same today? Is God double minded? Is God fickle?

     LikeLike

382. Darryl says: you seem to want to conclude that the kingdom is everywhere and is physical. This conflicts with Jesus’ own words that his kingdom is not of this world.

     Me: Jesus says the kingdom is everywhere, like salt, light and yeast. You have cited that verse to me on several occasions, and I have consistently responded that while of course the kingdom is not of this world, that is not the same as saying that the kingdom is not for this world.

     I have not read John Frame, so I am not familiar with his arguments. But you are carefully avoiding the core of the radical 2k doctrine which declares that the church is a spiritual/invisible kingdom. 2k may affirm that doing works of mercy glorify God, but Scripture teaches that they glorify God because they minister to Christ (“You did it for me”), the visible and public body of Christ.

     Derek.Jeter does not glorify God simply because he has great skill or does great works. Donald Trump does not glorify God when he builds another spectacular hotel. Good works are only good if they are done as servants to and for Jesus Christ. This is what Jesus means when he talks about yeast, salt and light – they are all done as people of the visible church, in a public way.

     Darryl says: Bottom line: what is the problem the 2k creates? If the church is only spiritual, only known by word, sacrament, and discipline, what happens? What goes wrong? I can think of plenty of things that go wrong when you view the kingdom as visible and physical. Constantine, the Social Gospel, the Religious Right, for starters.

     Me: Radical 2k theology seems a lot like the church of Ephesus in Rev 2, that could not tolerate wicked people, tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and found them false. They seem to be intently focused on puirty of doctrine (word, sacraments, and discipline). The church at Ephesus, however, had forsaken the love they had at first, and if they did not repent, Jesus threatened to remove their lampstand from its place. Our light will be hidden if the church thinks of itself fundamentally as a spiritual and invisible kingdom.

     LikeLike

383. Doug said: “God doesnt [sic] have a double standard of morality, one for the Old Testament nations, and a new standard today. If God judged ‘cities’ in times past, why wouldnt [sic] he do the same today? Is God double minded? Is God fickle?”

     This is a good example of how the theonomist doesn’t seem to grasp just how radically the coming of Christ changed things. The God of the OT is certainly the same God of the NT, and law and gospel are realities in both theocratic and exilic eras. But, Doug, I truly wonder what you think “it is finished” means. God isn’t double minded. Because of Christ he is satisfied.

     LikeLike

384. Sean says: Don, two questions; 1) Do you believe that 2k puts the biblical gospel at risk?
     2) Do you likewise believe Amillenialism obscures and places the gospel at risk?

     Me: Is that a trick question, Sean? The gospel is never at risk. The church will blow away the gates of hell. I do see serious problems with 2k as I mentioned to Darryl.

     Regarding amillenialism, there are all different shades, just as there are different shades of post millenialism. I believe the contemporary 2k doctrine is a radical form of amillenialism that sees the church much in the same way as premillenialism does – that it will be raptured off into heaven when Christ returns.

     I believe Scripture portrays the culmination of this age much differently than that. You may have heard the analogy of Christ’s return with the return of Roman Armies after a victorious battle. All the faithful would go out to meet them and escort them home with a jubilant celebration. In the same way, Christ and His heavenly kingdom will come, and all the saints, dead and and alive will meet Him in the air to escort Him to earth where God will dwell with man forever.

     In other words, earth and its inhabitants will be heavenized, or glorified, just as heaven is already glorified. We will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

     LikeLike

385. Don, really, the gospel is never at risk? Ever wonder what prompted the Reformation? But maybe giddiness for a sacramental view of life has a way of obscuring that the gospel is vulnerable in the hands of men.

     LikeLike

386. Don: Radical 2k theology seems a lot like the church of Ephesus in Rev 2, that could not tolerate wicked people, tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and found them false. They seem to be intently focused on puirty of doctrine (word, sacraments, and discipline). The church at Ephesus, however, had forsaken the love they had at first, and if they did not repent, Jesus threatened to remove their lampstand from its place. Our light will be hidden if the church thinks of itself fundamentally as a spiritual and invisible kingdom.

     Erik – This entire paragraph is a non-sequitur.

     You never actually say what we are supposed to be doing that we are not doing, Don. Press conferences? Newspaper ads? Does it requre me to buy a bullhorn? What?

     LikeLike

387. Don,

     After reading your response, which was a hedged response considering you described your interaction against 2k “as being compelled for the sake of the Gospel.” I have to conclude they’ve got you tagged just about right; immanentizing the eschaton. Let me get this right, God can garner glory from inanimate and soulless creation, but he can’t garner glory from a fallen creation made in His image? Pretty impotent God in my book. I’ll need to book that tee time for sunday mornings from now on.

     LikeLike

388. Erik Charter: You never actually say what we are supposed to be doing that we are not doing, Don. Press conferences? Newspaper ads? Does it requre me to buy a bullhorn? What?

     RS: It requires a bullhorn to speak forth bull loudly. : – )

     LikeLike

389. Don, it’s not our light. It’s God’s. And he has instituted ordinary means to accomplish his ends. You remind me of the church at Corinth. All glory, all the time.

     BTW, your fundamentalist slip is showing (sorry but your Ephesus charge is a pietistic low blow; not even Richard stoops that low). Jeter and Trump do too show the glory of God. Don’t you believe that man is created in the image of God? Do you really believe that sin destroys that image? Not even a hyper-Calvinist (as if I know any) believers that.

     LikeLike

390. Richard,

     I just type loudly.

     LikeLike

391. D. G. Hart: BTW, your fundamentalist slip is showing (sorry but your Ephesus charge is a pietistic low blow; not even Richard stoops that low).

     RS: I don’t stoop low, I just say we need to go deep into the heart.

     LikeLike

392. Zrim,do you have attention deficit disorder? When Jesus cried out it is finished, he was referring to the atonement, not socio political ethics and morality. Please re read 1 Tim 1:8-13 Paul says the penal sanctions are in accordance with the gospel. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!

     LikeLike

393. Doug – ” Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!”

     Erik- I wouldn’t expect you to be advocating for the legalization of marijuana, Doug.

     LikeLike

394. Doug – Good luck with the “socio political ethics and morality” with this guy as a bedfellow:

     Adelson to Keep Betting on the GOP

     By ALICIA MUNDY

     LAS VEGAS—After spending more than $100 million mostly on losing Republican election campaigns this year, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson said he planned to stay in the game and double down on his political donations.

     Mr. Adelson, who was one of the Republican Party’s biggest donors in 2012, will again give heavily to GOP candidates and conservative causes, he said in an interview, especially to state-level, antiunion initiatives.

     “I happen to be in a unique business where winning and losing is the basis of the entire business,” said Mr. Adelson, who directly backed one winning and eight losing candidates in the November election, including Mitt Romney. “So I don’t cry when I lose. There’s always a new hand coming up.”

     Mr. Adelson was approached by five GOP governors, including potential 2016 presidential contenders Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal during the Republican Governors Association conference last month in Las Vegas. So far, he said, he is noncommittal. The governors’ offices declined to comment.

     More Coverage

     Adelson: ‘I’m Basically a Social Liberal’
     Mr. Adelson, chairman and chief executive of Las Vegas Sands Corp., LVS -0.33% and his wife, Miriam, joined the top ranks of the 2012 campaign donors, alongside the industrialist Koch brothers on the Republican side and Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg for the Democrats.

     WorldStream

     WSJ’s Alicia Mundy discusses her exclusive interview with billionaire casino mogul and GOP fundraiser Sheldon Adelson.
     Mr. Adelson’s 2012 donations were double what he spent in 2008, and looking ahead, he said, he was ready to again “double” his donations.

     “I’ll spend that much and more,” he said in his first extensive postelection interview. “Let’s cut any ambiguity.”

     Forbes magazine estimates Mr. Adelson’s net worth at $21.5 billion. Last week, Sands approved a special dividend that will pay him about $1.2 billion. The casino company is one of the companies that approved such payments this year, ahead of potential tax increases that might come out of congressional budget negotiations.

     Federal campaign finance records show the couple gave about $55 million in publicly reported donations. The money included $20 million to Mr. Romney’s independent super PAC, Restore Our Future, and $15 million to the super PAC that almost single-handedly floated Newt Gingrich’s Republican primary campaign.

     Earlier

     Casino Mogul Adelson Loses Most Election Bets 11/9/2012
     Casino Mogul Aids Romney’s Backers 6/13/2012
     In addition, Mr. Adelson gave about $50 million to nonprofit conservative advocacy groups that don’t have to disclose their donors, including the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, according to GOP fundraisers and people close to Mr. Adelson. His undisclosed donations are credited by Republicans for helping the party keep its House majority.

     “When you have Sheldon say, ‘I believe in a cause,’ others will follow,” said Mr. Rove, who advised Mr. Adelson this year.

     Mr. Adelson wouldn’t reveal the total amount of his donations. He said he gave several million dollars to a conservative energy group, as well as “substantial” contributions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, about $6 million to the Republican Jewish Coalition and funds to a rabbi who lost a congressional race in New Jersey.

     Mr. Adelson backed one big winner, Sen. Dean Heller, a Republican from Nevada.

     “Adelson-backed candidates found themselves unable to buy the support of the American people,” said Michael Podhorzer, political director of the AFL-CIO union coalition.

     Mr. Adelson, 79 years old, said he has many friends in Washington, “but the reasons aren’t my good looks and charm. It’s my “pocket personality,” referring to his donations.

     His Las Vegas Sands Corp. is under investigation by the Dept. of Justice to determine whether it violated money-laundering laws by failing to report potentially suspicious financial transactions, according to people with knowledge of the probe. Sands has denied any wrongdoing.

     Mr. Adelson said Mr. Rove “shouldn’t take all the blame” for this year’s Republican losses. However, Mr. Adelson said as a “marketing guy” he has suggestions to help the GOP attract more “customers.” First, he said, avoid such social issues as abortion or stem-cell research.

     “We’re pro-abortion rights, pro stem-cell research,” said Mr. Adelson. He also favors the Dream Act, a law that would allow some illegal immigrants to attain legal status. As for health care, he said, “I’m in favor of a socialized-like health care,” similar to the system in Israel.

     The Adelsons also set up a medical-research foundation and two drug-addiction clinics. Mr. Adelson gives more money to charity than to politics, he said, and noted that some of his beliefs are at odds with GOP policy.

     What divides Mr. Adelson from the Democratic Party is his stand on unions, which have been unable to organize his workers. His flagship, the Venetian, is the only nonunion casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

     Mr. Adelson said he was likely to continue funding state-by-state efforts to curtail organized labor’s power, in particular by trying to overturn their use of collective bargaining agreements. That was a feature of high-stakes political fights this year in states including Ohio and Wisconsin.

     He described President Barack Obama’s winning margin in key swing states as “a rounding error.” Sitting at the end of a giant conference table in the Venetian casino, he grabbed his calculator and began clicking away. “What’s that come up to?” he said. “Look: .002%. Nothing!”

     Mr. Obama won the popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, or five million votes. The margin was 388,000 votes in Virginia, Florida and Ohio. The president would have won re-election even if he had lost those three swing states.

     Calling Mr. Romney a “good candidate,” Mr. Adelson said he wasn’t looking back at his losses.

     “I know in the long run we’re going to win,” he said.

     Write to Alicia Mundy at alicia.mundy@wsj.com

     LikeLike

395. Erik, you can’t possibly agree with Zrim, can you? Do you believe that when Jesus cried out “it is finished” he meant that’s the end of the third use of the law?

     Please say it ain’t so!

     LikeLike

396. Erik, I don’t base my hope on the republican party. I also don’t place my hope on what my eyes see. But thanks for the encouragement, NOT! 🙂

     LikeLike

397. Doug, what are you talking about? Whoever said “It is finished” nullifies the third use. It means God is satisfied and so his people live in grateful obedience. What any of that has to do with the social and political cares of the world, I’m stumped.

     LikeLike

398. Doug – Not sure on that specific text, but I agree with Zrim’s overall hermeneutic more than yours. Things have changed a lot since Old Testament Israel.

     LikeLike

399. Darryl,

     Of course the light is God’s, but we are the “ordinary means” He uses to shine that light.

     And of course sin does not destroy the image of God in all of us. It just hides it like the lamp under the bed.

     LikeLike

400. Darryl says: The church is a holy institution but it will because secular also pass away or consummated in a different form.

     Me: Finally, someone admits that the visible church is secular. Thank you, Darryl. Now if we can get you to recognize that the visible church has been moving towards that consummated form since Christ took His place at the right hand of God after His ascension, we might be able to pull you back from the radical 2k cliff.

     The consummation that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15, is the earthly/perishable taking on the heavenly/imperishable. This is true 2k theology.

     LikeLike

401. Sean,

     I believe you are saying that if God can be glorified by inantimate creation then He certainly can be glorified by fallen man made in His image, I have responded to that point made by Darryl several posts ago. If you are referring to fallen man as a creature alongside all of His other creatures, then yes of course he glorifies God in that he was fearfully and wonderfully made. But God has made man with a soul to look to and trust in Him. In that sense, there is no way he, in his thinking, will glorify God.

     LikeLike

402. Zrim says: It means God is satisfied and so his people live in grateful obedience.

     King David also lived in grateful obedience, so you’re making a false dichotomy.

     “I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.”

     “I will run in the way of your commandments when you enlarge my heart.”

     Doesn’t that personify living in grateful obedience? David implies he could only obey when God moved in his life….

     “When you enlarge my heart.”

     Yet, that was during the time of the law! Was the law agaisnt the promise? God forbid! You see Zrim, David was saved by grace through faith, just like we are! Haven’t you heard the law?

     “And your sins shall be forgiven.”

     How can anyone claim that having ones sins forgiven isn’t the covenant of grace? The Mosaic covenant was redemptive; that’s all you need to know.

     Zrim are you suggesting that King David didn’t live in grateful obedience? Because I have a few hundred scriptures so say he was.

     LikeLike

403. Don,

     Your argument goes too far. You just completely eclipsed the image of God in the gentile who’s conscience is either accusing or excusing himself. Rom 2:14-15. The proof of the law upon the heart…’in his thinking’….gives evidence of and glory to God. Doesn’t mean he’s come to a saving knowledge and response to God, but even in that fallen state, in his mind, he’s rendering glory to God.

     LikeLike

404. Doug, despite your theonomy you are seeing the same dis/continuities this 2ker does. There is both law and gospel in both theocratic and exilic eras, and OT saints lived just as much in light of the cross as NT saints do. But how this personal reality translates into geo-political concern is what boggles. One possibility is that you don’t share the understanding that the NT era (now) is exilic and anticipating the final theocratic era (not yet), as it were. Don’t worry, Doug, everybody will live in perfect accord with God’s law some day. Until then, take a breath.

     LikeLike

405. Zrim, try actually reading “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”; Greg Bahansen had some 70 pages of discontinuities from the Old Testament. He’s already answered most if not all you’re concerns in his first effort. You need to educate yourself, because it’s frustrating talking to the likes of you, when you don’t even *get* theonomy. Then to add insult to injury, you’ve got the nerve to get huffy. If you read his book, a light would blink on in your *bean* (hopefully) and you would suddenly be able to see! I’ll keep the light on for you!

     God bless you,

     LikeLike

406. Doug, what’s there to get? WCF 19 doesn’t mean what it says and so Jesus is only a partial savior. There, I just saved a ton of time.

     LikeLike

407. M&M; if memory serves correct, I recall you bought some 20 Bahnsen tapes on theonomy, and read a book by Rushdoony and then repented. Quick question; repent from what? And are you insinuating that if a brother takes a theonomic perspective that he’s walking in sin? Or were you pushing a little hyperbole?

     FWIW, I’m sure you know that Bahnsen and Rushdoony clashed, and that Bahnsen was considered the more formidable spokesman of the two; although much of Rushdoony (especially his earlier stuff) can be read with prophet. They’re both blue brilliant! Yet like Calvin neither was perfect. Are you?

     Truth be told; can’t the both of us read Calvin with prophet without subscribing on every point? How about Martin Luther? How about Martin Bucer? How about Cornelius Van Til? How about Francis Turratan? How about Jonathan Edwards? How about John Murray? How about J. Gresham Machen? How about B.B. Warfield? How about soo-o-o-o-o-o many others? Do we agree with any of these theological giants on every theological point?

     Of course not!

     Sorry for rambling, but; what did you repent of? Do you need help in getting a big ol plank out of your eye? Or, is a beam in mine as well?

     Rest in his completed work,

     LikeLike

408. Zrim, the bitting irony is that WCF 19:4 was written by raging thenomists, LOL! LOL! LOL!

     Shall I drag out quotes from Cartwright, Rutherford or Perkins and the men of that day? No? Then quit telling us all, that white is black!

     LikeLike

409. M&M; That’s read with profit, not prophet, ouch!

     LikeLike

410. Doug – Do you know what the circumstances were surrounding Bahnsen’s divorce? Did he continue as an ordained minister after that. Not trying to put him down, I am just curious.

     LikeLike

411. Erik Charter: Doug – Do you know what the circumstances were surrounding Bahnsen’s divorce? Did he continue as an ordained minister after that. Not trying to put him down, I am just curious.

     RS: I am not Doug, but Bahnsen’s wife deserted him. If I recall correctly, the church put her under church discipline and she did not repent. In that case she would be considered an unbeliever and so believers are not bound when an unbelieving partner does not want to live with them.

     LikeLike

412. That’s right Richard, Bahnsen’s wife left him for a member of their church. Greg Bahnsen stepped down as Pastor of his church, and tried to reconcile his marriage. The Elders examined the situation, and saw that his wife was unrepentant, put her on church discipline, and determined that Greg had been a faithful and loving husband, according to her testimony. Even his ex said that Bahnsen had not done her wrong, so the Elders of his former church asked Bahnsen to come back as their Pastor. After much prayer he returned to Pastor his church.

     LikeLike

413. Zrim says: Doug, what’s there to get? WCF 19 doesn’t mean what it says and so Jesus is only a partial savior. There, I just saved a ton of time.

     Huh? I don’t have any difficulty understanding WCF 19:4; moreover I understand how the term general equity” was used by Thomas Cartwright and William Perkins. Let me illistrate.

     Thomas Cartwright ranked as the most highly esteemed puritan in English Presbyterianism. Listen to his perspective on the Law, and I quote:
     “And as for the judicial Law, for as much as there are some of them made, in regard of the region where there were given, and of the people to whom they were given, keeping the substance and the equity of them as it were the marrow may change the circumstance of them as the times of places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any Magistrate can save the life of any blasphemers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, and incestuous persons and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny and I am ready to prove if that pertains to this question.
     Notice how Cartwright sees the equity in the judicial Law?

     William Perkins might be someone you need to look at to explicate the meaning of the “general equity” clause.
     “Now judicial laws, that are in foundation and substance moral, are not abrogated, but are perpetual. For the better discerning of them, I give two notes. The first is this: if a judicial law serve directly and immediately to guard and fence any one of the Ten Commandments, in the main scope and end thereof, it is moral in equity, and perpetual: because the end and use thereof is perpetual.” W. Perkins, A Commentary Upon the Epistle to the Galatians, pp 202-203
     See also here:
     The Law in general, is that part of God‘s Word, which commands things just, honest, and godly: and being thus conceived, it is threefold; Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral. The Ceremonial Law, is that part of God‘s Word, which prescribed to the Jews, ceremonies, rites, and orders, to be performed in the worship of God: this law is laid down in the books of Moses, especially in Leviticus. The Judicial Law, is that part of God‘s Word, which prescribed ordinances for the government of the Jews‘ Commonwealth, and the civil punishment of offenders. The Ceremonial Law concerned the Jews only: the Judicial Law did in-deed principally concern them; but yet, so far forth as it tended to the establishing of the Moral Law, having in it common equity, it concerns all people in all times and places. W. Perkins, An Exposition Upon Christ’s Sermon in the Mount, in The Works of William Perkins, (London, 1631), vol. 1, p. 33

     Zrim, if you see how these men used equity, WCF 19:4 starts to make perfect theonomic sense.
     .

     LikeLike

414. Okay Zrim, I quoted Thomas Cartwright, I quoted William Perkins, now get ready for…….

     Witness # 3 Enter George Gillespie:

     Unless there be any doubt left in our minds as to how the writers of the WCF felt about the *perpetuity* of the Judicial Law let’s examine George Gillespie; who was the leading Puritan at the Westminster assembly, while many had a part in the Westminster Confession of faith, Gillespie’s hand is seen throughout, being the most esteemed Theologian of his day. And in his book 1646 he said, and I quote:

     “I know that some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses so far as concerns the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry blasphemy, adultery, Sabbath breaking, theft, exc, ought to be the rule to the Christian Magistrate and for my part I wish more respect were had to it and that it were more consulted with.”

     This is the opinion of the man whose hand was *most* seen writing the WCF. I woud say that WCF 19:4 means what Cartwright, Perkins, and Gelispie meant by equity.

     LikeLike

415. Sean,

     In the sense you have described, the unbeliever in his own mind cannot escape from acknowledging God as Romans 1 testifies – so I agree. If you want to say that that glorifies God, ok

     But the original point to which I was responding was Darryl’s/2k’s thinking that what we do in the “common realm” (e.g., good works) are done as “common realm” citizens to God’s glory, not as citizens of the church. My point was/is that we can only truly glorify God in the common realm if we do so out of our new nature as true citizens of the invisible church. Obviously rocks and trees can only do what God designed them to do. But God designed us in His own image so that we image God. After the fall, we can only truly image God (i.e., as God intended) in Christ. Sure, we can not completely erase the image of God in all of us, but if we are not in Christ, we can only truly glorify Him when we reach our ultimate end as vessels for destruction.

     So to say that we glorify God with our works of mercy without reference to Christ, is to undermine the very purpose for which we were made.

     LikeLike

416. Don,

     Some of this falls under the ‘trying too hard’ banner. I’ll grant that the soli deo gloria ambition is rightly suited for the christian and our end. However, cultic community is privileged community so it’s not as if it’s accessible to whomever. But then you end up here again; “Sure, we can not completely erase the image of God in all of us, but if we are not in Christ, we can only truly glorify Him when we reach our ultimate end as vessels for destruction.” So this statement negates again, what you just gave back in the previous post about unregenerate creation being able to glorify God because they still bear the mark of the Imago Dei. And this takes us all the way back to the Jeter example and his excellence redounding to the Glory of God whether that’s his ambition or not. So, I’m not sure we are getting anywhere fast with this discussion. This, IMO, is the difficulty with neo-cal. It’s rhetorically inspiring, but when we start to tease it out it doesn’t cohere so well. More of the immanentizing the eschaton I’m afraid.

     LikeLike

417. Education, Christianity, and the State: by J Gresham Machen

     “In the nature of the case Christianity must under take to transform all of human culture, and that only
     the Christian ethic based of the majesty of God’s Law could arrest the decline of western culture”.

     On reforming the government schools

     “Surely the only truly patriotic thing to teach the child is that there is one majestic moral Law to which our own Country and all Countries of the world are subject. There will have to be recourse again despite the props supported by the materialistic paternalism of the modern state, to the stern solid masonry of the Law of God. An authority which is man made can never secure the reverence of man. Society can endure, only if it is founded on the Rock of God’s commands.

     Amen and amen!!

     LikeLike

418. Doug, I’m pretty sure we’ve done the battle of quotes. What you seem unable to do is bring yourself to honestly disagree with any particular Reformed stalwart that opposes theonomy or theocracy in favor of a 2k view. Kuyper was honest enough to make no secret that he opposed Calvin, the confessions and our Reformed theologians when it came to theocracy. He even would’ve rather been “considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.” Can you man up and disagree with Kuyper when he says:

     “…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and As though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.”

     You may want to keep claiming the Reformed tradition is exclusively theonomic, with no room whatever for 2k. But that’s just more dominionism. 2kers aren’t interested in blustering 2k for the whole tradition. We’re satisfied with pointing out its superior merits and the fact that most of us, even theos, live more like 2kers than theos.

     LikeLike

419. Zrim, I tire of having to repeat myself, BUT you continue to miss the forest through the trees. You’re the guy who brought up WCF 19:4, implying that it didn’t mean what I thought. So I quote Gillespie who wrote the Confession as to his opinion of Mosaic penal sanctions for blasphemy, adultery, and other first table laws, and guess what? Gillespie was all for it!

     Zrim, I don’t agree with any one theologian on all matters. Not John Calvin, not B.B. Warfield not even Greg Bahnsen! What irks me so, is you aren’t dealing honestly with Cartwright, Perkins or Gillespie! They believed the general equity included some of the Mosaic penal sanctions, which was precisely my point.

     This also proves you need to quit pretending as if the WCF 19:4 bolsters your point, when it does nothing of the sort. Notice Gillespie support for Mosaic penal sanctions is also presupposing a Christian Magistrate, meaning our nations has to become more “God fearing” before these laws can be imposed. What I pray for, is God to change our collective heart.

     You don’t’ have to agree with me on theonomy, but please never (NEVER!) pretend that WCF 19:4 refutes theonomy. Just get that ridiculous notion out of your *bean* and we will all be happier.

     LikeLike

420. Zrim, I will gladly confess that I disagree with Kuper on the validity of executing blasphemers in today’s world. I’ll even admitt it’s a very sticky issue, how do we define blasphemy? Some peoples definitions might include statements from you or me, lol! I never claimed that I agreed with everything anyone said 100% of the time. But I have presented you with overwhelming evidence that the most influencial heavy weight thinkers of the Reformation felt that the general equity included *some* of the Mosaic penal sanctions.

     Just say you agree, and we can move on!

     LikeLike

421. Doug, step away from the historical laboratory and leave it to those who have been licensed to perform historical science.

     LikeLike

422. Doug, if Zrim is wrong about 19.4, you better bring charges against the OPC.

     LikeLike

423. Darryl, are you wonder why I don’t trust your perspective on Machen? You’re clueless on the OPC’s position on theonomy! Read it and weep. Then please repent!

     Question and Answer

     Theonomy and the OPC

     Question:

     Does the OPC have a position on theonomy, or done any “official” studies on the subject?

     Answer:
     To the best of my knowledge, our General Assembly has never appointed a study committee on theonomy, which is how a matter would be dealt with by our entire denomination. Our official doctrinal positions are found in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (which is subordinate to the Bible, of course, and which we believe is an accurate summary of its essential doctrines). The Orthodox Presbyterian Church would have an “official position” on theonomy if the Westminster Standards somehow required it or ruled it out of bounds.

     See Darryl? Once again, you don’t even know the OPC position on the standards regarding WCF and 19:4. What a disgrace!

     LikeLike

424. clueless on the OPC, read it and weep, repent!, you don’t even know the OPC position, what a disgrace!

     Doug,

     Dr. Hart, is an historian of record in the OPC, an expert in Machen, and is going to be/or been published by YUP(Yale University Press) on worldwide Calvinism(or some such title). None of this NECESSARILY makes him right about historical issues or even OPC issues all the time, but imagine a horse race between a 2 year old Kentucky Quarter Horse and a Donkey and guess which one you are. Jus sayin’.

     LikeLike

425. Notice Gillespie support for Mosaic penal sanctions is also presupposing a Christian Magistrate, meaning our nations has to become more “God fearing” before these laws can be imposed. What I pray for, is God to change our collective heart.

     Doug, I’m tempted to a Sowers-ish cackling lol. So what you want is for the nation-state to become more godly so that its members can be better punished? But 2kers pray for straying church members to become more godly so that they might be restored to fellowship. And when 2k thinks godliness it doesn’t think “imposition of law,” but rather grateful obedience in response to gospel.

     LikeLike

426. Doug – Once your generation (the Bahnsen, North generation) passes on who will carry on the fight for theonomy? Do you have any younger co-belligerents? I’m not that interested in arguing with dinosaurs whose movement will soon go the way of the….dinosaur.

     The closest I have seen is CRC Minister Bret McAtee and he’s more of a hardcore culture warrior than a theonomist. Having lots of success in the CRC, obviously. Once they get done planting trees and lighting candles for peace I’m sure Theonomy is next on the agenda.

     LikeLike

427. Don’t go away though, Doug. We need the one-hit wonders at Old Life: Doug Sowers (Theonomy), Don Frank (Neocalvinism), Richard Smith (Edwards), CD-Host (Politically Liberal Atheism), Old Bob (Anti-Hart). You guys remind me of “Flock of Seagulls” and “I Ran”.

     LikeLike

428. This one goes out from Belinda to all of the Old-Life one hit wonders. Keep on keepin’ on, guys! XOXO

     LikeLike

429. Zrim, both you and Darryl are moving targets! Here I am on the OPC website, and they say theonomy is not agaisnt the WCF 19:4! So you’re whole argument is bogus! To make the matters worse, DGH sticks his foot in his mouth, by implying the OPC should be brought up on charges, when I’ve just proved they are not agaisnt theonomy.

     LikeLike

430. I was thinking of a different Belinda. When you reinterpret the “you” as Jesus, you get postmill CCM.

     LikeLike

431. Sean, apparently DGH was under the mistaken perception that the OPC had come out against theonomy. Oops! Wrong again! Shouldnt that be a red flag? Hart doesnt even know what the OPC says on theonomy? I call that clueless!

     LikeLike

432. CHAPTER XIX.
     Of the Law of God.

     IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

     Doug – Cartwright wanted the Magistrate to publish blasphemy, but the OPC recognizes the Revised version of Westminter 23.3:

     Chapter 23
     Of the Civil Magistrate
     3. (Completely rewritten) Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

     So it sounds to me like the OPC has overruled Cartwright on 19.4 and therefore your citing Cartwright carries no weight.

     All you guys have this problem of the revised statements on the Magistrate (both in the Presbyterian & Reformed Confessions) that you just can’t overcome. Constantine is not coming back.

     None of you have the stones to add blasphemy to your list of capital crimes, either, which is interesting. Add it, and define what it means coming from a Reformed perspective, and then we’ll talk.

     LikeLike

433. Hart: “Doug, if Zrim is wrong about 19.4, you better bring charges against the OPC.”

     Doug (apparently on drugs): “Sean, apparently DGH was under the mistaken perception that the OPC had come out against theonomy. Oops! Wrong again! Shouldnt that be a red flag? Hart doesnt even know what the OPC says on theonomy? I call that clueless!”

     Erik: Where do you get this, Doug? I think the point is, if the OPC agrees with you and not Zrim you should be able to bring charges because they are not actively promoting theonomy. Clearly they are not, merely tolerating a few fringe elements like you who are more bluster than action.

     Also – using rhetoric like you do – “disgrace”, “sticks his foot in his mouth”, and “clueless” mostly just reveals that you are a pompous ass vs. someone who has good ideas (and I know how to be a pompous ass!). Exactly who do you think you are winning over? If it’s all about venting your rage, since when is that a fruit of the Spirit?

     LikeLike

434. Mike K. – I’ve posted that same video to make that same point, so obviously I think it’s a brilliant observation on your part.

     LikeLike

435. Erik,

     Once your generation (the Bahnsen, North generation) passes on who will carry on the fight for theonomy? Do you have any younger co-belligerents?

     When all else fails, there’s always birthrate. But theonomy’s passing affects little as long as there’s a large number of Christians persuaded that their decisions in matters indifferent are those of Jesus, which seems to be the de facto position in the PCA and SBC. Theonomy is just combining that conviction with obsessing over what Jesus would have elected leaders do, overwhelmingly by those who do not have that vocation.

     LikeLike

436. Just because confessions and churches are silent on a matter or choose to overlook it does not mean they are in support of it. If a local OPC decides to have an Easter egg hunt for the neighborhood with the pastor dressed up in a giant rabbit costume doesn’t mean that the whole OPC needs to bless it or condemn it. Some things are better off ignored in the hopes that they will go away.

     LikeLike

437. Mike K. – “matters indifferent”

     Has no one told you that every square inch belongs to Jesus?

     Lots of people will tell you how to think about just about everything. Run away from them.

     LikeLike

438. Sean,

     To say that someone or something “glorifies God” is so vague as to be meaningless unless you qualify the statement according to scripture. Who, but God is to judge whether someone truly glorifies Him or not. Darryl says that Jeter glorifies God. Does he do so simply because he is made in the image of God? Yes. Does he do so because he is fearfully and wonderfully made? Yes. Does he do so because he serves Christ? I don’t know. Did Hitler glorify God?

     The position that you/2k are basically defending is that it is irrelevant to claim that what we do in the common realm we do as a citizen of the common realm, not of the church, because the common realm is penultimately glorifying to God. As soon as you say something like that, you necessarily force the question “what does it mean to say that something glorifies God?” If you stop at the penultimate sense, then you eliminate from consideration what scripture says about the ultimate sense.

     Scripture says, “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. So, in the ultimate sense, we only glorify God when we recognize that whether gathered in worship, or in the common realm, we are living for Christ since all of creation, not just the church, exists for Him. So when you say that Jeter glorifies God, you can’t truly answer that question unless you know Jeter’s ultimate destination, which only God knows. But clearly, the elect of God do not need to schizophrenically divide themselves as citizens of different kingdoms when they move from the “common realm” to the church for all things are created for Him.

     As to how I am immanentizing the eschaton, a charge I often hear from the 2k camp, I am totally stumped. I know that creation will not be restored until Christ returns, but until then, it is the only creation that we can live in, but we do so as new creations.

     LikeLike

439. Erik, you missed the point! Zrim is the fellow who brought up WCF 19:4, as if to say that theonomy is unconfessional. I mearly pointed out that Cartwright, Perkins, and most importantly Gelliepie (who acctually wrote the confession) did not understand the term “general equity” the way Zrim understands it.

     I wasnt even making a Biblical arguement *for* theonomy, I just proved Zrim was wrong on his perception of our WFC.

     Erik says: None of you have the stones to add blasphemy to your list of capital crimes, either, which is interesting.

     I do. Altough I wouldnt call it ballsy, just consistent.

     LikeLike

440. Doug, here’s where you goof one more time. If the OPC doesn’t have a position on theonomy, then it does not endorse your view. And watch this. It also doesn’t reject mine (as you think they entire Reformed world does).

     Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

     LikeLike

441. Doug, my point was that theonomy, such as it is in the OPC, is a small silent group.

     LikeLike

442. Doug – So you are willing to go on record that you think the Magistrate should punish blasphemy? With death? How do you define blasphemy? Don’t stop now.

     LikeLike

443. Erik: Where do you get this, Doug? I think the point is, if the OPC agrees with you and not Zrim you should be able to bring charges because they are not actively promoting theonomy.

     Why bring charges? The OPC is silent on theonomy, so why does Zrim imply that theonomy is against our Confession? If Zrim is correct, he’s the one who needs to bring charges, not me. I’m not the guy who said I should bring charges, that would be the good Dr Hart.

     LikeLike

444. Are those of us who are not Theonomists blasphemers? If not, why not? Do you think we should all be put to death?

     LikeLike

445. Doug – “The OPC is silent on theonomy”

     Erik – So why are you harassing Hart? How can you bind his conscience on a matter on which his church is silent?

     LikeLike

446. I’m not in the OPC, but maybe it is time those of you who are formally rid yourselves of the Dougs in your midst. The Confessions have been changed. Hold them to that. Let them go to the CREC or start their own church. These guys make P&R people look like nuts to outsiders for no good reason.

     LikeLike

447. Yes I do Erik, BUT I don’t think blasphemy should be defined in the broad sense, like hitting your finger with a hammer, and blurting out “god damnit”. I think a man who shouts in public “may Jesus Christ be damned” repeatedly after being warned should be put to death. (That is what I think Cartwright meant by stubborn blasphemers) But I don’t think most of the Godly penal sanctions could be implemented without a reformation in the Church which then transforms the general society. Only once God has established a Christian culture that wants righteouss laws, can theonomy be put into practice.

     LikeLike

448. If we can just get all of the P&R oddballs in one denomination we will be onto something:

     LikeLike

449. Erik, I believe theonomy can be defended biblically, it’s Hart and Zrim that insinuate that WCF 19:4 abrogates the penal sanctions. How could it? What the men who wrote 19:4 were very sympathtic to theonomy, if not outright theonomic!!!

     Therefore, let’s let the debates commense! Quit cutting Hart so much slack for his highbrow rolling of the eyes, and his poo pooing theonomy as if it were against the WCF. That would be a healthy start! How about googling the OPC and theonomy, read what they say, and then read what Hart said; they don’t match!

     LikeLike

450. Erik says: The Confessions have been changed.

     Erik you should know that the revision did not contradict the original. So what’s your point?

     LikeLike

451. DGH says: Doug, here’s where you goof one more time. If the OPC doesn’t have a position on theonomy, then it does not endorse your view.

     But Darryl the OPC does hava a view, take a listen: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church would have an “official position” on theonomy if the Westminster Standards somehow required it or ruled it out of bounds.

     Do you see Darryl? Obviously the OPC doesnt feel theonomy is ruled out of bounds! So I would appreciate it, if would all quit acting like 19:4 precludes theonomy.

     LikeLike

452. Doug – “But I don’t think most of the Godly penal sanctions could be implemented without a reformation in the Church which then transforms the general society. Only once God has established a Christian culture that wants righteouss laws, can theonomy be put into practice.”

     Erik – If you are a truly a Theonomist, what gives you this luxury?

     Are Muslims blasphemers? Are atheists blasphemers? Is it only when they shout out what they believe?

     Doug – “Erik you should know that the revision did not contradict the original”

     Erik – Then why revise it?

     Would you put homosexuals to death who were were minding their own business?

     LikeLike

453. Old Article 23 on suppressing blasphemy and heresy: “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed.”

     New Article 23 on suppressing blasphemy and heresy: chirp, chirp, chirp….

     This is what the ministers and officers in your church subscribe to, Doug.

     LikeLike

454. Doug: “Obviously the OPC doesnt feel theonomy is ruled out of bounds! ”

     When guys like you seem to be able to make up exactly what “theonomy” means or doesn’t mean, exactly what are they supposed to rule on?

     How many pastors or elders in the OPC are currently actively preaching and advocating for theonomy?

     LikeLike

455. As a non-officer layman in the OPC, why does the denomination need to even react to what you are saying? By definition in a Presbyterian Church you have no authority. Perhaps if you did, someone would attempt to deal with you. You can be a baptist and join an OPC, can you not? Why isn’t the OPC dealing with baptist members? Because they have no authority.

     LikeLike

456. Doug – You said to google Theonomy. I don’t find such good stuff:

     http://theonomists.blogspot.com/

     LikeLike

457. Doug – “Erik you should know that the revision did not contradict the original”

     Erik – Then why revise it?

     You really don’t know? Erik please read up on why we felt the need to make the revision. The revision did NOT contradict the original. I can’t even believe your arguing the point.

     LikeLike

458. Erik,

     You’re a trooper, but you’re arguing nuance, historical legibility and necessary inference with a fundamentalist. It’s an act of graciousness and patience if nothing else. You’re a better man than I.

     LikeLike

459. Doug, I wonder what you think it means to say that the judicial laws have expired and do not oblige any now. That’s pretty bizarre language for someone who also thinks geo-political nations should embody theocratic Israel’s laws. Who goes around talking about judicial expiration and cessation of their obligations who also wants to see all nations look more or less like OT Israel?

     But I also wonder if you think Uganda, with its recent criminalizing of homosexuality, represents a nation after God’s own heart. Looks like your prayers for Uganda are being answered.

     LikeLike

460. Zrim, why are you so conflicted? The Jewsih nation was abolished! Many, if not most of her’s laws expired, save the general equity. As I have shown by the writings of the men of that day, Cartwright, Perkins, and Gellispie believed the DP for sodomy, kidnapping blasphemy adultrey, rape, and murder as still having binding authhority on the Magistrate

     If you ask God to help you understand, he will open the eyes of your heart

     LikeLike

461. Doug – “You really don’t know? Erik please read up on why we felt the need to make the revision. The revision did NOT contradict the original. I can’t even believe your arguing the point.”

     Erik – Doug. It’s not there. That’s your problem, not mine. Show me in the Confessions that OPC officebearers subscribe to today where the Magistrate has a duty to punish blasphemy & heresy and I’ll stop shining my flashlight into your vampire coffin.

     LikeLike

462. From the OPC website that Doug is in favor of citing (when he thinks it suits him):

     3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

     LikeLike

463. You don’t get to say it’s old article 23 PLUS new article 23, Doug. It’s new article 23. New article 23 is distinctly different than old article 23. You don’t get to discern penumbras to argue that the Magistrate retains his authority to punish blasphemers and heretics.

     LikeLike

464. Doug – “You really don’t know? Erik please read up on why we felt the need to make the revision. The revision did NOT contradict the original. I can’t even believe your arguing the point.”

     Erik – Why does this remind me of the following conversation:

     Guy #1 – The United States is not a Christian nation.

     Guy #2 – You’re nuts. Of course it is.

     Guy #1 – But when I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution I see nothing about Christ or the establishment of the U.S. as a Christian nation

     Guy #2 – I can’t believe you would even attempt to argue that.

     Guy #1 – But when I read those documents, it’s not there.

     Guy #2 – I can’t believe you would even attempt to argue that.

     Guy #1 – O.K…..

     LikeLike

465. Sean – The only possible explanation is that I am at work breaking down credit card statements all day and I am bored silly…

     LikeLike

466. #1 – The United States is not a Christian nation.

     Guy #2 – You’re nuts. Of course it is.

     Now who’s being silly? How should one define a “Christian nation”? That could mean a thousand different things to a hundred different people. Shall I look it up in Websters?

     Come on Erik, that’s a straw man

     LikeLike

467. Doug – You’re guy #2 in the example in case you missed it. I am arguing that revised Westminster 23 says what it says in plain English. You are arguing it doesn’t, that it didn’t change the previous version of Article 23 at all. Then you claim I am just being stupid. Thankfully people can read this conversation for themselves. The burden is on you to show how it didn’t change at all. How does Article 23 still give the Magistrate the authority to punish heresy & blasphemy?

     LikeLike

468. Erik, Greg Bahnsen coined the term “theonomy” which literally means God’s law. I’ve read his book, have you? I know Zrim and Darryl have not read it; why you ask? Because they ask questions that Bahnsen already answered powerfully.

     How about defining theonomy by the guy who wrote “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”? Makes sense to me.

     LikeLike

469. So, Doug, if theocratic Israel has been abolished and her laws expired then why do you want to bring them back? These things have only gone away because Christ has come and fulfilled them all, so the only reason one can fathom is that you don’t think Christ’s coming was sufficient.

     LikeLike

470. I regard theonomy as a fringe movement so I don’t especially want to read Bahnsen on it. I might sometime, but I have too many other things to read that are relevant to my life. I have listened to some of his apologetics stuff and liked it. You really do hurt your case when people see the questions you won’t answer. You also didn’t answer my question about the circumstances surrounding Bahnsen’s divorce the other day.

     How does Article 23 still give the Magistrate the authority to punish heresy & blasphemy?

     LikeLike

471. Doug – You also lose sight of the fact that Bahnsen is not authoritative. Scripture & the Confessions are authoritative for most of the men here, not Bahnsen. You hurt your case by citing him because it becomes easier to write you off. “He cites some guy who wrote in the 1980s?”

     LikeLike

472. “Answer:
     To the best of my knowledge, our General Assembly has never appointed a study committee on theonomy, which is how a matter would be dealt with by our entire denomination. Our official doctrinal positions are found in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (which is subordinate to the Bible, of course, and which we believe is an accurate summary of its essential doctrines). The Orthodox Presbyterian Church would have an “official position” on theonomy if the Westminster Standards somehow required it or ruled it out of bounds.”

     Doug, these Q & A’s are parceled out to different pastors of good judgment who send back a response that gets posted on the website. Even lowly me wrote one for my pastor, who passed it along as a response. It’s not a place to make waves or to establish the doctrine of the OPC. These aren’t drafted by the GA or some kind of super committee. Anyway, its a pretty noncommital response.

     Most OPC pastors quietly endure thenomists and hope they will at least be peaceful and hopefully change from their theonomist positions over time.

     LikeLike

473. Zrim says: So, Doug, if theocratic Israel has been abolished and her laws expired then why do you want to bring them back?

     Because the law is good if one uses it lawfully. (see 1 Tim 1:8-13) Moreover the general equity of these laws with there punishments exibit the very wisdom of God which is unchalengable. Who knows what punishment fits the crime *better* than God?

     LikeLike

474. M&M says: Most OPC pastors quietly endure thenomists and hope they will at least be peaceful and hopefully change from their theonomist positions over time.

     How do you know? Did you take a CNN poll?

     LikeLike

475. Erik, a wise OPC Elder invited me over to dinner with his family, (a few years back) who doesnt happen to be theonomic, but was nice enough to give me the history of why Presbyterians felt the need for a revision, it was for peace among the denominations. The Presbyterians themselves said the revision did not contradict the first. This is just a historical fact, not my opinion.

     And Erik, I did answer your question on Bahnsen’s divorce.

     LikeLike

476. And here we go, general equity is put into play as some contradictory, absolving term that undoes the first part of paragraph 19:4; to them also as a body politic, He gave sundry, judicial laws which EXPIRED with the state of that people not obliging any other now. According to Doug, the divines were idiots or drunk pranksters.

     LikeLike

477. M&M; Moreover, no has been able to show how theonomy is not confessional, let alone unBiblical. All I ask, is that opponants of theonomy quit appealing to WCF 19:4 since as I’ve shown, only strengthens theonomy’s argument.

     Moreover, no one, and I mean NO ONE has been able to refute theonomy from a Biblical perspective. T. David Gordon gave it the ol college try, and fell flat. He wrote (Covenantal Theonomy) which was ably refuted by Ken Gentry. Gentry squished his meeses to peices. Gordon took the Kleinian (intrusion ethic) and attempted to accomplish what Klien failed to do, make any head way against Bahnsen’s main exegisis. He was unconvincing imho.

     LikeLike

478. Doug, I have sample size from which I have extrapolated. Could be wrong but I suspect even you know it is likely true.

     LikeLike

479. Sean, I’m trying to be on good behavior 🙂 Why act like such a smart aleck? I strongly believe this, and when you mock me, our ability to communicate is degraded. Now I’ll be the first to admitt I’ve taken my shots as well, but cut me a little slack, okay?

     As I have shown from quotes of Cartwright, Perkins, and especially Gillispie (who’s hand was seen throughout the WCF) equity meant the marrow of the law, the part that exibited God’s justice and wisdom, which can never pass away.

     LikeLike

480. Erik says: As a non-officer layman in the OPC, why does the denomination need to even react to what you are saying? By definition in a Presbyterian Church you have no authority.

     Dr Greg Bahnsen was an officer in the OPC and if you don’t think he was examined, then your nuts! Not only was Bahnsen examined, but he debated all comers, and won huge victories. So much so, that no one wanted to debate him, because he was powerful in debate.

     LikeLike

481. Sowers, you’ve been dealt with patiently earnestly and exhaustively. Every time you’ve been dealt with in sincerity you seize upon it as weakness and press a case that’s roundly been refuted. You’ve earned the right to be dealt with as a belligerent. You start showing some regard for previously argued refutations and honest consideration of their points, and maybe we can make some progress. Till then
     you leave little room then to regard you as truculent

     LikeLike

482. Doug, I ask you why if per WCF 19 theocratic Israel and her judicial laws have expired you want to bring it back in the modern state and you say because the law is good if one uses it lawfully. First, you miss entirely that you want to bring back what the WCF says is expired. What in thee heck do you think “expired” means? Milk is good, but I bet you heed expiration dates. Why not with types and shadows?

     Second, on your logic, what keeps you from bringing back any of the ceremonial laws? They were good, too. How is theonomic logic really any different from Judaizing logic? Circumcision was good, but we don’t do that anymore. Because of Christ, bloody rite turned into watery sacrament, and physical execution turned into spiritual excommunication. Those differences are revolutionary, to say the least. Nobody is arguing that the judicial laws were bad, rather that Christ changed everything. As with the Judaizers and the ceremonial laws, how did Christ change anything with theonomy?

     LikeLike

483. Zrim says: Second, on your logic, what keeps you from bringing back any of the ceremonial laws?

     Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, not the moral law. You’re just making a category mistake. For instance, Jesus is the Temple, Jesus is the Lamb of God, Jesus is the atonement offering, Jesus is the scape goat offering, Jesus is our Sabbath rest, Jesus is the Pascal Lamb, Jesus is our all in all.

     I could go on, but I hope you’ve grasped the point.

     These ceremonial ordinances prefigured Christ’s saving work at Calvary. So to continue in the older Mosaic ordinances would not be of faith. However, the moral law is a reflection of the character of Christ. That is still our standard of righteousness for all mankind. Thou shall not rape was not a shadow ordinance, and is just a true today as it was when God gave the commandment to Moses. Moral law is universal and is not subject to change. Your confusion between ceremonial and moral aspects of the law is messing you up. We are supposed to baptize every nation in the True name of God, teaching them all of his commandments.

     You jump like a scaled cat every time I look to God Word for direction in this morally confused nation, and I say that’s a shame.

     LikeLike

484. Sean, when, (when?!) have I been refuted and refused to admtt it? I’m not saying I havent learned a few things from you all, but when have I been slamed and refused to hear?

     What I hear from you all is this attitude, (you just *know* theonomy would never work, it sound crazy, and that’s that). You dont feel a need to prove it in scripture, you use an argument from silence 1 Cor 5 and Romans 13. Well I think Romans 13 favors theonomy. But regardless, hit me with your best shot! I’l love to hear your best argument.

     LikeLike

485. Doug, Thanks for answering the question about Bahnsen’s divorce. I had missed your answer.

     Your historical argument for Article 23 not being any different is awfully weak:

     Doug – “Erik, a wise OPC Elder invited me over to dinner with his family, (a few years back) who doesnt happen to be theonomic, but was nice enough to give me the history of why Presbyterians felt the need for a revision, it was for peace among the denominations. The Presbyterians themselves said the revision did not contradict the first. This is just a historical fact, not my opinion.”

     I’m supposed to just accept that?

     I will note that when the CRC made a similar revision to the Belgic the reason they did so was that they concluded that the prior version was not biblical. I guess Presbyterians are just more pragmatic and afraid of offending other denominations than the CRC was? “Peace among the denominations”?

     Nothing you have said explains dropping the part about the magistrate punishing heresy & blasphemy.

     LikeLike

486. The whole Theonomic (and Neocalvinist) case really stands or falls on whether or not the entire Decalogue is to be promoted and enforced. You guys don’t get to pick and choose the politically viable parts. This is where Neocalvinists always demure and where you struggle to gain Confessional support. I need more history, not an anecdote.

     LikeLike

487. Erik can’t I be a theonomic and pragmatic as well? I believe in the DP for murder, but in my state, no one ever gets executed. California says it has the death penalty but in all realilty it’s a joke. Don’t you believe in the DP for murder? What do you do about it? Probably exactly what Doug the theonomist does. It’s not as if I have a blood lust to see murderers to get executed, it would be a very hard thing to witness, but I believe that the DP sends the right message to society plus God said that anyone who takes a mans life, by man shall his life be taken. I think that is still binding, don’t you?

     LikeLike

488. Erik, yea sorry for such scant informaton on the revision, but it was a very long, complex story. My elder was careful to say that the revision did not contradict the original. Sorry I can’t do better, but I trust my elder who is one smart cookie with great knowledge of Presbyterian history.

     LikeLike

489. Zrim says: Doug, I ask you why if per WCF 19 theocratic Israel and her judicial laws have expired you want to bring it back in the modern state and you say because the law is good if one uses it lawfully. First, you miss entirely that you want to bring back what the WCF says is expired.

     I’ve got a better question, why did Geneva bring back the judicial laws during 1500’s? Didnt they have the DP for kidnapping, rape, adultrey, and blasphemy? How can the laws you thought the WCF said were expired, be alive and well in that day?

     LikeLike

490. Doug, you’ve lost me. I’ve been affirming WCF 19.3, .4, and .5. The ceremonial and judicial have been abrogated and expired. The moral law still stands and is binding on all. If only you’d say of the judicial what you say of the ceremonial–to continue in the older Mosaic ordinances would not be of faith.

     LikeLike

491. Doug, theonomic and pragmatic. Now I have heard it all. Can you imagine the Israelites asking that question of Jahweh?

     LikeLike

492. Doug – I’m not absolutely opposed to the death penalty for murder, but in cased you haven’t noticed the Magistrate is often a screw-up, which makes me nervous. I’m much more nervous when the death penalty gets expanded to other crimes.

     LikeLike

493. Zrim, I fully realize you’re lost, and have been for years, so it’s not a huge surprise you still don’t get it, BUT all those pesky theonomic laws we’re debating, were enforced during the writing of 19:4! You know, the ones you “thought” had expired! LOL!

     Have you ever scratched you’re head and aksed yourself; why the judicial laws (the ones you “thought” were expired) were being enforced during the writing of the WCF, with the appoval of the very men who penned our Confession? You can’t logically have it both ways Zrim; course when has been being illogical ever stopped you, eh?

     LikeLike

494. @Erik, interesting! Zrim has confessed that he is for the DP for murder! Why don’t you sock it out with Zrim? LOL!

     LikeLike

495. DGH asks: Can you imagine the Israelites asking that question of Jahweh?

     They did! Read the Old Testament! You know Darryl, the more we go on, the more its becoming obvious, that you don’t read the Old Testament. David was always asking God to open his understanding, so that he could understand and apply God’s good law. For you to even ask such an odd question, says a lot about you; and not in a good way.

     LikeLike

496. Erik says: Doug – I’m not absolutely opposed to the death penalty for murder,

     Wow! Are you aware that DGH and Zrim are both FOR the DP for murder? I’l like to watch 2Ker’s go at it!

     LikeLike

497. Doug, so David was asking God to be pragmatic? You may read the OT, but do you fathom it? Your words, not David’s: “can’t I be a theonomic and pragmatic as well?”

     LikeLike

498. Doug, talk about having things both ways. Are you listening to yourself: the same men who said the judicial laws have expired are approving the practice of them? What’s the point of writing WCF 19.4? Sure seems like your project would make more sense to seek to revise (as in delete) 19.4. Revisions have happened before, you know. At least Kuyper sought to revise Belgic 36 instead of make it say what is doesn’t. Give me your address and I’ll send you some square pegs for those round holes of yours for stocking stuffers.

     LikeLike

499. Uh, Doug – “not absolutely opposed” and “for” are kind of the same thing. What grade did you get in algebra?

     2 x 2 = 4

     -2 x -2 = 4

     However, have you not noticed that DNA evidence had led to lots of “murderers” and “rapists” being released from prison? Prosecutors and DA’s often have their own agendas. Your system seems to assume a virtuous magistrate who always gets things right.

     Think about Henry the 8th and some of the death penalties he issued. Think about the Salem Witch Trials. 19 dead there, I believe. Even Richard Smith’s forefathers were a little ashamed of that outcome.

     LikeLike

500. Ooops, sorry Erik, me thinks I need some glasses 🙂

     LikeLike

501. Erik asks: Would you put homosexuals to death who were minding their own business?

     Would I? Why ask me? What’s God’s law say? Erik, would you have asked God the same question during the time of the law? IOW, your question implies that sodomites generally mind there own business, no? Are you saying they never attempt bugger anyone else? If so, then how would you know they were sodomites?

     You know Erik; I don’t see God’s law advocating people peeking through key holes, if that’s where you’re going with you’re question, that’s not necessary. Why? Because the truth has a nasty way of coming out. Obviously if two sodomites are behind closed doors, who’s to know what goes on behind closed doors, amen? But sodomites have this tendency to recruit fresh meat, usually of the younger variety, and that’s how they normally will get busted. Remember former Senator Foley’s folly?

     LikeLike

502. DGH asks: Doug, so David was asking God to be pragmatic?

     Huh? I honestly don’t fully understand the question. I said we humans need to be pragmatic, not God. I mean being pragmatic like walking in wisdom. There are unrighteous laws on the books today, take legal abortion. What can I as someone who believes that God’s law should be honored do about it? First, and foremost I pray the Lord’s Prayer in faith and then I “pragmatically” vote for the candidates that best represent God’s agenda.

     I need to understand that only God can change the heart of a nation. Want an example? I don’t think it’s wise to refer to abortion as child murder to a pro-choice persons face, I pragmatically or tactically prefer to call abortion the slaughter of the unborn. It means the same, but it puts the pro-choice fellow less on the defensive. Ideally, I want to win the argument and the man I’m conversing with.

     Moreover Darryl, David was King, which is much different than you or I, in terms of authority. David didn’t need to be as pragmatic because he was the king. When I say I’m pragmatic I’m merely praying that God would give me wisdom in being an effective spokesman for God’s Word, in applying the law…

     A soft word can break of bone

     LikeLike

503. Doug – “But I don’t think most of the Godly penal sanctions could be implemented without a reformation in the Church which then transforms the general society. Only once God has established a Christian culture that wants righteouss laws, can theonomy be put into practice.”

     Erik – If you are a truly a Theonomist, what gives you this luxury?

     Me: Erik, what do you think theonomy means? If you believe in the DP for murder, what do you do about it? Exactly what a theonomist does, say your prayers, and encourage the body of Christ to press on! While you and I are in agreement with the DP for murder, I also believe the DP should be expanded for rape, sodomy, blashpemy, adultrey, and kidnapping. But just like you, I don’t have the ability or authority to change my States laws. So I pray without ceasing.

     LikeLike

504. Doug, when various OT kings made alliances with foreign rulers they were acting pragmatically. I am astonished that a theonomist would claim that his inconsistencies are merely instances of pragmatism. You have lost your self-righteous high ground.

     LikeLike

505. “adultrey”?

     That has something to do with three people?

     LikeLike

506. DGH what inconsistencies? What I said, (like Greg Bahnsen) is that I’m a incrementalist. God’s law is objective, and amen. The problem is *how* we are to apply God’s law in a proper new covenant context. What does public blasphemy entail? I’m not sure. Far from being inconsistent, I’m humble. I realilze there have been marvelous discontinuities as well as continuity in many circumstances. So how will God change societies collective heart? Slowly, like leaven, much like our own personal sanctification. When enough God fearing people want righteouss laws, they will beocme the law of the land. Until then, much like Daniel, we should testify to the truth, and let God take care of the rest.

     Rest in him completed work,

     LikeLike

507. Doug, are you reading the OT? Did God wait for the Israelites to “want righteous laws”? Didn’t he give the law and expect Israel’s leaders to enforce it? Now you want to wait for the people to appreciate God’s law? But you can’t show any patience for 2k because we don’t rightly value God’s law?

     Humble? Maybe. Confused and incoherent? For sure.

     LikeLike

508. I would hate to be the guy who is wrongly put to death while Doug & the Magistrate get the kinks worked out…

     LikeLike

509. DGH, I find it rather ironic that I have to remind you, that America is not Israel. Moreover, America is not ruled by kings. So regardless what I think, I live in a democratic republic and laws need to be passed incrementally. Unlike David, I’m not king.

     You (of all people) missed a very important point; Israel as a nation has expired. So while the moral instruction found in the law is eternal, how nations apply God’s law in a proper new covenant is not going to be without difficulty. Is it Impossible? Of course not!

     Erik, Bahnsen did not believe in punishing people retro activley and neither do I. If sound biblical laws get passed, people would only be executed after they knew full well what the penal sanctions required. No one would be caught off gaurd so to speak.

     LikeLike

510. Doug,

     This becomes a really difficult conversation to have, when from a BT perspective it never gets off the ground because of a continuity/discontinuity impasse, and then on the confessional side one side argues that the revision really did REVISE something and the other side says ‘not so much’. I really don’t know where to go from these points. I’ve read Bahnsen, benefited from some of his apologetics works, attended one of the few ‘theonomic’ OPC’s, for a short while and still have a few friends left over from that time, and others who hold to varying different brands of theonomy. We all get on quite well but quite frankly this discussion has been over for some time in the circles I’m in. The Bahnsenian theonomists have gotten older, and mellowed out quite a bit, and if you push them on it hard enough they MIGHT push back a little bit, but just maintaining in the ‘ordinariness’ of life not to mention hardship and other ‘life’ realities seems to have taken most the bite out of their zeal. IOW, it no longer accounts for much of the impetus of their faith. They would tell you their faith has matured. I understand you won’t like that assessment, but some of these guys, and I did as well very briefly, got to learn from Bahnsen and be a part of the church’s he was involved in. So these aren’t newbies, or people who didn’t/don’t engage their faith seriously.

     LikeLike

511. DGH says: Doug, are you reading the OT? Did God wait for the Israelites to “want righteous laws”?

     LOL! Once again Darryl, you’re confusing Old Testament Israel, with America! Israel was in a unique relationship, being God’s only covenant nation. God demanded that they obey his law. Ironically they were not faithful at keeping God’s moral commandments, (sacrificing their children to Molek) and there disobedience is what caused God to run them out of the land.

     They committed the same sin/crimes as the 7 nations which caused God’s judgment. So you’re only making my point! All societies need to kiss the Son if they are to stay in they’re land.

     And here we stand today, (America) as a nation practicing *some* the same sin/crimes that caused God to destroy nations in times past, and people like Zrim say, “I would vote for gay marriage, because laws don’t change things”. No Zrim, laws don’t change things in and of themselves, but laws give us moral bearings of what’s right and wrong. What a society should and should not tolerate.

     LikeLike

512. Sean telling Doug that he needs to move on from Theonomy (:49 to 1:25)

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCrGpT84G9Y

     LikeLike

513. Sean, my understanding of the revison was taught to me, by men who don’t hold to theonomy. So they didnt have a (theonomic) ax to grind, so to speak. It was a very long complicated story, BUT some how, the revsion was not believed to contradict the original. Have you heard the same thing?

     FWIW, if you and I had lunch we would probalbly become good friends as well. Because when I say I’m theonomic I mean in principle. I am not a part of a movement, other than praying for God’s will to be done. I do get exercised when my reformed brothers mock or ridicule the notion of having laws that reflect God’s values. However, if when my life is through, and not one of our laws has changed for the better, I will not be frustrated in the slightest. Because all things will ultimately work out for the good of those who love the Lord. Even wicked laws will not change that reality.

     LikeLike

514. DGH, asks: Doug, are you reading the OT? Did God wait for the Israelites to “want righteous laws”?

     No he did not. But what happened to Israel, when they rebelled against God’s law? Was it the same thing that happened to the Ammorites? Was it the same thing that happened to Sodom? Was it the same thing that happened to Babylon?

     I thought so

     LikeLike

515. Erik, if someone asked you why you favor the DP for murder, what would you say? I grew up reading the Bible, and long before I heard the term “theonomy” I believed in the DP for murder. Why? Because the Bible clearly says that what God thinks should happen.

     The only difference in principle between us, is I expand the DP crimes to kidnapping, rape, child molesting, sodomy, adultrey and blasphemy. Other than that, we are pretty much on the same page. What I have yet to hear, is an exegitical reason why certain DP crimes have been set aside.

     Oddly, all I have heard from the likes of Hart and Zrim is an argument from silence, which is always falacious. If someone could do the same crime and recieve the DP in Israel, why doesnt the same crime deserve it today? That’s what’s missing from you guys! Just saying America is not Israel is not answering the basic question. And please; don’t give me the line that the Mosaic penal sanctions ended at the cross. Even you still believe in the DP for murder!

     LikeLike

516. Doug,

     Now, come on, who does most of the mocking and ridiculing?! And I imagine it would have to be a very long and complicated story, maybe even convoluted, to get a revision that doesn’t contradict the original which it was revising, maybe particularly so at those points that were the subject of the revision. Yes, that might be a five fingers at a shot kinda conversation just to keep the synapses from firing too rapidly.

     LikeLike

517. Doug, chuckle. You’re confusing me with Samuel. I am living in the U.S. I am trying to be a faithful Christian here. That is what 2k is about — trying to do justice to a time after Israel. And all I have gotten from you in the past is that I am not obedient to the OT.

     Doug, guffaw. It is I who have been trying to tell you we don’t live in Kansas/Jerusalem any more. And this is the thanks I get. You don’t even read my books.

     LikeLike

518. “You don’t even read my books”

     And worse yet he doesn’t buy them!

     LikeLike

519. “I expand the DP crimes to kidnapping, rape, child molesting, sodomy, adultrey and blasphemy.”

     Doug – A lot of us wouldn’t be here if we had the death penalty for all of those. Many of our brothers and sisters wouldn’t be here, either. And it’s “adultery”.

     How many Christians were adulterers and blasphemers before they were saved?

     LikeLike

520. God can apply the death penalty for anyone he wants at any time. We are all actually facing a death penalty whether we have committed those crimes or not. What’s your hurry?

     LikeLike

521. Erik, quit playing retroactive mind games unless you want me to play them as well. If adultey was a capital offense that was regularly enforced, I dare say your sisters and brothers might’nt have engaged in that action. Like I said, I don’t adovcate punishing poeple retro-actively. If we were raised in a nation with a healthy fear of the Lord, that took these crimes seriously I think we would see far less behavior that God deems as wicked.

     Can you imagine living in Israel as a young child, and watching a sodomite or an adulter being executed? Having there brains bashed out? What a solem, fearful thing to witness! Do you think that would change the way your sisters and brothers viewed sin? I do.

     LikeLike

522. Erik says: God can apply the death penalty for anyone he wants at any time. We are all actually facing a death penalty whether we have committed those crimes or not. What’s your hurry?

     Using your “logic” why would you be for the DP for murder? What’s your hurry bro?

     LikeLike

523. No hurry.

     LikeLike

524. Erik, why not keep abortion legal? After all, if God could just kill the abortion doctors, no? Are you saying laws are irrelavent? Shall we go back to the willd west? Say it aint so, Joe.

     LikeLike

525. Erik, I’m just having a little fun with you, but I hope you know I like you. 🙂

     LikeLike

526. DGH says: And all I have gotten from you in the past is that I am not obedient to the OT.

     Darryl, >sigh< you DO need to be obedient to the OT! Don't the ten commandments apply to you? Arent the ten commandments in the OT? What law did God write in your heart, Hart? Was it not the same law in the OT?

     Now, that being said, the both of us agree on the DP for murder, amen? I have a question for you Darryl, why are for the DP for murder?

     LikeLike

527. Pingback: Blame it on the Reformation: Hart Replies to Gregory | The Heidelblog

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.