Tim and David Bayly fault 2kers for not conducting a meaningful debate. They say that folks like moi (all about me) only heckle. Conversation is a waste of time. I guess they think that they can argue with me the way they argue with women. They are gender confused. As if someone could possibly debate this:
R2K men are intellectuals first and Christians second. Yeah, yeah; not all of them. As Ortega y Gasset said, “All true thinking begins with exageration.” Which is to say the entire world since the Enlightenment has been built around exagerations called “hypotheses” and I’ll be hanged if I’m going to let them rob us of the privilege of using them ourselves. But back to the point…
R2K men are Sorbonnists for whom the thought of applying Scripture and God’s Moral Law to all of life brings on fear and trembling and sickness unto death. And so it’s the height of irony that they are forced to throw the greatest intellectual of Reformed church history to the dogs, John Calvin himself.
How do you respond to “so, do you still hate the Baylys”?
And then our good friend Erik goes over there to try to clarify a few points and maybe even honor the ninth commandment — you know the part from the Shorter Catechism about protecting a person’s name. And he receives the Bayly Bro kiss off:
[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Dear Erik, I told you that your refusal to honor our request concerning your posting multiple comments in quick succession on the same theme, many of which were taunting, if continued, would lead to us removing your commenting privileges. You refused to change your behavior, insulting us in the process. Reluctantly, then, we forbade you to comment again.
But here you are commenting again. We have barred three R2K men from commenting because of their refusal to abide by objective rules. What does it take to get you men to honor authority?
So I write this to make others aware that Erik Charter has been barred from commenting on Baylyblog, he knows he’s been barred, he’s been informed by private e-mail which he acknowledged receiving, and he goes ahead and comments anyhow.]
So the Baylys don’t really want debate. They believe in freedom for only those with their views. Reminds you of Stalin and the Communist Party.
The irony, as I say, is that these guys actually think Geneva of 1555 would be their kind of place. In fact, their slander against officers of the church would put them in the slammer. Only in Amerika!
Oh, you gotta love this novos ordo seclorum.
Old Life 
LOL? This seems an opportune time to tout my campaign to ban the tired acronym and introduce a new one: bac (barely audible chortle). Of course the Brothers Baylyov will find this to be weak, effete, and apropos for 2k “men” — bac.
LikeLike
Eh, when you refuse to stand with the deacon who had the guts to put his axe where only your overheated rhetoric behind the pulpit and keyboard dared imagine to go, you’ve merely confirmed what everyone not living in their mothers basement or Moscow( I know, I know same difference) already knew; all hat no cattle.
LikeLike
Yeah, my dialogues with the Bayly’s have been short lived, to say the least. I’ve told them they’re always free to spend all the time they want here.
At some point (probably pretty soon) I’m going to look back at this past week and laugh really hard. All this could be inspiration for a good novel. I might call it “A Christianity of the Absurd”.
The funniest point about the baylys is how they throw around terms like “authority” and “rebel”. If CTC isn’t accusing me of not being in submission to the Bishop of Rome these guys are accusing me of refusing to recognize their authority. Whatever…
LikeLike
Either Ayn Rand or the OPC is starting to look really good. I just haven’t decided on which one.
LikeLike
Erik, step away from the cookie jar. You’re married.
LikeLike
Isn’t it “Laugh, Old Life?”
LikeLike
I’d just like to see DGH start referring to them as the Brothers Baylov — HEY!!!
LikeLike
No 2ker actually has a problem with applying Scripture and God’s Moral Law to All Of Life, but those phrases don’t get defined by the Super Bayly Bros. (or Edwards’s Worrisome Children, or Dutchmen Who See Everything in Square Inches.)
I love how seriously they take themselves. At least Stalin had Russia; they demand honor and solicit donations after registering a blog. But I probably shouldn’t complain about theonomists’ low aspirations.
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly: I’d just like to see DGH start referring to them as the Brothers Baylov — HEY!!!
RS: Beetle Baylys?
LikeLike
For those who appreciate absurdity, Erik, Trueman may have beaten you too the punch in this essay of his from 2006:
http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/post-46.php
Oh, and the OPC is good, by the way. Ayn Rand? Whatever floats your boat, dude.
LikeLike
Thanks, AB.
I’ve long aspired to be a Christian Howard Roark, if there can be such a thing. Irritation at the Baylys, Sowers, Smiths, and Maurinas of the world, plus their local representatives, keep throwing me off course.
LikeLike
Look at the Wikipedia page for the Bayly’s father, Joe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_T._Bayly
Tim and David were raised in the Wheaton strain of American Evangelicalism (although Joe did go to Faith Theological Seminary — Think Bible Presbyterians, Carl McIntyre, and Francis Schaeffer). How does one go from having a dad who wrote a book like “The Gospel Blimp” (later made into a 1960’s movie – http://vimeo.com/45680269), to sounding like less-refined, less-intelligent Doug Wilsons on steroids? Did Joe come anywhere close to nurturing axe wielding vigilantes?
Perhaps the lesson is that when one gets just a bit of Reformed theology without embracing it all (Wilson also grew up in evangelicalism) one tends to emphasize the wrong parts or to drift toward the fringes of the Reformed tradition (e.g. theonomy, postmillennialism). Rather than joining existing Reformed federations/denominations (OPC, URC, RCUS, PCA) you start your own (e.g., Wilson and the CREC, Tim Bayly and the apparently independent Clearnote Fellowship).
One of the points of Maurina’s essay is that Reformed Churches need to be wary of those who didn’t grow up Reformed (He has Hart & Horton specifically in mind, I believe). Has he looked closely at who he is aligning himself with?
LikeLike
Listened this week to a few sermons from that church, there is nothing remotely Reformed about that preaching.
LikeLike
Erik, (& some others @ OLT): Do you really think Francis Schaeffer didn’t change radically from his old days with Bible Pres Church and Carl McIntyre?. His many books in his latter days (“True Spirituality”, etc.) are NOTHING like CM! F.A.S. had a lot of VanTil, his old WTS prof, in him. 1951 & after, he talked a lot like my heroes— WTS prez Pete Lillback, J.I. Packer, etc., REAL 2K guys, completely unlike ACLU 2Kers. And a bit different from OLT lovers. Love OBM.
LikeLike
Old Bob,
Did Schaeffer do 2 years at Westminster & 1 at Faith? Did you know/meet him? I think D.G. learned at his feet in Europe for a time. That’s where he picked up his worldview.
LikeLike
Looks like Erik can lump Francis Schaeffer together with Carl McIntyre, but I can’t get on OLT with the truth! Never thought I would be dissed from OLT!
LikeLike
Wow, I was on, even listed in ‘recent comments’ then off, then on and now off again. I get it!
LikeLike
Erik: Response to your 2 ?s and 2 statements: Yes. Yes. Maybe so. Maybe so.
LikeLike
Just a few minutes ago there were 18 comments @ LOL. Now back to 12. Wow! Are my comments that bad?
LikeLike
Bob,
It’s just a delay in the posting, it happens to everyone.
LikeLike
I think Wilson & the Baylys like some aspects of Reformed church polity and not others. Being able to have elders rule over a congregation: like it. Submitting to other elders in a Presbytery or Classis: don’t like so much (unless they can shape that Presbytery or Classis from the beginning).
LikeLike
Old Bob,
Hard not to at least lump the young Schaeffer in with McIntyre. McIntyre founded the BPC and Schaeffer was the first new seminary graduate ordained in the BPC, I believe. Schaeffer left Westminster (Machen’s seminary) for Faith (McIntyre’s seminary).
LikeLike
Schaeffer defies classification.
I am grateful for his writings and their impact on me through the years.
I can also say that about lots of pastors and theologians that I wouldn’t read or listen to since joining a NAPARC church, while still reading Schaeffer over the next few decades (if granted to me…)
LikeLike
Can anyone explain to me why the Bayly’s are so obsessed with sex, sexuality, and all things relating to human reproduction?
Their complaints against the “R2K men” are always regarding sexual/reproductive issues rather than blasphemy, sabbath keeping, murder, theft, and/or bearing false witness. Seems rather odd. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Chapter 13of Schaeffer’s “How Should We Then Live is described: “The Alternatives – Return to the Christian foundation of our society or face increasing economic breakdown, war, the chaos of violence, radical redistribution of wealth, and growing shortage of food and natural resources.”
I don’t see where McIntyre would object except for the lack of emphasis on Communism.
Return to a Christian foundation or face food shortages??
LikeLike
“Return to a Christian foundation or face food shortages??”
Last time I perused the populace at Adventureland or the Iowa State Fair everyone seemed to be getting more than enough to eat.
NTJ 3.3 has an interesting piece that links our material prosperity (and consumerism) to abortion. Very interesting.
LikeLike
Lewis,
I’m sure there’s more than one reason. Their worldlifery demands an resolution to ALL points of tension they experience as human beings. It’s easier to find traction and a following capitalizing upon patriotic and sexual bias’-think theology of glory-D. James Kennedy, John Hagee, Doug Wilson, et al. Broader evangelicalism has brought a norming of a more feminine understanding of relationship, even religious concerns-Therapeutic application in every stinking sermon and celebrating ‘genuine authenticity’ and ‘sincerity’ and just ‘niceness’, that there’s probably a backlash against. There’s some legitimate emasculating that goes on in a modern culture, where men have struggled, so have women, to define themselves and men can float from Stuart Smalley to MMA. There may be more exaggeration of such difficulties in an industrial, much less a technological economy then maybe there was in an agrarian. Then there’s the group of men who either never played sports or stopped their maturation senior year of high school after football season ended-think promise keepers. In Texas football culture for example it’s not uncommon to see a handing off or complementing of mothering duties from birth mother to girlfriend/cheerleader/lover/nurturer. These cats are literally momma’s boys from cradle to grave, they inevitably exhibit an Homer Simpson/MMA exaggerated caricature of masculinity. Remember Full-metal jacket;
“What is your major malfunction, numbnuts? Didn’t Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?”
Then some people are just jackasses.
LikeLike
A primer on the Bayly bros:
The first and most important issue to the Baylys is patriarchy. From this flows all other issues, women, submission, 2k, authority, sex, etc. Yes, they are obsessed and the modern members of the “He-man woman haters club.”
This also explains their love and support for Doug Wilson. Since Doug agrees with them on women they can (and have) ignored all other theological issues that they find of lesser import, like Federal Vision, which they defend Doug as not really being a part of.
My approach to them: don’t feed the trolls. I don’t read their posts. I don’t try to comment there. I don’t write articles addressing their crazy-making ideas. I never point traffic to their site. On the whole, it’s much better for my health and well-being.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. — Prov. 26:4
LikeLike
Lewis,
Scripture would say the corruption of sin underlies it all. If you’re into believing that sort of thing.
LikeLike
“Return to a Christian foundation or face food shortages??”
Things were very different when that was written.
Turns out we didn’t have two or three major nuclear wars before 1984 and we didn’t get that guaranteed return of our Lord and that hateful young boomer generation grew up and got jobs and mostly matured.
LikeLike
Lewis, it owes a lot to the privileging of the “doctrine of man as being central to the Christian faith” as opposed to the doctrine of justification (see link below). The latter was good and well for the reformers’ day, but today not so much. This is typical evangelicalism, relegating how God and man are reconciled to the assumed bin and pushing the culturalist concern for how man lives with fellow man to the forefront. Add a scoop of rightist obsession with sex, and voila, the Bishop of Bloomington:
http://clearnotefellowship.org/WhoWeAre/DefiningPositions/GapIssues
LikeLike
Lewis, my take is that the BB’s have found a niche. No one else is really saying this ALL THE TIME. So if you’re looking to brand yourself, why not do one thing and do it
wellALL THE TIME!LikeLike
Maybe I should use an alias for my alias when I say this, but it is interesting to observe that the hetero males in power in the “Christian Right” can’t have abortions and aren’t interested in marrying other men.
LikeLike
RGM, you may be the wisest one here. (Now I’ll be accused of sodomy for complimenting a woman’s intellect.)
LikeLike
M&M, I wouldn’t be so sure about that latter one. Those who bluster about certain sins are sometimes revealed to be suppressing an uncomfortable truth truth under the guise of righteousness. Think Ted Haggard.
LikeLike
“… RGM, you may be the wisest one here …”
I was just thinking the exact same thing as I was reading her comments. Good to have a breath of fresh air for a change!
LikeLike
But RGM, a blogger needs a foil. In that sense the Bayly’s are a gift – if we created hypothetical people like the Bayly’s no one would think our hypothesis plausible.
LikeLike
Zrim, I ain’t goin there.
LikeLike
Does a preacher who frequently goes into high-pitched register and taunt people in a very campy way qualify for raised eyebrows?
LikeLike
M&M, wuss.
LikeLike
Only on Oldlife am I treated to an insightful female comment immediately following a “numbnuts” blast. I don’t think I have an article of the Belgic to help me process that…
LikeLike
Is anyone aware if the baylys’ own small dogs. RGM, patriarchy is much more succinct. MM, if the Bayly’s weren’t around, we’d still have Vision Forum and the Phillips’ and they’re right down the street from moi. You’ve never seen so many school vans used as family transport vehicles. It’s Father Knows Best meets the Duggars meets Ron Paul.
LikeLike
The Bayly ban involves not only forbidding you from commenting, but ultimately blocking your computer from even viewing their site. It reminds me of the old joke, “If you loan your bother-in-law $100 and he stops speaking to you, was it worth it?”
How can we facilitate interactions between the Baylys & the Callers?
LikeLike
Eric with a “k”, a pint of Belgian ale might be even more helpful. Welcome, RGM. I’m chortling weakly and nodding enthusiastically.
LikeLike
From Planned Parenthood VP:
“It’s still hard to understand why people would think throwing paint on a building and breaking a windows will change people’s political beliefs”
It won’t. Neither will it change their hearts.
http://www.jconline.com/viewart/20130411/NEWS03/304110013/Man-ax-damages-Planned-Parenthood-clinic-Bloomington-Right-Life-condemns-vandalism-update-
LikeLike
From January
Pastor Joseph Bayley from ClearNote Church of Indianapolis spoke before protesters who were urged to hold up their signs and walk along the sidewalks. Before and after his speech, he led the crowd in prayer.
Bayley said the history of slavery is like the “atrocious practice of abortion.”
“Too much of this country’s past is built on the blood of the innocent,” he said. “We need to speak up in these circumstances, not just when it is safe.”
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=85014
LikeLike
From the Bayly blog March 28 2013
I can’t think of any war that’s ever been won by men fearing above all any perception that they’re not gentlemen. Certainly not the war our Lord came to fight, rescuing us from God’s wrath. Certainly not the war to end slavery. Certainly not the war that liberated Auschwitz.
LikeLike
From the Bayly Blog November 29 2008
“Few times in salvation history have the people of God cultivated such a highly sophisticated ability to worship the God of justice and truth while living in the midst of unjust, oppressive bloodshed. Typical of cities around our nation, here in Bloomington approximately one out of every five children conceived in their mother’s womb is slaughtered. The horror of Nazi Germany doesn’t begin to approach us in numbers or the relative innocence and helplessness of its victims. Molech in ancient Canaan didn’t devour twenty percent of the children of the land, nor did the death toll reach one billion children…”
LikeLike
Friday April 5 2013 Clearnote Church hosts “Abortion America’s Holocaust”
http://jesusatiu.com/abortion-americas-holocaust
Deacon Benjamin Curell arrested Thursday April 11
Bayly statement April 12
“We have counseled Ben to repent and submit to the civil authority that God has placed over us for our good. This authority reflects and points to the judgment of God before Whom we all one day must give an account.”
LikeLike
It is disappointing to see all the mud slinging you lot and the Baylys go in for. Is this really the way Christians should conduct themselves? It’s like you are made for each other.
The only serious post on this thread that I could distinguish was Lewis’ question regarding the alleged focus on sexual/reproductive issues, rather than murder blasphemy, etc.
My own answer (guess) to this question is that we have always had murder, blasphemy, fornication, etc, but what is really new is the outworking of the 1960’s sexual revolution aided by advancement in technology, so divorce, children borne out of wedlock at rates far higher than ever before, the creation of a ‘stolen generation’ through surrogacy where up to 5 persons can be involved in the production of a child, and last but not same sex marriage which has the potential to open up the way to group marriage, polygamy, etc, all of which has serious implications for the well being of society. If you lot are not concerned about these issues and worse still unwilling to engage in the public square in favour of traditional, Biblical understanding of how men and women relate then I would find that deplorable. But I’m not entitled to say such a thing because I don’t know how you think and therefore should not make such a judgement.
LikeLike
David,
Is “you[sic] lot” kind of like “you Jews” or “you niggers”?
LikeLike
Zrim, in response to Lewis writes,
” it owes a lot to the privileging of the “doctrine of man as being central to the Christian faith” as opposed to the doctrine of justification (see link below). The latter was good and well for the reformers’ day, but today not so much. This is typical evangelicalism, relegating how God and man are reconciled to the assumed bin and pushing the culturalist concern for how man lives with fellow man to the forefront.”
I don’t know how much of Calvin’s teaching and the practice in Geneva Zrim knows of but Calvin had a well balanced view of both justification and the godly life. Every Thursday morning I think it was the Consistory sat down to consider all the cases for church discipline. In his recent book “Calvin’s Company of Pastors” Scott Manetsch has analysed the Consistory and other records and inter alia come up with tables demonstrating that Domestic and other strife, quarrellings, and sexual sins top the list with a long tail of other faults that required public confession, and/or barring from the Lord’s supper. The other book which helps to explain that in Calvin’s day godly living was expected to follow justification is Witte and Kingdon’s “Courtship, Engagement and Marriage”. Without knowing much about the Bayly’s, at least over the question of sexual sin they are in good company with Calvin’s Geneva.
Contra Zrim I conclude by quoting the great man:
“Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.”
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 1
LikeLike
Erik, I think she probably is insightful. Insightful enough to know if all the commenters here fawn over her wisdom she’s being patronized.
There are women who do mixed martial arts – getting punched, kneed and choked while hoping to land an elbow on their opponentss foreheads. Yet there are no regular women commenting on Old Life. I reckon they’re just too sensible. RGM, why don’t you stick around and be the Voice of Reason?
LikeLike
Thank you for correcting me, wjw. My apologies. This medium encourages people to be sloppy and provocative in ways that we would not if speaking before an audience. So maybe I should have said something like “Old Life posters”, my points of argument of course remain.
LikeLike
David, I think any number of us engage these issues in our social/political/public/personal/vocational life. We just seek to be careful not to misapply community norms of the cult to the culture at large; 1 Cor. 5, for example. Understanding that once you use ‘scriptural principles’ as ammunition for the culture wars, you largely forsake it’s purpose to speak salvation to the baptized and lost and further trivialize the work of God by employing it in service of your/mine particular cultural hobby horse.
LikeLike
Soooo
1.The Bayly’s spend years fomenting an ideological war against abortion, sexual sins, feminism, etc. in the name of God and “accurate” reformed theology
2. One of their own takes an axe and a can of paint to an abortion clinic
3. The Bayly’s issue one press statement condemning the actions axe-weilding deacon
4. The Bayly’s spend a week issuing blogosphere rants against 2k and unleash the Addison and Steele like firepower of Darrell Todd Maurina and Craig French.
Ours is a great country. Freedom of religion produces the best monkey show in town. This stuff is better than hanging out with a pound of pot in a potato chip factory.
Let’s find out when the axe wielding deacon is going to be arraigned. Let’s also see if anyone from the Clearnote tribe shows up. Next, pay close attention and see if the Bayly boys or the Clearnote tribe testify on behalf of the deacon, or picket the courthouse or prison if the deacon ends up in the big house for awhile, or perhaps spring for his legal fees. Now, I know they say their deacon overstepped the ever contested rules of civil magistracy. But they also make it clear that Christians are in a war. This fellow was their soldier. He was under their much-touted authority. Will they abandon a native son to the godless state in his hour of need? Will Molech win the field? Will this poor fellow find his rabbis don’t have much of a taste for legal entanglements? That perhaps rhetorical bluster is easier than actually taking on the “Nazis” when the “Nazis” have one of your own and you want to get the press off of you as quickly as possible? Methinks Leviathan wins again…
LikeLike
David
What Sean said. Contra the Baylys no one here is arguing that Christians should not be involved in politics or that they should argue against sodomy laws, etc…and we certainly believe in the importance of sanctification and sexual purity, and serve in churches that practice church discipline.
We simply believe a Christian has the freedom to disagree with other Christians on political and legal issues as to which sins the secular government must enforce against and how, thus these political questions usually fall under the rules of Romans 14 for different convictions.
We also reject the notion that the public square is to be equated with politics. The public square carries the idea that we as ministers in preaching the gospel announce to all who we teach that the sins listed in the bible are sins which must repented of in coming to Christ.
We also reject the idea that all Christians must be involved in politics. There are many ways to do good to your neighbor and politics are only one way.
Finally, as ministers we are limited to speak in God’s name and authority concerning matters of God’s kingdom, which Jesus said what not of this world. Thus we are not official representatives of God in matters of medicine, statecraft, science, etc… beyond the clear teaching of the Word of God.
Hope that helps some
LikeLike
sounds good to me tbordow
have to confess that it is often highly amusing to watch people go completely batty on forums about politics
LikeLike
In almost all instances, Christian worship in this country is public. Thus, every Lord’s Day, the church speaks God’s truth to the public square by preaching Christ, singing His praises, and administering the Eucharist. Moreover, these are the appointed means through which Christ has ordained that His church be established and grow. In fact, they (plus the baptism of covenant children) are the exclusive means through which Christ has ordained that His church be established and grow.
But we live in a generation of unwise and self-important men, who are wont to neglect God’s appointed means of grace in favor of buzzing about like gadflies casting God’s pearls before swine. What folly!
Sometimes I wonder if issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage aren’t mere covers for the unhinged, who are looking for a cause to give them reason to engage in their folly.
Further, the notion that we are at war is utterly ridiculous. The culture war was settled on a cross outside of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. Christ won. End of story!
LikeLike
Well, the tone of recent posts has improved.
Contra tbordow I would make the following points.
1. the public square is not to be identified as equivalent to politics; the public square is the world of ideas, politics, prevailing culture, so to engage in the public square is to engage with academia, the media, principally our secular opponents, politicians and the like, doing so with like minded persons.
2. we engage in the public square because we love our fellow citizens and because we do not wish our own people, principally our own children to be corrupted by the broader society. We believe profoundly that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people”.
3. we engage in the public square as citizens informed by Christian conviction. By virtue of being citizens we must engage politically for the benefit, including moral well being, of the state and its citizens.
(what I would say is that it is an error for Christians to align with a particular political party of the left or right. Christians should make their votes count by requiring political parties to display their wares to the Christian constituency. If we can do that in Australia – a considerably more pagan country in terms of numbers of Christians compared to the USA – I don’t see why you can’t do it. But then we are prepared to collaborate across the Catholic, Catholic Protestant divide on a broad range of societal issues that don’t bring us into conflict on justification, doctrine of the mass and so on)
LikeLike
David,
In the big picture what we have is men basically taking the issues that are the concerns of a particular political faction, making an assumption that those issues are the ones most important to God, and declaring that it is a matter of orthodoxy that everyone else think those are the big issues. Of course they take it as a given that the state must use its power of compulsion on those issues and not for others.
Then if you listen to them you will observe that these men are essentially political in the way they deal with these issues. By that I mean their presentation of the issues will sound like a politcal fund raising letter complete with hyperbole and pushing buttons that get people riled up even if that button-pushing tends to obscure rather then clarify the topic at hand. And, much like “thou shalt not speak evil of a fellow Republican,” they will chastise their 2k “opposition” for things on which they will give each other a pass.
It’s as if a bit of theology was poured into political creatures. There are political ends in mind and let’s not let accuracy or thinking get in the way.
LikeLike
With regard to tbordow comment:
“Finally, as ministers we are limited to speak in God’s name and authority concerning matters of God’s kingdom, which Jesus said what not of this world. Thus we are not official representatives of God in matters of medicine, statecraft, science, etc… beyond the clear teaching of the Word of God.”
I would say half right, half wrong.
Agreed that the church and its ministers are not entitled to speak in areas where they lack competence, thus very foolish for the church and para-church agencies to buy into climate change and what to do about it given uncertainties in the science and issues of technology and economics, even more so considering places like China and India are going for coal based energy because it is the lowest cost form of energy in the drive to help their citizens escape poverty. At the very least all of this is arguable and should make the church very cautious..
The point of disagreement is that God’s Kingdom should be confined to the Church. The magistrate also is according to Go’s appointment (Roms 13:2); he too is God’s servant (Roms 13:4). Love for all God’s creation and the knowledge that all belongs to Christ compels us to active participation as Christian citizens. Anything less is an abdication of our calling.
Of course if tbordow is a preacher, preaching is his call, but he would be remiss if he failed to give a lead to his people in respect of the context of their daily lives as citizens and the impact of specific issues as they arise (such as, currently, ssm, but it could be, say, expansion of gambling in local community) remembering that they and he are participants in the democratic process.
LikeLike
David Palmer: “1. the public square is not to be identified as equivalent to politics; the public square is the world of ideas, politics, prevailing culture, so to engage in the public square is to engage with academia, the media, principally our secular opponents, politicians and the like, doing so with like minded persons.”
Elegant, sir, as are the rest of your points. If we believe that living in harmony with God’s word is the best life, and that God’s word is simultaneously harmonious with the natural law, then it’s our civic duty as citizens to advance the argument for the common good. The explicitly political angle is only that, a part of it, one angle.
LikeLike
Good morning mickelmann, least ways its morning here.
You say,
In the big picture what we have is men basically taking the issues that are the concerns of a particular political faction, making an assumption that those issues are the ones most important to God, and declaring that it is a matter of orthodoxy that everyone else think those are the big issues. Of course they take it as a given that the state must use its power of compulsion on those issues and not for others.
No I don’t agree with the supposition here. I don’t think it is ‘a particular political faction’ setting the agenda but Christians working out of their biblical/confessional heritage who wish to argue a particular way in respect of an issue.
I’m not sure about the compulsion aspect either. Historically, you may have a point. In the present time, all the compulsion is on the other side. Also I think we need to have modest aims. In a fallen world it is useless and actually harmful for abortion to be outlawed. There does need to be a law of abortion, it’s the details (Saying this, I understand Right to Life and they can argue there point – I will and have argued differently). I think we must do all to fight for the recognition of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion – they are ever under threat. Eventually we may be forced into civil disobedience – so be it, but in the meantime it is a time to fight and defend, not to hide in our pietistic burrows! To me this is straightforward 2K theology courtesy of Calvin in its practical outworkings.
LikeLike
BTW, if you want to know where I’m coming from, I have been writing articles on social issues with an Australia flavour past 8-10 years. You can visit my blog here which I set up earlier this year but basically had to set aside for time being as I’m serving a term as Moderator of my State Assembly, about to be extended for another year. The website is http://sundrymatters.org.au/wordpress/ and the About and Articles buttons tells you who I am and positions taken.
Cheers
LikeLike
“No I don’t agree with the supposition here. I don’t think it is ‘a particular political faction’ setting the agenda but Christians working out of their biblical/confessional heritage who wish to argue a particular way in respect of an issue.”
You say it is morning where you are. Are you familiar with the context here? There is a remarkable similarity between the positions of anti-2k zealots and those currently or historically (in recent decades) associated with the Republican Party. And there is little or no overlap between their issues and those of the other party. Christians are Fox News at prayer?
You don’t want the church to talk about the climate. You do want the church to talk about gambling laws, same-sex marriage laws and abortion law. How about justice in warfare? How about businesses exploiting undocumented Hispanics? The government’s increased intrusion into daily life? Blasphemy laws. Selling goods on Sundays. Legalization of marijuana. What’s your list? Did God give you that list? And after the church has become expert in these things and preached on them, are you going to let it preach through a Pauline epistle, preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments once in a while?
LikeLike
David, BTW, the last two times I commented I hadn’t seen your posts which immediately precede mine.
Do you really need your preacher to tell you what to do in politics? Or is it possible you know more about political matters than he does?
LikeLike
Palmer,
Why must the church engage in the world of ideas, politics, and prevailing culture? Why shouldn’t the church simply content itself to administer the means of grace?
Why do you assume that someone who is secular is an opponent? Because God’s wisdom shines through the light of nature, I see no reason why a secular person would necessarily disagree with you on things relating to the world of ideas, politics, and prevailing culture. In fact, if you can’t sufficiently establish your arguments with reference to secular arguments, then it leaves me to wonder whether you may just have bad ideas. I’ve often noted that those who run the quickest to special revelation are the same people who have difficulty with secular arguments.
Why must all citizens engage themselves politically? If people have a talent and an aptitude for statecraft, then I see no reason for them not to engage in politics. But if someone else is good at art, or at chemistry, or at winemaking, then why should they devote efforts to politics as well? Frankly, politics is pretty ephemeral. I know. I live in DC. There are plenty of other ways that one can make an impact on the world besides concerning oneself with politics.
Lastly, no one said that Christ’s kingdom is confined to the church. Rather, people are saying that we should not be making laws that govern everyone based on principles of special revelation. In that sense, you seem to be equating Christ’s kingdom with the teachings of His special revelation. But God speaks nonetheless through His general revelation, and provides us with sufficient light in that realm by which to govern ourselves in a peaceable and orderly manner. You seem to err in that you give too little credence to general revelation.
LikeLike
By the way, David. You mentioned that you’re in Australia. Incidentally, I’m sitting on my balcony enjoying a bottle of Schild Estate 2009 Shiraz from Barossa. And, yes, I said a bottle!
Richard, this is the wine that will help you see the glory of God’s natural revelation in the created order.
LikeLike
David: we engage in the public square because we love our fellow citizens and because we do not wish our own people, principally our own children to be corrupted by the broader society. We believe profoundly that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people”.
Todd: We are not far off, though I would say we serve our neighbor for their good, not only to protect our children. We are servants, not demanding masters
David: we engage in the public square as citizens informed by Christian conviction. By virtue of being citizens we must engage politically for the benefit, including moral well being, of the state and its citizens.
Todd: Politics is overrated. People have made an idol of law and politics. My personal opinion is that the forces that shape society have little to do with law (though some), and much more to do with other factors, like technology, family discipline, etc… But that is only my opinion. There is no requirement in Scripture that Christians engage in politics anymore than that they must support the public school system, or join the Lion’s Club. Jesus said to be a good neighbor, there are many ways to do so. It is even okay to despise politics and never vote. The Lord lays no extra burden on his people concerning politics. And I’m not sure you can apply Prov. 14:34 to civil law. Righteousness is a cultic category having to do relation to the Lord, not a common one concerning good or bad laws.
David: The point of disagreement is that God’s Kingdom should be confined to the Church.
Todd: It is not confined the the church – God’s kingdom only comes through the spread of the gospel, not good civil laws; it is a supernatural kingdom.
David: he would be remiss if he failed to give a lead to his people in respect of the context of their daily lives as citizens and the impact of specific issues as they arise (such as, currently, ssm, but it could be, say, expansion of gambling in local community) remembering that they and he are participants in the democratic process.
Todd: Then I speak outside the Word, and my opinions are no better than anyone’s, and I certainty cannot put, “Thus saith the Lord” in front of them without being a Pharisee.
David: But then we are prepared to collaborate across the Catholic, Catholic Protestant divide on a broad range of societal issues that don’t bring us into conflict on justification, doctrine of the mass and so on)
Todd: I agree, but I would include atheists also. We share the political process with every citizen. Remember, our enemies are not flesh and blood, and no amount of torturing that text can make it say our enemies are liberals, homosexuals, abortion doctors, etc…
LikeLike
wjw – ” The Bayly’s spend a week issuing blogosphere rants against 2k and unleash the Addison and Steele like firepower of Darrell Todd Maurina and Craig French.”
“The stated goal of The Spectator (founded by Addison & Steele) was “to enliven morality with wit, and to temper wit with morality…to bring philosophy out of the closets and libraries, schools and colleges, to dwell in clubs and assemblies, at tea-tables and coffeehouses”
Maurina & French are to investigative journalism what Dirk Diggler & Reed Rothschild are to rock & roll.
LikeLike
Todd reminds us that Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world.
Yet we have the Callers who tell us that Jesus’ kingdom can indeed be found in this world if one looks to the Bishop of Rome.
Yet we have the Baylys who tell us that Jesus’ kingdom can indeed be found in this world through politics and preaching truth to the public square.
LikeLike
(Saying this, I understand Right to Life and they can argue there point – I will and have argued differently)
IOW contra 2K, you believe that the church as the church is supposed to pronounce on whether you or RtL is right – and you’re right because . . . . ?
Rather 2K says those kinds of questions don’t even belong on the church’s agenda.
You and RtL are free to duke it out in the public square and may the best argument win, but the church ecclesiastic should stay out of it, regardless of what her individual members are up to as citizens/members of the civil sphere.
LikeLike
By the way, David. You mentioned that you’re in Australia. Incidentally, I’m sitting on my balcony enjoying a bottle of Schild Estate 2009 Shiraz from Barossa. And, yes, I said a bottle!
Richard, this is the wine that will help you see the glory of God’s natural revelation in the created order.
“We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, and which incorporates itself with the grapes, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.”—Ben Franklin
He’s being a wiseass as usual here, but never ever misunderestimate Benjamin Franklin’s theological sincerity.
Cheers, brothers.
LikeLike
Tom,
“If we believe that living in harmony with God’s word is the best life, and that God’s word is simultaneously harmonious with the natural law, then it’s our civic duty as citizens to advance the argument for the common good.”
Aren’t the Eternal, the Divine, the Natural, and Human distinguished for a reason? Are the demands of Leviticus natural? The catch is for many Christians grace does not simply complete nature. The supernatural both completes and confounds the natural. Approximation without perfection. Augustine said as much for Christianity in Rome. Aquinas said as much for France. Dante got it. Isolating the public square from politics doesn’t solve the problem, because the public square is an abstraction. Where is it? Manhattan? Washington? Dallas? Politics is ultimately coercion, and this is where Plato’s philosopher kings meet Machiavelli’s prince. Christianity offers something much more hopeful than either.
LikeLike
Tom,
Now you are speaking my language! In order, my current favorite regions and varietals are as follows
1) New Zealand – Marlborough: Sauvingon Blanc (it’s close enough to summer to be on a white kick)
2) Washington – Columbia Valley: Cabernet Sauvungon (best wines in the world for the value IMO)
3) Austrailia – Barossa: Shiraz (fruit bombs galore – best wine w/ BBQ on the planet)
4) Germany – Mosel-Saar-Ruwer: Reisling (not your typical ladies white, complex and sheer)
5) California – Temecula: Cabernet Franc (nod to my hometown favorite, tightly packed flavor pairs great with steak)
LikeLike
What that had to do with the post, I haven’t the foggiest.
LikeLike
David, I tried to explain the Baylys’ obsession with sex by pointing to their expressed statement that, instead of the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of man is central to the Christian faith (and by their own words, the obsession with sex naturally follows). You pushed back by pointing to how Calvin exercised church discipline. I’m not sure what your point is, but the reason saying the Bayly’s are in good company with Calvin’s Geneva over the question of sexual sin is odd is this: the Bayly’s are culturalists and so are concerned over the supposed sexual sins of the culture. Calvin was an ecclesiastical and thus concerned for the sins of the church, and to boot not merely the sexual. In Calvin’s Geneva, withholding baptism from the children of believers would also have been enough to warrant discipline. Not so the Baylys:
Baptism was instituted by our Lord. It is a Sacrament of the Church marking those who are members of the New Covenant community. Like the other Biblical Sacrament, the Lord’s Supper, Baptism does nothing by itself. Saving faith is necessary for us to receive grace through this visible sign. This much we are agreed upon with Reformed Protestant brothers down through the centuries.
However, Protestants have been divided over the proper time and mode of Baptism. Concerning time, a compelling Biblical case can be made for baptizing only those adults who make a credible profession of faith. But a compelling Biblical case can also be made for baptizing the believer’s children. Some of the most respected fathers of the Church have stood on opposite sides of this debate. Martin Luther and John Calvin believed children of believers should be baptized. John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon believed only adult believers should be baptized.
Concerning the proper mode of Baptism (how and where the water is applied), Scripture is silent. Recognizing how divisive these issues have been across Church history, we are committed not to divide over them.
In other words, not in good company with Calvin or the Belgic Confession 34. 2kers discipline the sexually unrepentant, too. But we limit it to the fold of God. We do the same with the sacramentally unrepentant. If the Bayly’s want to thump their chest about how willing they are to bring the culture in for criticism, they might have a little more credibility if they were willing to man up over baptism. But since the doctrine of man is central to the faith, that’s not likely to happen.
LikeLike
Mikkelmann says
You don’t want the church to talk about the climate. You do want the church to talk about gambling laws, same-sex marriage laws and abortion law. How about justice in warfare? How about businesses exploiting undocumented Hispanics? The government’s increased intrusion into daily life? Blasphemy laws. Selling goods on Sundays. Legalization of marijuana. What’s your list? Did God give you that list?
My point is simply that where the Christians see an issue addressed in our Biblical/confessional heritage that presses in upon society and is judged a danger, they are entitled as citizens to speak up. Indeed there are issues where failure to speak up is is moral failure, if not cowardice. If Christians have differing views, so be it. The differences will be extenuated the more complex the particular issue for the reason that such contested issues can involve conflicting moral premises, also economic, scientific, technological, political dimensions to say nothing of the propensity of the law of unintended consequences to kick in. When this is likely caution is required, actually caution, prayerfulness, collaboration are always required. I gave the example climate change to illustrate how difficult it is to say something on the subject that fails to account for all the facts and issues at stake.
LikeLike
Mikkelmann says:
“Do you really need your preacher to tell you what to do in politics? Or is it possible you know more about political matters than he does?”
Of course persons in the pew will know more on particular subjects than their preacher.
In my experience members of the church are always interested in what their ministers have to say – OK well those who think about what’s going on in the broader society, to reflect on the reasons and implications of a particular event, newspaper article, etc. I would imagine the Sunday after 9/11 preachers broke into their preaching programme to preach a sermon relevant to the events of that day and what sense their people were making of it. I certainly did and I was 20,000 kms away.
LikeLike
Thank you for your posts, Bobby. I’m pleased you managed to get from Palmer to David
You say:
Why must the church engage in the world of ideas, politics, and prevailing culture? Why shouldn’t the church simply content itself to administer the means of grace?
I really think I’ve answered that one.
I think re secular we are into semantics. There are secular people that we can work with, particular social conservatives. I have had some involvement with libertarians but there are areas were we do not agree.
When I used the word I introduced confusion for you. I used the term in relation to our opponents who variously describe themselves as atheist, humanist, secular, (moral) progressives and are certain that they oppose (just about) everything that Christians argue for. In my situation I can quote names of such people and their organisations and have appeared with them in various situations of contest: Parliamentary enquiries, debates, etc.
You ask “Why must all citizens engage themselves politically?” My answer is that you are a citizen with the right (correction, ‘duty’) to vote for a candidate in a political process who most closely approximates your views on a range of issues you consider important.
If Christians aren’t prepared to enter into the great debates of our time, including political involvement, then we have no right to bemoan the gradual demoralisation (Gertrude Himmelfarb’s phrase) of American society.
I have never said we “should be making laws that govern everyone based on principles of special revelation” – in the public square I’m happy to use and have used natural law arguments, though I’m also willing to be identified as a Christian of conservative orthodox views. In fact you must use natural law arguments in the public square. You have completely misjudged me in this respect.
However, on one thing we agree: the Barossa Valley produces fine shiraz, but why stop there?
LikeLike
Todd, it would be tedious for us both to do the back and forwards on every point of departure – we may find if we sat down together we would inch closer. Different contexts cloud the discussion, even different semantics as with Bobby.
What I would say is that politics, which I’m using as shorthand for the making of laws – there that might help clarify things! – is something we can’t afford not to be involved in. Otherwise, how does ssm come about, or have you already rolled over on this one?
Todd, you say, “Then I speak outside the Word, and my opinions are no better than anyone’s, and I certainty cannot put, “Thus saith the Lord” in front of them without being a Pharisee”.
That’s OK, but because I can’t quote a Biblical text doesn’t mean shut up and say nothing.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I think I got onto the Bayly’s website from here earlier in the week. I don’t profess to understand them. I was concerned with some of the things they were charging Dr Hart and others with, people I know a little more about, though whether we are on the same page, I haven’t a clue. I was appalled by the tone of the Bayly’s posts but then I think Dr Hart could tone it down a bit as well, because no matter how much we disagree, we are brothers in Christ to share life in the new heaven and new earth to come, our home of righteousness.
Also I had a little bit of slack at the end of the week and thought I’d try my hand.
You say, “Calvin was an ecclesiastical and thus concerned for the sins of the church”, but it is not as simple as that because church and civil life were closely intertwined. If you do the necessary reading, you will find Calvin was indeed concerned for sins outside the church. Servetus could have put you right on that one.
LikeLike
Well, what good fun that was, with ‘you lot’ all tucked up in bed enjoying sweet dreams, not answering back. I hope Bobby didn’t quaff the entire bottle of shiraz by himself.
Cheers to one and all
LikeLike
Good posts David! Welcome to the fun.
LikeLike
Todd says: “I agree, but I would include atheists also. We share the political process with every citizen. Remember, our enemies are not flesh and blood, and no amount of torturing that text can make it say our enemies are liberals, homosexuals, abortion doctors,”
Todd, our enemies are the “spirit” or principalities behind Planned parenthood, Queer Nation and the American teacher union (the spirit of this world) Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and pride.)
. If men truly are the seed of Satan then they really are our enemies, in some sense. Although, like Paul; God can bring them to him, (conversion) if he wills. God quite clearly says, he hates the wicked. And in that same sense, so should we!
Yet, since none of us deserve being saved, our humility and thanksgiving for God’s amazing grace, should cause us to yearn for more conversions every day. Todd, the Bible clearly says that the spirit of this world, is something we should resist, and overcome.
LikeLike
Spot on Doug, I let Todd get away with that one.
I don’t know what engagement Todd has had with atheists you do struggle to find common cause on any topic – their opposition/hatred is just so visceral they, ironically, become irrational.
Back to Bobby’s hot topic, if I may be so bold
NZ Sauvignon Blanc very popular in Oz, thou’ in my opinion over the top on fruit.
If you like Shiraz look out for some Heathcote Shiraz, big, bold brassy with fabulous colour.
Australia great on Chardonnay from just about anywhere. Look for some Clare Valley (SA) Riesling but not more than 2-3 years old whilst there is excellent Sauvignon Blanc Semillon blends from Margaret River (WA) – a dry white style. Clare Valley is just half hour up the road from the Barossa.
Bobby, the Barossa is Lutheran country, so may be you better switch to Heathcote Shiraz. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
David (if you will),
Thanks for your response. It strikes me that we are pretty far apart, however.
For one, I don’t see myself as having opponents in the political realm. I generally see politics as a pragmatic endeavor, where the goal is simply to do what makes the best sense in view of the available evidence. I don’t see how my Christian commitment contributes anything of much value to the universe of relevant evidence. As a Christian, I want to be able to worship freely without governmental interference. Beyond that, I don’t see my status as a Christian as having much relevance. Pragmatic reasoning from God’s general revelation can pretty much get us the rest of the way. In my opinion, politics is a follower, not a leader. In many instances, the culture has already chosen winners and losers by the time an issue percolates its way into the political realm. Take same-sex marriage as an example. Despite the fact that it’s not recognized in about 80% of the United States, educated elites overwhelmingly approve of it, regardless of their political views. The political battles on this issue involve nothing more than bringing the law into conformity with where the culture has been for a while. But that’s largely a pragmatic concern.
Further, I see no reason to bind anyone’s conscience regarding a duty to be involved with politics. If someone’s aptitude lies in the realm of science, I see no reason why the scientist should lessen his or her devotion to doing science so as to reserve time to engage in politics. I’m content to leave politics to those who enjoy such things.
I think that certain Christians gravitate to politics out of a kind of last-ditch effort. Evangelicals in the United States live in something of a cultural bubble, and don’t seem to catch wind of broader trends until those trends have taken hold in the culture and begin to effect changes in the law. But by that point, the outcomes are already determined. Culture-making is a top-down enterprise. If you can influence caucasian professionals making over $100k/year (who are only 6-7% of the population), you can generally make the rest of the culture follow. Evangelicalism, being a populist bottom-up enterprise, often misses the boat on cultural trends.
Lastly, I prefer to refer to general revelation as opposed to natural law. To me, the term “natural law” supposes that there is some unchanging principle that we’re supposed to divine from nature. I suspect that we are too much marred by the fall to be able to do that with any consistency. Instead, the best that we can do is make wise decisions based on the available evidence, and then be willing to adjust to policies when circumstances change. In that sense, governance is a lot like a complex adaptive system.
LikeLike
Tom,
“If we believe that living in harmony with God’s word is the best life, and that God’s word is simultaneously harmonious with the natural law, then it’s our civic duty as citizens to advance the argument for the common good.”
WJW: Aren’t the Eternal, the Divine, the Natural, and Human distinguished for a reason? Are the demands of Leviticus natural?
My understanding is that there are ritual demands in the Mosaic Law that are specifically for those under the Old Covenant. Still, I don’t think that means homosexual conduct is OK under the New Covenant any more than being a drunk and disobedient child is. OTOH, I believe there’s no evidence the Hebrews actually stoned gays so we gotta chill on this stuff.
As for the “Natural” end, my understanding of Calvinism is that “total depravity” is at odds with “the innate moral sense,” that is, the “law written on man’s heart” mentioned in Romans 2.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Frankly, that’s your lookout although I think some Calvinist thinkers have negotiated the apparent conflict. What I will say is that “nature” isn’t the limit or definition of the natural law. Tigers eat their young. Well, that won’t do! There’s more to man than his animal side.
As for human law, DGH and others have done well with what we would call “conventions.” The Bible is silent on whether we should drive on the left or on the right. There are a lot of human laws we need just to keep people from smashing into each other.
_______________
JP: Now you are speaking my language!
In vino veritas. Aye. I like the Franklin story too. He’s also speaking of how God designed the universe pretty niftily.
LikeLike
David, by that standard, Mike Horton is way more engaged in public life than Tim Bayly. And yet Tin thinks he’s got the public square cornered and Mike has retreated.
LikeLike
Sorry Dr Hart I’m not close enough to you guys to get the point you’re making.
Bobby there is no point continuing our discussion, we would need to talk face to face. I don’t think you’re ‘getting’ me at all. I’m somebody who has been at the coal face, I don’t think you’ve been there and that’s a pity.
You say, “I don’t see myself as having opponents in the political realm.”. I haven’t used the expression ‘political realm’. I talk ‘the public square’, the world of ideas, ideologies, programmes, contest, political activity, I’m sure I’ve said this before.
If you are an orthodox, confessional Presbyterian you certainly do have opponents in the public square: they hate and despise you and all that you stand for. If you don’t understand this you are blind. David knew he had opponents (how many Pss do you want me to quote), why don’t you? Maybe you’re spending too much time with that Barossa red!
LikeLike
Zrim – “2kers discipline the sexually unrepentant, too. But we limit it to the fold of God. We do the same with the sacramentally unrepentant.”
Not technically correct?
In the URC credobaptists can’t join.
In the OPC credobaptists can join but can’t be officers.
Not sure how a URC would handle a paedobaptist who joined and then changed their mind. No longer allow them to be a member? Probably not withholding the supper or excommunication, though.
We let non-member, credobaptist visitors partake of the Supper with us so it would be odd to withhold it from a member who changed their mind on baptism.
LikeLike
David – “My point is simply that where the Christians see an issue addressed in our Biblical/confessional heritage that presses in upon society and is judged a danger, they are entitled as citizens to speak up. Indeed there are issues where failure to speak up is is moral failure, if not cowardice.”
Since when is society not breaking all of the Commandments all of the time?
“they are entitled as citizens to speak up”
Are the Baylys concerned about “Christian citizens” not speaking up or pastors and church officers not speaking up in their roles as pastors and church officers?
I don’t think 2K opposes Christian citizens speaking up. We don’t oppose any Christian’s right to speak (or to remain silent).
LikeLike
David,
Thanks for at least being willing to come here and debate vs. merely hiding out in the virtual North Korea that is Bayly Blog.
Tell Tim, David, and Craig “hello” for us.
LikeLike
Doug,
Where have you been? I thought maybe you had met your maker trying to impose theonomy on a biker gang.
LikeLike
Tim Bayly confirms that in his world sexual sin does indeed trump all other sins. Notice he can’t really explain why the magistrate should not enforce the first table — he just dismisses the notion without doing the mental gymnastics that Maurina attempts.
Regarding his notion that “sexual sin kills”, he has the problem of monogamous homosexual couples who may have no more health risk than monogamous heterosexual couples. Indeed “gay marriage” will only promote the physical health of these heterosexual couples by encouraging monogamy. Now homosexuality (even monogamous homosexuality) may be detrimental to homosexuals health in the life to come, but that is no different than people who break all of the other commandments and die apart from Christ.
The R2K error (IV): Sexual sin kills…
by Tim Bayly on April 26, 2013 – 8:23pm
The heart of R2K is their intense work to keep the civil magistrate’s authority out of the Christian church and God’s authority out of the public square. Some might quibble with the way this is worded but it’s undeniable R2K is all about the rigid policing of the boundaries between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. Thus “R2K” is an abbreviation for Rigid-Two-Kingdom or Radical-Two-Kingdom.
To most of us it sounds helpful to guard the church against usurpations of ecclesiastical authority by the civil magistrate. John Calvin fought against this in sixteenth century Geneva. He was willing to die in the cause of protecting the authority of the officers of the Church over the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper from Geneva’s civil magistrates.
No one wants Hitler’s SS guards enforcing the use of patriotic hymns of the Third Reich in Lord’s Day worship. No one wants today’s public school teachers leading their classrooms in prayer. Like Dad before us forty years ago, David and I don’t believe in school prayer because any prayer to any deity among our pluralistic pantheon of gods would be a prayer no orthodox Christian could join in. The melting pot has done its work starting with religion. School prayer has long been dead.
Similarly, David and I don’t want the Indiana or Ohio State Police forcing single mothers to baptize their newborn infants as a condition of receiving WIC coupons. We don’t hope for the day water cannon are used by Army National Guard… to corral the masses thrusting them into the Lord’s Day corporate worship of Clearnote Church, Bloomington or Christ the Word.
On the other hand, David and I do want those thirteen states who right now today have sodomy laws on their books to enforce them and we’re opposed to the Evangelical and Reformed leaders who seek their repeal. The Washington Blade, Mother Jones, and Huffington Post are huffing and puffing against these thirteen states for a reason and we believe the opposition of the Washington Blade and Huffington Post are a possible indication the thing they oppose is doing some good.
What’s the difference between the state police or mayor presiding over the Lord’s Supper and the state police or mayor forbidding sodomy?
Did you really ask me that question? Were you serious?
Yet R2K men are very serious when they ask this question. They’re so serious about this question that this is one of their main talking points. They say in order to be consistent, the man who doesn’t think sodomy laws should be repealed must seek the passage of blasphemy laws, the enforcement of blue laws (aimed at keeping the sabbath holy), and so on. To them it’s clear: any enforcement of any law of God by the civil magistrate requires the enforcement of every law of God by the civil magistrate—there’s nothing in between.
Why?
Because they say so. R2K men accuse anyone who opposes the repeal of present sodomy laws of “cowardice” if they do not also seek the passage of Sabbath or blasphemy laws. “You can’t enforce the Second Table of the Law without enforcing the First Table of the Law.”
Really? Why not?
Because they say so.
Readers should know this is simply the false dichotomy fallacy. When men want to shut down a debate, it’s common for them to force an either-or choice between A and Z on their opponent as if there’s no place to stand between the two. Their opponent responds, “What about B and C and D. Or V and W? Are we really required to choose either A or Z?”
To which the R2K man responds, “What’s the matter with you? You said you want to see sodomy laws enforced. Taking the Name of the Lord our God in vain is in the Ten Commandments, also. Are you too much of a coward to enforce that law, too? If you’re going to enforce civil laws that encode any commandment from the Second Table of the Ten Commandments, you have to enforce every last one of the Ten Commandments including those commandments in the First Table of the Law.”
We respond, “No we don’t. In connection with parallels between the Ten Commandments and civil law, there are thousands of places to stand. And specifically, no one who supports the sodomy laws on the books of Western nations for many centuries, and still on the books of thirteen states of the Union, is logically required to seek the passage of blashemy laws, and here’s why.”
God commanded heterosexuality for all men in all places across all time in the Garden of Eden when He made woman for man, ishah for ish, Eve for Adam. This was not a revelation to Noah after the flood or the Sons of Israel in the Ten Commandments. It is the core DNA of man created by God and revealed to man prior to the Fall. Heterosexuality is, therefore, the bedrock of natural law as the Apostle Paul says in Romans:
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. – Romans 1:26,27
Biology is destiny. This is God’s kindness and love. In His great love He has created sexuality in such a way that to violate His Creation Order is deadly for oneself and one’s partner. From His kindness He has designed man’s sexuality such that the violation of our biology, physiology, apparatus, body parts, or nature in sexual intimacy will always be harmful and often fatal. Again, He says that men’s rejection of His universal law of heterosexuality will cause them to receive “in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” The Holy Spirit declares concerning these things:
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. – Galatians 6:7, 8
Recognizing the iron-clad connection God has ordained between the violation of His Creation Order of heterosexuality and the corruption and death of those doing the violating, for many centuries nations and states used civil laws banning sodomy to protect the public health of their citizens and to guard those citizens inclined to homosexuality from murdering themselves and others.
Were all those civil magistrates passing and enforcing laws against public nuisance and fatal sexual practices cowards for not also passing laws requiring repentance and faith in Jesus Christ? A few years ago during the AIDS epidemic when San Francisco’s Castro district’s gay bathhouses were filled with gay men having anonymous, unprotected lethal sex with two or three other men per visit, were the public health officers who closed down those bathhouses inconsistent and cowardly because they didn’t also close down bars where people took the Name of God in vain?
Of course not. Anyone who said such a thing would prove himself a fool. Yet this is the essence of the argument of R2K men who claim a man can’t support sodomy laws without also supporting blasphemy laws.
Of course he can. San Francisco’s public health officers did it and no one took them to court for inconsistency. They were taken to court for other reasons, but not because they stopped short of closing down bars where blasphemy occurred.
Men have always known sexual sin destroys and kills men and women.
All the talk of homosexual practice being a victimless crime is hooey. Every public health official including the Surgeon General at the time of the onslaught of AIDS, C. Everett Koop, knows full well that sodomy kills men. Scripture reveals it and nature confirms it. Homosexuality is death, destruction in this life, and Hell in the life to come.
But let’s say you don’t believe in Hell or the life to come—what then?
Well, you’re still left with death and destruction. Not only homosexual practice but other sexual sins including adultery, incest, fornication, and bestiality cause bloodshed and death. It’s inarguable. It’s obvious. It’s the reason nation’s have always had laws against sexual sins and only our modern faith in the gods of science and technology combined with God having blinded us and given us over to degrading passions causes us to act and speak as if crimes of passion, sickness, and death are not caused by sexual immorality.
So really, we have a choice whether we’re going to live in a nation where murder of self and others will be legal or not? R2K men think it should be legal whereas historic Reformed men think it should be criminal. Whether the murder is of self or others. Whether the murder is of sodomites or unborn babies. Whether the murder is public or private. Every civilized man has always known that the rule of law starts with the protection of life and the protection of life begins with the guarding of the family and the guarding of the family begins with the purity of the marriage bed and the purity of the marriage bed starts with the DNA God decreed in the Garden of Eden in the state of perfection prior to the Fall: Adam and Eve, not Steve.
At the end of the day, R2K fails because it’s rigidity requires it to choose between abandoning every law of God or no law of God. But who forces them to make that choice?
Not I. Not any other historic Two-Kingdom man I’ve read or known. Not any church father. Not any reasonable pagan.
Yet sometimes men create a prison for themselves they can’t escape. Wanting to view homosexuality as a victimless crime in order to cede the territory to the frenzied hordes rioting in the streets today, they defined homosexual practice as a religious matter about which men of good consciences may disagree, and thus they end up ceding the point that murder, too, is a religious matter about which men of good conscience may disagree.
After all, who believes any more that “in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them,” and thus “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He created them.” Who believes any more that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). Note our Lord’s words “from the beginning of creation.”
The R2K men tell us these are private truths for Christians only (or Christians and Roman Catholics, or Christians and Roman Catholics and Jews), and thus they ought not to be codified in these United States of America.
We say they must be codified in these United States of America because these things are written into the DNA of man and without them the rule of law will end because the bloodshed of innocents will be everywhere.
* * *
This is the fourth in a series opposing the liberal theology called “Radical Two-Kingdom” or “R2K.” The first in the series may be found here, the second here, and the third here.
LikeLike
But, David, church and civil life are not intertwined now as they were in Calvin’s day. So speaking of things not being so simple, how could Calvin and the Baylys be so cozy? The P&R churches have revised matters in a 2k direction, which is much more of an ecclesiastical than cultural emphasis.
So 2kers are perfectly content to stand with Kuyper and say we disagree with the theocratic Calvin.
You also say: “If Christians aren’t prepared to enter into the great debates of our time, including political involvement, then we have no right to bemoan the gradual demoralisation (Gertrude Himmelfarb’s phrase) of American society.” This sort of sentiment only reveals more the over-realization of politics. But politics isn’t the hinge of society, more like another spoke. But it also reveals an odd view of human history, one the favors its progressive demise. The other odd view is that society is progressing toward utopia. But a more realistic view is that the human condition neither improves nor degrades along the historical spectrum, as in there is nothing new under the sun.
LikeLike
Erik, so a high view of the sacraments that denies membership up front but a low and latitudinarian view that doesn’t discipline the sacramental error of members? That doesn’t compute. And closing the table (Catholic and Lutheran) is different from fencing it (Reformed). I’m not sure how not closing it to non-members bears on what to do with erring members.
LikeLike
“Indeed ‘gay marriage’ will only promote the physical health of these heterosexual couples by encouraging monogamy.”
Should say:
“Indeed ‘gay marriage’ will only promote the physical health of these homosexual couples by encouraging monogamy.”
LikeLike
Bobby: By the way, David. You mentioned that you’re in Australia. Incidentally, I’m sitting on my balcony enjoying a bottle of Schild Estate 2009 Shiraz from Barossa. And, yes, I said a bottle!
Richard, this is the wine that will help you see the glory of God’s natural revelation in the created order.
RS: If that helps you to see glory, it is not the glory of God. The glory of God is seen in the face of Christ and not the reflection of yourself on the bottom of a bottle. The glory of God is manfiested in the Gospel of the glory of God, not in bottles of liquid designed to make men forget the eternity they are headed for.
Luke 21:34 “Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap;
Romans 13:13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.
Galatians 5:21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If you’re serious about that you have to be willing to eventually excommunicate the member. Read the form for excommunication in the Psalter, Basically it says that apart from repentance the person is no longer to be considered a Christian. Are we willing to say that about someone who disagrees about Baptism?
Can you show me an actual case where someone has been excommunicated over baptism?
Here’s the CRC 1982 form: http://www.crcna.org/resources/church-resources/liturgical-forms-resources/excommunication/form-excommunication-1982
“Third Announcement
Beloved in the Lord, the officebearers of this church have twice informed you of the sin committed and the offense given by our fellow member, (name). We informed you that our brother/sister was barred from participation in the sacraments because he/she failed to show true repentance.
Our loving concern since that time, however, has not led him/her to demonstrate any sign of true repentance and faith. Because he/she persists in breaking the covenantal relationship with the Lord and his people, we are compelled to proceed with the final step of discipline, namely, the excommunication of our brother/sister from the church of the Lord. If our brother/sister does not show any evidence of genuine repentance, he/she, to our deep sorrow, will be excommunicated in this church on (date). If any member of the church knows of any valid reason why we should not proceed, we urge that person to inform the consistory.
Let all of us continue to pray for (name) and to plead with him/her so that he/she may not harden his/her heart completely, but return to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, with true confession of sin.”
I think the form we used recently was older and even more severe in its wording.
LikeLike
Zrim – I’m not sure how not closing it to non-members bears on what to do with erring members.
Does your church fence the table from Baptists? Ours doesn’t. The URC church order doesn’t require a URC church to do that.
URCNA Church Order Article 45
Article 45
The Consistory shall supervise participation at the Lord’s Table. No member shall be admitted to
the Lord’s Table who has not first made public profession of faith and is not living a godly life.
Visitors may be admitted provided that, as much as possible, the Consistory is assured of their
biblical church membership, of their proper profession of faith, and of their godly walk.
Now the trick is making a judgment on a visitor’s “biblical church membership” in 10 minutes on a busy Sunday morning before the service.
In order to not admit Baptists we have to be willing to affirm that when Belgic 29 says that true churches “maintain the pure administration of the Sacraments as instituted by Christ” it is saying that Baptist Churches are not true churches. Since at the end of Belgic 29 it says “As for the false church…it not administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds and takes from, as it thinks proper.”
I think clearly Guido De Bres had Rome in mind and not John Piper.
I admit all this is tricky, though.
LikeLike
TVD,
It’ll help if you start reading some source materials on 2k, start with Secular Faith(Clark), NL2K(Van Drunnen). You’re comments on NL shows a misunderstanding of how NL from an reformed not to mention an orthodox christian perspective is grounded in Imago Dei considerations and the moral law. You might want to also pick up something as remedial as Sproul’s treatment on the 5 points of calvinism, as that would remove your prima facie assesment of a conflict between Rom 2 and total depravity.
LikeLike
Practically speaking I think a URC member who develops credobaptist convictions would be counseled to join a credobaptist church or to drop their URC membership and continue attending as a non-member/perpetual visitor — with access to the table. As long as they are not actively opposing the elders publicly on the issue of baptism.
We have a couple like this. He is Reformed, she is a Baptist (mixed marriage). We have another couple where He is a Baptist and she is Reformed (mixed marriage) and they left to join a PCA where they can be members.
Unfortunately not everyone can meet their spouse at Dordt or Calvin!
LikeLike
Sean – start with Secular Faith(Clark),
D.G.’s gonna slap you around the next time he sees you.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke is challenging Tim Bayly and managing to not get banned:
Permalink Submitted by Tom Van Dyke on April 26, 2013 – 9:23pm
Thanks for your reply, Tim. Not feeling the love yet.
That you should address me as an enemy is unfortunate since there is little daylight between us on Biblical morality. But how’s the fire & brimstone act working forya? A few hundreds in your churches on Sundays, a few thousands here and there out of a nation of 300 million, and gay marriage more, not less, likely to be passed as a result of this angry rhetoric?
I understand your argument against R2k but where does the Bible say to ignore good sense and make a political hash of it? Is this about serving God and His children or about how righteous it feels to condemn “sodomites”? Only your heart of hearts can know for sure. We must continue to question ourselves at all times. Hey, I hate people reducing Mighty Jehovah to Barney the Christosaur, too, believe me. I get where you’re coming from.
But there is much compassionate work being done on the difficult issue of what is kindly called same-sex attraction [SSA], experienced by many of our children, our sisters and our brothers. In the end, Biblical morality calls Christians with SSA to live celibate lives. Persons with SSA are well aware that the Bible condemns homosexual conduct. Do we think that comes as news to them?
It’s through the love of Christ that we can promise that living a celibate life is the path to happiness–not just for the next world, but that living in harmony with God’s word in this world is what brings the truest happiness as well.
That argument is working.
All this “sodomite” business just gets in the way of God’s love, Tim. There is a better way, a way more godly, more Christlike. I understand your calling to “tell it like it is” when it comes to the word of God. But which approach comports most closely with John 8? “Neither do I condemn you,” says Jesus, but also, “Go and sin no more.” In the end, the goal is for same-sex-attracted persons to live celibate lives. I suggest–I insist–that the best way is through God’s love, not by scaring the bejesus out of ’em with the threat of God’s disgust and hellfire. It just doesn’t stick: the self-loathing turns into despair, and they “fall off the wagon” anyway. The hell with it.
You write:
“Your facile dismissal of the power of preaching in the political realm is contrary to all of Scripture. ”
My “facile dismissal” is that your tactics demonstrably suck, Tim—and this comes from someone who shares your goals. This condemnation stuff fans up those who hate the Christian religion if not God’s word itself, feeding the myth that defenders of Biblical morality are really more about their own self-righteousness than any concern for society and for the people in it. To maintain that the 18th-century preacher act can achieve any political good in the 21st century is to deny reality.
The Bible does not call us to reject reality. You can play in the two kingdoms theological sandbox with your enemies all you want–that’s an intramural matter–but to affect the real world, you need different tactics than inside an evangelical church. I find your criticism of the moral impotence of some 2Kers to be spot on, but if your own tactics serve only to diminish the work of Manhattan Declaration types whose goals are the same as your own, then social conservatism would be better off without any of you.
You write:
“I regularly hear from men tempted by homosexual desires thanking me for using the words ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomite.’ They report that it’s always a helpful reminder of the shame and horror of their particular besetting sin, so that’s just one pastoral reason I use these words. ”
How many? Frankly, it sounds like spiritual sado-masochistic game to me. Tell me what a bad boy I am. Look, as a pastor, nobody can tell you what to preach. Do what you feel you must. I think the best route to celibacy for SSA persons is per John 8 above and people like Eve Tushnet and Melinda Selmys. And if you feel it’s God’s will to participate in politics throwing around bombs like “sodomite’ and Hitler,” then I feel called politically as someone on the same “side” to ask you to reconsider your tactics. As a practical matter, social-conservative politics would be better off if you took the R2K advice and saved that stuff for inside the church. And I hate agreeing with them on anything. ;-P
Respectfully submitted.
LikeLike
RS: If that helps you to see glory, it is not the glory of God. The glory of God is seen in the face of Christ and not the reflection of yourself on the bottom of a bottle. The glory of God is manfiested in the Gospel of the glory of God, not in bottles of liquid designed to make men forget the eternity they are headed for.
Me: Ecclesiastes 2:24
24 There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment[c] in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, 25 for apart from him[d] who can eat or who can have enjoyment?
Eccl. 3:11
Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. 12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; 13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God’s gift to man.
Eccl. 5:18
18 Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment[h] in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. 19 Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God.
Eccl 8:14
14 There is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity. 15 And I commend joy, for man has nothing better under the sun but to eat and drink and be joyful, for this will go with him in his toil through the days of his life that God has given him under the sun.
7 Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.
Richard lets work on keeping our piety in line with the piety of the bible.
LikeLike
Erik, DOH!
TVD, that would be Secular Faith(Hart). Mea culpa. It’s early and I was drinking late.
LikeLike
Tom,
“My understanding is that there are ritual demands in the Mosaic Law that are specifically for those under the Old Covenant. Still, I don’t think that means homosexual conduct is OK under the New Covenant any more than being a drunk and disobedient child is.”
Right. But as has been mentioned here many times before the Old Covenant has many demands beyond the moral codes, such as proper worship, and the Theonomy types never talk about these. Why? Why stop at behavior in the bedroom? If God’s law is good it’s all good. Perhaps the Theonomy types have misunderstood Christ and Gospel. Oh foolish Galatians! Political liberalism happened, even with Christian consent no less. Your instincts about natural law are good and reasonable (I think there is a Calvinist strain), but again how to reconcile eternal claims about human nature and political order without mentioning sin, redemption, hope, and glory, already and not yet? Churches can do this. The oh so natural law inclined Manhattan Declaration, for example, can’t. Indeed, the MD claims to speak for Christianity and yet avoids such theological nuance precisely because you can’t build political consensus when you disagree over imputation and infusion. Who is compromising the gospel here?
LikeLike
Bobby: By the way, David. You mentioned that you’re in Australia. Incidentally, I’m sitting on my balcony enjoying a bottle of Schild Estate 2009 Shiraz from Barossa. And, yes, I said a bottle!
Richard, this is the wine that will help you see the glory of God’s natural revelation in the created order.
Sean Quoting RS: If that helps you to see glory, it is not the glory of God. The glory of God is seen in the face of Christ and not the reflection of yourself on the bottom of a bottle. The glory of God is manfiested in the Gospel of the glory of God, not in bottles of liquid designed to make men forget the eternity they are headed for.
Sean Me: Ecclesiastes 2:24 There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment[c] in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, 25 for apart from him[d] who can eat or who can have enjoyment?
RS: Your verse does not mention wine.
Sean: Eccl. 3:11 Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. 12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; 13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God’s gift to man.
RS: No mention of wine.
Sean: Eccl. 5:18 Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment[h] in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. 19 Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God.
RS: No mention of wine.
Sean: Eccl 8:14 There is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity. 15 And I commend joy, for man has nothing better under the sun but to eat and drink and be joyful, for this will go with him in his toil through the days of his life that God has given him under the sun.
RS: No mention of wine.
Sean: Eccl 9:7 Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.
RS: Ecclesiastes only mentions wine three times. But it does not mention any other “drinking” other than wine. Two of the times it is clearly in a context that is not positive. I would also remind you that Ecclesiastes is speaking to life under the sun, which is to say, as if nothing matters but what is under the sun without taking into account eternal things. The idea is something like this: “”Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we may die.” Bobby spoke of seeing the glory of God in and through his bottle. Ecclesiastes says nothing of that. So your ” Richard lets work on keeping our piety in line with the piety of the bible” says nothing against my statement to avoid drunkenness and that the glory of God is seen in the face of Christ and in the Gospel.
Ecclesiastes 2:3 I explored with my mind how to stimulate my body with wine while my mind was guiding me wisely, and how to take hold of folly, until I could see what good there is for the sons of men to do under heaven the few years of their lives.
RS: Solmon is going to stimulate his body in order to see what good there is UNDER HEAVEN or UNDER THE SUN. He also tried to stimulate himself with other things: ” I collected for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men– many concubines” (Eccl 2:8). Why did he do this? “All that my eyes desired I did not refuse them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, for my heart was pleased because of all my labor and this was my reward for all my labor. 11 Thus I considered all my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had exerted, and behold all was vanity and striving after wind and there was no profit under the sun” (Eccl 2:10-11). He tested himself with all pleasures to find out what was worth living for UNDER THE SUN. He found out that it was all vanity and striving after the wind.
Eccl 9:5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun. 7 Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works.
RS: You are going to do so you might as well be happy now, so eat and drink and be merry. It says that God has approved the work.
Eccl 10:18 Through indolence the rafters sag, and through slackness the house leaks. 19 Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.
RS: Again, the drinking of wine is in a bad context. Laziness and money being the answer. But don’t worry, drink your wine and you can forget it all.
LikeLike
Richard are you gonna start arguing for KJV only, or tell me how the wine wasn’t fermented.
Nobody is arguing for drunkenness, but as per usual, your view of piety takes on gnostic overtones as opposed to the ‘earthy’ one’s scripture commends; food, drink, work, time for every season under the sun.
LikeLike
Frankly, David, I suspect that you find yourself with opponents because you insist on imposing your private convictions onto others against their will. Yes, I am a confessional Presbyterian. And as long as I can continue to worship as a confessional Presbyterian, I have no real interest in how others choose to live their lives, as long as their choices don’t impose unreasonable externalities on me or others without consent.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the public square.” Christian worship is generally open to the public and therefore occurs in the public square. So, we proclaim God’s truth to the world in the public square when we worship on the Lord’s Day.
As I mentioned above, I have little interest in politics. I primarily comment here because of my concerns about a danger that I see as far worse than secularism. Nothing in Scripture commands that I personally invest myself in the outcomes of political battles that have no effect on my freedom to worship as a confessional Presbyterian (i.e., to partake of the preaching of Christ and the administering of the sacraments in a worship service on the Lord’s Day). Therefore, it’s outrageous for ministers to bandy about binding the consciences on their charges on matters where Scripture provides no clear guidance. Think Nadab and Abihu.
In my view, Scripture condemns certain sexual acts between members of the same sex. It also condemns gluttony. But nowhere does Scripture suggest whether one or both of these sins ought to be criminally punished by the state. In that sense, believers ought to be free to rely on the light of nature and arrive at whatever conclusions seem best on such matters. The same goes for whether same-sex couples can gain access to the legal entitlements that accompany civil marriage (which, after all, is little more than a set of default rules governing future interests in property ownership). But there is no “Christian position” on whether the state criminally punishes gluttony or sodomy, and there is no “Christian position” on whether the legal inducements of civil marriage ought to be available to same-sex couples. Thus, it would be desirable if churches and ministers would stop trying to bind folks’ consciences on these things.
As I said before, there is presently no Culture War. That war was won on a cross outside of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. Maybe we should start living like we believe that!
LikeLike
Would to God there were more David Palmers @ OLT! I chime in here, mostly ignored, from time to time.:) Like Erik C. 🙂 Really, Erik, Your comment length today @ 10:04! “Sheeeeeesh!”, as DGH says. This OLT endless posting-comments is all really only about how Jesus condensed the 10 Comms. Love God… Love fellow man, uh… Image bearers. In and out of church! I have never seen this wonderful balance @ OLT. Where is any encouragement to lead folks to Christ— supposedly the MAIN emphasis of 2K? Why shouldn’t Jesus’ people condemn killing babies and oldsters like me? And gay “marriage”. In church AND in the Public Square? Listen to David P. in his loving, yet accurate way of applying Scripture AND Calvin! Love, Old Bob Morris PS And Erik, Please don’t waste so much of God’s time! Take more time to work, love family and friends, sleep, etc. Unlike some @ OLT, ignore wine 🙂 Also look more carefully into the LATER years of McIntyre and Schaeffer, OK?
LikeLike
Exactly, Sean.
Somehow I knew that my averment would rouse this blog’s resident Gnostic to commenting.
LikeLike
Erik,
I would largely agree with Mr. Van Dyke’s retort to the Bishop of Bloomington. It is well established that about 3-5% of the population is involuntarily attracted to members of the same sex. The church ought to have led the way in welcoming such persons. Instead, the church has generally led the way in ostracizing them and spreading all manner of false rumors about them. For example, many evangelicals continue to falsely suggest that sexual orientation is voluntary. And many continue to hold to the notion that male homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles. In many instances, gay Christians are forced into the gay community because that’s the only community that doesn’t ostracize them.
Too many evangelical churches have simply become country clubs for the minivan set, and have unwittingly bought into the social prejudices of the bourgeois classes.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I agree. I think that responding to that mindset in a way that can be heard requires a different interpretation of Romans 1:18-32. As long as a Biblicist believes that “the Bible” teaches what they assume it says, any argument that doesn’t attempt to address that is the product of a rebellious heart against God’s Law and dismissed outright. They appear to read v. 26-27 and conclude that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of non-celibate homosexuals became that way as a result of sustained idolatry or some other unspecified, overt rebellion against God.
There’s a tendency in “Reformed” circles to read v. 21 as a conscious knowledge and rejection of the Reformed doctrines of God, as if everyone were born with a little Calvin as their conscience. I wonder if this is part of their constant exasperation with everyone for not seeing moral problems as they do, aside from the question of whether they’ve read Calvin correctly.
v. 22 and 28-32 also hint that Paul isn’t discussing 21st century singles exploring same-sex attractions. Applying the full force of Romans 1 may still be appropriate in contemporary contexts, like the outlandish displays at “gay-pride” parades. But if Christ is ever to be meaningfully offered to those outside the covenant, we have to be more thoughtful before dismissing anyone as knowingly warring against God.
LikeLike
sean: Richard are you gonna start arguing for KJV only, or tell me how the wine wasn’t fermented.
RS: Which is not an argument and is really a form of an ad hominem.
Sean: Nobody is arguing for drunkenness,
RS: And drunks don’t argue for drunkenness either. At what point does the drink take over just a little so that control or lack of control starts? How does one reconcile the difference between a low alcohol content wine and a high alcohol content drink? We are told to flee from sin.
Sean: but as per usual, your view of piety takes on gnostic overtones as opposed to the ‘earthy’ one’s scripture commends; food, drink, work, time for every season under the sun.
RS: Actually, Sean, I think your view is closer to some of the gnostic teaching than mine. Some of those folks argued that one only needed to have knowledge and that it didn’t matter what one did in the body.
LikeLike
Bobby: For example, many evangelicals continue to falsely suggest that sexual orientation is voluntary. And many continue to hold to the notion that male homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles. In many instances, gay Christians are forced into the gay community because that’s the only community that doesn’t ostracize them.
RS: Many of us have grown in our understanding so that we now recognize that people are born with terrible tempers and murderous hearts and so we can now view them with great kindness. I would argue that we should not force murderers into communities where murderers live because we don’t want to ostracize them. We also wouldn’t want to think that murderers would kill our young children just because they are murderers.
LikeLike
This one goes out to Richard:
LikeLike
Old Bob,
The guy I’m quoting at 10:04 is on your team. I would think you would be eating that stuff up.
Remind me again why you’re a Presbyterian?
I’ll stick to letting my wife manage my time, but thanks.
LikeLike
I think Richard may be off his meds again.
LikeLike
Psalm 104
14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
Richard, lots of ‘earthy’ piety and manipulation of drink till the heart is merry. Not to mention someone turning water into wine, and wine of the best sort, and this after all the guests have ‘floated’ the starter jugs. There’s a legitimate use of wine/alcohol to take the edge off and blunt your sorrows as well as just part of a celebration of marking a season and time of life. God expects adults to manage the potential pitfalls, just like with sex and food and money et al.
Gnostics and those who hold to an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism, are the one’s who declare; ‘don’t handle’, ‘don’t taste’, ‘don’t touch’
Col. 2:20-23
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
LikeLike
You can get VanDrunen’s “A Biblical Case for Natural Law” as an e- book on Amazon for $2.99 I believe. At that price there’s no excuse for the DTM and Dougs of the world not to get at least that informed.
David, enemies are par for the course in the political realm. Making enemies from preaching Christ is not equivalent to making enemies over legislation.
LikeLike
Erik, no, we do not fence the table to Baptists. But I’m not talking about communion but membership. And if we’re not willing to discipline a member who denies what we confess and practice then what we have to be ready to do is revise the forms concerning the sacraments, which is to say take our sacramental theology down a few pegs. Until then, I don’t know how we can at once speak of baptism the way we do in Belgic 34 and ignore those who affirm the error we oppose. You evidently think withholding membership from those who deny paedobaptism is kosher. But if you’re going to make baptism a condition of membership then what changes so much after membership that it no longer is a calculation for Christian piety? That looks like hand waving from over here.
ps we have extended associate membership to a transient Reformed Baptist family, though this perplexed them as much as it does me. Again, funny how a CB and a PB can be equally perplexed by the way some PBs look at these matters.
LikeLike
Bobby, gluttony has become a legislative target. Ask Mayor Bloomberg. Moreover Obamacare will have an interest in that as well.
LikeLike
Zrim,
We may need our own Canon Lawyers.
I guess I could see church discipline for a member who renounced paedobaptism for credobaptism and began aggressively promoting it in the church. Practically speaking, though, I think what is more likely to happen is the member would be “counseled out” without discipline being necessary. I wonder if there is case law out there at the classis level.
We have had people leave to attend baptist churches and what has happened is the elders dismissed them “with regrets”. There is no “with regrets” if they transfer to another P&R church, even if they are not leaving under optimal circumstances.
LikeLike
Richard
You need to take some responsibility for us Old Lifers enjoying our spirits, after all, it’s theonomists and revivalists that drove us to drink.
LikeLike
David, you wrote: “to engage in the public square is to engage with academia, the media, principally our secular opponents, politicians and the like, doing so with like minded persons.”
That applies to Mike Horton more than Tim Bayly.
LikeLike
Erik, oh, the irony: “When men want to shut down a debate, it’s common for them to force an either-or choice between A and Z on their opponent as if there’s no place to stand between the two.”
Does that appeal to the Baylys? Check.
Then there is the method of simply disallowing you to comment at their blog. Check mate.
LikeLike
Sean, drinking prevents you from seeing the glory of God in Secular Faith (Hart).
LikeLike
Erik, but my point to David remains: if only the Bayly’s would show as much latitude on how believers regard cultural matters as they do baptismal theology. But tolerance for things indifferent and intolerance for those of the essence is what they do worst.
LikeLike
Indubitably Darryl, that was the Rebecca Creek typing.
LikeLike
Erik: I think Richard may be off his meds again.
I had to press PageDn 4 times to completely bypass that one rant.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think we can probably agree, however, that Romans 1 is primarily referring to particular conduct and a lust to engage in that conduct. Sexual orientation relates much more to general arousal than to a desire to engage in particular acts. After all, one can certainly experience arousal toward someone without necessarily having an desire to engage in lewd acts with that person. So, while Romans 1 may refer to some fraction of the gay population, it hardly describes all gay people. Moreover, Romans 1 probably also includes straight people who engage in same-sex acts for reasons that have nothing to do with arousal.
So, I’m not sure that Romans 1 provides much guidance at all as to how we should address the question of sexual orientation.
Further, sexual orientation is not the same as someone who tends to get angry easily and who therefore may be more likely to kill someone. First, sexual orientation does not refer to a propensity; rather, it is a persistent state. Second, murder is an act of violence against another without his or her consent. I don’t see how sexual orientation ever drives someone to commit acts of violence against other persons without consent. Thus, Richard’s analysis precisely illustrates the reasons why evangelicals look pretty ridiculous in coming to grips with how to welcome celibate gay people within the covenant community.
LikeLike
sean Psalm 104
14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.
Richard, lots of ‘earthy’ piety and manipulation of drink till the heart is merry. Not to mention someone turning water into wine, and wine of the best sort, and this after all the guests have ‘floated’ the starter jugs. There’s a legitimate use of wine/alcohol to take the edge off and blunt your sorrows as well as just part of a celebration of marking a season and time of life. God expects adults to manage the potential pitfalls, just like with sex and food and money et al.
RS: I note that you say that a legitimate use of alcohol is to take the edge off and blunt your sorrows. That is precisely what people say when they trust in their alcohol to do what the Spirit alone can really do. Again, the Psalm you quoted is speaking of wine and not harder forms of alcohol.
Sean: Gnostics and those who hold to an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism, are the one’s who declare; ‘don’t handle’, ‘don’t taste’, ‘don’t touch’
RS: But one aspect of Gnosticism (to repeat) stresses the important of spiritual knowledge so much that what one does with the body does not matter. I gave a quote below.
Sean quoting Col. 2:20-23
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
RS: Am I arguing for self-made religion and asceticism? Am I arguing that all drinking of wine is evil or sinful? No, not at all. But are you going beyond Scripture when you seem to argue for all kinds of the harder alcohol? I would argue that you are. Drinking wine for the sake of the stomach is quite a bit different than drowning the sorrows of the world in a harder form of alcohol. Would you draw a line between the use of harder forms of alcohol and that of marijuana? What of people who take the edge off by using other chemicals?
http://perspective.org.au/sermonseries/142/-1-john—counterfeit-christianity
Talk 1 BACK TO BASICS (1 John 1:1-2:2)
Jesus: The Man
False ideas about Jesus were just as popular in John’s day as ours. Now it’s people like Barbara Theiring. Then it was people like the Gnostics whose strong dualism led them to argue Jesus wasn’t fully man and sin wasn’t such a big deal.
The Person Of Jesus
In v1-4 John drags his readers back to the basics – that Jesus was a physical man and that our faith is based on historical events.
The Work Of Jesus
John now attacks the Gnostic idea that what we do with our bodies doesn’t matter. It matters so much that Jesus’ whole reason for coming hinges on the seriousness of sin.
LikeLike
How do people become such experts on the orientation and thoughts and actions and sin levels of people they have never met?
LikeLike
Bobby: I think we can probably agree, however, that Romans 1 is primarily referring to particular conduct and a lust to engage in that conduct. Sexual orientation relates much more to general arousal than to a desire to engage in particular acts. After all, one can certainly experience arousal toward someone without necessarily having an desire to engage in lewd acts with that person. So, while Romans 1 may refer to some fraction of the gay population, it hardly describes all gay people. Moreover, Romans 1 probably also includes straight people who engage in same-sex acts for reasons that have nothing to do with arousal.
RS: Bobby, you can try to reason these things away, but the Word of God is the Word of God. God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. Read the text carefully and see just how far your reasoning falls short of the text.
Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
LikeLike
Zrid said:
Erik, but my point to David remains: if only the Bayly’s would show as much latitude on how believers regard cultural matters as they do baptismal theology. But tolerance for things indifferent and intolerance for those of the essence is what they do worst.
Are you saying that sodomy is merely a cultural matter? Or are you saying that the Bayly’s would rebuke a church member whom they discovered believed sodomy was not sinful? I think they would only rebuke them privately, and that that would be appropriate, and that they would not use formal discipline against such a person. Someone who ran a gay bar or otherwise actively promoted sodomy would get public discipline, though. Should he, in your view?
LikeLike
Bobby: Further, sexual orientation is not the same as someone who tends to get angry easily and who therefore may be more likely to kill someone.
RS: You said that a person has their sexual orientation by nature. Do some people have parents with terrible tempers and so appear to be born with great anger? Are some people born with what seems to be no conscience? What a person is by nature does not excuse their behavior.
Bobby: First, sexual orientation does not refer to a propensity; rather, it is a persistent state.
RS: What do you mean be a persistent state? Is a pedophile born a pedophile and so is that by nature? Does the pedophile have a persistint state of desire?
Bobby: Second, murder is an act of violence against another without his or her consent.
RS: Homosexual acts are acts of hatred with and against another that assist in treasuring up wrath for eternity.
Bobby: I don’t see how sexual orientation ever drives someone to commit acts of violence against other persons without consent.
RS: Because it is soul murder, and that of both (or more) of the people involved.
bobby: Thus, Richard’s analysis precisely illustrates the reasons why evangelicals look pretty ridiculous in coming to grips with how to welcome celibate gay people within the covenant community.
RS: Thus Richard’s analysis shows how Bobby prefers to be popular with society than deal with the plain teaching of the Word of God. If you break one commandment, you have broken the whole law.
LikeLike
D.G. – Erik, oh, the irony: “When men want to shut down a debate, it’s common for them to force an either-or choice between A and Z on their opponent as if there’s no place to stand between the two.”
Indeed. The day the Bayly’s are considered nuanced thinkers I’ll be singing lead in a megachurch praise band.
LikeLike
Zrim – Erik, but my point to David remains: if only the Bayly’s would show as much latitude on how believers regard cultural matters as they do baptismal theology. But tolerance for things indifferent and intolerance for those of the essence is what they do worst.
Where’s the glory in sacramental theology or the Confessions? The Bayly’s don’t do mundane well. An axe is so much more exciting than a hoe.
LikeLike
Bobby said:
“After all, one can certainly experience arousal toward someone without necessarily having an desire to engage in lewd acts with that person. So, while Romans 1 may refer to some fraction of the gay population, it hardly describes all gay people.”
You’ve fallen into the liberal rhetoric of thinking htat “orientation” is what is important. Being a “gay person” is defined by your actions, not your thoughts. We do not say that most men are adulterers merely because they are tempted by married women. Nor do they use their lusts for self-identification purposes.
LikeLike
I listened to Bayly sermons this week, they isn’t Reformed by any NAPARC standard.
I’m left wondering why he is in the conversation, much like I wonder why Rob Bell is in the Evangelical conversation.
LikeLike
Eric – Someone who ran a gay bar or otherwise actively promoted sodomy would get public discipline, though. Should he, in your view?
Someone in the Bayly’s church running a gay bar? Talk about a hypothetical.
LikeLike
Kent – I listened to Bayly sermons this week, they isn’t Reformed by any NAPARC standard. I’m left wondering why he is in the conversation.
Ask Maurina.
LikeLike
Oops, my bad, I have no right to comment on the standards overall of NAPARC sermons, apologies.
But those sermons were squish evangelical at best.
Very disappointing, as I was expecting an Ian Paisley-ish fire and brimstone hair-raising rebuke for my sin.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that Bayly doesn’t want the government enforcing the first table because they’ll make a hash of it. How does he think they’ll handle enforcing laws against sodomy and abortion?
Someone raised a good point a week ago that every miscarriage would have to be investigated. Does this mean every pregnant woman will need to register with the government?
On sodomy will we have judges issuing search warrants to catch men (and women, presumably) in the act?
We need to think about the implications of these things before we spout off trying to sound righteous.
LikeLike
And if sodomy is punished what about fornication?
How about the act of sodomy performed on a member of the opposite sex with consent? How about the way that females commit “sodomy” performed on a member of the opposite sex with consent?
This gets complicated (and gross) pretty quick.
Maybe what he needs to be lobbying for is some kind of law restricting sex to the missionary position in marriage exclusively.
Of course a lot of hip, young evangelicals might object to that.
LikeLike
The Baylys better hope they never meet up with Omar Little.
LikeLike
It makes me sad if someone cuts off their own nose, kills themselves, kills their three month old unborn child, or has sex with someone they’re not supposed to, but it is really hard for me to stop them from doing these things once their mind is made up to do them. They are harming themselves and their own offspring and they will answer to God for that someday.
I could advocate for the government punishing them for these things, but the punishment of the guilt experienced from the acts themselves is no small punishment. You could argue that laws against these things will be a deterrent, and there is some truth to that, but as noted above one needs to consider the cost and infringement upon innocent people’s freedom that these laws will entail. Everyone knows abortion will still exist underground, as will sodomy, as did the consumption of alcohol during prohibition.
We have laws against serious crimes that people commit against others persons and property, but it is just plain hard to enforce laws that involve crimes that people commit against their own bodies, the bodies of other consenting adults, or their unborn children that reside in their own bodies. Even after Roe vs. Wade there are restrictions on abortion and I am in favor of those. The best way to restrict abortion, however, is to appeal to the consciences of women to see that they are genuinely hurting themselves and killing their unborn child.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s obvious from the wedding at Cana that wine was being used for celebratory purposes, so, I guess, Jesus needed a reproof on his use of wine outside of easing/treating a physical ailment.
As for the use of ‘harder’ alcohol, it still falls under the category of wisdom. Scripture commends the use of alcohol up to and including an altering of mood, drunkenness is to be avoided. I don’t ask of scripture to address all potential modern or antiquated possibilities, scripture expects of it’s audience to work with categories of discretion and wisdom, it expects an Imago Dei capacity. Biblicism is an enabler of immaturity. I try not to imbibe. As for marijuana and harder drugs, it’s illegal, so I don’t partake. As a political opportunity, I would point you toward the failure of prohibition and the massive amount of dollars and bloodshed spent in the ‘war on drugs’ and the underground and untaxed economy created by our efforts. Again wisdom must be engaged, there’s good reason to draw lines in the sand as regards some drugs and age participation. Scripture works with the categories of wisdom, age maturity, State sanctioning, talents and gifting. I endeavor to do likewise.
All things are lawful but not all things are profitable.-Wisdom is required.
For some people it’s not advisable to touch a ‘drop’, for others they could stand to imbibe within limits.
But now you’re intruding on my vodka and tonic blunting, so I bid you adieu.
LikeLike
I find this a very strange web site.
I think to myself we ought to be on the same page, but it is not so.
People persistently (deliberately?) misread me as being entirely focussed on politics. My focus is to be a faithful Christian who weeps over Jerusalem. I love my country and I hate seeing it go to the dogs. As a citizen who is motived by Christian (biblical, confessional) conviction I want to defend those things that are honourable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, praiseworthy using natural law arguments but also wishing not in any way to hide the fact of my allegiance to Christ (and of course to work in concert with fellow Christians).
The politics come into the equation because politicians get to make the law of the land, that’s where the rubber hits the road. That’s why why politics becomes important and as citizens why Christians need to get involved politically.
I find it intolerable to find so many posters on this blog are so smugly indifferent, little men safely cocooned in their snug and warm burrows, not daring to raise their heads above the parapet, quietly quaffing their Shiraz.
I was shocked to read Bobby’s excuses for homosexual sin and his shabby attempt to justify from the Bible, but at least one of you, Richard, sought to correct them. (the only point of possible agreement I might have with Bobby on the matter is that I believe – because of the pervasiveness of original sin – some people are born with a propensity to same-sex attraction just as some people are born with physical deformity or a propensity to fear or anger and just as physical deformity must be corrected or ameliorated and anger controlled so homosexual attraction must be brought to subjection. Sin lies that deep and must be resolutely fought, which is my point of departure from Bobby. Of course we must have sympathy and love for the homosexual who is engaged in the fight against his particular sin. But then that’s the human lot regardless of what particular cocktail of sins ails us individually.
I’ll leave you now, it is the Lord’s Day now and not an agreeable thing to be contentious. BYW some have said I am a Bayly man. I don’t know them. I only got to them from here last week. If they agree with me, so be it. I’m a confessional man, a conservative, a man prepared to fight for Christ and good and godly ways out there where people are blind, foolish, hurting themselves, believing wrong things, with wrong priorities and laws that encourage such a state of affairs. I believe it is possible to reverse such a state of affairs, as has happened in the past, and we need to be in the thick of it as 2K men just as Calvin and the company of pastors were in the thick of things in the city of Geneva, a city whose people exhibited the full range of human sinfulness.
Cheers for now, until another time
David Palmer
LikeLike
One might say, “There is no cost too high to pay to save the unborn.” That sounds good in theory, but there are children all over the world today that die of hunger or disease that we could probably help more than we do, but the cost is high in terms of money and time. Why aren’t we helping these kids more? It’s because we have finite resources and multiple demands on those resources. We would like to help starving kids, but our wives want to remodel the bathroom, the kids need braces, and the car has 150,000 miles on it. These things just aren’t simple.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s obvious from the wedding at Cana that wine was being used for celebratory purposes, so, I guess, Jesus needed a reproof on his use of wine outside of easing/treating a physical ailment.
Actually, Jesus turned the wine into water. Thanks, Jesus, that was the best water we ever had! So much better than that wine stuff.
[Note to self: Next time we see that Jesus guy, hide the vin. And anybody ever invites him to a wedding again, I’m gonna punch him out.]
LikeLike
We could all learn from Hart’s parents on giving. They gave generously and sacrificially their whole lives. Fortunately Hart was still able to get a good wife because he had naturally straight teeth.
LikeLike
My enthusiasm for the “is it a sin to drink wine” debate is right up there with the debate over whether or not Stryper was the best of the Christian hair metal bands…
LikeLike
kent posted April 26, 2013 at 10:40 am: “Listened this week to a few sermons from that church, there is nothing remotely Reformed about that preaching.”
The word “Reformed” has a definition. Are you saying that something in the sermons denied one or more of the Five Points of Calvinism, or are you saying that something in the sermons violated some other point of the Westminster Standards?
Erik Charter posted April 26, 2013 at 9:29 am: “One of the points of Maurina’s essay is that Reformed Churches need to be wary of those who didn’t grow up Reformed (He has Hart & Horton specifically in mind, I believe). Has he looked closely at who he is aligning himself with?”
Erik, either I’ve been unclear in what I wrote or you’ve misunderstood me.
I didn’t grow up Reformed, so clearly I couldn’t be saying “Reformed Churches need to be wary of those who didn’t grow up Reformed.” In any case, the Baylys have a lot stronger Reformed family history than I do.
My point was one on which I think you, and almost everyone at Old Life, would fully agree. When somebody becomes Reformed, if we don’t teach them the confessions of the church, we risk our churches losing their confessional integrity.
We can debate the details of what that means, but I think the principle is one which any confessional Calvinist will affirm.
LikeLike
David Palmer posted April 27, 2013 at 6:30 pm: “I find this a very strange web site.”
As do a fair number of people on this side of the Pacific Ocean as well.
Blessings on the Lord’s Day, Rev. Palmer.
LikeLike
DTM,
But we would say that you have a loaded view of what the confessions of the church say. I think Hart & Horton know the Westminster & The Three Forms. It’s not that simple.
You think a bunch of “ousiders” with newfangled 2K notions are elbowing out your beloved Neocalvinism.
I would go back and look at your piece again but the Baylys have blocked me from even seeing their site so I’ll have to do it from a different computer.
As a journalist you might talk to them about censorship sometime.
LikeLike
Rev. Palmer? Rabbi Bret finally has a kindred spirit.
LikeLike
Ironically as I write all this listening to “Queen’s” greatest hits on You Tube. Has there been a band with more of a gay vibe in human history?
LikeLike
You might want to also pick up something as remedial as Sproul’s treatment on the 5 points of calvinism, as that would remove your prima facie assesment of a conflict between Rom 2 and total depravity.
Mine was more an open question, and a hopeful one, that Calvinist thought was comfortable with the idea of a “law written on the human heart” per Romans 2. [If not, not my problem. Traditional natural law theory works well enough for me, and better than either the relativism/subjectivism of the modern or the moral inertia of strict church/state separationists.]
WJW: but again how to reconcile eternal claims about human nature and political order without mentioning sin, redemption, hope, and glory, already and not yet? Churches can do this. The oh so natural law inclined Manhattan Declaration, for example, can’t.
Well, here’s the thing. 2K isn’t completely all wet. It was actually the Reformation that made discussion of soteriology [the business of salvation] impossible in this world, that is, outside the walls of one’s church. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If Protestantism has spawned 30,001 sects, although 30,000 are by definition wrong, perhaps one of them is right! It beats having only the Roman sect, which could be wrong–and then mankind has all its soteriological eggs in one basket and we’re all going to hell!
I’m a bit glib here, but I’m also doing a bit of a reductio ad absurdum. The sheer number of schisms in the Reformation made enforcing orthodoxy impossible in this world. The burning of Michael Servetus is Calvin’s Geneva just couldn’t go on, as it would have become the war of all against all.
And so, it’s with a glibness but also with an admiration that that dirty little atheist Voltaire observes of 1730s London in “On the Presbyterians”:
“If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other’s throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.”
And so of soteriology, I say only that I’m glad it’s in God’s hands, and not my fellow man’s. Talk about total depravity: Half of us would send the other half to hell, and 1% of us would gladly send the other 99. Oy. All things considered with these Hell&damnation types, give me Barrabbas.
One of you asked about grace. I have monitored the massive theological battles in the early days of the Reformation era. I have read that there is much misunderstanding, that Aquinas isn’t really at odds with the Reformers if you study deeply enough. I rather skipped over it all, for the simple reason it seems like “how many angels fit on the head of a pin*” stuff next to the philosophicial/theological landscape of the 21st century, where God is just one theory among many, where Beatitude Jesus would surely have been in favor of gay marriage if only He’d have thought of it first.
___________________
*A supercilious slander of Aquinas and the Scholastics, BTW, a myth. There was no such debate.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin
LikeLike
David Palmer says: ”I find it intolerable to find so many posters on this blog are so smugly indifferent, little men safely cocooned in their snug and warm burrows, not daring to raise their heads above the parapet, quietly quaffing their Shiraz.”
I have another query… Why is it that every time 2k is discussed the anti-2k side always calls into question the masculinity of the 2k-ers? Little men sipping wine? Really????
LikeLike
Lewis – I have another query… Why is it that every time 2k is discussed the anti-2k side always calls into question the masculinity of the 2k-ers? Little men sipping wine? Really????
That’s our faithful leader’s fault — a self-professed lover of cats who has described himself as “light in the loafers.” Our patron saint may be Truman Capote:
Last I checked we are pretty much married to women, though.
LikeLike
Actually, let me revise that. We are the Phil Parma:
LikeLike
To the Bayly’s Frank T.J. Mackey:
LikeLike
TVD: Actually, Jesus turned the wine into water. Thanks, Jesus, that was the best water we ever had! So much better than that wine stuff.
[Note to self: Next time we see that Jesus guy, hide the vin. And anybody ever invites him to a wedding again, I’m gonna punch him out.]
RS: You might want to note that I am not arguing against the fact that Jesus turned water into wine nor am I arguing that drinking wine is absolutely wrong.
LikeLike
Eirk,
Speak for yourself broseph, while our fearless leader might be a cat owner, I am all that is man. My favorite form of tobacco is Copenhagen, my favorite drink is 3 fingers of bourbon – neat, and my favorite meal is a carne asada burrito. Maybe Richard wouldn’t approve, but when my wife isn’t rolling her eyes I am pretty sure she digs me…well sorta sure.
Now, you’ll have to excuse me, I am off to my weekly guys beef jerky/grizzly wrestling night. And the Bayly’s call us sissies? I’ll tell you what, if the Baylys wish to have a battle of manliness, they can choose the venue, and we can wrestle – freestyle, greco-roman, or collegiate, and I’ll be there with my singlet on ready to dance. Heck, they can even select the referees, and if they need Driscoll as a tag team partner, I can grapple with him too.
LikeLike
sean: All things are lawful but not all things are profitable.-Wisdom is required.
RS: There is more to that thought and/or verse. It has to do with things that edify.
1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
Sean: For some people it’s not advisable to touch a ‘drop’, for others they could stand to imbibe within limits.
But now you’re intruding on my vodka and tonic blunting, so I bid you adieu.
RS: Sorry for the intrustion. Eat and drink for tomorrow we die. There is nothing better UNDER THE SUN. But on the other hand, there are things much better in the heavens.
LikeLike
In case I get accused of letting my (falling levels) of testosterone get the best of me. I am simply honoring their championing of masculinity, and coming to their ecclesiastical aid since they don’t have church courts. I do aspire to being a churchman.
LikeLike
Oh yeah! Well Jed you get your singlet on, I’ll get my black do bok on and we’ll wreak more havoc than that Bayly dude with the ax. And as we walk away we’ll throw down some some cards with twos on them so they know 2k did it.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: My enthusiasm for the “is it a sin to drink wine” debate is right up there with the debate over whether or not Stryper was the best of the Christian hair metal bands…
RS: But of course that is not the debate at all. But don’t mind the facts, just keep on posting.
LikeLike
I hate typing on an iPhone – Jed beat me to it.
Plus Sean’s Irish – he’ll rumble on any day that ends in “y”
LikeLike
Lewis: David Palmer says: ”I find it intolerable to find so many posters on this blog are so smugly indifferent, little men safely cocooned in their snug and warm burrows, not daring to raise their heads above the parapet, quietly quaffing their Shiraz.”
I have another query… Why is it that every time 2k is discussed the anti-2k side always calls into question the masculinity of the 2k-ers? Little men sipping wine? Really????
RS: You might want to read with an attempt at understanding what he is saying. I don’t think he is questioning the masculinity of 2-kers, but the level of their indifference which leads to the desire for comfort and ease while human beings suffer and slip into hell. It is something like Nero fiddling (if a true story, who knows) while Rome burned.
LikeLike
Personally I think Richard’s a funny dude.
Did Edwards ever give an opinion on the spirituality or lack thereof in being funny?
LikeLike
Mikelmann: Did Edwards ever give an opinion on the spirituality or lack thereof in being funny?
RS: John Gerstner said that he found that Edwards had a rather dry sense of humor, though Gerstner as a Presbyterian might have picked up on that type of sense of humor more than I (as a Baptist) would. I have read Edwards where he spoke of the deepest type of joys were those that were beyond words and laughing.
LikeLike
“. I have read Edwards where he spoke of the deepest type of joys were those that were beyond words and laughing.”
See? I would be much deeper if Richard didn’t make me laugh. You have stunted my emotional growth by being funny.
LikeLike
RS: You might want to note that I am not arguing against the fact that Jesus turned water into wine nor am I arguing that drinking wine is absolutely wrong.
The name of God is on the lips of every drunk.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke quoting RS: You might want to note that I am not arguing against the fact that Jesus turned water into wine nor am I arguing that drinking wine is absolutely wrong.
TVD: The name of God is on the lips of every drunk.
RS: There you go. I guess drinking to the point of being drunk makes people pray. As I said to a friend who was a professing atheist after he took the Lord’s name in vain, “See, you do believe in God because you pray for Him to damn people and things.” So maybe using the spirits does make men more spiritual. This means one can purchase bottles of whatever for people and think of them as spiritual gifts.
LikeLike
TVD: The name of God is on the lips of every drunk.
RS: There you go. I guess drinking to the point of being drunk makes people pray.
Actually, I thought we might discuss this–some other time. I mean it in a good way, actually. The brain quiets down a little, stops making so much noise. Our brains make so much noise most of the time, we can scarcely hear.
LikeLike
TVD quoting RS: There you go. I guess drinking to the point of being drunk makes people pray.
TVD: Actually, I thought we might discuss this–some other time. I mean it in a good way, actually. The brain quiets down a little, stops making so much noise. Our brains make so much noise most of the time, we can scarcely hear.
RS: Ah, I thought you were just amusing yourself or being a little humorous. So I just expanded on the thought a little bit. Sorry for misreading. I guess I think others misread me a lot and here I go and do it to you.
LikeLike
Jed is a fearsome competitor- his presence alone exudes manliness. In fact,
I found Jed’s pro-wrestling doppelgänger.
LikeLike
David,
How do you know the men (and women) here are safely cocooned in their snug warm burrows? This is a blog. It is not reality. People here — I presume — have lives away from the keyboard. We’re just having a conversation, the way you do in a pub or tavern (except this one includes Richard). People say all sorts of things in a conversation. And they disagree.
And I disagree with you about Geneva. Great churches, terrible politics. I really don’t think you would want to live there either. Execution of heretics? Rob Bell?
LikeLike
DTM, finding websites strange goes both ways. DTM at Bayly Bros?
LikeLike
Lewis, exactly. 2kers guzzle wine, preferably Chablis, then belch. Suh-weeet.
LikeLike
Erik, does it help the testosterone level if the cats defecate “outside the box”?
LikeLike
Jed, I’d be careful mentioning greco-roman wrestling around the Baylys.
LikeLike
Erik, correction: Darryl once describe me as light in the loafers because I described myself as America’s second least interested male in sports. Ouch. But I guess we metrosexuals can get a little catty with each other.
Richard, lighten up. Sometimes you just want to go where everybody knows your name and they’re always glad you came and where you can see troubles are all the same. Often I wonder if you know what it means to be human.
LikeLike
Richard, since you’ve come right out and confessed to being a Babdist I would ask you to consider two things: A jihad against fried chicken (since it has killed more Babdists — especially preachers — than anything else), and, failing that, medicinal use of wine for all those obese, artery-clogged pewsitters. The longer they live the more they can give to missions.
LikeLike
Nate, is that George “The Animal” Steel? He had impressive hair – on his back.
LikeLike
Richard: RS: You might want to read with an attempt at understanding what he is saying. I don’t think he is questioning the masculinity of 2-kers, but the level of their indifference which leads to the desire for comfort and ease while human beings suffer and slip into hell. It is something like Nero fiddling (if a true story, who knows) while Rome burned.
I never pegged Richard for an Arminian.
LikeLike
The longer I do this the more suspicious I am that Richard is a put-on. A caricature of the perfect Oldlife foil.
LikeLike
D.G. – Erik, does it help the testosterone level if the cats defecate “outside the box”?
I would be more impressed if you left them clawed, un-neutered, and prowling about town.
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly: Richard, since you’ve come right out and confessed to being a Babdist I would ask you to consider two things: A jihad against fried chicken (since it has killed more Babdists — especially preachers — than anything else), and, failing that, medicinal use of wine for all those obese, artery-clogged pewsitters. The longer they live the more they can give to missions.
RS: When the word “Baptist” is not qualified by a context of surrounding doctrines, all it means is that a person believes that baptism is for professing believers. This post is not worthy of even the weakest of chortles.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, lighten up.
RS: Putting this together with Chortles Weakly I get the non-humanizing comment that I should lose weight.
Zrim: Sometimes you just want to go where everybody knows your name and they’re always glad you came and where you can see troubles are all the same.
RS: Sounds like a psycho-therapy session.
Zrim: Often I wonder if you know what it means to be human.
RS: It means going places and enduring the depravity of others. While here, I know what it means to be human.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: David, How do you know the men (and women) here are safely cocooned in their snug warm burrows? This is a blog. It is not reality. People here — I presume — have lives away from the keyboard. We’re just having a conversation, the way you do in a pub or tavern (except this one includes Richard). People say all sorts of things in a conversation. And they disagree.
RS: Dr. Hart, I don’t think David was speaking literally in your quote of him. “Listen” to his statements.
“I find this a very strange web site. I think to myself we ought to be on the same page, but it is not so.”
“People persistently (deliberately?) misread me as being entirely focussed on politics. My focus is to be a faithful Christian who weeps over Jerusalem. I love my country and I hate seeing it go to the dogs.”
“I find it intolerable to find so many posters on this blog are so smugly indifferent, little men safely cocooned in their snug and warm burrows, not daring to raise their heads above the parapet, quietly quaffing their Shiraz.”
“I was shocked to read Bobby’s excuses for homosexual sin and his shabby attempt to justify from the Bible.”
“BYW some have said I am a Bayly man. I don’t know them. I only got to them from here last week.”
RS: It is not uncommon for people to complain about being misread one here. The misreading and accusations without regard to what a person really said or intended tend to flow rather freely. It is so bad at times it does appear that the misreading is on purpose, and when mocking follows the misreading it is not conducive to a pursuit of the truth in any form. It does give the appearance that people don’t want to get involved or do anything about nations slipping into a moral pit while drinking away and typing out replies that are comfortable for them. Whether or not David is right or not, at least that is how he perceives things and his perceptions are not completely unwarranted.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: David, How do you know the men (and women) here are safely cocooned in their snug warm burrows? This is a blog. It is not reality. People here — I presume — have lives away from the keyboard. We’re just having a conversation, the way you do in a pub or tavern (except this one includes Richard). People say all sorts of things in a conversation. And they disagree.
David Palmer: “People persistently (deliberately?) misread me
RS: For example, though using myself as the example,
Example 1: Erik Charter: My enthusiasm for the “is it a sin to drink wine” debate is right up there with the debate over whether or not Stryper was the best of the Christian hair metal bands…
RS: I have never argued that it is a sin to drink wine.
Example 2: Erik Charter quoting RS: I don’t think he is questioning the masculinity of 2-kers, but the level of their indifference which leads to the desire for comfort and ease while human beings suffer and slip into hell. It is something like Nero fiddling (if a true story, who knows) while Rome burned.
Erik Charter’s Response: I never pegged Richard for an Arminian.
RS: How does my post draw his conclusion? David Palmer spoke of himself as weeping over Jerusalem, which Scripture says that Jesus did. Was Jesus an Arminian? Are true Calvinists those who watch people sliding into sin and hell and can smile all the time?
Example 3: Erik Charter: The longer I do this the more suspicious I am that Richard is a put-on. A caricature of the perfect Oldlife foil.
RS: So because I oppose drunkenness and homosexuality (immediate context) as well as opposing sleeping while those things happen, I am a caricature and so perfect for certain Oldlife folks to ridicule. That is not what should be reality. Anyway, Dr. Hart, whether you agree or not it is why people like David come on and when they are misread and people seem so casual about moral issues, it is a shock to his system. But before I go, I know you expect at least one verse of Scripture from me.
Proverbs 14:9 Fools mock at sin, But among the upright there is good will.
LikeLike
Richard,
You said, “You said that a person has their sexual orientation by nature.” I said no such thing. You are lying here. I said that sexual orientation is involuntary, which isn’t that remarkable of a statement. Stop twisting my words in an effort to create a straw man that easier for you to argue against. I’ve noted that this is a common trick of revivalists.
Further Romans 1 says what it says. I’m just saying that it references sexual conduct, and a desire to engage in that conduct. It is not referring to sexual orientation generally. You’re the one who is twisting the words of Scripture in a ham-fisted effort to apply them to a something that is entirely inapposite.
In addition, the comparisons of sexual orientation to murder and pedophilia are a bit unavailing. Murder and pedophilia are both acts of physical violence taken against people without their consent. I’m not sure how these are apt comparisons to sexual orientation. As far as I know, one’s sexual orientation does not create a propensity to act violently against others without their consent. Again, this illustrates why evangelicals, like you, have zero cultural credibility when speaking on this issue. Save evangelicals, most people can recognize that murderers and pedophiles pose risks to society that are not even remotely comparable to the risks, if any, posed by gay people.
Lastly, you appear to suggest that there’s no place in the visible church for celibate gay people. What’s the basis for that? Is it just because you don’t like them? Sure, their sexual orientation creates a greater propensity that they may engage in certain sexual sins. But this is not materially different from the temptations that straight single men may face. Lastly, you suggest that I want to be popular with society. Where in our society outside of certain Christian circles is anyone suggesting that gay people remain celibate? Nowhere. Again, you seem to be making up facts that don’t exist.
I thought of ending this response by saying that I prefer not to engage with you any more. But I don’t think that’s best. Dealing with you is a necessary evil, as it helps to demonstrate what a load of crock revivalism/pietism is.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, You said, “You said that a person has their sexual orientation by nature.” I said no such thing. You are lying here. I said that sexual orientation is involuntary, which isn’t that remarkable of a statement. Stop twisting my words in an effort to create a straw man that easier for you to argue against. I’ve noted that this is a common trick of revivalists.
RS: Bobby, sexual orientation is a rather interesting discussion. However, if you would read the arguments put forth by homosexual activist they argue that sexual orientation is what one has by nature or by birth. They have argued (who knows, things change) that our sexual orientation is how we are oriented by nature. A sexual orientation is what one has (according to the way people speak about it who defend it) by nature and that (they say) cannot be changed. I have not twisted your words, but instead have used them in the way they are normally used. You can check the link below. But as to the issue of lying, you might consider that people are sometimes mistaken and at other times wrong. But to accuse them of lying is quite a different thing altogether. Then you tack on that this is a common trick of revivalists. I guess there is nothing like twisting together differing things to make a case for the truth seem wrong.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.short
Bobby: Further Romans 1 says what it says. I’m just saying that it references sexual conduct, and a desire to engage in that conduct. It is not referring to sexual orientation generally. You’re the one who is twisting the words of Scripture in a ham-fisted effort to apply them to a something that is entirely inapposite.
RS: A “ham-fisted” effort. My, are you trying to link with me with the Old Testament crime of eating pork? Remember, you are the one that says that sexual orientation is involuntary. In other words, it is something that people are or something that happens to them. If it is not voluntary, then it is part of them or it is just something that is happening to them. But remember, that is your argument. My argument is that regardless of what you think of sexual orientation, the fact of the matter is that people are turned over to that sin. Romans 1 is very clear on that. It is a punishment that God turns people over to that sin. In other words, whether it is voluntary or not homosexual behavior is sinful and God turns them over to that as punishment. The involuntary aspect of it that you claim, then, is no excuse for the behavior.
LikeLike
Bobby: In addition, the comparisons of sexual orientation to murder and pedophilia are a bit unavailing.
RS: Bobby, if sexual orientation is involuntary, then you must take that argument to where it goes. If sexual orientation is involuntary, then being oriented to children is also involuntary. I am simply applying your argument in certain ways to show you where it leads.
So what happens if a person has murderous tendencies that are involuntary? Wouldn’t the involuntary part of this tendency tend to make them more acceptable to you based on your argument about homosexual tendencies being involuntary?
Bobby: Murder and pedophilia are both acts of physical violence taken against people without their consent.
RS: No, pedophilia is an act with a child even if the child has been bribed to go along. Suicide and assisted suicide would also follow under murder, at least in biblical terms.
Bobby: I’m not sure how these are apt comparisons to sexual orientation.
RS: I guess if you are not sure, then that means they may work. If a person has an orientation that is involuntary, then can we say that all sin comes from involuntary orientations? Where are you willing to draw the line on that idea?
Bobby: As far as I know, one’s sexual orientation does not create a propensity to act violently against others without their consent.
RS: But you may not know about this one very far. Children are often bribed in order to consent to sexual acts, so as long as a person consents it is okay? Well, we say, they are no old enough to consent. But can a person consent without full knowledge? Would a person truly consent to homosexual acts if s/he knew that s/he would suffer in hell for those acts? So could it be that all homosexual sin is really tempting people in ways that blind them to a real consent?
Bobby: Again, this illustrates why evangelicals, like you, have zero cultural credibility when speaking on this issue.
RS: I think speaking in accordance with Scripture is far more important. Perhaps you are too concerned with credibility with the culture to speak for God.
Bobby: Save evangelicals, most people can recognize that murderers and pedophiles pose risks to society that are not even remotely comparable to the risks, if any, posed by gay people.
RS: So going to hell to suffer the wrath of God is no comparable risk. I will remind you that in each commandment broken there is the breaking of the whole law. When two homosexuals engage in homosexual acts, both of those people are guilty of the murder of the soul of the other person. The risks of accepting behavior as relatively normal to a society are enormous.
LikeLike
“I was shocked to read Bobby’s excuses for homosexual sin and his shabby attempt to justify from the Bible….” -David Palmer
Where did I do any such thing. I simply pointed out the unremarkable fact that Romans 1 condemns sexual conduct and a desire to engage in that conduct. Thus, Romans 1 is entirely inapposite to the question of one’s sexual orientation.
You seem to suppose that if one’s sexual orientation is directed to members of the same sex, then that person necessarily commits certain sexual sins or has a desire to do so. After all, that would need to be true for Romans 1 to have any applicability to sexual orientation. But you’ve pointed to no evidence to support this element of your argument. And when asked to point to such evidence, you respond by making false accusations against the requesting party. Thus, I suppose that we can conclude that you have nothing to contribute. It seems like pietists in Australia aren’t too different from those here in the USA. When they can’t sustain a logical argument, they just pump up the volume and make false assertions against those who identified the missing link in the argument. Sorry, there are a few of us here who actually know something about logical reasoning.
Simply put, there is to reason to conclude that if one’s sexual orientation is directed to members of the same sex, then that person necessarily commits certain sexual sins or has a desire to do so. By the same measure, there is no reason to conclude that if a single person’s sexual orientation is directed to members of the opposite sex, then that person necessarily commits certain sexual sins or has a desire to do so.
You seem to accept the latter of these two propositions, but reject the former. I see no rational basis for making such a distinction. And you have pointed to none. Thus, based on the evidence you have proffered, you have failed to establish a prima facie case that Romans 1 refers generally to all persons whose sexual orientation is directed to members of the same sex, including celibate gay people.
In summary, I’d guess that your “shock” had nothing to do with any alleged endorsement on my part of homosexual sin. After all, I have made no such endorsement. Rather, your “shock” probably relates to the fact that you’ve stepped outside of the evangelico-pietist echo chamber, and no longer have the luxury of making lazy, loosely supported arguments. You, like Richard and the Baylys, seem to be more comfortable dueling with a secularist straw men. You have no retort to other orthodox Christians who are determined to hold your feet to the fire and to point out why your averments are wrong. I suppose that you see such activity as giving aid to liberal secularists. I couldn’t care less. I just wish that you’d stop bring unnecessary shame to the name of Christ and his church by wrongly associating Him with your efforts to create a right-wing moralistic nanny state.
Incidentally, as Charles Murray noted in his recent book, liberal secularists, while being opposed to state-sactioned social conservatism, generally tend to practice social conservatism (although without outward compulsion). In contrast, the classes that favor state-sanctioned social conservatism tend, as a class, not to practice social conservatism to the same extent as liberal secularists. Go figure.
LikeLike
MM, indeed it is. I think the guy has more hair on his knuckles than I do on my whole body
LikeLike
Erik, Well now you’ve done it! With your mentioning of Stryper and Queen, any thought of old life and masculinity is right out the window! I will say Freddy Mercury is one of the best voices in rock. Look out, here comes Ol’ Bob!
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m simply saying that sexual orientation is involuntary. If that makes me a left-wing radical, then the same is true of Al Mohler. He’s made the same acknowledgement. I’m not suggesting that there’s a gay gene or something like that. I’m simply saying that it is well established that one’s sexual orientation is not chosen voluntarily by the individual. But a trait can be involuntary without its being determined by one’s primary genetic sequence.
Further, your efforts to compare gay people to murderers and pedophiles continue to be unpersuasive. Your persistent efforts to continue down that path say more about you than me. Let’s examine the following scenario. Let’s say that a heterosexual couple with two young children are given the option of who will live next door to them in their suburban neighborhood. They have three choices: (a) a convicted murderer who got out of prison on a technicality; (b) a convicted child rapist who served his time; or (c) a sexually active gay couple with stable jobs and no criminal record. If your argument is true, this hypothetical family would see no material difference between choices (a), (b), and (c). In my anecdotal experience, the hypothetical family would overwhelmingly choose option (c).
For example, there are about 15 gay couples living in my condo building. There are several dozen heterosexual families with children living in the same building. I doubt that any of these families fear for their safety and for their children’s safety in the way that they would if our building housed 15 murderers or 15 child rapists. But that is my experience from my corner of the world…in the BosWash corridor.
LikeLike
Richard, yes, sometimes being human means means going places and enduring the depravity of others. Other times it’s a little less judgmental and more about taking some comfort in how others are willing to endure one’s own depravity and fellow creatureliness. It’s the is latter experience I’m never sure you grasp.
But on this business of sexual orientation (gulp), what’s the problem in admitting that some are naturally oriented rightly and others wrongly? My guess is that some think that to admit some are naturally homosexual is to concede to its affirmation. I fail to see why. Speaking of being human, is sexuality the only aspect of humanity that escaped the fall, such that everyone is naturally hetero? But if a Calvinistic view of human depravity is right then it’s little surprise some are sexually wired wrong. And it seems to me that those who want to either say a natural orientation demands affirmation and those who deny a natural disposition so that they may hold out psycho-sexual therapeutic hope for “fixing” are two sides of a similar coin that wants to make life East of Eden easy. It could be that some really are born gay and must fight against its immorality all their days.
LikeLike
RS, my point stands. How can David tell what people actually do in their lives, as opposed to opining whether the church should advance certain political/moral causes.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I agree. I’ve never understood why some resist acknowledging that some small fraction of the population is wrongly wired sexually. In fact, based on what we confess regarding the Fall, it would be more remarkable if that weren’t the case.
Of course, that’s not to say that sexual orientation is akin to eye color, skin color, or some other trait that is controlled by one’s primary genetic sequence.
And neither should it put gay people in a class with murderers and pedophiles. It seems more apposite to compare the gay person’s temptations with those of post-pubescent unmarried heterosexuals.
LikeLike
Bobby: Lastly, you appear to suggest that there’s no place in the visible church for celibate gay people.
RS: Where do I say that? What is a celibate gay person? If a person is a believer, that person is identified with Christ and not as a gay person. There are celibate people and there are non-celibate people. Celibate people are those who are married and in monogamous relationships. Non-celibate people who are not married are practicing sin.
Bobby: What’s the basis for that? Is it just because you don’t like them? Sure, their sexual orientation creates a greater propensity that they may engage in certain sexual sins. But this is not materially different from the temptations that straight single men may face.
RS: The basis is simply that homosexuals are specifically listed as people who will not inherite the kingdom of God. So my proclamation to them that they are sinners and that they must have Christ is biblical while telling them that they are okay is not.
bobby: Lastly, you suggest that I want to be popular with society. Where in our society outside of certain Christian circles is anyone suggesting that gay people remain celibate? Nowhere. Again, you seem to be making up facts that don’t exist.
RS: You said that ” this illustrates why evangelicals, like you, have zero cultural credibility when speaking on this issue.” In that you certainly appear to more concerned with what culture says than what God says.
Bobby: I thought of ending this response by saying that I prefer not to engage with you any more. But I don’t think that’s best. Dealing with you is a necessary evil,
RS: So standing against the sin of homosexuality is evil. I got it.
Bobby: as it helps to demonstrate what a load of crock revivalism/pietism is.
RS: Whatever a crock is or is not, your continued stance on this issue just might speak to a commitment to something that Scripture stands against. But as for revivalism, I continue to try to get people to see that there is a huge difference between revival and revivalism, but also between biblical holiness and pietism. Learn the differences before speaking so harshly.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, I’m simply saying that sexual orientation is involuntary.
RS: But you need to deal with what that means and how others are using it. They are saying that they are the way they are by nature and that there is nothing they can do with it. Since God created them that way, they say, there is nothing wrong with the way they are.
Bobby: If that makes me a left-wing radical, then the same is true of Al Mohler. He’s made the same acknowledgement. I’m not suggesting that there’s a gay gene or something like that. I’m simply saying that it is well established that one’s sexual orientation is not chosen voluntarily by the individual. But a trait can be involuntary without its being determined by one’s primary genetic sequence.
RS: Al Mohler is not exactly the greatest person to stand with when dealing with original sin.
Bobby: Further, your efforts to compare gay people to murderers and pedophiles continue to be unpersuasive. Your persistent efforts to continue down that path say more about you than me.
RS: The pedophile point was to show you that this involuntary sexual orientation has serious consequences. IF a person’s sexual orientation is involuntary, then the conclusions you draw from that about homosexuality will also be true for pedophilia. The murder illustration was again trying to show that what people are by nature is not always such a good thing and does not explain the sin of homosexuality away. Perhaps it does say more about me than you, but in this case I don’t mind.
Bobby: Let’s examine the following scenario. Let’s say that a heterosexual couple with two young children are given the option of who will live next door to them in their suburban neighborhood. They have three choices: (a) a convicted murderer who got out of prison on a technicality; (b) a convicted child rapist who served his time; or (c) a sexually active gay couple with stable jobs and no criminal record. If your argument is true, this hypothetical family would see no material difference between choices (a), (b), and (c). In my anecdotal experience, the hypothetical family would overwhelmingly choose option (c).
RS: No, I would see a difference in terms of the safety of children. But all of them would be lost.
Bobby: For example, there are about 15 gay couples living in my condo building. There are several dozen heterosexual families with children living in the same building. I doubt that any of these families fear for their safety and for their children’s safety in the way that they would if our building housed 15 murderers or 15 child rapists. But that is my experience from my corner of the world…in the BosWash corridor.
RS: Fine, but in terms of lostness they are lost. That is the point. How they were born makes no real difference in the matter, they need to repent of their sin or they are lost.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, my point stands. How can David tell what people actually do in their lives, as opposed to opining whether the church should advance certain political/moral causes.
RS: But is that what he is saying? At least that is what I am questioning.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, sometimes being human means means going places and enduring the depravity of others.
RS: Yes, I know what that is like. After all, posting here does open one to that.
Zrim: Other times it’s a little less judgmental and more about taking some comfort in how others are willing to endure one’s own depravity and fellow creatureliness.
RS: So comfort is the real issue.
Zrim: It’s the is latter experience I’m never sure you grasp.
RS: So much for you speaking about being judgmental.
Zrim: But on this business of sexual orientation (gulp), what’s the problem in admitting that some are naturally oriented rightly and others wrongly?
RS: What I am not admitting is that this is can in anyway exonerate any guilt of the situation. We are all born dead in sins and trespasses and that does not exonerate anyone at all.
Zrim: My guess is that some think that to admit some are naturally homosexual is to concede to its affirmation. I fail to see why.
RS: No need to guess. My point is that it makes no real difference in reality, but it is used to try to make people less culpable or to explain the guilt away. I might add that I have attended gay pride seminars and lectures and those types of things trying to understand the issues, so while that does not guarantee that I am accurate, I don’t think that I am simply speaking out of hand.
Zrim: Speaking of being human, is sexuality the only aspect of humanity that escaped the fall, such that everyone is naturally hetero?
RS: Which is really beside the point. No one has escaped the fall in any way. However, there is a big push right now to say that homosexuality is not a sin and so far there has not been that big push with adultery.
Zrim: But if a Calvinistic view of human depravity is right then it’s little surprise some are sexually wired wrong. And it seems to me that those who want to either say a natural orientation demands affirmation and those who deny a natural disposition so that they may hold out psycho-sexual therapeutic hope for “fixing” are two sides of a similar coin that wants to make life East of Eden easy. It could be that some really are born gay and must fight against its immorality all their days.
RS: But I would argue that all are wired sexually wrong, or at least that is what implication of human depravity. Why would you limit it to one small group? The issue is to quit trying to find excuses for sin and seek the grace of God for a new heart for all. But again, if you say something is natural, it does sound like you are trying to make excuses. They do say, that after all, if God made you that way then what could be wrong? I am saying that we are all wrong and that we are all sinful by what we are in our nature, not necessarily by nature. Note the distinction been what we are in our nature versus what we are by nature (almost sounds like evolution). By nature we are dead in sins and trespasses whether we are inclined one way or another. But that is no excuse and makes no one less worthy of damnation.
LikeLike
Bobby: Zrim, I agree. I’ve never understood why some resist acknowledging that some small fraction of the population is wrongly wired sexually. In fact, based on what we confess regarding the Fall, it would be more remarkable if that weren’t the case.
RS: Because it is a diminishing of the doctrine of depravity and this is used to say that homosexual sin is less problematic/damnable than it is.
bobby: Of course, that’s not to say that sexual orientation is akin to eye color, skin color, or some other trait that is controlled by one’s primary genetic sequence.
And neither should it put gay people in a class with murderers and pedophiles. It seems more apposite to compare the gay person’s temptations with those of post-pubescent unmarried heterosexuals.
RS: But it does put gay people in a class with murderers and pedophiles. All of those people along with the whole of humanity are worthy of damnation unless God shows them grace. Committing sin with others is a form of soul murder. If homosexual sin is lessened if a person is born with that sexual orientation, then why won’t you give pedophiles some slack since they were born that way too? After all, that is just their sexual orientation (according to the logic of your position).
If the government passed a law stating that it was okay for pedophiles to marry young girls or boys, would that make you speak out?
LikeLike
Bobby: It is well established that about 3-5% of the population is involuntarily attracted to members of the same sex. The church ought to have led the way in welcoming such persons.
RS: Why “ought” the church to have led the way in welcoming such persons? The church should consist of repentant sinners and those who want to hear the Word of God. Do people come to church announcing that they are attracted to members of the same sex? How is the church supposed to know this?
Bobby: Instead, the church has generally led the way in ostracizing them and spreading all manner of false rumors about them.
RS: How has the church done this? Or, could it be that some have treated people in a bad way and then the whole Church is blamed with it? Has the church really led the way in ostracizing people?
Bobby: For example, many evangelicals continue to falsely suggest that sexual orientation is voluntary.
RS: What does it matter if it is voluntary or not? Sin is sin.
Bobby: And many continue to hold to the notion that male homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles.
RS: 100 % of homosexual men who violate young males are both homosexuals and pedophiles.
Bobby: In many instances, gay Christians are forced into the gay community because that’s the only community that doesn’t ostracize them.
RS: Bobby, what is a gay Christian? It is not possible to be both gay and Christian. A person that was once had an identity as gay has an identity of Christ is that person has been truly born again. That person cannot identify himself as gay, or as an adulterer, or anything like that. When a person is born again, in baptism (yes, for presbys, as an adult) that person takes the name (identifies with) Christ. If a person is a Christian, then that person has repented (by grace) of sexual sin. If a person is a Christian, then that person desires to be around true believers rather than those who will lead him or her into more sin. If a person is a true Christian, then that person will flee from sin and especially areas of sin that s/he is weak in.
LikeLike
Richard Smith, who is indefatigible, amazing, says
Lewis: David Palmer says: ”I find it intolerable to find so many posters on this blog are so smugly indifferent, little men safely cocooned in their snug and warm burrows, not daring to raise their heads above the parapet, quietly quaffing their Shiraz.”
I have another query… Why is it that every time 2k is discussed the anti-2k side always calls into question the masculinity of the 2k-ers? Little men sipping wine? Really????
RS: You might want to read with an attempt at understanding what he is saying. I don’t think he is questioning the masculinity of 2-kers, but the level of their indifference which leads to the desire for comfort and ease while human beings suffer and slip into hell. It is something like Nero fiddling (if a true story, who knows) while Rome burned.
Richard, well done, spot on. That wasn’t hard.
LikeLike
Your response strikes me as a bit incoherent. But I think I’ve at least identified a couple of points of agreement.
We seem to agree that sexual orientation is involuntary. We also seem to agree that no measure of sexual sin is excused by one’s sexual orientation. Of course, the latter point of agreement relates only to how we handle such issues within the church. The state punishes “crimes” not “sins.” And, frankly, I couldn’t care less what gay rights activists are arguing. I’m more concerned that social conservatives not drag the name of Christ through the mud by attempting to claim heavenly sanction for their earthly ambitions.
I still don’t see how this implies that gay people are to be equated with pedophiles and murderers. Also, we’re discussing how the state should treat such persons, so references to whether people are “lost” is a tad irrelevant, unless you’re joining with Doug and proposing that we establish a theocracy. When I last checked, our country didn’t criminalize being “lost.”
LikeLike
Dr Hart,
I don’t always follow your little cryptic asides, but I did get this one.
“David, How do you know the men (and women) here are safely cocooned in their snug warm burrows? This is a blog. It is not reality. People here — I presume — have lives away from the keyboard. We’re just having a conversation, the way you do in a pub or tavern (except this one includes Richard). People say all sorts of things in a conversation. And they disagree.”
This is deception. Dr Hart you are playing the part of the tease who when challenged pulls back and says “I was just joking”.
You just don’t have conversations when people can say anything they like because the conversation “is not reality”. To say such a thing is to be irresponsible. If this is the purpose of your blog you should have en-captioned across the top of the Home page, “STAY AWAY FOLKS IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR SERIOUS CONVERSATION – WE DON’T DO REALITY HERE
Sure there’s playfulness, tweaking an opponent in conversation (I’m for all of that). Yet people do actually say what they think, advance cherished opinions, argue over conflicting opinions sincerely held. I’m not alone in this. Bobby meant what he said about homosexuality. At least let us respect him for his sincerity however much we (maybe its just Richard and me….) vehemently disagree with him.
LikeLike
Richard: I suppose if you redefine gay to include only those who unrepentently engage in gay sex, then I’d agree that there can be no such thing as a gay Christian. But, as you are well aware, that’s not how I (or practically anyone else) uses the word “gay.” I use it to refer to one’s sexual orientation, which is an involuntary condition. Therefore, I think it’s quite possible for someone to be gay and be a Christian. Really, this silly sophistry over the word “gay” and “sexual orientation” is getting a bit tiring. It is well established that 3-5% of the population has general sexual desires that are directed to members of the same sex. It is also well established that the condition is involuntary. I really have no dog in this fight, other than that I’m tired of listening to Christians who deny these basic facts in a crass effort to make it easier to argue against gay rights in the political arena. Stop it and grow up.
Further, your continued efforts to seek to equate sexually active homosexuals with pedophiles is flatly disingenuous. It is a crass effort to try to smear a whole class of persons by wrongly and falsely associating them with people who rape children. It strikes me that this crosses the line of bearing false witness. After all, as Machen once said, truth-telling is judged not just by the exact words that you say, but also by the conclusions that are likely to be drawn from those words.
Besides, this is not a new meme. It appears to be taken right from the playbook of the Religious Right. Lie #1: Deny that sexual orientation exists; otherwise, it will make it easier for gay people to argue that they should be protected from efforts to discriminate against them. Lie #2: Try at every chance to associate gay people with pedophiles, so that we can maintain public animus against gay people at a high level and keep it easy for people to discriminate against them.
I’m not a gay rights activist. I’m much more of an observer and student of evangelicalism. So, I’m not coming at this issue because I have some overriding interest in promoting gay rights. That being said, it’s been interesting to watch evangelicals self-destruct on questions about homosexuality. It seems that this will be the albatross that brings evangelicalism down. And it won’t be because gay rights activists succeeded in any particular way. No. It will be because evangelicals chose to cling to lies and half-truths, and have therefore been revealed to the culture as an untrustworthy lot.
LikeLike
An interesting rhetorical point of order might be not conceding “homosexual” or “gay” as a noun. Better as an adjective, as in “Same Sex Attracted.” “I am homosexual” makes a greater claim on legal rights and societal acceptance than, “I’m a human being with same-sex attractions.”
Well, hey we all have our thorns, our crosses to bear.
LikeLike
“I’ve never understood why some resist acknowledging that some small fraction of the population is wrongly wired sexually.”
When the Christian Right does politics or otherwise does its thing in the public square it is Pelagian in its argumentation. Some of the Pelagianism creeps back into the church.
LikeLike
RS. This sounds like semantics to me. A gay person or homosexual is someone who experiences sexual attraction mainly to members of the same sex. A heterosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. A bisexual is someone attracted to both. One need not have sex to recognize one’s orientation. I hope it is obvious that to be tempted to engage in illicit sex is not sinful. So it seems obvious to me that a person with SSA that resists those temptations, confesses his sin when he fails, and hates his sin could very well be a Christian even while being gay (i.e. attracted to members of the same sex).
LikeLike
SDB: This sounds like semantics to me. A gay person or homosexual is someone who experiences sexual attraction mainly to members of the same sex.
Not at all. Making “homosexual” a noun rather than an adjective has enabled the argument that being “gay” is the same as being “black” and therefore gay marriage is equivalent to interracial marriage per 1967’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
It continues to be the most successful argument for gay marriage. Once you successfully equate sexual attraction and homosexual conduct to race and America’s history of racial discrimination, you’ve won.
Bigot.
LikeLike
David,
We could all sound like you & Richard but then we would have to change the name of the site to “Newlife.org”. No thanks.
My Oldlife buddies may be feeling down from all this criticism. Time for a little pep talk:
LikeLike
This morning in Sunday school we were discussing whether or not we as Christians have an obligation to try to change society. The elder/teacher, who is 2K perhaps without even knowing it, did a good job. I sat in the back row and stirred the pot by throwing out questions. It was like going from a Ph.D. seminar (Old Life) to a freshman survey course. Most of those who tend toward the (well-meaning) culture warrior side took turns delivering what seemed like two minute speeches on the usual subjects.
Our pastor has been preaching through Matthew on the nature of Christ’s kingdom — how it’s not of this world, it’s a future kingdom — and I could see that his preaching has been having a profound impact on even some of the young guys who have studied at Dordt — a hotbed of Neocalvinist w-w ism. Very interesting to observe.
LikeLike
Do some here suggest that a person with same sex attraction can be a Christian while not asking The Lord to give him/her pure opposite sex attraction? If so, can you explain your Biblical basis for this thinking?
LikeLike
I think you need to try a little harder than that clip, Eric, but I can see a connexion to a lot of the posts here because “it doesn’t seem to matter” to you Oldlifers what happens out there in the big wide world.
But Newlife, that sounds great to me, particularly if its that kind of life Jesus was talking about when he said, “whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life”. That’s the kind of life I’m interested in, not the old life out of which God in his mercy drew me into the new life of forgiveness, love, peace, joy and hope.
As I said before, I thought ‘you lot’ would be kindred souls for a socially conservative Aussie, a Calvinist not just on the 5 points but in polity, in the Reformed understanding of worship, in espousing a high view of the sacraments (a la Calvin), and a healthy 2K approach with one foot in the church, one foot in the world contending confidently for the crown rights of Christ our Redeemer, despite the encircling gloom. But I seem to have stumbled into a different kind of crew with different motives and agendas and frankly I’m confused.
LikeLike
Bobby: Your response strikes me as a bit incoherent. But I think I’ve at least identified a couple of points of agreement.
RS: Yes, but that kind of striking is not against the law.
Bobby: We seem to agree that sexual orientation is involuntary.
RS: I am not sure we agree on that, but I am simply saying I am not sure it makes any real difference. I am also not sure it can be proven one way or the other.
Bobby: We also seem to agree that no measure of sexual sin is excused by one’s sexual orientation.
RS: That would be correct. I would also go a step down the road, though perhap you would be there, but lusting in the heart (for either sex or gender or…) is also sin.
Bobby: Of course, the latter point of agreement relates only to how we handle such issues within the church.
RS: That would also be true, but let us also notice that crime and sin do meet. If we are to submit to our leaders in some point, then it is a sin if we don’t submit to righteous laws. However, it is also sin to submit to laws that require us to disobey the law of God.
Bobby: The state punishes “crimes” not “sins.” And, frankly, I couldn’t care less what gay rights activists are arguing.
RS: Okay, but the language they (activists) use is important.
Bobby: I’m more concerned that social conservatives not drag the name of Christ through the mud by attempting to claim heavenly sanction for their earthly ambitions.
RS: True enough that we should beware those who claim heavenly sanction for their earthly ambitions. That would include those on all sides of the issue.
Bobby: I still don’t see how this implies that gay people are to be equated with pedophiles and murderers.
RS: I am not equating them, but using them as illustrations or to show where the logic of certain arguments lead.
Bobby: Also, we’re discussing how the state should treat such persons, so references to whether people are “lost” is a tad irrelevant, unless you’re joining with Doug and proposing that we establish a theocracy. When I last checked, our country didn’t criminalize being “lost.”
RS: Indeed the state does not address people as lost, but whether the state recognizes that or not it is an important issue. I am not proposing a full-blown theocracy.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard: I suppose if you redefine gay to include only those who unrepentently engage in gay sex, then I’d agree that there can be no such thing as a gay Christian. But, as you are well aware, that’s not how I (or practically anyone else) uses the word “gay.” I use it to refer to one’s sexual orientation, which is an involuntary condition.
RS: But you are supposing these things as true and then applying them to establish a norm which is then used across the board including unrepentant homosexuality. But again, I am not sure it can be demonstrated that sexual orientation is an involuntary condition. But again, I am not sure it makes a big difference. People should not engage in sex outside of marriage (defined by God as one male and one female) and they are not to lust in their hearts after others. Every person must be born from above/again and have a new heart. A person that is born again is a new creature in Christ and the old is gone. The new creature has crucified the flesh and has the fruit of the Spirit. I would not identify a person as a gay Christian any more than I would say a person was an adulterous Christian or a lying Christian. A Christian is one with Christ.
Bobby: Therefore, I think it’s quite possible for someone to be gay and be a Christian. Really, this silly sophistry over the word “gay” and “sexual orientation” is getting a bit tiring.
RS: I would agree, but I think the sophistry is on your side. A Christian has a Christ orientation in all things.
Bobby: It is well established that 3-5% of the population has general sexual desires that are directed to members of the same sex.
RS: That is the well established guess.
Bobby: It is also well established that the condition is involuntary.
RS: I am not sure that can be established, but even if so all human beings are born dead in sins and trespasses and not just gay people.
Bobby: I really have no dog in this fight, other than that I’m tired of listening to Christians who deny these basic facts in a crass effort to make it easier to argue against gay rights in the political arena. Stop it and grow up.
RS: But I am arguing for the facts of the Bible that relate to all people and think that they are what is best for gay and straight people in terms of eternity. But even more, they are what is to the glory of God.
LikeLike
David,
Any relation to the guy mentioned in the Brisbane article quoted below?
“David Palmer, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in Australia, said several Klan members had secretly joined Australia First, a far right party that announced yesterday that it had the numbers to register as a political party.
“We aren’t interested in actually registering as a party,” Mr Palmer said. “Our main idea was we would move in and take back what we consider our Aryan parties. [The Klan] is a white pressure group; a white social group for white families. But also a reserve in case the ethnics get out of hand and they need sorting out.”
LikeLike
Bobby: Further, your continued efforts to seek to equate sexually active homosexuals with pedophiles is flatly disingenuous.
RS: But I am not trying to equate the two, but show how the view of sexual orientation should be questioned at best.
Bobby: It is a crass effort to try to smear a whole class of persons by wrongly and falsely associating them with people who rape children. It strikes me that this crosses the line of bearing false witness.
RS: It is not smearing a whole class of people to question sexual orientation methods by showing where your argument of orientation leads you. By the way, 100 % of males who molest male children are homosexual by definition. So please don’t be quite so self-righteous in your argument here. I am not arguing that all homosexual males are attracted to male children and I am not arguing that all heterosexual males are attracted to female children.
Bobby: After all, as Machen once said, truth-telling is judged not just by the exact words that you say, but also by the conclusions that are likely to be drawn from those words.
RS: Yes, so hear what I am saying where your use of language will lead you.
Bobby: Besides, this is not a new meme. It appears to be taken right from the playbook of the Religious Right. Lie #1: Deny that sexual orientation exists; otherwise, it will make it easier for gay people to argue that they should be protected from efforts to discriminate against them. Lie #2: Try at every chance to associate gay people with pedophiles, so that we can maintain public animus against gay people at a high level and keep it easy for people to discriminate against them.
RS: It sounds like you are using the gay rights playbook when you speak that way. #1 is not true as I am simply saying that the sexual orientation argument cannot be proven and does not matter either way. # 2 is simply false in my argument. I am simply trying to show you that is sexual preference comes from sexual orientation and that is involuntary, then all you say there must logically be applied to pedophiles.
Bobby: I’m not a gay rights activist.
RS: You mean you were not one.
Bobby: I’m much more of an observer and student of evangelicalism. So, I’m not coming at this issue because I have some overriding interest in promoting gay rights. That being said, it’s been interesting to watch evangelicals self-destruct on questions about homosexuality. It seems that this will be the albatross that brings evangelicalism down.
RS: Evangelicalism has for the most part already been brought down in terms of the truth of Scripture.
Bobby: And it won’t be because gay rights activists succeeded in any particular way. No. It will be because evangelicals chose to cling to lies and half-truths, and have therefore been revealed to the culture as an untrustworthy lot.
RS: Or perhaps you have bought into the gay rights activists way of thinking more than you know.
LikeLike
B,
Would you ask the same question of post-pubescent heterosexual single people? After all, if being tempted is a sin, then heterosexual single person who faces temptation could have no such thing as pure opposite-sex attraction. If not, then it seems that you’re singling out homosexual temptation as being somehow different from other kinds of temptation. I see no Biblical warrant for that.
Besides, your question is irrelevant because there’s a difference between facing temptation and sinning. Jesus was tempted; He did not sin.
LikeLike
Or are you the David Palmer involved with the Australian Christian Lobby, endorsing the video linked below?
http://www.acl.org.au/publications/engagingculture/
LikeLike
People have a hard time making sense of Old Lifers because we’re too religious for the secularists, too conservative for the liberals, too Reformed for the biblicists, too fun-loving for the killjoys, too irreverent for the humorless, and too free for the legalists. David and Richard just happen to find themselves in many of these second camps. They will never start a movement because they’re too downright cranky and no one wants to be around someone like that for very long.
LikeLike
From the Australian Christian Lobby website:
“The vision of the Australian Christian Lobby is to see Christian principles and ethics accepted and influencing the way we are governed, do business and relate to each other as a community.
ACL aims to foster a more compassionate, just and moral society by seeking to have the positive public contributions of the Christian faith reflected in the political life of the nation.”
LikeLike
sdb: RS. This sounds like semantics to me.
RS: See TVD on that one.
SDB: A gay person or homosexual is someone who experiences sexual attraction mainly to members of the same sex.
RS: Just noting that you are making the “experience” of sexual attraction as passive. In other words, it appears to be something that just happens to them.
SDB: A heterosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. A bisexual is someone attracted to both. One need not have sex to recognize one’s orientation. I hope it is obvious that to be tempted to engage in illicit sex is not sinful.
RS: It is not obvious to me that one to be tempted to engagte in illicit sex is not sinful. Look at how Jesus explained the Law:
Mat 5: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”
RS: Notice that for heterosexual males that to even look at a woman with lust (tempted to engage in illicit sex) is sin. How can we not apply that to homosexual males looking at other males that way? But notice what Jesus says is better to do than to do that? Jesus took sin far more seriously than we do. If your right hand (if one uses the wrong hand on a regular basis, take off the left hand) causes you to sin, cut it off. If you right eye causes you to sin, poke it out. But, people say, your hand and your eye do not cause you to sin. That is absolutely correct. BUT IF THEY DID CAUSE YOU TO SIN, IT IS BETTER TO CUT THEM OFF AND POKE THEM OUT THAN TO SIN. This is a hypothetical used to show us what we should do to avoid sin.
SDB: So it seems obvious to me that a person with SSA that resists those temptations, confesses his sin when he fails, and hates his sin could very well be a Christian even while being gay (i.e. attracted to members of the same sex).
RS: It does not seem as obvious to me in light of the words of Jesus in Matthew 5. I am not arguing that a person (regardless of their “orientation”) is never going to be tempted, but that no Christian should be identified by their temptations rather than by Christ and a new heart. After all, we are commanded to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength.
LikeLike
B, I’ll have a go at answering your question even though I don’t seem to be on the same wavelength as the guys here.
You ask, “Do some here suggest that a person with same sex attraction can be a Christian while not asking The Lord to give him/her pure opposite sex attraction? If so, can you explain your Biblical basis for this thinking?”
I can’t actually answer the first question, but I would argue that you have not framed this question in a Christian way. Same sex attraction can be the reality of a particular Christian’s make up. Such people exist and always have. The question is how they should respond, possessing same sex attraction. First they should seek to be celibate, ie not engage in homosexual activity (sex with another same sex person). To do so is to sin which requires repentance and determination not to re-offend (cf heterosexual fornication, same thing). Second, such a person may (or may not) ask the Lord to give him/her opposite sex attraction and if so, marriage is a possibility. I’m uncomfortable with your use of the word ‘pure’ – none of us is pure, there was only one person who was pure and the purity that as believers we have is his by way of imputation to us – it is a thing alien quality in us, of ourselves.
Because I have not conceded your first question, your second question about Biblical basis is not required.
The point that you need to consider is the extent and depth of human depravity that can lead to the birth of a person who is orientated in the mind (but also shaped by the experience growing up in less than ideal circumstances) not as he/she is physically formed. We all have our own deformities that need to be rectified, the homosexual is not unique in this respect. Ultimately we are all called upon to ‘sin not’ and for that we need the grace of God. The grace of regeneration and sanctification is always a grace we need to grow into all the days of our life. We will never be perfect, the homosexual included which is why the longing of Romans 8:18f for us runs so deep and is so poignant; why living in this world, we orientate ourselves more and more to the truth that our true home is heaven (Philippians 3:20), indeed the new earth to come (2 Peter 3:13)
I hope this is helpful. I’ve answered on the basis that you have asked something you are genuinely puzzled over and not as some point scoring exercise.
Others may wish to answer differently.
LikeLike
David – I think you need to try a little harder than that clip, Eric, but I can see a connexion to a lot of the posts here because “it doesn’t seem to matter” to you Oldlifers what happens out there in the big wide world.
au contraire, mon frere. We have answers for the world but they involve things like Word & Sacrament, the Regulative Principle of Worship, Psalm Singing, Reformed Confessions, Resting on the Lord’s Day. All the right kind of countercultural stuff. Maybe not exciting to those without ears to hear, but fabulous news to those who have caught the vision.
LikeLike
B: Do some here suggest that a person with same sex attraction can be a Christian while not asking The Lord to give him/her pure opposite sex attraction? If so, can you explain your Biblical basis for this thinking?
RS: “The sound of silence.”
LikeLike
Bobby: Besides, your question is irrelevant because there’s a difference between facing temptation and sinning. Jesus was tempted; He did not sin.
RS: Bobby, you might want to think through that one a bit more. The word translated “tempted” also has the meaning of being tried. Jesus was tried, but He never desired to sin. There is a difference in the biblical meaning rather than our modern use of the word.
If Jesus truly wanted to sin, then He did sin in His heart and so God can sin and as such our perfect sacrifice was not perfect and we are all lost.
LikeLike
“By the way, 100 % of males who molest male children are homosexual by definition.” -Richard
Actually, you’re just making things up again. The overwhelming majority of male-on-male child molesters are actually sexually attracted to women (90-95% or more). You seem to be assuming that pedophiles engage in such conduct because they experience sexual attraction to their victims.
Again, you seem to be slipping up with your definitions again. I think we all agreed, along with most people with firing neurons, that when the terms “gay” or “homosexual” describe a person, we are referring to sexual orientation. By your definition, a gay guy could become straight merely by raping a woman.
Again, your lame efforts to associate gay people with pedophilia are becoming less and less credible.
LikeLike
wjw,
“David Palmer, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in Australia” – ha ha, no thanks
“Or are you the David Palmer involved with the Australian Christian Lobby” – now you’ve got me, even sounds like me. However from a few years back, someone else replaced me as Convener of Church & Nation Committee after I completed a 7 year stint.
PS, why don’t you come out of the woodwork like Eric and Richard and Tom and give us your full name, well first and last.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: People have a hard time making sense of Old Lifers because we’re too religious for the secularists,
RS: The Pharisees were also quite religious
EC: too conservative for the liberals,
RS: The Pharisees were too conservative for the Sad you sees
EC: too Reformed for the biblicists,
RS: Believes things the Bible does not teach
EC: too fun-loving for the killjoys,
RS: Luke 6:25 “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” .
EC: too irreverent for the humorless,
RS: Hebrews 12:28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;
EC: and too free for the legalists.
RS: Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
EC: David and Richard just happen to find themselves in many of these second camps. They will never start a movement because they’re too downright cranky and no one wants to be around someone like that for very long.
RS: I cannot speak for David, but those who really know me (if a human person can ever really know another) don’t think of me as cranky or humorless. There is no true joy apart from true holness. After all, the fruit of the HOLY Spirit is love, joy…
LikeLike
David,
So I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you are not a Klansman but you are active in the Australian Christian Lobby.
LikeLike
Richard Smith
Posted April 28, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
B: Do some here suggest that a person with same sex attraction can be a Christian while not asking The Lord to give him/her pure opposite sex attraction? If so, can you explain your Biblical basis for this thinking?
RS: “The sound of silence.”
RS: I did not notice David Palmer’s answer before I gave my answer above.
LikeLike
Hi Eric, mon frere,
“Word & Sacrament, the Regulative Principle of Worship, Psalm Singing, Reformed Confessions, Resting on the Lord’s Day.” – me too plus 2K stuff in my case (and I don’t mind hymn singing either).
This is FUN, isn’t it – I’m really getting into the swing of things down here at Oldlife!
But I gotta go, see ‘you lot’ tomorrow.
LikeLike
Bobby quoting RS: “By the way, 100 % of males who molest male children are homosexual by definition.”
Bobby: Actually, you’re just making things up again. The overwhelming majority of male-on-male child molesters are actually sexually attracted to women (90-95% or more). You seem to be assuming that pedophiles engage in such conduct because they experience sexual attraction to their victims.
RS: Not necessarily, but I am assuming that males who engage in sex with males (regardless of age) are committing homosexual acts. By definition, at least I would think, it is hard for males to have sex with other males without some attraction and in those who have sex with younger males they have to prepare them and bribe them.
Bobby: Again, you seem to be slipping up with your definitions again. I think we all agreed, along with most people with firing neurons, that when the terms “gay” or “homosexual” describe a person, we are referring to sexual orientation. By your definition, a gay guy could become straight merely by raping a woman.
RS: Just because a neuron fires does not mean that understanding is there. I have said repeatedly that I don’t think that the orientation issue matters and cannot be proven.
Bobby: Again, your lame efforts to associate gay people with pedophilia are becoming less and less credible.
RS: I would think that by now, after repeating this several times, it would begin to sink in. I am not attempting to associate any type of person with pedophilia. I was trying to show you where your argument regarding orientation logically leads you.
LikeLike
David,
“ACL aims to foster a more compassionate, just and moral society by seeking to have the positive public contributions of the Christian faith reflected in the political life of the nation.”
Crikey! Scratch Crocodile Dundee and you get a Theonomist.
Hmmm. Who gets to determine the negative public contributions of the Christian faith reflected in the political life of the nation? Do you guys speak for all Christians in Australia? Or just the real ones?
You are not confused and bewildered, you are broad evangelical with theonomic leanings. No big deal until you meet other reformed types who think your desire to lobby the government on behalf of Christianity is a bunch of shi’ite.
LikeLike
David,
I can’t come out of the closet just yet. Not legal in my state.
Peace
LikeLike
Richard, David, et al.
Thanks for the intellectual engagement over the weekend. Another week of 16-hour work days awaits me.
And, yes, Erik, I agree with your characterization of old lifers. It reminds me a lot of the hearty, Virginia highlands Presbyterianism of my paternal grandfather.
LikeLike
So I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you are not a Klansman but you are active in the Australian Christian Lobby.
Don’t venture too far WJW (I thought about the 1st W and I thought Walter? Wade? (I like that), Wesley (oh, no!, or could it be, might explain WJW), but then I got to JW and I thought I better leave off.
Sorry it’s this FUN thing! Its your fault!
Actually, I’m very much involved with Australian Christian Lobby (a member of its advisory Board, not that that means much) – at the moment I’m preparing for a visit to Australia’s Foreign Minister next month with ACL’s Jim Wallace and some Orthodox bishops re plight of Christians in Syria and Egypt and how the Australian Government might help alleviate their plight. Since your ‘investigating’ me, I’m also a member of the board of Freedon4Faith (you can google that) and of the Ad Hoc Interfaith group, a group of conservative Christians across the Catholic Orthodox Protestant divide, joined from time to time by an Orthodox Rabbi and moderate Imam, that make submissions re proposed changes in law. In short, I’m an activist, and outside my faith community quite promiscuous with whom I will work in defence of whatever is left of our Christian heritage in Australian public life.
I wish ‘you lot’ would stop posting so much that I feel I must respond to. Good night, its way past your bedtime.
LikeLike
WJW – I’m liking you more and more.
Good night
And good night Bobby, you need all the sleep you can get, actually a bit of re-orientation wouldn’t go amiss
Cheers
LikeLike
WJW to David: You are not confused and bewildered, you are broad evangelical with theonomic leanings. No big deal until you meet other reformed types who think your desire to lobby the government on behalf of Christianity is a bunch of shi’ite.
David Palmer to EC: “Word & Sacrament, the Regulative Principle of Worship, Psalm Singing, Reformed Confessions, Resting on the Lord’s Day.” – me too plus 2K stuff in my case (and I don’t mind hymn singing either).
RS: It does not sound like he is broadly evangelical from his own self-description.
Does a desire to influence government always equate to theonomic leanings?
Is a desire to influence the government by declaring to them the nature of God and His truth the same thing as a desire to lobby the government on behalf of Christianity?
Psalm 2:1 Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying,
6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.'”
10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth.
11 Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling.
12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!
LikeLike
“I am not attempting to associate any type of person with pedophilia.” -Richard
If that’s the case, draw a different analogy. For example, gluttony may be a better choice. Your refusal to move away from the pedophilia comparison suggests to me that there’s more casuistry at play that you’re willing to admit. After all, there’s a long history of social conservatives trying to smear gay people by associating them falsely with pedophilia. So, I doubt that it’s a mere accident that you selected pedophilia for your comparison, as opposed to something more benign, such as gluttony.
LikeLike
Bobby quoting RS: “I am not attempting to associate any type of person with pedophilia.”
Bobby: If that’s the case, draw a different analogy. For example, gluttony may be a better choice. Your refusal to move away from the pedophilia comparison suggests to me that there’s more casuistry at play that you’re willing to admit. After all, there’s a long history of social conservatives trying to smear gay people by associating them falsely with pedophilia. So, I doubt that it’s a mere accident that you selected pedophilia for your comparison, as opposed to something more benign, such as gluttony.
RS: Since God is soverign nothing happens by mere accident. However, your (Bobby) argument is that gay people have a sexual orientation that is involuntary. You then seem to want to take that and say that they can have this involuntary orientation and it is rather benign as long as they don’t act on it, or at least don’t act on it too often. I then argue, in an effort to show you that an involuntary sexual orientation is not quite as innocent as you make it, that pedophiles can also claim the very same thing. They can say that they have an involuntary sexual orientation of pedophilia and that this is benign as well.
The issue, then, is not trying to link the two, but is an attempt to show that an involuntary sexual orientation may not be as innocent as you want it to be. Since all human beings are born dead in sins and trespasses, their sexual orientation and any other orientation they may have are sinful as well. Their hearts desire sin and nothing but sin. So this orientation toward sin (at best, if true) is part of a sinful nature and there is no excuse or watering down of it that we should offer for it.
All human beings are born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature are children of wrath. The very nature of a human being is to be a child of wrath and a child of the devil. All human beings have or at least grow to have sinful drives and urges. All unregenerate human beings are driven by pride and selfish passions. A person’s sexual orientation (as you call it) is just one of many things that drive a person and flow from that sinful heart regardless of the orientation. We must not water down the sin and the guilt of it. So you are disgusted by pedophilia. What if they come up with studies to show that 3-5% of the population have this as their involuntary sexual orientation? Will that then water things down? No, it won’t. So why does that provide any watering down of any other orientation?
LikeLike
OK, I’m having a late lunch time.
WJW, you will have to tell me another time what you think a theonomist is because the ones I know don’t reckon I’m one of them.
ACL doesn’t pretend to speak for all Christians but it is the most prominent public Christian voice and acts as an umbrella for churches to make their voice known to Government (and Opposition).
I think my confusion is that there could be people who claim to be 2K who can write that the “desire to lobby government on behalf of Christianity is a bunch of shi’ite’ – this is incomprehensible to me, its head in the sand, pietistic twaddle.
Another part of my confusion is that you make use of the word Reformed in a way I don’t recognise. The word ‘Reformed’ does have a historical orientation to it, it is not just about ‘doing church’. Calvin was just as much a citizen of Geneva as its pastor. The French, Dutch, Scotch Reformed in the aftermath of the Reformation were most definitely politically involved – they could not avoid it if they were to be true to their confession without losing their lives (which of course many did). Do we just sweep all of that away while we sit comfortably in a circle, backs turned to a society going to the dogs? Parable of the Good Samaritan ring any bells?
The secularists, the atheists they must love you. You are easy meat for them.
LikeLike
B Asks: Do some here suggest that a person with same sex attraction can be a Christian while not asking The Lord to give him/her pure opposite sex attraction?
As recently as a few years ago, Christian therapists believed they could get same-sex attracted males to trade in their Steeve Reeves movies for Hustler. But it seems that almost all of the “ex-gay” conversion stories have not stood the test of a lifetime, and so the current theory is that the celibate life is best, although it might be possible to live a man-woman-child life and sublimate the same-sex attraction part.
It must also be noted that homosexuality is still not very well understood [no matter what social “science” claims], and one thing you seldom hear is that lesbianism might have a completely different mechanism than male homosexuality, and perhaps is more easily dealt with. See Eve Tushnet, Melinda Selmys, et al.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/can-one-be-gay-and-christian
The best thing is for sincere Christians to try to stay on top of the latest studies and developments, for the good of our same-sex attracted sisters, brothers and children–or else we just abandon the field to the phonies with agendas. This we’ve done a great job of so far. Idiots.
LikeLike
David, Bobby, and Tom,
Thank you for your responses.
Too add some clarity, I would suggest that it is very difficult for us to face temptation where we do not sin at least in our minds…I am thinking here of the sermon on the mount, “Ye have heard it has been said, thou shalt not commit adultery…”
However, I would argue that if a post-puberty man or woman is lusting in their hearts they need to repent and ask the Lord to deliver them from this sin and be content. Is that a position that needs defending? Isn’t the sixth petition, “Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”?
I am in agreement that the sin of homosexuality is often put up on a pedestal as the unforgivable sin which I know it is not and in the sight of God it is just as evil as heterosexual sin. My question has to do with the responses to homosexual sin and heterosexual sin. Shouldn’t Christians be requesting the Lord to remove such temptations? How often are we tempted and do not sin in our hearts? Maybe I am a unique example, but in my case it is very very rare.
I am not sure there is a Biblical basis for Christians being at peace with any sinful tendency and not asking forgiveness and praying for its removal from our desires. I am not trying to frame this question in an un-Christian way as someone suggested, I am trying to learn while posing questions. Should someone with a sinful desire be content living without fulfilling that desire but not asking the Lord to remove the desire?
Thank you
LikeLike
D. G. Hart posted April 28, 2013 at 7:41 am: “DTM, finding websites strange goes both ways. DTM at Bayly Bros?”
Touche, Dr. Hart. Whether I find something “strange” isn’t the point, or at least shouldn’t be.
Tom Van Dyke posted April 29, 2013 at 1:33 am: “As recently as a few years ago, Christian therapists believed they could get same-sex attracted males to trade in their Steeve Reeves movies for Hustler. But it seems that almost all of the ‘ex-gay’ conversion stories have not stood the test of a lifetime, and so the current theory is that the celibate life is best, although it might be possible to live a man-woman-child life and sublimate the same-sex attraction part.”
Googling Dr. Rosario Champagne Butterfield in this context might be helpful.
I do not discuss details of this subject online since it would necessarily involves revealing details of horrific sin by other people they would prefer to forget and not discuss publicly, let alone have others discuss without their consent. Let’s just say I was once a member of a church in Greenwich Village which for many years was the only evangelical church of any type that managed to survive in that radically secular environment, and the church has an active ex-gay ministry and a number of ex-gay members.
I am very much aware that “celebrity conversions” are a major problem in the altar call environment of the modern evangelical church. Numerous people who once claimed to be former homosexuals have reverted to their former sins, bringing great discredit upon God and His Word. That’s what happens when churches place public testimonies and revivalistic “new measures” above long-term discipleship. Reformed churches need to avoid such approaches, recognizing that when Satan loses his control over a person, he will use any means available to get his claws back into the recent convert. The last thing we should be doing is putting recent converts into the public limelight, exposing them to excessive scrutiny as well as the very real potential of sinful pride.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Does a desire to influence government always equate to theonomic leanings?”
No. But why isn’t your franchise enough? Why a lobby that takes the name of Christ (perhaps in vain)?
“Is a desire to influence the government by declaring to them the nature of God and His truth the same thing as a desire to lobby the government on behalf of Christianity?”
Government’s have to make a lot of decisions. Just where is this club that figures out which issues involve the nature of God and His truth? Who makes the lobby’s platform? Where do they meet and who is their leader? Abortion, check. Gays, check. Liberal indoctrination of our children, check. Religious freedom, still thinking about it.
LikeLike
David,
“ACL doesn’t pretend to speak for all Christians”
So why use the name of Christ?
“I think my confusion is that there could be people who claim to be 2K who can write that the “desire to lobby government on behalf of Christianity is a bunch of shi’ite’ – this is incomprehensible to me, its head in the sand, pietistic twaddle.”
I think your confusion is law and gospel, the already/not yet, the trials of the present with the glory yet to revealed. Careful, in America the word twaddle sounds like a gay word–“That Christian lobbyist and his secret boyfriend got caught with his twaddle out in the men’s restroom.”
“The word ‘Reformed’ does have a historical orientation to it, it is not just about ‘doing church’. Calvin was just as much a citizen of Geneva as its pastor. The French, Dutch, Scotch Reformed in the aftermath of the Reformation were most definitely politically involved – they could not avoid it if they were to be true to their confession without losing their lives (which of course many did). Do we just sweep all of that away while we sit comfortably in a circle, backs turned to a society going to the dogs? Parable of the Good Samaritan ring any bells?”
The aftermath of the Reformation was a complete political disaster for most of Europe, and here is a little known fact: The aftermath of the Reformation gave rise to political liberalism. Political liberalism allows people who disagree about eternity to live here and worship God in relative peace. Even the Puritans conceded as much in the Synod of 1662. Even they found making money and chasing goyim women more convenient than hunting heretics. Political liberalism even allows a subset of Christianity to use the name of Christ in a political lobby. Funny how those who shout loudest about the godlessness of modernity have adapted the most modern of institutions, the state and political lobby, as the focus of so much Christian energy. Modernity giveth, and modernity taketh away. Society going to the dogs! Declension! Cain meet Able, its an old story. The Good Samaritan didn’t have a Christian lobby.
“The secularists, the atheists they must love you. You are easy meat for them”
Easy meat for secularists and atheists? Again with the gay imagery. . .
LikeLike
@Richard Smith
Your exegesis of the sermon on the mount is deeply problematic. First of all, it is not at all clear that sexual attraction is lust. When you hit puberty and realized that you liked girls, were you necessarily lusting after them? I wasn’t perfect, but I can say that my realization that girls aren’t icky wasn’t always accompanied by lust. A boy who feels nothing for girls, but realizes that he thinks other boys are “cute”, may not be lusting, may in fact hate that he feels that way, and when he does lust may repent.
RS: “BUT IF THEY DID CAUSE YOU TO SIN, IT IS BETTER TO CUT THEM OFF AND POKE THEM OUT THAN TO SIN. This is a hypothetical used to show us what we should do to avoid sin.”
No, it is hyperbole to show us our radical need of God grace. No matter how good you think you’ve done at following the law – we still haven’t done so perfectly, we are sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy. I know of no orthodox Christian community that has advocated that members cut off their hands, gouge out their eyes, or cut out their tongue to avoid sinning. Like I said your exegesis is deeply problematic. You are clearly in need of remediation here.
@TVD I don’t follow your bit about nouns versus adjectives. If you really think that grammar games are driving public opinion, there isn’t much hope for a compelling response. I suspect the larger drivers (rather than grammar) are the widespread view that marriage is about romantic fulfillment (read Amy Grant’s justification for leaving her husband for example), the decoupling of sex and marriage (largely enabled by antibiotics and birth control), and finally the undermining of religious authority in the public square (which has a lot more to do with obscurant battles against science, high profile televangelist scandals, and the RCC sex abuse coverups than victories by the ACLU). These factors have stripped away any justification for treating gay people (gay is an adjective here, does it matter?) differently from straight people in the minds of the public. The question at hand is how to get non-believers to stigmatize gay unions – once you lose the ickiness factor, it is an impossible case to make (and no natural law arguments aren’t compelling).
@B attraction to members of the opposite sex is not necessarily a good thing nor should it be considered an ideal. Both Jesus and Paul advocated a celibate lifestyle. The Church would be wise to make space for singles and make sure they are made to feel welcome. I’m not convinced that the emphasis on the nuclear family has been such a good thing for our witness.
LikeLike
DTM – I do not discuss details of this subject online since it would necessarily involves revealing details of horrific sin by other people they would prefer to forget and not discuss publicly
Whew. I thought you were going to tell us about how you once tried out for The Village People.
LikeLike
sdb @Richard Smith
Your exegesis of the sermon on the mount is deeply problematic. First of all, it is not at all clear that sexual attraction is lust. When you hit puberty and realized that you liked girls, were you necessarily lusting after them? I wasn’t perfect, but I can say that my realization that girls aren’t icky wasn’t always accompanied by lust. A boy who feels nothing for girls, but realizes that he thinks other boys are “cute”, may not be lusting, may in fact hate that he feels that way, and when he does lust may repent.
RS: So thinking someone is cute is the same thing as sexual orientation? Your position seems to be very stretched at the moment.
SDB quoting RS: “BUT IF THEY DID CAUSE YOU TO SIN, IT IS BETTER TO CUT THEM OFF AND POKE THEM OUT THAN TO SIN. This is a hypothetical used to show us what we should do to avoid sin.”
SDB: No, it is hyperbole to show us our radical need of God grace.
RS: The use of hyperbole does not fit the context here. There is no obvious exaggeration and this is a conditional.
SDB: No matter how good you think you’ve done at following the law – we still haven’t done so perfectly, we are sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy.
RS: But that is not what the text is saying. You are transporting that into the text.
SDB: I know of no orthodox Christian community that has advocated that members cut off their hands, gouge out their eyes, or cut out their tongue to avoid sinning. Like I said your exegesis is deeply problematic. You are clearly in need of remediation here.
RS: Perhaps some reading glasses would be useful for you. Note that I did not say that the text taught that we are to do that in fact. Instead, I said that the text says that IF your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off. Note the use of the conditional in the language. Since the hand does not cause you to sin, cutting off the hand would not cure the problem. But IF the hand did cause you to sin (which it does not), that is so serious that you should cut it off and throw it away in order not to sin. The text does teach the seriousness of sin and how we should do whatever it takes to flee from sin, but it does not teach us to actually cut off our hands because our hands do not CAUSE us to sin.
LikeLike
WJW: Government’s have to make a lot of decisions. Just where is this club that figures out which issues involve the nature of God and His truth? Who makes the lobby’s platform? Where do they meet and who is their leader? Abortion, check. Gays, check. Liberal indoctrination of our children, check. Religious freedom, still thinking about it.
RS: Will all people bow the knee before God at the end of time to answer for all their thoughts, intents, motives, and deeds? Yes they will. So shouldn’t our governments actually be concerned about God in what they do? All men are commanded to love God with all of their beings in all that they do. So shouldn’t the Church be declaring the truths of God to the governments as well as all people? All authority in heaven and earth has been given to the Lord Jesus. Does the King of kings have anything at all to say to the kings? God has declared that He is the One that has put all authorities in place. Does He have any purpose for them and does the Church (the pillar and support of the truth) have anything to declare to them to that end?
LikeLike
Hello? Where am I? That Long Island Ice Tea I had last night playing bunco with my wife and our gay friends across the street was really strong. What?! You say Travis called this morning and Bruce has gone missing? Oh no, somebody go find my 2 year old son, cuz Bruce is really into bears too, they must be together.
LikeLike
Richard,
” shouldn’t our governments actually be concerned about God in what they do?”
Depends. Like I said before governments do a lot of things. If they leave the Church alone they are doing pretty well by any historical measure. Another round for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the boys.
“shouldn’t the Church be declaring the truths of God to the governments as well as all people?”
If you are declaring God to all people you are declaring God to the government. But what you declare matters. If you are declaring God’s law are you also declaring God’s mercy? They go together better than Gin and Tonic. If you shout law and accountability to the King you better shout gospel and promise in the next breath.
“Does the King of kings have anything at all to say to the kings?”
Yes. He said it on the cross. Not only to Kings, but to drag queens as well.
God has declared that He is the One that has put all authorities in place. Does He have any purpose for them and does the Church (the pillar and support of the truth) have anything to declare to them to that end?
Yes. Authorities exercise coercion. Yes. The Church declares the mercy of God in Christ to dying people who are subjects of coercion for their own good.
LikeLike
Oh great Sean. First you’re drinking in bars with your gay friends, now it’s bunco games in your homes. Next we’ll be hearing about your performance on burlesque night down at the Blazing Saddle.
LikeLike
WJW: If you are declaring God to all people you are declaring God to the government. But what you declare matters. If you are declaring God’s law are you also declaring God’s mercy? They go together better than Gin and Tonic. If you shout law and accountability to the King you better shout gospel and promise in the next breath.
RS: I guess you think that Paul was wrong in proclaiming righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come (in the context of faith in Christ) to Felix?
Acts 24: 24 But some days later Felix [the governor] 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
Richard, and Herod “gladly heard” John the Baptizer. But in both instances notice that the prophets have been invited by the pols. The way you speak it’s as if nobody thinks an invitation is in order, as if the church and her members should just get the government’s face. But is this the way we engage our regular neighbors, preaching to them without so much as an indication of any interest? Maybe you do, in which case you are consistent, but maybe consistently irritating.
LikeLike
Richard,
Easy Rabbi.
v. 24. “he [Paul] spoke about his faith in Christ Jesus”
v.27 “he [Felix] left Paul in prison”
Why is Paul before Felix? The Sanhedrin, the Jewish big boys, the temple dwellers, the keepers of the law don’t like what Paul is teaching. In fact 23:29 gives us a clue: “. . . the accusation had to do with questions about their law . . .” Then, when the heat really gets turned up look at the sly move our Apostolic friend makes. He tells those same Jews who accuse him of stirring up trouble concerning the law that they have no right to try him and he appeals to Caesar and Caesar’s law to keep the Jewish “law keepers” from killing him.
How funny is that? Paul, a Jew who thought he kept the law until he met Christ, tells the chief priests that he would rather be judged by pagan Roman law (I bet some Roman legal minds were even gay) than their standards?
Nah. Paul wasn’t wrong. What a great first witness to the teaching that we are citizens of two kingdoms and we need not live in fear of the state, nor need we be afraid when the religious keepers of the law are after us. Amen?
LikeLike
Erik,
They wish. The gays used to be a lot more fun before they started sounding and acting like self-righteous evanjellyfish all the way down to their political correctness boots, victimization stories, bully politics and bunco parties. Now they want to look like my wife and I? Breeders in suburbia? How boring. Andrew Sullivan is ruining the gays.
LikeLike
I would like to thank those of you who have interacted with me.
As wjw indicated in his last post responding to me, there is significant culturally distance between us which hasn’t helped.
The point of view that you represent – and the most recent post by Dr Hart has been helpful to me in this respect – is utterly foreign to our way of thinking in the Presbyterian Church of Australia and we are a denomination that having lost our dominant liberal faction to the Uniting Church 35 years ago has returned to its confessional roots while recognising the need to “go and make disciples”. We are just on different wavelengths, which is sad but the reality.
I realise I cut to bone on occasion and I apologise for any offence, though you seemed to take it with good grace. I can see that you are sincere, just as I now can see we are poles apart.
Cheers
David Palmer
LikeLike
WJW: Why is Paul before Felix? The Sanhedrin, the Jewish big boys, the temple dwellers, the keepers of the law don’t like what Paul is teaching. In fact 23:29 gives us a clue: “. . . the accusation had to do with questions about their law . . .” Then, when the heat really gets turned up look at the sly move our Apostolic friend makes. He tells those same Jews who accuse him of stirring up trouble concerning the law that they have no right to try him and he appeals to Caesar and Caesar’s law to keep the Jewish “law keepers” from killing him.
How funny is that? Paul, a Jew who thought he kept the law until he met Christ, tells the chief priests that he would rather be judged by pagan Roman law (I bet some Roman legal minds were even gay) than their standards?
RS: Why do you keep bringing up the gay part? It seems as if you have gay colored lenses and see gay everywhere.
WJW: Nah. Paul wasn’t wrong. What a great first witness to the teaching that we are citizens of two kingdoms and we need not live in fear of the state, nor need we be afraid when the religious keepers of the law are after us. Amen?
RS: But notice that it was ” 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.”” Was Paul just defending himself or taking the opportunity to speak about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come in a way that the man who was hearing the case actually became frightened and wanted him gone? Clearly, he was doing the latter.
LikeLike
Ever since “Modern Family” introduced us to Cameron and Mitchell things just haven’t been the same. That show is genius, however. Eric Stonestreet gets away with things the rest of us could only dream of.
LikeLike
David Palmer: The point of view that you represent – and the most recent post by Dr Hart has been helpful to me in this respect – is utterly foreign to our way of thinking in the Presbyterian Church of Australia and we are a denomination that having lost our dominant liberal faction to the Uniting Church 35 years ago has returned to its confessional roots while recognising the need to “go and make disciples”. We are just on different wavelengths, which is sad but the reality.
I realise I cut to bone on occasion and I apologise for any offence, though you seemed to take it with good grace. I can see that you are sincere, just as I now can see we are poles apart.
RS: But people from closer to the N. Pole and those who are closer to the S. Pole can still discuss things. Or perhaps you are thinking that some are sitting on the pole which is like sitting on the fence while others are sitting on the pole like being ready to start a race. It is too bad that you will not stick around for a little while, but may your work in the land down under be for His glory.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Why do you keep bringing up the gay part? It seems as if you have gay colored lenses and see gay everywhere.”
First, I’m happy as in ‘Hey everybody WJW is feeling gay today!”
Second, Paul appeals to pagan law apart from the covenant. Even more he is grateful for what pagan civil law affords–namely protection from religious accusers. Civil law is not religious law. Civil codes are made by people with all kinds of moral deficiencies and yet Christians can benefit. Hate the sin. Love the sinner. Claim your Constitutional rights when needed even if they were made up by a bunch of whore mongering deists and are being usurped by homosexuals.
“Was Paul just defending himself or taking the opportunity to speak about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come in a way that the man who was hearing the case actually became frightened and wanted him gone?”
Both. Then he went to jail. Then he got out. Then he got his head cut off under the same pagan legal system he claimed for protection. Theology of the cross.
LikeLike
” shouldn’t our governments actually be concerned about God in what they do?”
JWJ: Depends. Like I said before governments do a lot of things. If they leave the Church alone they are doing pretty well by any historical measure. Another round for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the boys.
This is where 2K often runs aground. “Godf” is not synonymous with “Church.” In withdrawing from public the intramural doctrinal battles inside Christianity [good], some 2Kers swing too far the other way, abandoning God as a reality, and the natural law as the best ethos for the City of Man.
This is NOT what Jefferson and Madison were after, and unfortunately, it’s the false history that now prevails in America, the “Harvard Narrative.”
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-there-american-mind.html
“… acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?
…
And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.” —Jefferson 1st Inaugural
“And to the same Divine Author of Every Good and Perfect Gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.
It is for blessings such as these, and more especially for the restoration of the blessing of peace, that I now recommend that the second Thursday in April next be set apart as a day on which the people of every religious denomination may in their solemn assemblies unite their hearts and their voices in a freewill offering to their Heavenly Benefactor of their homage of thanksgiving and of their songs of praise.”—President Madison, Recommending a Day of Public Thanksgiving for Peace 1815
“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Wm. O, Douglas in Everson
So here’s the scoop: theism and natural law aren’t synonymous with sectarian Christian schemes of salvation, on which we have little unanimity. But in 2King those theological hassles, some of us abandon the republic to the barbarians. This is not good. It’s true that God doesn’t need America, but the converse is certainly not true.
Now this little comment isn’t going to change any minds, but the 2K argument must at least be based on an accurate understanding of the American history. The above Guelzo piece above is worth a look.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Overruling Providence, Infinite Power, Divine Author of Every Good and Perfect Gift, Religious People, Supreme Being” Got it. Thanks for the heads up on the real history.
Here is another scoop: Non-sectarian theism is way cool at creating constitutional republics. I’m for it. If only more people would be Theists, Aristotelians, and Thomists in a nation of fast food, porn, Restoration Hardware, and credit cards perhaps we would spend less and save more.
Here’s yet another scoop with a cherry on top: The scandal of the cross and the hope of an empty tomb.
“Godf” is not synonymous with “Church.”
And yet there is no salvation apart from the church.
LikeLike
TVD,
That’s gonna be part of the rub. 2k confessionalists aren’t gonna be much interested in defending a non-particular theism. Nobody here questions the ‘usefulness’ of civil religion for legislators and government but we’re gonna argue that American evanjellyfish(RC’s too), in particular, sacrifice the God of scripture at the altar of civil religion. It’s a price we aren’t going to be willing to pay. If Imago Dei is true it’s not a lack of education or information the unredeemed/barbarians are struggling against. They have the capacity to order themselves. If you need a civil God, have Aristotle’s first cause. Or argue the free exercise of religion(pluralism)
LikeLike
“God” is not synonymous with “Church.”
And yet there is no salvation apart from the church.
As Locke elegantly put it, the government can’t save anyone’s soul anywayz. We’re simply not discussing salvation–although the previous discussion about temptation touches on my previous objection to letting America become a whorehouse for our children to grow up in. When 2K becomes indistinguishable from libertarianism, well, I don’t think that’s what Jean Calvin was after.
__________
2k confessionalists aren’t gonna be much interested in defending a non-particular theism, in particular, sacrifice the God of scripture at the altar of civil religion. It’s a price we aren’t going to be willing to pay.
Well, it’s already true in Canada you can get hauled into court for speaking against homosexuality. This one’s on you. “It could never happen in America” some say, but that’s putting your trust in government all the same, n’est ce-pas?
If 2K means living like the Amish, just realize you own your religious freedom to non-2K suckers like me, so if you’re going to stand down, then kindly step down.
And look, I certainly understand the danger of interfacing with “the culture”–you can’t lie down with dogs without waking up with fleas yourself. OTOH, that’s the same answer I got from Brother Bayly, that toning down the “sodomite” business would be denying God’s word.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2011/12/sodomite-most-accurate-loving-word-part-ii-or-what-does-jay-leno-remember-everyone-else
I don’t think it’s an either/or. You guys got some nuancing to do.
LikeLike
Just ran across this. OK, I’m outta here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2058921/Chris-Birch-stroke-Rugby-player-wakes-gay-freak-gym-accident.html
LikeLike
Tom – If 2K means living like the Amish, just realize you own your religious freedom to non-2K suckers like me, so if you’re going to stand down, then kindly step down.
Actually, God decides whether his people face persecution or not.
One could make the case that the religious right creates more problems for Christians than it solves. A lot of people on the “other side” become enflamed when they might have been content to just live and let live. It’s pretty much 10% of people on the hard right battling 10% of people on the hard left and the rest of us are in the middle just wishing we could be left alone.
LikeLike
TVD, who’s stepping down? It’s called arguing for freedom of religion, and safeguarding the rights of all people that your own may be given the same consideration. Here’s one to throw you on your ear; ACLU
LikeLike
Throw ME on my ear? Attempt an affirmative argument for the ACLU’s naked public square and you’ll wish you hadn’t.
LikeLike
Tom – If 2K means living like the Amish, just realize you own your religious freedom to non-2K suckers like me, so if you’re going to stand down, then kindly step down.
Actually, God decides whether his people face persecution or not.
That completely helpless and inert theology is something no modern Protestant would be caught dead in a field with. Even the Amish aren’t that lame.
But I’m smelled that as your bottom line for awhile now, and said so. Now at last you have. With that out in the open now, the thumbwrestling in jello can end.
LikeLike
David Palmer, how different a wavelength can it be if your church is willing to publish authors like Carl Trueman (author of Republocrat) and me?
LikeLike
TVD, someone who believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is supposed to work for a profession of “Supreme Being”? “Betrayal” comes to mind.
That’s why no professions are better than false professions.
LikeLike
RS: So thinking someone is cute is the same thing as sexual orientation? Your position seems to be very stretched at the moment.
No, this is exactly what it is. A non-neglible number of adolescents boys discover that they aren’t attracted to girls, rather (much to their horror) they are attracted to other boys. This is what it means to be gay. What one does with that is another story.
Frankly, folks like yourself who like to play belligerent word games and pretend that you are standing firm in the Word of God are doing great damage to the cause of Christ. Instead of wallowing in stereotypes, you should at the very least make sure you know what you are talking about. You have proven time and again that you don’t. Yet you insist on supporting the non-2k position that Christians have a moral obligation to speak out on a political matter the very underlying facts of which you are ignorant. This kind of obscurantism is frankly irresponsible.
I don’t know what to say about your appeal to conditionals in the text above other than to say that you should think more carefully about this text and interpret it in light of what Paul teaches us about the law (let scripture interpret scripture). This is one rabbit trail too many…
Look, coming back to the believer’s political responsibility, I’m not an anabaptist – I don’t believe that it is wrong for Christians to be involved in the political process, to govern, or to advocate for policies they believe to be congruent with the demands of scripture. But unlike some evidently, I don’t believe that any Christian has the obligation to be involved in the political realm, nor do I believe the proper role of the state in enforcing various policies is indisputable. Frankly, an appeal to scripture isn’t much help because while it tells us what is right and wrong, it doesn’t tell us which of these things should be enforced by the government. Thus Christians may follow their conscience and vote accordingly. This isn’t to say that I don’t think there are better or worse answers to various political questions, only that the church has not been given the authority to discipline members for failing to support a particular political stance. If that makes me a 2ker, sign me up….
LikeLike
TVD, someone who believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is supposed to work for a profession of “Supreme Being”? “Betrayal” comes to mind.
That’s why no professions are better than false professions.
Darryl, I’m going to hope you simply didn’t read the lead up, and are not playing the disingenuousness game. That would disappoint me.
My point was simply one of historical accuracy, that invoking even Jefferson and Madison is misleading–that even in their eyes “separation of church and state” was not synonymous with booting God and natural law from the public square.
Capeesh?
If 2Kers are going to try to enlist Jefferson and Madison, I thought it helpful to examine the historical record. I don’t think they help.
EC:Actually, God decides whether his people face persecution or not.
That was the far more interesting assertion in this discussion, DGH. I look forward to you addressing it.
LikeLike
sdb, but before you get your 2k card you have to send in your “Edwards Is My Homeboy” tee shirt. In exchange, you’ll get the card and a “I Heart NYC and Wouldn’t Change a Thing.”
LikeLike
TVD,
DGH can respond as he wishes. But I invoked the founders and I’ll raise another to Jefferson, Madison and the boys. To date, we still don’t have an established religion, and thankfully we have people like yourself jockeying for abstract notions of God, natural law, and the public square, rather than lobbying the government to mandate any particular system of doctrine. Pretty smart those founders. A good days work in old Philadelphia I’d say.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you found this statement interesting:
EC:Actually, God decides whether his people face persecution or not.
Heidelberg 26 & 27 are going to blow you away:
Question 26. What believest thou when thou sayest, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth”?
Answer: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them; (a) who likewise upholds and governs the same by his eternal counsel and providence) (b) is for the sake of Christ his Son, my God and my Father; (c) on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt, but he will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body (d) and further, that he will make whatever evils he sends upon me, in this valley of tears turn out to my advantage; (e) for he is able to do it, being Almighty God, (f) and willing, being a faithful Father. (g)
Question 27. What dost thou mean by the providence of God?
Answer: The almighty and everywhere present power of God; (a) whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governs (b) heaven, earth, and all creatures; so that herbs and grass, rain and drought, (c) fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, (d) riches and poverty, (e) yea, and all things come, not by chance, but be his fatherly hand. (f)
LikeLike
SDB quoting RS: So thinking someone is cute is the same thing as sexual orientation? Your position seems to be very stretched at the moment.
SDB: No, this is exactly what it is. A non-neglible number of adolescents boys discover that they aren’t attracted to girls, rather (much to their horror) they are attracted to other boys. This is what it means to be gay. What one does with that is another story.
RS: I suppose you can believe that if you want, but that is sheer nonsense.
SDB: Frankly, folks like yourself who like to play belligerent word games and pretend that you are standing firm in the Word of God are doing great damage to the cause of Christ.
RS: I am not playing word games at all, but instead trying to get at what is being said with words. Word have meanings and liberals play with words and change the meanings. If you are not going go call sin as sin, then don’t go around pretending that it is others who are causing damage to the cause of Christ. If you will not stand against sin, then you will not be standing for Christ either.
SDB: Instead of wallowing in stereotypes,
RS: More nonsense. Sin is sin and you can stop saying that is wallowing in stereotypes when in fact that is you wanting to wallow around in the slough of looking for other definitions so you can feel good about your point of view which dismisses sin in one area.
SDB: you should at the very least make sure you know what you are talking about.
RS: I do, you are unwilling to deal with the issue as it is.
SDB: You have proven time and again that you don’t.
RS: No, I have simply proven time and time again that I stand with the Bible as opposed to that which is falsely called knowledge.
SDB: Yet you insist on supporting the non-2k position that Christians have a moral obligation to speak out on a political matter the very underlying facts of which you are ignorant.
RS: But the homosexual issue is a moral matter and you want to be quiet on a moral matter. If you will not stand for the truth, then you are against the truth. As to the underlying facts that you think I am ignorant of, I simply think that what you are calling facts are figments of your imagination that have been planted there by the “gay lobby.”
SDB: This kind of obscurantism is frankly irresponsible.
RS: What is irresponsible is your calling a moral issue a political one and then running from it as if that is the righteous thing to do.
SDB: I don’t know what to say about your appeal to conditionals in the text above other than to say that you should think more carefully about this text and interpret it in light of what Paul teaches us about the law (let scripture interpret scripture). This is one rabbit trail too many…
RS: Then read up on conditionals. But here is a short bit on it. An if…then statement is a conditional because the then part of the statement is conditional on the if part being true. When Jesus said “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off,” the if part was contrary to facts and as such one should not cut off the hand. But in putting the statement like this He is showing us the great horror and evil of sin and how we should flee it at all cost. In fact, if we look at the real cause of sin, which is our own wicked hearts of love for self and sin, it teaches us how we should treat sin of the heart.
SDB: Look, coming back to the believer’s political responsibility, I’m not an anabaptist – I don’t believe that it is wrong for Christians to be involved in the political process, to govern, or to advocate for policies they believe to be congruent with the demands of scripture. But unlike some evidently, I don’t believe that any Christian has the obligation to be involved in the political realm, nor do I believe the proper role of the state in enforcing various policies is indisputable.
RS: Should the state support what is moral or immoral according to Romans 13? What is wrong with Christians informing the state of what is right and wrong on at least the clear moral issues?
SDB: Frankly, an appeal to scripture isn’t much help because while it tells us what is right and wrong, it doesn’t tell us which of these things should be enforced by the government.
RS: Unless you are going to argue that the Scriptures are contradictory to the laws of nature you might want to think through that issue again. Scripture reveals the truth of God and the state either chooses to have laws according to the truth of God or according to a standard that is against God.
SDB: Thus Christians may follow their conscience and vote accordingly.
RS: Should the conscience be informed by the Word of God or by the world? For example, it sure seems to me that your conscience has been informed by a lot of pseudo-science on the homosexual issues. There are other ways of being taken “captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” than the academic study of philosophy.
SDB: This isn’t to say that I don’t think there are better or worse answers to various political questions, only that the church has not been given the authority to discipline members for failing to support a particular political stance. If that makes me a 2ker, sign me up….
RS: Who is arguing that the church is to do that?
LikeLike
TVD, invoking a “supreme being” is going to ban gay marriage and abortion? In other words, so JM and TJ spoke about God. I do every day and I like them believe we should have no religious tests for holding office and that the United States should welcome Muslims. I don’t see any difference invoking the “god” of the founders.
LikeLike
Richard,
I wonder how far you take your “sin is sin” approach. Do you take the same approach to your gluttonous colleagues at work? What about your colleagues who are on their third and fourth marriage? And what about the 20-something kids who are living with their boyfriends or girlfriends without being married? Do you confront them daily about their sin? Do you compare them to child rapists?
If not, it seems to me that you’ve created something of a double standard. And if you’re indeed operating with such a double standard, there’s nothing particularly Christian about your conduct at all. It strikes me that you’d just be using Christianity as a cover for bigotry.
We are surrounded by people who live in unrepentent sin. That’s life in a pluralistic society. Unless we’re going to give up our jobs and move out of our neighborhoods, we’ll have to deal with it. And in that sense, I see no reason why I should be treating my gay neighbors and colleagues any differently from how I treat neighbors and colleagues who are philanderers or neighbors and colleagues who are gluttons.
Then again, maybe you do bandy about calling out everyone you meet on their sin. Or maybe you don’t go out at all. I don’t know, and, frankly, I don’t care. But the rest of us have bills to pay, families to support, jobs to do, and lives to live. We work and play alongside gay neighbors and colleagues. That’s just part of life.
LikeLike
RS: Who is arguing that the church is to do that?
I haven’t read your post yet, but this last line caught my eye. This is precisely the bone of contention. Joe Carter and Jason Leeman at TheGospelCoalition have written that libertarian politics is akin to practicing Wicca and a form of idolatry (Carter), and it is sinful to support any political policy that in anyway encourages people to sin (Leeman). From what I gather from the BB, they essentially concur (though I have to confess that I haven’t read that much from them – the tone of their blog is too much for me). I asked the same question at TheGospelCoalition that I asked here. Maybe my writing is hopelessly unclear, but no one was responsive to the question I had for Joe Carter or Leeman which is, “Why is it OK to be a libertarian with regard to religious ethics, but not sexual ethics?”. The responses I did get were:
1) Free will – you can’t force a change of heart. My response is that of course you can’t, but that applies to sexual ethics as well. However, some religious sins (crafting idols) are outward expression that could in principle be banned.
2) I can’t really be a Christian if I am even asking the question (not sure how they could possibly judge that or why the answer would be different coming from a non-believer).
3) I must hate Catholics if I believe the Mass is blasphemous (the commenters over there haven’t been well catechized I guess).
4) Homosexuality is really, really bad and florists will be forced to go to jail unless they serve gay weddings – how could a Christian support that? (I didn’t say it was a good policy, but I just want to know the basis for declaring a libertarian stance with regard to sexual ethics akin to Wicca.
Joe Carter and Jason Leeman may not be intellectual political theorists of any significance, but to say that they are obscure and irrelevant is naive. TheGospelCoalition includes a number of elders from my denomination (PCA) including Keller (at least I think he is still PCA – his website doesn’t make any reference to the PCA that I can find) and Bryan Chappell (of Covenant Seminary). They haven’t responded to these posts. Maybe they don’t read everything that comes across the blog they have lent their name to, but I assume this isn’t a new viewpoint in TGC circles (it certainly didn’t raise any controversy among the other TGC members). So I assume they at least don’t disapprove of this line of reasoning. However, it is a very serious charge to make and one that appears to me to be on flimsy ground. I know there are 2k critics here, so I was hoping someone could pop out of the woodwork and explain the rationale for declaring 2k out of bounds. So far nothing. I still hold out the possibility that I’m missing something and I’ve just been looking for justification in the wrong place. But I am growing more convinced that there is no sound criticism of the 2k stance (if I understand 2k properly – I haven’t gotten my card yet)
LikeLike
SDB, the typical criticism is for more shrill than it is grounded or theoretically defensible If you read between the lines what you typically find are men reasoning backward from the culture warrior consensus. In other words, they and their peeps are in a bubble in which everyone knows – just knows! – that the important issues are x, y, and z. Then if someone questions whether x really is a defining issue or if a, b & c from the first table might be equally or more compelling, there’s the kind of response you got.
But don’t take my word for it – read what they say and see if this doesn’t ring true.
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, I wonder how far you take your “sin is sin” approach.
RS: My point is NOT that all sin is equal, but that what the Bible says is sin is sin.
Bobby: Do you take the same approach to your gluttonous colleagues at work?
RS: So far there are no movements in society that are trying to pass laws to declare that people are born gluttonous and that gluttony is as normal as non-gluttony.
Bobby: What about your colleagues who are on their third and fourth marriage?
RS: So far no one is trying to assert that people are born with desires for third and fourth marriages. Plus, not all divorce is unbiblical and not all people on their third and fourth marriage divorced their spouses, but instead lived longer than the spouses did. In a divorce, speaking in general, there can be one “innocent” and one guilty party. In homosexual activity, there are two guilty parties.
Bobby: And what about the 20-something kids who are living with their boyfriends or girlfriends without being married? Do you confront them daily about their sin? Do you compare them to child rapists?
RS: But I don’t confront homosexuals daily about their sin. I am just no for the government (or anyone else) saying that they are born that way and as such their behavior is normal and not sinful. By the way, as I have repeatedly said, I did not comparing all homosexuals with child rapists. What I did, once again, is show you that you don’t really want to argue that sexual orientation is what we are born with and that it cannot change.
Bobby: If not, it seems to me that you’ve created something of a double standard. And if you’re indeed operating with such a double standard, there’s nothing particularly Christian about your conduct at all. It strikes me that you’d just be using Christianity as a cover for bigotry.
RS: I cannot argue what seems to you or does not seem to you. However, you are the one with a double standard. You are the one making yourself the standard rather than the Word of God while wanting to say that God in some way has a standard. Whatever a bigot may be or may not be, that seems to change depending on the person using it. I really don’t care if you think I am a bigot, but as long as God is on the throne (which will be for eternity) homosexuals will not enter the kingdom. Now if you want to water that down and so not tell people of the real and only hope that is found in Christ, then so be it. But all that means is that you will have taken the side that opposes the truth of God.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
RS: Bobby, you fit the definition of a bigot in that you are quite intolerant in your devotion to your own opinions and prejudices.
Bobby: We are surrounded by people who live in unrepentent sin. That’s life in a pluralistic society. Unless we’re going to give up our jobs and move out of our neighborhoods, we’ll have to deal with it. And in that sense, I see no reason why I should be treating my gay neighbors and colleagues any differently from how I treat neighbors and colleagues who are philanderers or neighbors and colleagues who are gluttons.
RS: For what it is worth, I just helped an openly gay man get his vehicle fixed so he can drive to his job. I do not treat gays like dogs or anything of the sort, but if you are going to have true love for anyone it must come from a true love for God first. I cannot have true love for God or my neighbor if I do not value their soul above their sexual preferences. If I water down the standards of God, then that is not love for God or anyone else either.
Bobby: Then again, maybe you do bandy about calling out everyone you meet on their sin. Or maybe you don’t go out at all. I don’t know, and, frankly, I don’t care. But the rest of us have bills to pay, families to support, jobs to do, and lives to live. We work and play alongside gay neighbors and colleagues. That’s just part of life.
RS: Perhaps it is part of life, but part of life is also knowing that each person you work and play alongside of must be born from above and repent of their sins if they will enter eternity into the joyful presence of God as opposed to entering eternity under the wrath of God. I might also add that even for those who are not converted it is far better for them to turn from sin in this life so as to have less sin in eternity to suffer for. So just keep on watering down the truth of Scripture and all that happens is that you will be helping people throw more sticks on their own fire.
Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
LikeLike
SDB: I know there are 2k critics here, so I was hoping someone could pop out of the woodwork and explain the rationale for declaring 2k out of bounds. So far nothing. I still hold out the possibility that I’m missing something and I’ve just been looking for justification in the wrong place. But I am growing more convinced that there is no sound criticism of the 2k stance (if I understand 2k properly – I haven’t gotten my card yet)
RS: I have yet to understand all the nuances of 2K, but am trying. I am not arguing that the Church is to control or run the government (or even try), but that it should proclaim the truth of God to society as a whole and that includes the government. It seems to me (at this point) that the 2K folks want to separate the Church from the governmnent in virtually all aspects and even to the point that government is better off when it ignores the Church and the only God who has created all. I argue that each and every person in the world (including all those in the government) will answer to God for all that they have done or will do and so the Church should be declaring the truth of God to those people. But I am not arguing that each church should practice discipline on those who disagree on all political issues.
LikeLike
RS,
I’ve now had a chance to go back and read your response. Frankly I don’t see any point in continuing to discuss this with you as you aren’t willing to interact in good faith. In particular, you wrote:
” Sin is sin and you can stop saying that is wallowing in stereotypes when in fact that is you wanting to wallow around in the slough of looking for other definitions so you can feel good about your point of view which dismisses sin in one area.”
“so you can feel good about your point of view which dismisses sin in one area.”
“But the homosexual issue is a moral matter and you want to be quiet on a moral matter.”
“What is irresponsible is your calling a moral issue a political one and then running from it as if that is the righteous thing to do.”
However, I’ve already said in response to you in a previous thread the following:
“I don’t think anyone here is saying that church shouldn’t speak out against homosexuality and gay unions.”
In the same thread I wrote in response to Bobby, “However, a pastor who comes across a text about sexual purity shouldn’t refrain from stating that folks with SSA should remain celibate (gay marriage is a no-no).”
Agreeing with me, Bobby wrote, “Yes, I expect a faithful Christian pastor to preach to his congregation that homosexual acts are sinful. In my opinion, Scripture is pretty clear on this point.”
So don’t misrepresent my position. I firmly believe that homosexual sex and homosexual lust are unequivocally sinful. I believe that a pastor exegeting a text bearing on sexual should conduct clearly state that any sexual activity outside of the bounds of the marriage of husband and wife is sinful. I believe that people with same-sex attraction who marry are acting in defiance to God. Church members who participate in homosexual activity or approve of those who do should be disciplined by their church. Full stop. No qualifiers. So don’t go on about how I want to dismiss sin, be quiet on a moral matter, or pretend it is not a moral issue.
What I dispute is that a Christian must advocate for laws that in someway penalize this sin or that we should treat this sin differently from others. Just as I think idolatry is sinful, I don’t think the state should outlaw mormonism or prohibit parents from sending their kids to mormon schools or create an exception to the prohibition of discrimination against mormons in places of public accommodation. As I’ve noted the folks at the TGC disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality but agree with me on the issue of religious freedom. I want to understand the distinction. Claiming that I just want to dismiss sin is a lie. It isn’t just an unwarranted inference, I explicitly repudiated this to you earlier. To continue claiming that I want to dismiss sin suggests that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest.
LikeLike
Richard, right, because soft theonomy aligns with semi-revivalism, while 2k and Reformation align. But have you considered that part of the point of the spirituality of the church is not to so much to help the government be better off but rather to help the church prosper? Again, for such a Bible man I am surprised this escapes you. The church is always portrayed in the Bible as being at her healthiest when opposed by the powers that be, not cozied up to greater or lesser degrees.
LikeLike
SDB: So don’t misrepresent my position.
RS: Interestingingly enough, that is what I thought you and Bobby were doing to me.
SDB: I firmly believe that homosexual sex and homosexual lust are unequivocally sinful. I believe that a pastor exegeting a text bearing on sexual should conduct clearly state that any sexual activity outside of the bounds of the marriage of husband and wife is sinful. I believe that people with same-sex attraction who marry are acting in defiance to God. Church members who participate in homosexual activity or approve of those who do should be disciplined by their church. Full stop. No qualifiers. So don’t go on about how I want to dismiss sin, be quiet on a moral matter, or pretend it is not a moral issue.
RS: But it appears that you want moral issues such as this to be discussed only in the church. Again, that is how it has appeared at this point.
SDB: What I dispute is that a Christian must advocate for laws that in someway penalize this sin or that we should treat this sin differently from others.
RS: Fine, then why do you seem to think it is okay (or at least the Church should be quiet) for the state to declare this sin as a non-sin? That is what the state is doing on this matter. I am not sure if people are arguing that this sin (homosexuality) should be penalized by the state, but they are setting this up as something that is not sin and as something that is normal and morally fine.
SDB: Just as I think idolatry is sinful, I don’t think the state should outlaw mormonism or prohibit parents from sending their kids to mormon schools or create an exception to the prohibition of discrimination against mormons in places of public accommodation.
RS: Fine, I get that, but that is not the parallel situation to this one. The parallel would be for the state to set up mormonism and say that it is moral and okay and then to pass hate speech laws for those who said it was wrong. But even more, the state would then require you to hire mormons if they wanted to be part of your church.
SDB: As I’ve noted the folks at the TGC disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality but agree with me on the issue of religious freedom. I want to understand the distinction. Claiming that I just want to dismiss sin is a lie. It isn’t just an unwarranted inference, I explicitly repudiated this to you earlier. To continue claiming that I want to dismiss sin suggests that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest.
RS: No, it is not for me to be unwilling to be intellectually honest. It is for you to be blind to your position. The state is not just unwilling to punish homosexuality as sin (of which I am not advocating), it is setting homosexuality up as a “lifestyle” with rights and as one that you can be punished if you don’t hire them or speak against the act as sin. Make no mistake about this issue, it is coming to that and that is what some are pushing for. While you say that I am treating this sin differently than others, I am saying that you are (your position is). My position is that this sin should not be given the okay by the government and set out as normal and protected by special laws, but your position will not speak out against that. In other words, your silence on the matter is a vote for this sin being special protection under the law and declared normal and even right.
To make matters clear, I also think we should stand up and declare the truth about things like gluttony and adultery if the government started passing laws that gave them a special status and protection and made people hire them in the churches (which is just around the corner). Once a sexual orientation is given the status of skin color, then beware.
But to go even deeper, though Bobby hates this and cannot seem to get it, when we declare a particular sexual orientation (as it is called) as normal and natural and since it is what we are by nature then it must be okay, then what is the logical stopping point for all sexual deviations from God’s standards being declared normal? Your postion is that we should not tell the government what to do, but surely you understand that when it comes to the governments passing laws on this then the government will start telling us what to do on this issue which will become these types of issues. Even now people are fighting for outrageous gender laws and laws regarding man-boy relationships. But never mind, they are born that way? Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? A moral issue led to the destruction of a lot of people.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, right, because soft theonomy aligns with semi-revivalism, while 2k and Reformation align.
RS: No, I am not arguing for soft theology.
Zrim: But have you considered that part of the point of the spirituality of the church is not to so much to help the government be better off but rather to help the church prosper?
RS: But my position is that the Church should proclaim the truth to the Government. It sure seems that your position is a virulent form of hyper-Calvinism in that the focus is on the church and let the whole world go to hell without as much as a whimper.
Zrim: Again, for such a Bible man I am surprised this escapes you. The church is always portrayed in the Bible as being at her healthiest when opposed by the powers that be, not cozied up to greater or lesser degrees.
RS: But why was the Church opposed? Was it for being quiet about the sins of people against God? It is not cozying up to the state when the Church proclaims the truth of God to the state. The Church has been opposed specifically because it declared sin to be sin to the state. Think John the Baptist and John Knox.
LikeLike
Zirm: The church is always portrayed in the Bible as being at her healthiest when opposed by the powers that be, not cozied up to greater or lesser degrees.
mark: I agree. I am sure that Calvin’s and Luther’s relationship to the magistrates was one factor in their never obeying the Lord’s command to be baptized with water. Certainly their cozy deal with those who held the sword was one reason they could never cut the ties with the mother whore.
And yes, I know that Calvin did not get everything he wanted from the Geneva council. But just imagine how much less he would have gotten if he had wanted a more total discontinuity with papist idolatry. Imagine Calvin saying that the citizens of heaven do not fight because the power of the kingdom is not from earth but from heaven. In that situation, how does God even have the means to get Servetus killed?
I still don’t know if RS uses instrumental music worship. But whatever “regulative principle” RS may or may not have for a church, he certainly hasn’t told us what the regulative principle for the American empire is. Even though RS tells us it’s our duty to share with the pagans what their laws should be, he still hasn’t even told us what laws a nation-state should have. Bible verses please.
Maybe RS simply asks himself, what would Edwards do? But who do you call when your slaves run away?
LikeLike
Richard, the church was opposed not because she confronted the state but because she was actually 2k. The state was the one that wanted to conflate instead of distinguish the kingdoms, as in pinch some incense and declare Caesar is Lord. The church was perfectly willing to humbly submit to the state (which is actually the opposite of self-righteous confronting) but drew the line at worship, as in Jesus is Lord (over every square inch).
LikeLike
McMark: I still don’t know if RS uses instrumental music worship.
RS: No, I don’t.
McMark: But whatever “regulative principle” RS may or may not have for a church, he certainly hasn’t told us what the regulative principle for the American empire is.
RS: My point is simply that all men will have to answer to God for their thoughts, intents, motives, words, and deeds. Every human being lives in the presence of God and every human being either loves God or hates Him. Every human being is either in union with Christ or lives at enmity with Him and His sovereign authority over all things. When America sets up laws that are in direct opposition to the laws of God, I am not sure why it is so wrong to declare that to America. While that is not a regulative principle for America, it does warn men. After all, aren’t we told that we have blood on our hands if we don’t warn people?
McMark: Even though RS tells us it’s our duty to share with the pagans what their laws should be, he still hasn’t even told us what laws a nation-state should have. Bible verses please.
RS: I am not sure that it is out duty in and of itself to tell pagans what all their laws should be, but that is different when they pass laws that make it normal for people to violate the law of God and then to punish those who say that the things people violate God’s law is sin.
McMark: Maybe RS simply asks himself, what would Edwards do?
RS: He would say that one should go to Scripture.
McMark: But who do you call when your slaves run away?
RS: All are either slaves to Christ or slaves to sin and the devil.
LikeLike
Erik chides; “Oh great Sean. First you’re drinking in bars with your gay friends, now it’s bunco games in your homes. Next we’ll be hearing about your performance on burlesque night down at the Blazing Saddle.”
Erik, you make light of many warnings found in the Bible, such as 11 Cor. 6:14
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteouness with lawlessness? What fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial?
Unless you live in Seans world, where he can open up his family to accept lawlessness perverts, calling them his good friends; he even calls them “gay”. Sodomites are not gay Sean.
LikeLike
M&M opines: “DB, the typical criticism is for more shrill than it is grounded or theoretically defensible If you read between the lines what you typically find are men reasoning backward from the culture warrior consensus. In other words, they and their peeps are in a bubble in which everyone knows – just knows! – that the important issues are x, y, and z. Then if someone questions whether x really is a defining issue or if a, b & c from the first table might be equally or more compelling, there’s the kind of response you got.”
Me: Wrong Mike! All one need do, is look and see how God has judged nations in times past. Did God destroy whole cities and and nations for sexual depravity and sacrificing her children? Humm?
This isn’t rocket science M&M; when we see the very sin/crimes (abortion/legal sodomy) front and center in our nation today, that has caused God to destroy nations in days gone by, one would have to be ethically retarded to not see a link. Or as I really suspect; grossly ignorant of the old testament.
LikeLike
Hey Doug, speaking of grossly ignorant, where’s your point by point counter exegesis of Gal. 3? A brother should exhibit patience, but you’re pushing it. BTW, did you ever improve upon your liberal, like woman pastor liberal, historically contextualized deconstruction of 1 cor. 5 that allowed you to both dismiss Paul’s distinguishing of those inside the cult(church for you) and those outside the church and claim to still be a conservative protestant? Patiently awaiting your brilliance.
LikeLike
Sean: aren’t gonna be much interested in defending a non-particular theism. Nobody here questions the ‘usefulness’ of civil religion for legislators and government but we’re gonna argue that American evanjellyfish(RC’s too), in particular, sacrifice the God of scripture at the altar of civil religion. It’s a price we aren’t going to be willing to pay. If Imago Dei is true it’s not a lack of education or information the unredeemed/barbarians are struggling against. They have the capacity to order themselves. If you need a civil God, have Aristotle’s first cause.
mark: Amen. Here I am “still completely helpless and inert”, surrounded by “weaker brothers” who are telling me of my obligation to also vote. But let the dead bury the dead. If every Christian became a pacifist, the pagans would still find somebody to drop off cash and guns in Afghanistan.
LikeLike
Once a sexual orientation is given the status of skin color, then beware.
Too late. Bigot.
LikeLike
So no organs for you, RS? Do you ever go to worship where they have pianos, or Christian pianists, or Christians who are pianists, or professing Christians who are pianists, or Christians who are professing pianists? If you go to the concert at the Methodist, and see one or two other Christians there, is that “church”?
LikeLike
Once a sexual orientation is given the status of skin color, then beware.
To wit, RS:
http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2012/09/ruining-book-of-confessions-presbytery.html
“But the authors of the Resolution have changed the meaning of 9:44 by leaving out several words. This is what the Confession actually says.
God has created the peoples of the earth to be one universal family. In his reconciling love, he overcomes the barriers between brothers and breaks down every form of discrimination based on racial or ethnic difference, real or imaginary. The church is called to bring all men to receive and uphold one another as persons in all relationships of life: in employment, housing, education, leisure, marriage, family, church, and the exercise of political rights. Therefore, the church labors for the abolition of all racial discrimination and ministers to those injured by it. Congregations, individuals, or groups of Christians who exclude, dominate, or patronize their fellowmen, however subtly, resist the Spirit of God and bring contempt on the faith they profess. (Bold the author’s)
“It can plainly be seen that this part of the Confession of 67 is about racial discrimination, not about sexuality. By changing the meaning of this part of the Confession the Presbytery of Twin Cities has caused those who oppose same gender sex on the basis of God’s Holy Word to be pictured as those who resist the Spirit and are bringing contempt on their faith. By voting yes on this resolution members of the Presbytery have endangered the unity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). How can there be any fellowship or communion among us given this horrendous action.
May God have mercy on us.”
LikeLike
Sean, as I already pointed out, you have provided no, (as in zero) exegesis on Galatians 3, just a long boring commentary written by Gordon sprinkled with a few verses taken out of context. And conclusions that I strongly disagree with. I feel no need to belabor the obvious. What gives you the right to demand an exegesis of me? Where’s yours? Who made you the exegesis police?
As Calvin has already stated, Paul (must!!) be talking about the misuse of the law in Galatians 3. not something offered in the Mosaic administration. (This is where Gordon blew it!) It’s really not to hard to understand, if you put your thinking cap on. God is not double minded Sean! Once you accept that obvious fact, a light should blink on, in your bean.
LikeLike
Doug – Unless you live in Seans world, where he can open up his family to accept lawlessness perverts
Rumor has it he even hangs out will Bull Dykes & Methodists.
That clip never gets old.
LikeLike
Doug, so your counter exegesis is Gordon is really bad at prose AND at exegesis, and you STRONGLY disagree with it. You’re the one who said you would, don’t get all mad because I’m making sure my brother doesn’t become a big fat liar. So, in that way, I am YOUR exegesis police, brother’s keeper and all, and I don’t sleep on keeping you to your word. Actually, it’s mainly because I’m guarding my child’s window in case the gays come stalking the little children, but it doubles as being your 24/7 exegesis probation officer. Speaking of double-minded, where’s your exegetically defendable interpretation of 1 cor. 5, or will you be interviewing some women for pastoral office soon? Come on theonomy boy, goosestep all over this 2k gestapo officer with your brilliance.
LikeLike
Sean, even the devil uses Scripture out of context, so beware of using 1 Cor. 5 to invalidate 2nd Cor. 6. Let the clear set the context for the less clear. In any case, Paul commands the church of Corinth to separate themselves, from the world. Not in the sense, that we cannot have *any* dealings with the world, or we would have to be out of the world. But certainly not hanging out with them drinking long island ice teas. Which is what you say you and your wife do. Shame on you!
What I would give to sit your butt down for 60 min. with Bible’s open. I promise you, you would never repeat such an absurd understanding of 1 Cor 5 again! It’s so off the mark, you should have repented yesterday! I will pray for your family, for it sounds as if your on the verge of destruction.
LikeLike
“This isn’t rocket science M&M; when we see the very sin/crimes (abortion/legal sodomy) front and center in our nation today, that has caused God to destroy nations in days gone by, one would have to be ethically retarded to not see a link. Or as I really suspect; grossly ignorant of the old testament.”
Well, my comment was addressed to the non-theonomist Christian culture warriors. You would be more consistent on a theoretical level. You are also more consistent is saying things like “ethically retarded” and “grossly ignorant” on scant or no grounds while making a comment that is not even responsive to the one you are critiquing. Are you a high school sophomore, Doug?
LikeLike
Sean, 2nd Cor. 6 sets the context for understanding 1 Cor 5. 2nd Cor. forbids friendship with the world. This goes to your so called free time. You are one body with Christ! How can you go out and spend your “fun” time with the seed of Satan in a drinking party, as if God doesn’t even exist?
You have missed the whole context of what it means to be “in Christ”. Anything that is not of faith is sin, Sean. How can you look anyone of us in the eye and say your “fun” time with your sodomite buddies is born of a heart of faith? If it isn’t, then it’s sin, plain and simple. Make your choice Sean, who is your Lord? If Christ, then in everything you do, you must do it for the glory of God!
Who’s side are you on Sean?
LikeLike
Actually Doug, 2 cor 6 supports the distinction Paul draws in 1 cor 5. Cult members of ill repute and shameful behavior are shunned and driven out. So, to go along with your exegesis of 1 cor. 5 are you going to be adopting the gender neutral bible?
LikeLike
Well M&M, sometimes I get a little wound up, you know me! And no, I graduated from high school thanks. Just remember I trend to use hyperbole to jar some men back to there senses.
As you can tell, I find it offensive when men of your ilk, deride so called culture warriors. Would you have said the same thing to Paul when he took precious time in Scripture to lament Israel’s hard heart? You sound like you don’t give a crap, what happens to our nation. And to make matters worse, you sneer at, and deride good christian men who do.
I don’t like it one bit!
LikeLike
Sean are you trying to tell us all here at Old life that when you take your wife out to go drinking with your sodomite buddies, it’s born out of a heart of faith?
Or, is your free time God neutral? Can you party with the world, with a heart of faith?
Now who is taking the Bible out of context Sean?
LikeLike
“I trend to use hyperbole to jar some men back to there senses.”
Bad strategy. It just makes you less credible. And it’s funny how the theonomist fails to see the ethical implications of talking about other people that way. The law is for those bad people out there, I guess.
LikeLike
Sean, let me connect the dots for you, since you seem to be having a hard time seeing the obvious. Without faith it’s impossible to please God, amen? How is you and your wife cavorting with, and drinking it up with sodomites pleasing to God? How is your faith compelling you to go out drinking with sodomites?
I have never heard such nonsense!!
LikeLike
M&M says: Bad strategy.
Maybe it is, but how is it a good strategy for *you* to deride christian men a culture warriors? You are telling men who care deeply, they are wrong. What gives you the right to make such a harsh judgement?
LikeLike
I Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
No, I don’t much care about the nations out of which we have been called. Darkness is darkness, and I care even less for the generic gray of “theism” or the “family values” agreed on by American pagans.
Carson: Marriage itself, like celibacy, is a gracious gift from God, a χάρισμα (7:7). Each spouse owns the body of the other, and sexual intimacy must not be withheld except under the stringent conditions that 7:5 stipulates….But marriage is not the summum bonum, but stands under God’s “as if not”. Because the new age has dawned and marriage itself does not continue into the resurrection existence of the new heaven and the new earth, the… Christian will not invest it with eternal significance.
LikeLike
Sean, wake up! We, the body of Christ, are not one body with the world! So of course, if a wayward Christian falls into a sexual sin, he needs to be shunned. But we are never ONE BODY with sodomites! You are mixing apples and sodomites. You have forgotten the basic truth that Christians are one body with Christ. And since you don’t have the presupposition fresh in you mind, you botch up 1 Cor. 5 by not taking that factoid into account. Paul is NOT saying it’s okay to party with the world, he just isn’t. And oddly, that’s exactly how you seem to be understanding 1 Cor 5, which is a gross miss-reading.
Sean any number of Scriptures easily warn us to not have friendship with the world. What’s your problem?
LikeLike
Mark, your indifference makes one wonder if you’re even a believer. Why did Paul care so deeply about Israel, since he of all people knew about Jacob and Ismail? He said he would rather be damned for the sake of his countrymen.
The contrast between you and Paul is the difference between night and day.
He cared, you don’t!
Why not go all the way, and call Paul a cultural warrior?
LikeLike
How is your faith compelling you to go out drinking with sodomites? I have never heard such nonsense!!
“Sodomites”? Dude–have I got the blog for you!
LikeLike
Doug,
I got cult biznaz to attend to. Read Eccless. till I return.
LikeLike
Sean feebly attempts: Actually Doug, 2 cor 6 supports the distinction Paul draws in 1 cor 5.
Balderdash!!! Could an Israelite go out drinking with sodomite Gentiles? No? Then neither can we! Paul uses the exact verse that separated Jew and Gentile and applies it to believer, unbeliever.
Nuff said!
LikeLike
Sean, you have much to explain before I say another word to you. First you need to explain how your faith is compelling you to expose your wife to sodomite friendship?
What friendship has Christ with Belial?
LikeLike
Exactly how do I know that someone is a sodomite?
Because they look or act like one? Because they tell me they are? Because they made a move with me? Because I didn’t knock before I opened a door at a party and my eyes are still burning 5 years later?
LikeLike
@Tom, I even heard “young” Sean call his sodomite buddies, his gay friends. Can you believe that? He calls that perversion GAY.
I don’t think God thinks it’s funny.
LikeLike
Kent, put on your thinking cap! How do you think Israel was supposed to find out someone was a sodomite? Can you mentally walk and chew gum at the same time?
FWIW, I have had sodomite men try to burn with lust towards me in times past. What I prefer to say is, “don’t you fear God”?!
LikeLike
mark mcculley: So no organs for you, RS?
RS: Not other than heart and liver and so on.
McMark: Do you ever go to worship where they have pianos, or Christian pianists, or Christians who are pianists, or professing Christians who are pianists, or Christians who are professing pianists?
RS: Yes. It is a preference rather than a deep conviction at this point.
McMark: If you go to the concert at the Methodist, and see one or two other Christians there, is that “church”?
RS: I basically refuse to go to a Methodist place unless they are having a garage sale in the parking lot. Sometimes in cleaning out their libraries one can find some decent old books.
LikeLike
Doug, I’d like to fix you up with some new friends of mine. Google “Bayly.” Tell ’em TVD sent you. 😉
LikeLike
@Kent: A good brother in my church drives a truck for a living, and while at a truck stop, a man stepped out of the darkness and asked him if he could suck his cock.
A. I would *think* this man was a sodomite.
B. My friend sternly warned him, DON’T YOU FEAR GOD?! and then repeated DON’T YOU FEAR GOD?!
The sodomite slipped off in the darkness.
I think that is a excellent response for any christian man! We should all fear God, and I don’t hear to many men here at old life talking about fearing God. Why is that?
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke quoting RS: Once a sexual orientation is given the status of skin color, then beware.
TVD: Too late. Bigot.
To wit, RS:
http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2012/09/ruining-book-of-confessions-presbytery.html
“But the authors of the Resolution have changed the meaning of 9:44 by leaving out several words. This is what the Confession actually says.
RS: Interesting article to read. I guess my point is really outdated. Oh well, it appears that the left side of the government’s ideas are arriving and being pushed into the chuches after all. But we must take care not to influence the ideas of the government. It is also interesting that the way the Constitution is being interpreted these days is also being modeled by the churches.
LikeLike
Doug, do you ever go out drinking with liars? Do you drink?
LikeLike
Some like Barabbas (the Macabees, Judas?) were willing to kill the Roman occupiers to preserve their beloved nation. Others like Caiphas (the Sanhedrin) were willing to kill Jesus Christ to preserve peace (and their place) in the Roman empire.
Of course we do know that the apostle Paul always brought up first thing the privileges of his own citizenship in the Roman empire (except when he was with Jews of course). So no Roman ever messed with Paul, because Jesus had suffered so that Paul would not need to.
And certainly Paul would have been willing to join Doug in killing somebody in order to keep his Roman citizenship. The only problem basically is to know which nation to kill for. The nation that occupies today might be on the wrong side of history tomorrow. Or at least out of power.
I don’t doubt that Jesus Christ Himself would have killed the Roman soldiers occupying His home-land, except for this other specific vocational thing Christ was called to do. I mean–if Christians don’t do the police work, there will be nobody left to do it. And if Christians don’t tell the bus-driver how to do it, then all those Bible verses which tell how it’s to be done will simply be ignored.
It makes one wonder what a Christian is. Surely not somebody who’s a sinner who trusts Christ for the forgiveness of current sins. A Christian must be a good person who will do whatever is necessary to stop the bad people from putting the good people on crosses. Even if this means putting the bad people on crosses.
Galatians 3 paraphrased to suit Doug: 10 For all who rely on a misinterpretation of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not do all things written in the rightly interpreted Book of the Law. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by a wrongly interpreted law, for “The righteous shall live by faith. And faith means doing. Faith doesn’t mean that somebody had done for you. But the wrongly interpreted law is not of faith, but “The one who does what the correctly interpreted law commands shall live.” Christ redeemed us from bad exegesis of the law….
LikeLike
Casuitry—- for cheap books, but not for an organ concert???
Now we know where your heart is, rs. Btw, in the Bible, your mind is your heart. It’s the cognitive me that likes those concerts down at the liberal Lutheran (ELCA).
It’s difficult to have an emotion without a mind. No mind, no will….
Bach, better than books about Bach
LikeLike
DGH asks: Doug, do you ever go out drinking with liars?
Me: No.
Do you drink?
Me: Yes
Would I go out drinking with you?
Me: No.
LikeLike
“I have had sodomite men try to burn with lust towards me in times past.”
???????
Did they try to burn and fail?
LikeLike
McMark babbles: “And certainly Paul would have been willing to join Doug in killing somebody in order to keep his Roman citizenship. The only problem basically is to know which nation to kill for. The nation that occupies today might be on the wrong side of history tomorrow. Or at least out of power.”
Me: Why bother with such babble? In case it’s escaped your notice, Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth. He has inherited all the nations! He is the King of all the leaders of the nations! Every nation has been commanded to repent and bend the knee to King Jesus. You know why? Because Jesus is Lord! It’s time you started praying like it! Wake up and let the scales fall from your eyes brother and repeat after me: Jesus is Lord of all! Psssst, that even includes America!
LikeLike
Doug,
Do you drink with people who lust in their heart like Jimmy Carter? Ooops. He doesn’t drink.
What about a family get together like Thanksgiving? Would you eat with a family member who is gay?
LikeLike
wjw asks: Did they try to burn and fail?
Did the sodomites who burned for the Angels in Sodom, burn and fail? Who would ask such a dumb question?
LikeLike
Doug,
You said they tried to burn with lust toward you. I thought maybe they needed a little Viagra or Cialis or something to kick start. It happens to everyone at some point.
Would you blog with a sodomite?
Who do you think is more suspect Bert or Ernie?
LikeLike
Doug, but I’m only a metrosexual.
LikeLike
M&M retorts: “Bad strategy. It just makes you less credible. And it’s funny how the theonomist fails to see the ethical implications of talking about other people that way. The law is for those bad people out there, I guess.”
Mike, this really IS an ethical issue! Why shouldn’t I call you a moral retard? How can you get this one so wrong? If God’s word teaches us, that God destroyed whole cities in days past for sodomite perversions, (and it does) then why shouldn’t we be concerned now? None of us knows how *much* homosexuality it takes for God to destroy a given nation, but I think it’s up to the church to take this battle on! We are dealing with Spirits and Principalities. We need to engage in Spiritual warfare.
We are the ones who are supposed to be the “light” and “salt” of the earth. Salt holds back the rot. We need to do our job.
We need to be sober, and tell the truth! Sodomy is not only a sin, it’s considered a DP crime by God’s himself. Can you think of even one *morally relevant* circumstance that has changed since God gave his law on sodomy? I can’t either. No not one!
So for a whole host of reasons, legal sodomy (same-sex marriage) is opening the door to even more depravity, that has historically spelled bad news for many other nations, if one takes the Bible seriously. The Bible teaches us what happens to societies that embrace depravity and it’s not good.
LikeLike
Richard,
You seem to be misrepresenting the 2K position. No one is saying that we can only discuss moral issues in the church. Rather, we are saying that, when you discuss moral issues outside of the church, such discussions should rely exclusively on arguments drawn from general revelation.
Thus, discussions about whether something is sinful have no place outside of the church, as such discussions inherently relate to special revelation. Also, the doors of our churches are open to the public every Lord’s Day. I see no reason why this isn’t a sufficiently public proclamation of God’s truth to the world.
LikeLike
Doug, going off half-cocked like this won’t help your witness.
And please tidy up your language, using profanity is a massive red flag… and we all have those days…
LikeLike
Doug,
I would not drink with Ernie. Not because he is gay, because he is Mexican.
LikeLike
@Kent; isn’t this rich? First you ask “how can we know if someone is a sodomite”? Then when I give you real life example, and you hit me with profanity? Are you kidding? Yes, sodomy is repulsive and disgusting, but I thought we were all big boys here.
Kent we as the body of Christ, need to come together in unity, and start fighting the good fight of faith!
LikeLike
Doug,
Bert is not Mexican, but he is liberal. I would still drink with Bert.
LikeLike
wfw concludes; “I would not drink with Ernie. Not because he is gay, because he is Mexican.”
Once again, you equate sodomy as if it were being born a certain race. Shame on you! It’s this kind of sarcastic rubbish that has many Christians wondering if some of you’s R2Kers are even saved.
LikeLike
Doug, there is no way you would use language (multiple times today) like that in your fellowship with believers in real life.
Grow up please.
LikeLike
Doug,
Ernie is a muppet.
LikeLike
Dougiefresh, your dodging. I want my exegesis of Gal 3. I’ve already ascertained by your explanation of 1 cor 5 that your somewhere left of Friedan and Bultmann. Gimme my exegesis you promised. I want a point by point exegetical rebuttal of Gal. 3. Man up! As I have to remind my flamboyant friends.
LikeLike
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
If you can’t control yourself on a forum with Christians, please take a time out, repent and come back cleaner. It happens to us all at times…
LikeLike
Kent asserts: Doug, there is no way you would use language (multiple times today) like that in your fellowship with believers in real life.
Grow up please.
Kent, I was at church on the Lord’s day when I heard that report. Granted it wasn’t in mixed company, it was just me and that particular brother in Christ, who told me what transpired. So you grow up! How dare you say, “how can we know if someone is a sodomite” and get squishy later? I will refrain from telling any more lurid stories.
LikeLike
Doug, you are letting your mask slip there, time to face the truth…
You are fooling nobody on here.
LikeLike
Doug,
If you, Doug, were a muppet and the Barnum and Bayly Brothers were muppets, and the three of you lived near Bert and Ernie, and they invited the three of you to dinner would you:
a. Decline and tell them you don’t eat with sodomite muppets
b. Decline and make up an excuse
c. Accept and then not show
d. Accept, enjoy their hospitality and then talk sodomy
LikeLike
Doug,
Where were you last week?
Go back there.
LikeLike
@Sean, you still haven’t explained how exposing your wife to sodomite friendships, while you’all are chugging down long Island ice teas is born from a heart of faith. Remember? Anything that is not of faith, is sin.
How does partying it up with sodomites, bring glory to God? You are the head of your wife, according to God. Why do you think it’s wise, for you to put your wife in a situation where she is drinking adult beverages with men the Bible declares are in bondage to gross sin. How is this born of faith? How is that protecting your wife?
LikeLike
Sean, you give me your exegesis on Galatians 3, and I will critique it.
LikeLike
wjw; anything that is not of faith, is sin, period end of story. So even doing so called “good things” can be sin. It’s a heart issue, my friend. Only God can read the heart, perfectly.
Therefore, in all that we do, let’s do it for the glory of God! Even when we go out with *friends*! We are called to be separate from the world! To glorify God in all things! Everything we do, is to be done from a heart of faith, EVERYTHING!!! To expose our hearts to the seed of Satan, is folly indeed. imho.
LikeLike
Dougie, I have at least twice now. This is more obfuscating and diversion on your part, like the effeminate I know when pressed. I want your point by point counter exegesis of Gordon who you so bombastically malign. Otherwise, you’re about as useful as a bicycle to a fish.
LikeLike
Doug,
Would you say that The Dude, Walter, and Donnie sinned when they bowled with Jesus?
LikeLike
We’re not talking about a Shomer Shabbat rolling on Shabbat, mind you, just rolling with Jesus on any old day.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Casuitry—- for cheap books, but not for an organ concert???
Now we know where your heart is, rs.
RS: It would appear that you think you can read hearts now through the internet now.
McMark: Btw, in the Bible, your mind is your heart. It’s the cognitive me that likes those concerts down at the liberal Lutheran (ELCA).
It’s difficult to have an emotion without a mind. No mind, no will….
RS: But the word “emotion” is used much differently now than it used to be. Gordon Clark had some interesting ideas on that too. Some would even say that emotions were the result of the fall and that instead of our thinking controlling us our feelings control us. Perhaps it is not the cognitive you that likes those concerts, but the fallen you likes the feelings. Not that I am judging you are saying that for sure, but just raising the possibility of it.
McMark: Bach, better than books about Bach
RS: Beethovan is better than Bach, and so much better that only depraved individuals could like Bach. I went to a concert where a professor of organ played Bach in the past. I liked it a lot, but the chills that went up and down my spine were surely from the fall and not the intellect. Methodists never have good concerts, but then again one has to wonder if there are good concerts any longer. There is no good music apart from brass bands and classical. Some of the depraved around here listen to rock noise and the like, which is surely a sign of great depravity.
LikeLike
Bobby, a little friendly advice: Doug appears to be particularly out of his theonomic gourd this evening. Sane remarks will especially not compute. I wonder what it feels like to be a walking stereotype.
LikeLike
Doug,
I like you. You got moxy. I don’t think you’ve got the whole gospel thing right yet, but anybody who can use as many explanation points as you must believe something. Keep pounding the table, and per your post a bit earlier, stay away from those truck stops. By the way, how often do you and the fellas at your church talk about those truck stop stories? Do you go into details? How long are these conversations? Is it the same fellas every time? Like you said everything to the glory of God.
LikeLike
Doug–let’s do it.
Galatians 3 paraphrased to suit Doug: 10 For all who rely on a misinterpretation of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not DO ALL things written in the rightly interpreted Book of the Law. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by a wrongly interpreted law, for “The righteous shall live by faith. And faith means DOING. Faith does not mean that somebody had done for you. Of course the wrongly interpreted law is not of faith, but “The one who DOES what the correctly interpreted law commands shall live.” Christ redeemed us from bad exegesis of the law….
Why worry about what kind of tree, because all that matters is DOING, and Doug can see DOING.. DODING is the fruit which shows that your motive must be faith.
When you go into the movies, you might be there as salt and light (to reform and transform), but the people who see you come out of the movies, what will they think about what your DOING?
LikeLike
Bobby: Richard, You seem to be misrepresenting the 2K position.
RS: Sorry about that, I will try to do better.
Bobby: No one is saying that we can only discuss moral issues in the church. Rather, we are saying that, when you discuss moral issues outside of the church, such discussions should rely exclusively on arguments drawn from general revelation.
RS: Okay, so one cannot discuss moral issues outside of the church using the Bible. But can fallen creatures really understand general revelation apart from special revelation? Don’t fallen creatures just think that natural revelation is what has happened to us by some amazing accident? Isn’t that more or less trying to bring in morality apart from God?
Bobby: Thus, discussions about whether something is sinful have no place outside of the church, as such discussions inherently relate to special revelation.
RS: But don’t men need to see their sin as against God to see sin at all? Doesn’t Romans 1 set out that the natural man is without excuse from nature? That would seem that man does know something about sin from nature. The Holy Spirit also uses Scripture as His sword, so is that a form of disarming the Spirit (so to speak) in the spiritual battle? It is through the Scriptures that the Spirit regenerates people. It seems that this would lead us to a church building being the only place where people are convicted of sin and regenerated.
Bobby: Also, the doors of our churches are open to the public every Lord’s Day. I see no reason why this isn’t a sufficiently public proclamation of God’s truth to the world.
RS: But Jesus said this: “Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.”
Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
LikeLike
rs: I went to a concert where a professor of organ played Bach in the past.
mark: In the past I went to a concert where they played in the present music by Mozart. Do you mean the professor pretended to be Bach? (an actor? a faker? a liar?)
Before the fall. no intellect? Before the fall, no erections except by freewill?
I still like Bach a lot more than Augustine. Gordon Clark sounds wau too much like Augustine to me, but Clark was correct about “heart” in the Bible.
Next: harts in the Bible…
LikeLike
Sean lumbers on: Dougie, I have at least twice now. This is more obfuscating and diversion on your part, like the effeminate I know when pressed. I want your point by point counter exegesis of Gordon who you so bombastically malign. Otherwise, you’re about as useful as a bicycle to a fish.
Sean, who do you think you are? You have provided zero exegesis from Gordon! You have no right to demand exegesis of me! You provide exegesis if you really want me to respond. You put up what you *think* is a sound exegesis and I will show you the error of your ways.
LikeLike
McMark attempts: Galatians 3 paraphrased to suit Doug: 10 For all who rely on a misinterpretation of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not DO ALL things written in the rightly interpreted Book of the Law.
Me: Wrong already! Those who rely on *shadows* after the Christ has come, are under the curse, since Christ became a curse for his people. The Jews were putting there trust in shadows that had been fulfilled. So that in so many words, they were saying Christ hadn’t really come.
Both testaments were all about Christ! Jesus was really offered by type and promise. Those ceremonial law exhibited Christ, when appropriated by faith. BUT after Christ came, to put ones trust in the ceremonial law, was to deny that Christ accomplished redemption. That’s why the law was not of faith, in that context.
LikeLike
Bach–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4zvjV4_sAY
Gordon: None in his day would have disputed the fact that the Sinai covenant was made exclusively with the descendants of Abraham, but perhaps some, if not many, in his day, failed to perceive that such a “one-nation” covenant necessarily disrupted and prevented the promise to bless through Abraham’s seed. : “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham,saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed’” (Gal. 3:8). But if the other nations are still being treated as if they were out of covenant with God, then the
pledge to Abraham has not been fulfilled.
LikeLike
David Gordon: Some people cannot hear what Paul says in Galatians 3:6-14 because they cannot imagine that he would say what he has said. They cannot imagine that the Sinai covenant cursed, and some have difficulty imagining that the Abrahamic did not, in some senses curse. I am more
than content to say that Paul’s treatment of each covenant is abbreviated here, and that he might
have said more about each of them. Nonetheless, the language he employs to contrast them on
this point must be permitted to speak.
Sinai
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be
everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse OF THE LAW by becoming a curse for us—for it is
written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”
Gordon: Note that Paul does not condemn any alleged abuse of the Sinai covenant here. It is not those who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the law that are under its threatening curse-sanction. Twice here Paul quotes the law’s own words,
indicating that the curse-sanction was an inherent part of the administration itself, long before
anyone allegedly perverted or distorted it. It was not, that is,some later false reliance on the law
that cursed; it was disobedience to its statutes and ordinances in the first generation (and in all
subsequent generations) that cursed.
LikeLike
McMark: I still like Bach a lot more than Augustine. Gordon Clark sounds wau too much like Augustine to me, but Clark was correct about “heart” in the Bible.
RS: Or maybe not totall correct about “heart” in the Bible, but certainly some very good points.
McMark: Next: harts in the Bible…
RS:
KJV Deuteronomy 12:15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.
KJV Deuteronomy 12:22 Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.
KJV Deuteronomy 14:5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
KJV Deuteronomy 15:22 Thou shalt eat it within thy gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart.
KJV Psalm 42:1 As the hart panteth after the water brooks,
KJV Song of Solomon 2:9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall, he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.
KJV Song of Solomon 2:17 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be thou like a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether.
KJV Song of Solomon 8:14 Make haste, my beloved, and be thou like to a roe or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices.
LikeLike
McMark, it goes like this. Those who didn’t approach the law mixed with faith, looked at the law “as though it were by works”. (in there own strength) It was never offered that way since everything that is not of faith is sin, both during the law and today. The law presupposed that Israel would sin, that’s why it offered sacrifices for sin. The law seen through eyes of faith saw Christ, since he was the object or goal of the law.
Jesus was the Pascal lamb in reality. So when the elect offered the lamb for the forgiviness of sin, they were covered, on the basis of promise, that Christ would one day come and accomplish all that he promised he would. To the faithful, the Israel of God. But faith was always the key for obedience. And faith is a free gift of God to his elect ,lest anyone should boast.
LikeLike
Okay I’ll bite McMark:
Gordon says: Gordon: Note that Paul does not condemn any alleged abuse of the Sinai covenant here. It is not those who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the law that are under its threatening curse-sanction. Twice here Paul quotes the law’s own words,
indicating that the curse-sanction was an inherent part of the administration itself, long before
anyone allegedly perverted or distorted it. It was not, that is,some later false reliance on the law
that cursed; it was disobedience to its statutes and ordinances in the first generation (and in all
subsequent generations) that cursed.
Me: This is where Gordon’s head starts to spin when he says: “Note that Paul does not condemn any alleged abuse of the Sinai covenant here. It is not those who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the law that are under its threatening curse-sanction. ”
Balderdash!!! The just shall live by faith! It’s just as true now, as it was then! Who could stand before the Lord and say I have no sin? The law offered Christ, when apprehended by true faith. How else were God’s elect saved? Through the very ordinances that pointed to Christ through shadow and promise. So Gordon is muddled in his thinking and forgetting the big picture. That God made this covenant because he loved Israel. But faith was always the key to the law. King David is a great example of how the elect should view the law.
LikeLike
Gordon: Note that Paul does not condemn any alleged abuse of the Sinai covenant here.
Me: Is Gordon so foolish, he doesn’t realize the whole letter of Galatians is a polemic on the miss-use of the law by the Judiazers? That’s what the letter was addressing, and yet Gordon is reading this verse in the most wooden ridiculous manner one can imagine.
LikeLike
Gordon says: . It is not those who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the law that are under its threatening curse-sanction. ”
Oh really? Was King David under its curse-sanction when he said:
vs 73: “Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.”
Notice how greatfull King Daivd was for God’s commandments? How about this verse:
vs 77: Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.”
Does David sound afraid of the curse? Notice how David delighted in God’s law?
I could give you a thousand other examples where Gordon hasn’t considered all sorts of Scripture.
LikeLike
Dougie, now you’re breathing the air of those who exchange the natural function of the woman. You’re lying. I’ve cited you Gordon 3 different times and provided the exegesis on my own at least twice. But you already knew this. By lying you show the same propensity for sin as the homosexual and all the rest of us for that matter, but you seek to diminish your own sin by pointing to the scandal of others. Not surprisingly, you inhabit the same error as the Jews who stumble over faith seeking to establish their own righteousness. According to your own mistaken interpretation, however, you can’t claim ignorance or misunderstanding.
LikeLike
Gordon: Note that Paul does not condemn any alleged abuse of the Sinai covenant here. It is not those who abuse (“rely on”) the law who are under a curse; it is those who are covenantally under the law that are under its threatening curse-sanction.
What escapes Gordon’s notice is that everything that is not of faith is sin. It was true then, and it’s true now! While the Saints of old, like David who looked ahead to the promise. The law was to be approached by faith, just like our baptism is to be apprehended by faith.
vs. 41: “Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise:”
Me: Notice the law taught King David to put his trust in Christ! David approached the law by faith!
vs 30: “I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.
Me: Notice King David approached the law by faith!! So there was no works principle in the law. The problem was with Israel’s heart. They lacked faith, and tried to do the law, in there own strength.
LikeLike
Sean, chill out dude! McMark posted this and I will respond. If you thought I was going to try to find what you posted months ago you’re crazy. All I was asking you to do, is find something we can both look at. And now you have the nerve to call me a liar? Slap yourself son! Now that we have something up front I will be happy to pick it apart. Be careful what you ask for Sean, ha aha ah.
I look at this with even more care tomorrow.
LikeLike
Doug,
Responding to McMark’s pieces is not the same as giving me a point by point rebuttal. My point is you don’t have a case either in Gal 3 or in 1 cor 5. You’ve been walked through both a couple of times now by a couple of different people. You eventually just bluster and shoot first, last and in between and never manage to draw a bead. It’s ok, I just like to remind you of the vacuous nature of your rhetoric and kick the yippee dog.
LikeLike
DeYoung on Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney. After Jonathan Edwards: The Courses of the New England Theology (Oxford University Press, 2012). . I found Darryl Hart’s chapter on Edwards and the Young, Restless, and Reformed to be more balanced than I might have expected, with a healthy does of caution that Edward’s soaring theology tends not to mesh well with popular forms of evangelicalism. And finally, I found Paul Helm’s chapter comparing Edwardsianism with older forms of Reformed thought to be a much needed essay for those who only know Reformed theology through the lens of the great, and sometimes peculiar, theologian from Northampton.
Edwards–When once any person has by faith committed himself into the hands of Christ, Christ has promised that he will keep them…But none have that righteousness that don’t persevere; and that because although it is not proper to say that perseverance is necessary in order to justification, yet a persevering principle is necessary in order to justification.
Edwards: In order to a title to Christ’s righteousness, it is necessary that there should be such a qualification in the heart; that is as it were a seed of perseverance, and such a foundation that perseverance will be the certain result of it… A temporary faith don’t justify. But in order to that, persons must have that faith that is of a persevering, everlasting sort. He must have that sort of seed that is an abiding seed. It is a durable faith that justifies. Though perseverance be not an act performed, till after persons have finished their days; yet perseverance is looked upon as virtually performed in the first act of faith, because that first act is of such a nature as shows the principle to be of a persevering sort.
Edwards–“And thus it is that FAITH is that qualification in any person, that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s righteousness belonging to him, because FAITH is in him, which, on his part, makes up the union between him and Christ.
Edwards: it must also be easy to see how, that FAITH on his part makes the union between his soul and Christ, that FAITH should be the thing on the account of which God looks on it meet that ( A PERSON WITH THE RIGHT KIND OF FAITH) should have Christ’s merits belonging to him…
mark: faith in faith, faith unites…, Faith in which Christ?… not so much. Faith in the Christ who already died in legal union with the guilt of the elect alone? again, not so much
LikeLike
mark mcculley: DeYoung on Oliver D. Crisp and Douglas A. Sweeney. After Jonathan Edwards: The Courses of the New England Theology (Oxford University Press, 2012). . I found Darryl Hart’s chapter on Edwards and the Young, Restless, and Reformed to be more balanced than I might have expected, with a healthy does of caution that Edward’s soaring theology tends not to mesh well with popular forms of evangelicalism. And finally, I found Paul Helm’s chapter comparing Edwardsianism with older forms of Reformed thought to be a much needed essay for those who only know Reformed theology through the lens of the great, and sometimes peculiar, theologian from Northampton.
RS: It is usually best to read the author himself rather than others. For example, it is better to read Dr. Hart than it is to read what others say about him. By reading an author I am including in that thought as reading the context as well as just the little bites here and there.
McMark: Edwards–When once any person has by faith committed himself into the hands of Christ, Christ has promised that he will keep them…But none have that righteousness that don’t persevere; and that because although it is not proper to say that perseverance is necessary in order to justification, yet a persevering principle is necessary in order to justification.
RS: But of course Scripture tells us that the one that perseveres to the end will be saved. So the person that is declared just will persevere, or perhaps God works perseverance in that person. Either way, there is nothing wrong with what Edwards is saying here.
McMark: Edwards: In order to a title to Christ’s righteousness, it is necessary that there should be such a qualification in the heart; that is as it were a seed of perseverance, and such a foundation that perseverance will be the certain result of it… A temporary faith don’t justify. But in order to that, persons must have that faith that is of a persevering, everlasting sort. He must have that sort of seed that is an abiding seed. It is a durable faith that justifies. Though perseverance be not an act performed, till after persons have finished their days; yet perseverance is looked upon as virtually performed in the first act of faith, because that first act is of such a nature as shows the principle to be of a persevering sort.
RS: In other words, a person must have true faith versus false faith. But then again, true faith is a gift of God and is upheld and sustained by God. So once again there is no problem with what Edwards is saying here.
McMark: Edwards–“And thus it is that FAITH is that qualification in any person, that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s righteousness belonging to him, because FAITH is in him, which, on his part, makes up the union between him and Christ.
RS: But the Bible makes that statement as well. A person must have faith and nothing else (in that sense) in order to be converted. But note that a true faith is to be united to Christ and a true faith is a gift of God. To argue with Edwards on this point is to make the same mistake (in a sense) that the Arminian makes. The Arminian says that if you must have faith you must come up with it. McMark seems to think that because Edwards says we must have faith Edwards must believe that we must come up with it. No, the soul must have faith in order to be saved, but faith is what a regenerated soul does.
McMark: Edwards: it must also be easy to see how, that FAITH on his part makes the union between his soul and Christ, that FAITH should be the thing on the account of which God looks on it meet that ( A PERSON WITH THE RIGHT KIND OF FAITH) should have Christ’s merits belonging to him…
RS: But of course this is true, but where does the right kid of faith come from? It is the gift of God. So does a person with the wrong kind of faith have the right Christ? The person with the right kind of faith has this as a gift of God and the person with the right kind of faith is united to Christ. So the one with the gift of faith and is united to Christ has the merits of Christ. All to His glory.
mark: faith in faith, faith unites…, Faith in which Christ?… not so much. Faith in the Christ who already died in legal union with the guilt of the elect alone? again, not so much
RS: Edwards writes a little differently than you prefer, but simply read the context. He is not talking about faith in faith. This is sort of like the hatchet job (can’t remember the author’s name) a guy did in one of Horton’s rags. He blasted Edwards for not believing something which Edwards clearly stated was necessary and that he did believe within a few pages of where the hatchet man was taking his quote from.
LikeLike
Edwards–“And thus it is that FAITH is that qualification in any person, that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s righteousness belonging to him, because FAITH is in him, which, on his part, makes up the union between him and Christ.
RS: . A person must have faith and nothing else (in that sense) in order to be converted. But note that a true faith is to be united to Christ and a true faith is a gift of God.
mark: Talk about reading what a person actually writes! Where do I deny that true faith is a gift of God? Not even Roman Catholics deny that their faith and perseverance in earning merits are gifts from God’s grace. Faith being a gift is not a question. The nature of “united” is the question. Edwards is teaching that God gives the elect justification because God sees that God is going to give the elect faith, and sees that this faith will continue to be “uniting” an elect person’s inside to Christ.
But RS doesn’t want to discuss any legal union by which the guilt of the elect being shared with Christ has priority. So he accuses me of thinking that Edwards is Arminian. But he must know that I know that Edwards does not teach a faith as something we “come up with”. Even Augustine and other “Justification by inward transformation” folks don’t teach freewill.
I am asking a question about the righteousness of the Christ in whom we believe. Should the emphasis be on what He has done, or should we, with Doug, put the emphasis on the DOING of faith, on our never be done doing (with the right kind of faith of course, with the right kind of inward motives)? The difference between theonomic conditionalism and puritan revivalism is not so great as one might think, even if Banner of Truth edits out the theonomy.
rs: To argue with Edwards on this point is to make the same mistake (in a sense) that the Arminian makes. The Arminian says that if you must have faith you must come up with it. McMark seems to think that because Edwards says we must have faith Edwards must believe that we must come up with it. No, the soul must have faith in order to be saved, but faith is what a regenerated soul does.
LikeLike
Andy Wilson on The Sacred Bond (Michael Brown), Ordained Servant, May 2013
Brown: “The means by which God led Israel to Christ was through his demands of obedience to the terms of the covenant upon which physical blessings or curses were received … The Mosaic covenant is God’s law covenant with Israel, wherein he graciously leads them to Christ by showing them the perfect righteousness that only Christ could fulfill to redeem sinners. ”
Wilson: There is no getting around the fact that the Mosaic covenant had a conditional element that stands in contrast to the unilateral promise found in the earlier Abrahamic covenant, a contrast that Paul sees as extremely significant in Galatians 3 and 4. It should also be noted that republication is consistent with the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (see WCF 19.1–2). John Owen said that the Mosaic covenant “is no other but the covenant of works revived” . And Robert Shaw concluded that “the law, therefore, was published at Sinai as a covenant of works in subservience to the covenant of grace.
Too bad John Owen never had Doug around to explain that faith and works are not to be contrasted.
LikeLike
Balderdash! McMark, John Owen never read his bible. Duh! Nuff said! Slap yourself McMark.
Shaw, Wilson, Brown, who are these jockers who mock God! More R2K leaven. Owen and Shaw must’ve gone to West West
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Edwards–“And thus it is that FAITH is that qualification in any person, that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s righteousness belonging to him, because FAITH is in him, which, on his part, makes up the union between him and Christ.
McMark quoting RS: . A person must have faith and nothing else (in that sense) in order to be converted. But note that a true faith is to be united to Christ and a true faith is a gift of God.
mark: Talk about reading what a person actually writes! Where do I deny that true faith is a gift of God?
RS: I am not saying that you do, Mark, but it appears that you don’t think Edwards does.
McMark: Not even Roman Catholics deny that their faith and perseverance in earning merits are gifts from God’s grace. Faith being a gift is not a question. The nature of “united” is the question. Edwards is teaching that God gives the elect justification because God sees that God is going to give the elect faith, and sees that this faith will continue to be “uniting” an elect person’s inside to Christ.
RS: I think I am tracking with you at this point.
McMark: But RS doesn’t want to discuss any legal union by which the guilt of the elect being shared with Christ has priority. So he accuses me of thinking that Edwards is Arminian. But he must know that I know that Edwards does not teach a faith as something we “come up with”. Even Augustine and other “Justification by inward transformation” folks don’t teach freewill.
RS: I am not accusing you of thinking that Edwards is Arminian. It appeared that you were making the same mistake (in one sense) that Arminians make in interpreting things. They see the Bible requiring faith and assume that they can do it. It appeard to me that you saw Edwards speaking of faith and made the assumption that Edwards thought we could do it.
But back to the union part. I have never noticed you writing about the union you speak of. I certainly agree that there has to be some union in some way between the elect and Christ before the cross for Christ. I would be eager to read your explanation of that. I am guessing it is in line with John Gill and the eternal union. But I also see that there is a different union (in some way different or a second) between Christ and His elect at the time of the new birth.
LikeLike
McMark: I am asking a question about the righteousness of the Christ in whom we believe. Should the emphasis be on what He has done, or should we, with Doug, put the emphasis on the DOING of faith, on our never be done doing (with the right kind of faith of course, with the right kind of inward motives)? The difference between theonomic conditionalism and puritan revivalism is not so great as one might think, even if Banner of Truth edits out the theonomy.
RS: I am not so sure that I am understanding the question totally. But of course the believer has the righteousness of Christ imputed and so can never add to that righteousness regardless of what s/he does. But a true faith will love God and have works with it. It is not that the faith that works by love (Gal 5:6) adds to the righteousness of Christ, but simply that a true faith which is united to Christ will have Christ working in that heart by His Spirit. It is not that good works add to the righteousness of Christ, but those that God has created in Christ He has also prepared works for them to do (Eph 2:10). The faith that is without works is dead, but works without faith is the same kind as the Pharisees.
LikeLike
mcMark, oh, the wonders of peer review. Jason and the Callers should try it sometime.
LikeLike
You can see 5 pages of Hart’s essay on Amazon.
Why didn’t someone tell me about this book before I spent my money on USA Track & Field Championships tickets yesterday?
This one’s priced up there with “Recovering Mother Kirk”.
LikeLike
There’s an essay on some guy being “The Last Edwardsian”. Obviously the author hasn’t met Richard…
LikeLike
Sean, John Owen was theonomic 😉
That doesn’t mean he’s right on republication.
LikeLike
Wilson: There is no getting around the fact that the Mosaic covenant had a conditional element that stands in contrast to the unilateral promise found in the earlier Abrahamic covenant, a contrast that Paul sees as extremely significant in Galatians 3 and 4. It should also be noted that republication is consistent with the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (see WCF 19.1–2). John Owen said that the Mosaic covenant “is no other but the covenant of works revived” . And Robert Shaw concluded that “the law, therefore, was published at Sinai as a covenant of works in subservience to the covenant of grace.
Me: What a bunch of BS! That is pscho babble if I’ve ever heard it!
LikeLike
Shaw, Wilson, Brown, who are these jockers who mock God! More R2K leaven. Owen and Shaw must’ve gone to West West.
Me: No no Sean. You can line up your theologians, which is only a few, and I can line up mine, which dwarfs yours. I can see why some would take this abberant perspective, because Paul can be hard to understand. Just ask Peter, BUT that doesn’t mean your not full of bull.
LikeLike
Wilson: There is no getting around the fact that the Mosaic covenant had a conditional element that stands in contrast to the unilateral promise found in the earlier Abrahamic covenant, a contrast that Paul sees as extremely significant in Galatians 3 and 4.
Me: No different that the new covenant, see Revelations 2:5
Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
Me: Notice Sean and Mark, the temporal nature of the threat/promise? Jesus says do the WORKS you did before OR? I will remove your lampstand!!!
Can it get more serious than that? That BTW is just a temporal as the curses found in the Mosaic covenant!
LikeLike
Doug, is “psycho babble” a technical term from systematic theology? Or do you get it from Leviticus?
LikeLike
Darryl, you keep forgetting the formula; Change is change but it’s in continuity with, and not a rupture from, prior tradition. Any unfolding is merely bringing into relief what was already there waiting for the need to be clarified. Furthermore, any touchstones such as the historical record or sacred text is all question begging unless coherence is pursued. Your unwillingness to find coherence renders you an uncharitable and skeptical observer. Also, you ‘catch’ more than you ‘learn’ within the Roman paradigm, unless you were a cradle and passed through a religious order and then decided it wasn’t all that romantic. In that case, you simply misunderstood and the devil has clouded your mind and you were part of the lost generation waiting for 4 month old prot catholics to tell you what you failed to ‘catch’. Same for a bunch of Irish catholic bishops as well.
You, you’re just a po po protestant, who they’ve bent over backward to try and help you not question beg and they’ve been beyond patient with all your hauling them before the historical record.
LikeLike
Sean, let me show you some more temporal blessings/curses in the new covenant, okay?
Revelations 3:2
I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God.
Me: Okay Sean and McMark. This verse blows a huge hole in your theory. First the Lord Jesus is telling the church at Sardis that there works were not complete in the sight of God. Notice the warning?
“Keep it and repent. IF YOU WILL NOT WAKE UP, i WILL COME LIKE A THIEF, AND YOU WILL NOT KNOW AT WHAT HOUR I WILL COME AGAINST YOU.
Me. Okay Sean, how is that not temporal? Hmmmm?
Let me help you both out. It’s exactly the same as the old testament! God will not let his covenant people just drift and not serve him. He will oppose them to there face if need be!
This nukes the whole reason for believing in republication nonsense. Both administrations have temporal blessings for obedience, and sanctions for disobedience.
Nuff said!
LikeLike
Sean, I realize your kind of hard headed so I will graciously give you another witness.
Revelations 2:22
Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, (unless!!) they repent of her works,
BOOM! Can it get more temporal than that???!!! Does that mean the new covenant is a republication of the covenant of works? No? Then stop calling the Mosaic covenant a covenant of works! Both administrations have blessings for obedience and sanctions for disobedience in real time. In fact, there is no difference in that respect.
Both Sean and McMark need to drop this fantasy that the new covenant has no temporal curses/blessings. It clearly does! This shoots a hole in the theory that Mosaic covenant was a republication of the first covenant made with Adam, prior to the fall. It was not!
LikeLike
Sowers, are you still here?! Who here has ever argued that christians don’t pursue sanctification. Who here doesn’t understand that God disciplines his legitimate sons. It’s like listening to Cross call us Pelagians. Go get me my slippers.
LikeLike
Doug, is “psycho babble” a technical term from systematic theology? Or do you get it from Leviticus?
DGH, it’s a term that shows someone is in great confusion, ala you Sean and McMark. As I have just proven from Scripture both administrations had blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The new covenant is no different from the law, in that respect. The whole republication theory needs to shouted down in our day, since it cannot account for the temporal blessings/curses found in the new testament.
LikeLike
Sean, are you that dense? The whole argument for republication is that the law had these big bad curses, where as the new covenant Jesus became the curse, right? That is way to simplistic, and not even true. Psssst, the Mosaic covenant is the same covenant in substance as the new.
The new covenant has just a strong sanctions for the church as it had for Israel! Jesus threatened to KILL some in the church if they didn’t repent! This shoots your whole theory to smithereens.
LikeLike
I like that Hart gets to Jay Gatsby. The Lovelaces and Gerstners of the recent past thought we could assume that we were all on the same page about atonement, because they wanted to talk about “regeneration” as being the main thing in the “justification complex”. It’s still the main thing with the Pipers, Mohlers and Paul Washers of this world. Not that different from Augustine”s “justification by the grace of transformation”.
John Owen,(Of the Death of Christ): “Absolution from the guilt of sin and obligation unto death, though not as terminated in the conscience for complete justification, does not precede our actual believing; for what is that love of God which through Christ is EFFECTUAL TO BESTOW FAITH upon the unbelieving? This is the justification of the ungodly (Romans 4:5), by accounting Christ unto him, and then bestowing him upon him, and for his sake enduing him with faith to believe.
Owen: That we should be blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, and yet Christ not be ours in a peculiar manner before the bestowing of those blessings on us, is somewhat strange. Yea, he must be our Christ before it is given to us for him to believe; why else is it not given to all others so to do? I speak not of the supreme distinguishing cause, Matthew 11:25, 26, but of the proximate procuring cause, which is the blood of Christ. Neither yet do I hence assert complete justification to be before believing.”
LikeLike
Sean, Maybe. But I think Mormons do a better job with their past than Jason and the Callers.
LikeLike
Sean, here is my final witness to drive the final nail in your republication coffin.
1 Cor. 10:6
“Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,”
Okay Sean my boy; is the new covenant any different than the old when it comes to putting Christ to the test? Hmmm? Didn’t I just show you in Scripture where Jesus said he would kill many of them for sexual immorality?
Jesus in fact, said he would kill many in his church, IF THEY WOULD NOT REPENT!!!
In other words Sean, it’s exactly the same! Both administrations have temporal blessings for obedience, and strong curses for disobedience, as the Scriptures prove.
Put that in your republication pipe, and smoke it!
LikeLike
Doug, LOUDER!!!
LikeLike
Shoots MY whole theory to smithereens? In your scheme everyone is an idiot except for Mark Horne and the FVers. Which is possible in Moscow Idaho, at St. Andrews college, in the corner of the broom closet, by the mud sink, in a medieval Narnia.
Here’s the text you need to work with:
Gal 3
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify[c] the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
The Righteous Shall Live by Faith
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.
The Law and the Promise
15 To give a human example, brothers:[f] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
LikeLike
mcMark, thanks for that reminder about Gatsby. I had forgotten. The simile still delights me.
LikeLike
Sean, are you willing to concede that the new covenant has curses for disobedience and great blessings for obedience?
Because if you are, then say bye bye to republication!
LikeLike
This is from John Gill’s God’s Everlasting Love to His Elect, and Their Eternal Union with Christ.I do disagree with Gill, when he argues that legal justification is eternal. Of course it’s less complicated when you can divide up folks into two parties, so that all who teach the priority of legal union must also be assumed to teach eternal union. That fits Gill, but not John Owen. Not Fesko or Horton either..
Gill: “What we are most likely to differ about, is, when God’s elect are united to Christ, and what is the bond of their union to him. It is generally said that they are not united to Christ until they believe, and that the bond of union is the Spirit on Christ’s part, and faith on ours.
I am ready to think that these phrases are taken up by divines, one from another, without a thorough consideration of them. It is well, indeed, that Christ is allowed any part or share in effecting our union with him; though one should think the whole of it ought to be ascribed to him, since it is such an instance of surprising love and grace, than which there cannot well be thought to be a greater.
Why must this union he pieced up with faith on our part? This smells so prodigious rank of self, that one may justly suspect that something rotten and nauseous lies at the bottom of it. I shall therefore undertake to prove, that the bond of union of God’s elect to Christ, is neither the Spirit on Christ’s part, nor faith on their part.
1. It is not the Spirit on Christ’s part. The mission of the Spirit into the hearts of Cod’s elect, to regenerate, quicken, and sanctify them, to apply the blessings of grace to them, and seal them up to the day of redemption, and the bestowing of his several gifts and graces upon them, are in consequence, and by virtue of a previous and antecedent union of them to the Person of Christ.
They do not first receive the Spirit of Christ, and then by the Spirit are united to Christ; but they are first united to Christ, and, by virtue of this union, receive the Spirit of Christ… A person is first joined, to Christ, and then receives, enjoys, and possesses in measure, the same Spirit as Christ does.
The case is this; Christ, as the Mediator of the covenant, and Head of God’s elect, received the Spirit without measure, that is, a fullness of the gifts and graces of the Spirit: These persons being united to Christ, as members to their Head, do, in his own TIME receive the Spirit from him, though in measure. They are first chosen in him, adopted through him, made one with him, become heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; and then, as the apostle says, Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father (Gal. 4:6).
Besides, the Spirit of God, in his personal inhabitation in the saints, in the operations of his grace on their hearts, is the evidence, and not the bond of their union to God or Christ, and of their communion with them: For hereby we know, says the apostle John (1 John 3:24), that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us…
2. Neither is faith the bond of union to Christ. Those who plead for union by faith, would do well to tell us whether we are united to Christ, by the habit or principle of faith implanted, or by the act of faith; and since there are different acts of faith, they should tell us by which our union is, and whether by the first, second, third, &c. acts of believing…
mark: Edwards would say all the acts. Doug would say that all these acts are DOING with right motive….
LikeLike
Sean, what you seem unable to grasp, is the temporary nature of the ceremonial law. The law was added because of sin, right? What’s that mean? It means God added provisions that would cover their sins until the Christ could come and deal with sin once for all.
Therefore, to hold on to the shadows AFTER Christ came and accomplished redemption, was not of faith. That is what Paul is getting at in a nut shell.
LikeLike
McMark, Sean,
I notice, not a one of you guys can deal with any of the Scriptures I provided from Revelations. Why is that? Did you notice that the Lord Jesus was talking about temporal curses? Even killing some in his church? Hmmmm?
Why?
LikeLike
Doug,
I’ve already answered your question. That you can’t follow the contrast in Gal 3 between the levitical principle and the promise to Abraham come to us by faith, is a hurdle you’ve yet to clear. We’ve been down this road before your scheme lines up quite nicely with roman soteriology. That you can’t distinguish between national blessings and judgements for ethnic Israel and the nature of the kingdom of God manifested in the church quite apart from any geo-political bounding, is a repeat of the error of chiliasm.
LikeLike
Will all in the new covenant know the Lord, or only those who keep the covenant? Will all in the new covenant keep the covenant? Will all in the new covenant be the people of God despite their sins?
When Jeremiah contrasts the new covenant with the one made with the fathers, the contrast is to the Mosaic covenant and not to the Abraham covenant. But neither is it accurate to say that the new covenant is simply and only a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant. As Genesis 17 and 18 suggest, the Abrahamic covenant also had its “conditional” aspects.
One way some people put this all together is to say that the unconditional aspect of covenants only refers to God’s promise to save a people, but that which INDIVIDUALS are part of the people is conditioned on covenant obedience. I speak not only of Arminians, who say that Jesus died for everybody and that the difference is their faith and obedience. I speak also of many “Calvinists”.
Let me give one recent example of this. Just to show that this is not about water baptism, let me refer to the new book by credobaptist Vickers on “Justification by Faith” (published by P and R, in its Explorations series, edited by Peterson)
Vickers like Doug puts the emphasis on the conditionality of Abraham continuing to do what needs to be done. It’s all about “covenantal testings”. We got this reading of Genesis a long time ago from Dan Fuller, and it certainly fits with an Edwardsian notion of justification as based on God knowing that God will enable the children of Abraham to keep doing well enough to meet the conditions to obtain what they desire. (In other words, don’t worry about that stuff about justification of the ungodly, because remember grace regenerates us so that we are not like that anymore.)
Vickers has new soundbite. Or at least I think it’s new. Maybe it was in the Schreiner booka on perseverance ( Schreiner is the southern baptist mentor to Vickers) but I don’t remember it. It’s a “covenantal nomism” distinction between election and conditional covenant.
Are you ready for the soundbite? Here it is. “God keeps his word. However, the blessing is unconditionally promised to a particular sort of people.” (p66) Got it? Clever, is it not? “ The covenant itself is “unconditional”. But. Who stays in the covenant, well, that’s not so unconditional. “A particular sort of people”. The people God keeps causing to keep meeting the conditions (100% God, but also 100% them).
So far, good,but you haven’t got to the end and there is no antinomian “closure”. Maybe you think you are in the “particular kind of people” but are you really? Of course, there are different ways to say this. Vickers does not talk like the federal visionists about baptism making you Christian and regenerate, and then you losing it. But still you have to keep running to the end, and running means doing (works!, more!) and these works are not merely the evidence of faith alone (which can never be alone) but the means of both grace and faith.
Piper’s revivalism—the “beauty of threats” addressed to professing Christians.
LikeLike
0 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Sean, as King David pointed out the law only pointed to Christ. Salvation wasn’t in the Pascal lamb, but the lamb pointed to Christ, who was the promise. So the law seen aright taught you not to trust in the law, but to trust in the promise, who was Christ.
Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise:”
See Sean? The law wasn’t Christ, but it exhibited Christ in type, shadow, and promise. David didn’t rely of the law! He saw the law correctly! It pointed to the day when Christ would accomplish redemption for his elect. So if you read Galatians next to Psalms 119 it fits perfectly, with no tension.
BTW, David says “He will faithfully obey the law”
Nuff said!
LikeLike
Sean says: I’ve already answered your question.
Balderdash! Sean you jumped like a scalded cat, when I asked you to explain why Jesus said he would kill some in his church if they didn’t repent. How is that different than God killing 23 thousand back in the Mosaic covenant?
Do you see a connection?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart posted April 30, 2013 at 8:30 pm: “Doug, but I’m only a metrosexual.”
Not sure anyone on this blog is “hip” enough to pull that one off.
LikeLike
Doug,
You keep ignoring this part;
But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
This is where I directed you to Gordon’s piece to help you out and you came back with “boring”, “wrong”, “stupid” et al. You really do need to reconcile with the text and not your scheme.
LikeLike
McMark: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
Why don’t you ever talk like this? I asked Sean this same question a few months back, and he said “because there so many RC’s around. Huh? Is that lame, or what?
My question for you is how do you understand that verse?
LikeLike
Sean asserts: You keep ignoring this part;
But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
As I just pointed out, the law exhibited Christ, in shadow form. David didn’t put his faith in the law. He put his faith “in the promise”. And there was LIFE in Christ in the old testament! This is what you and Gordon completely miss! When a Saint of old “lived by them”, he lived in Christ, just like we do today! This is where Gordon is at his weakest, he forgets the ordinances that exhibited Christ, who is our life in both testaments!
LikeLike
In the interests of equal opportunity, I remind you of the “conditionality” advocated by a Presbyterian guy who taught that new covenant curses, and that the new covenant could be broken (and not only by those in “covenantal diapers”)
I want to like Kline because I agree with his holding the line on the law/gospel antithesis, but Kline’s reading of the covenants makes it difficult for him to talk about God meeting all the conditions for the salvation of an INDIVIDUAL. And Kline is not doing what Doug is doing: Kline is not dividing up the “temporal consequences” of new covenant breaking from the “individual salvation” consequences.
Kline thinks that the water only puts individuals into a conditional covenant, and introduces them to potential curse as well as potential blessing. In this, Kline is not really disagreeing with the majority but only with Protestant Reformed folk who reject all notions of conditionality. But Kline, to his credit, is a lot more upfront in putting an emphasis on the possible curses of membership in the new covenant.
Does the new covenant has a secondary law-aspect as well, so that “temporal blessing” is conditioned on our keeping covenant? If so, Doug, what are these other “covenant” blessings which are not gospel blessings found in Christ? What do you tell a sinner, Doug? Your sin will cost your temporal blessings? Or your sin has put you out from the new covenant and lost you salvation?
If there is such a thing as being in the new covenant but not being in Christ, what are the blessings of being in covenant for those for whom Jesus did not die? Exactly what is the “common grace” of being in the new covenant, if one assumes that the non-elect can be included for a time in the covenant? These questions are not only for theonomists, but for Klineans as well….
Kline writes about ‘the proper purpose of the covenant, the salvation of the elect.” (Oath,34). Kline cautions that “we are not to reduce the redemptive covenant to that proper purpose.”
Of course I agree that all have a duty to believe the gospel. All have a duty to come into the new covenant in which “all know the Lord “. But this is something different from saying that the non-elect are in the new covenant, and will be cursed and broken off if they don’t continue to meet the conditions of the new covenant..
We don’t have to say that. We can accept another person’s creditable profession without telling him that he has been put into a conditional covenant. We can welcome Christian sinners based on their confession of bankruptcy which rules out past and future covenant keeping as a basis for blessing.
But Kline resists the “bent toward such a reduction of covenant to election. To do so is to substitute a logical abstraction for the historical reality…” The historical reality for Kline is the reality of covenant threats and “actual divine vengeance against the disobedience as covenantal elements”.
I agree of course about divine vengeance but my question is if this wrath is “covenantal”. Do those who are never initiated into the new covenant experience wrath? I am sure Kline would agree with me that they do. But this is something different from saying that those who experience the wrath of God were once members of the new covenant. Matthew 7 teaches us that there are those who never knew the Lord. There is no category of new covenant people who knew the Lord and who then stopped knowing the Lord.
I agree with Kline about the need for Jesus to keep the new covenant. As he puts it: “the covenant concept has law as its foundation and makes its promises dependent on the obedience of a federal representative. ” p 35 I agree that the blessing of the new covenant comes through covenant curse on Jesus Christ.
But if Christ has kept the covenant for all those in the new covenant, then how can Kline speak of “dual sanctions” for those in the new covenant? Kline thinks that those who were never elected and those for whom Jesus never died can be initiated into the new covenant. And his pattern for this is not only the Mosaic covenant but the Abrahamic covenant.
For some, this is a re-run. For Rs and Doug, well…may they read “as if” for the first time….
LikeLike
“The one who does them shall live by them.”
How did the Saint of old, “live by them”?
“Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight”
There is your answer Sean!!! David didn’t put his faith “in the law”, he put his trust in the promise so he could live! David was a man of faith, who put his trust in the promise. Which is just another way of saying, Christ is our life!
LikeLike
Doug,
Nobody, least of all moi, backed off from the notion of the fear, awe and reverence of God. I never backed off from the idea that God judges His house. I have no problem with the idea of the discipline of the Lord and No one here has argued that God isn’t working sanctification in those whom He’s redeemed. No one is denying the typical aspect of Israel or even that those of the promise of Abraham existed under siniatic administration. The pushback to you is your unwillingness to acknowledge the levitical principle inherent in the law, that Paul is bringing into bold relief in Gal 3. Your scheme just can’t have it, republication has absolutely no problem with it. We can read Gal 3 for what it says, you can’t.
LikeLike
What in the heck is the Levitical principle? And how is it different today, when Jesus warns his church he will kill some of them, if they don’t repent?
LikeLike
Doug, that’s all fine except you leave out; ‘BUT the law is NOT of faith RATHER……………….’ You still aren’t willing to deal with the text, you keep trying to explain it away
LikeLike
The pushback to you is your unwillingness to acknowledge the levitical principle inherent in the law, that Paul is bringing into bold relief in Gal 3. Your scheme just can’t have it, republication has absolutely no problem with it. We can read Gal 3 for what it says, you can’t.
Nonsense Sean! You need to define this levitical principle in Scripture. I say it’s exactly the same today!! Show me the difference! Paul says these things happened as an example for us, that we would not put Christ to the test! Paul says, the same things that happened to them, can happen to us. Jesus said he would kill some in his church, if they wouldn’t repent.
What’s the difference?
LikeLike
DTM, please tell the Baylys. May it annoy them.
LikeLike
Sean, as I have pointed out numerous times, no Saint put there faith “in the law”. They put there faith in Christ via shadow or promise. But the notion that “in the law” there was a working principle is absurd, and a complete miss-reading of Galatians.
The problem wasn’t “in the law”. The problem was with Israel! What was Israel’s problem? They lacked faith! They looked at the law, as if it were by works.
It was never offered that way Sean! Why can I be so sure? Because anything that is not of faith is sin. That was true in both testaments! To suggest that there was another way to approach the law, other than faith, is absurd!
LikeLike
Sean, once you accept that both administration were all about Christ, the same way of salvation by grace through faith, the whole republication theory crumbles to the ground. The notion that the law offered a works principle is against Christ, so it needs to be set aside. God is not double minded!
LikeLike
Sean, don’t confuse yourself when Paul uses the law, “in the abstract” to put his finger in the eye of the Judiazers. It’s clear that they were miss-using the law, can we agree on that? Can we also agree that God would not offer two ways of salvation? How ridiculous would that be?
Therefore, the republication theory has no roots. It’s illogical at it’s root.
LikeLike
Doug,
Outside of re pasting Gal 3 all over again, your soteriological scheme is based on an ontological understanding of salvation. It’s why you focus so hard on the transformative/renovative aspects of salvation, you both wittingly and unwittingly eclipse the forensic and legal nature of salvation particularly as understood in the covenant of redemption. This is why when you were talking to Jeff, ‘redemption accomplished and applied’ came front and center. The ontological emphasis you propound is eerily reminiscent, and at times, point for point a translation of infused grace and spirit empowered works as crafted by RC’s. You get here because you overemphasize continuity between the old and new covenants to a point of marginalizing the discontinuity(it ain’t just jew and gentile apart and now together). Paul, in a number of places, but particularly here in Gal. EMPHASIZES the discontinuity by contrasting the principle of grace through faith with Lev. 18:5; “the one who does them shall live by them”. Paul says one is of Sinai-lev 18:5 and one is of the promise of the Abrahamic cov.-faith. Thus you get the law(sinai) is NOT of faith. I directed you to Gordon precisely because he notes other things COULD’VE been said about Sinai BUT here Paul, in this text, is bringing out the contrast. It’s not a jew-gentile contrast but a works-faith contrast.
LikeLike
DTM, my gays tell me I’m a metrosexual. How’s that for being hip enough? But I own dogs, not cats.
LikeLike
Doug,
You have cured me of kicking the dog for now. So, there’s your concession.
LikeLike
McMark says: I want to like Kline because I agree with his holding the line on the law/gospel antithesis.
Me: But Mark, this is where I take you to the mat! David strongly disagrees with you, take a listen:
vs 127: “Therefore I love your commandments above gold,m above fine gold”.
Me: Where is this law/gospel antithesis with David, hmm? It’s nonexistent!
vs 77: Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.
Me: Once again Mark, David cries out for mercy (grace) so he can live (Christ) for the law is his delight. This nukes the theory that there is a law/gospel antithesis. In fact there is perfect harmony with the law and the gospel. Moreover, King David is called a man after God’s own heart, which should include all of us! So Mark, you should be able to say the same thing, no?
LikeLike
Sean expounds: EMPHASIZES the discontinuity by contrasting the principle of grace through faith with Lev. 18:5; “the one who does them shall live by them”.
Wrong Sean! This is where Gordon is at his weakest. Have you read Dr. Venanam’s critique? It’s as if Gordon doesn’t realize that just before Lev. 18.5 there are provisions for sin and un intentional sin as well. There were ordinances for sanctification as well. Those ordinances that exhibited Christ were how Israel could live! Because Christ is our life in both testaments! So where Gordon *thinks* he sees discontinuity, he should be seeing continuity. You’re just regurgitating Gordon’s errors and trying to fault me for not buying in to his mistakes.
LikeLike
Sean, your starting to sound like a whipped dog. Calling people RC’s is a low blow, and not even in our discussion. The large majority of reformed thinkers disagree with Gordon’s republication theory. He makes many rookie mistakes in finding what he *thinks* is discontinuity, when in fact he’s just plain wrong
You would do well, if you quit parroting Gordon.
LikeLike
Sean, to make a long story short, the Mosaic covenant was about Christ. Paul’s point was that the ceremonial law was temporary until Christ could come and accomplish redemption. Once Christ went to the cross, it was necessary for the law to change as well (ceremonial of course). Shadows had to give way to reality.
But the idea that the Mosaic covenant offered a works principle is beyond ridiculous, it’s absurd. God is not double minded! There is only one way to the Father, and that is in Christ in both testaments.
LikeLike
Sean, how about showing me this “works” principle being taught in Scripture?
That’s the bur under the blanket. Where do you see this taught, other than in Galatians?
LikeLike
Doug,
It wouldn’t matter if Gordon agreed with it or not. It’s Paul who is highlighting the contrast. It’s Paul who says the Law is not of faith. All I’ve done is show you the principle six ways to sunday and referred you to others who do it better but everyone from Owen to Shaw to Witsius to Kline to West West to Gordon is just stupid on this issue as far as you can tell. Which is fine.
LikeLike
Sean, Paul is NOT highlighting a contrast. You know why I can be so sure? God is not double minded! You and Gordon are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Just because you SAY it’s a discontinuity doesn’t make it so. Since everything that is not of faith is sin, how could there be a discontinuity in God’s plan for salvation? Hmmm?
Sean, flush out this works principle you big mouth! You’ve said I’m all bluster, well now I”m here, and you are on the run. Explain how this dubious “works principle” is good for salvation.
FWIW, I think in your heart of hearts, you are beginning to see how weak this republication theory really is. You don’t have two or three witnesses of Scripture, do you?
LikeLike
Douglas, you’re right. You win. I’m running, holding on to the tattered blanket you’ve made of my faith. If you have an mercy in your soul, you’ll leave me with the few strands to keep me warm in the cold winter of my soul’s discontent. I don’t have any scriptures for you, you’ve left me bereft of the cover of even a single proof text. I am undone.
LikeLike
Ha ha Sean; all teasing aside, you really don’t have one solid Scripture to hang your “republication” hat on. This doesn’t mean you aren’t a Christian. Just that you listened to poor teachers like Van Drunen and Gordon, who led you into an absurdity.
The law given to Israel, was to be appropriated by faith, just like the gospel is today. In that respect both administrations were in perfect harmony. There was no such thing as a working principle found in God’s law. So, what was Israel’s problem? They lacked faith, and approached the law, “as if it were by works”. As it is today, it was a heart issue.
God never offered the law as a way of salvation in ones own strength.
At last inner peace 🙂
LikeLike
FWIW Sean, I would be willing to entertain this “works principle” if you could show this concept taught in the old testament. But since you can’t, and can only see this “works principle” when Paul is scolding the Judiazers for there lack of faith, I must reject the whole concept.
BTW Sean, I have lots more if you want to press the issue. What I would give to sit your rear end down for a couple hours with our Bibles open, you would no longer hold to republication, that’s for sure!
LikeLike
Doug, with all the talk about homosexuals and drinking going on lately, notions of you having anything to do with my rear end makes me uncomfortable. That, combined with the whole notion of those who protest too loudly……….
Doug, I honestly don’t know where to go with it. If I can’t make any headway out of the Abrahamic promise, Galatians, Romans, I cor, 2 cor, the gospels, the analogia fide, the hermenuetical principle of the new interpreting the old, words typed on a page, language as a cultural vehicle of communication of ideas and thoughts et al. Then, you win. I was hoping/demanding my point by point counter exegesis, but apparently there isn’t one. Regardless you still win. I want to be clear about that. I’ve been thoroughly whipped, flogged, humiliated and left to die. I’m certainly mostly dead.
LikeLike
DTM: D. G. Hart posted April 30, 2013 at 8:30 pm: “Doug, but I’m only a metrosexual.”
Not sure anyone on this blog is “hip” enough to pull that one off.
DGH: DTM, please tell the Baylys. May it annoy them.
Sorry, D’s, but I’m afraid it would have to be “metrosodomite” in order to register properly over at BB.
LikeLike
Doug, God is not double-minded? Have you ever read Ecclesiastes? It’s in your favorite part of the Bible.
LikeLike
Sergius, don’t sell me short. Simply be being 2k I annoy the Baylys (though I don’t moisturize — can’t speak for Zrim).
LikeLike
Trying to remember the beginning of this thread: the Bayly brothers need to write a letter of love and correction to the guy with the ax. Gary North has given them an example in his letter to Paul Hill.
http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html
“Judicial theology” needs to start in the brothers’ own church….
North: You are accused of having shot to death two men and wounded a woman. You have not denied these accusations. Witnesses say you fired a shotgun several times at close range — a weapon not noted for its ability to inflict death on a discriminating basis. The reports say that you ran. If correct, then you did not act as a man of courage would have acted. You did not act as one who believed in some elevated principle. You shot and ran. This indicates to me that you knew in your heart that you act was, biblically speaking, an act of murder rather than the God- authorized defense of a just cause. A man defending a just cause does not run. He commits his act of civil rebellion in the name of a higher law and then submits himself to the sanctions of the state for having violated state law. This is what the people of Operation Rescue do. They stand in front of an abortion clinic, to be beaten by the police, arrested, sent to jail, fined, and suffer a loss of their income. They suffer the consequences of their actions. They are people of courage.
LikeLike
DGH queries, “Doug, God is not double-minded? Have you ever read Ecclesiastes? It’s in your favorite part of the Bible.”
Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books in the whole Bible. In fact, you’all need to read Douglas Wilson’s work on it called, “Joy at the end of the tether”. It’s simply brilliant, and would cause many, if not most of Old Lifer’s to have a soft spot in their heart for him. He does a verse by verse commentary which is awesome! Wilson has said, more than once, that if you want to know what he’s about, read two books, “Joy at the end of the tether” is one of them.
In all fairness, I think you would all respect Wilson a 100% more in you would read this book!
LikeLike
Sean, take a deep breath and think; why is it right, for you to *assert* a discontinuity in Galatians 3, when it could just as easily be a continuity? (Far more likely!) God didn’t have a double message for salvation in the old testament. It was always about Christ, through promise, type, and shadow and by grace through faith. And if one lacked faith, they were under the curse of the law, just like today! Christ has always been the way of salvation, every other way, (works/righteousness) is a false way.
And anything that is not of faith is sin, same today as it was back then.
LikeLike
My wife told me this morning that my son was grossed out watching a show an “Animal Planet”. A Hyena started eating a dead elephant by sticking its head completely up the elephant’s butt and pulling out the intestines. This is the same feeling of nausea I get from the Theonomy Debate channel at Old Life.
LikeLike
McMark-let’s do it!
Mark expounds: “Galatians 3 paraphrased to suit Doug: 10 For all who rely on a misinterpretation of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not DO ALL things written in the rightly interpreted Book of the Law. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by a wrongly interpreted law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Wrong McMark! The Mosaic law was all about Christ. The law wasn’t Christ, but the ordinances pointed to Christ. Those ordinances were “holy” and showed the true way of salvation as far as the ceremonial aspects are concerned. The law seen through eyes of faith exhibited Christ. David is very clear who his hope was in:
vs. 41 “Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation, according to your promise”.
That is seeing the law through eyes of faith, just like all the elect before us! There was not works principle within the law, lest God be found untrue!
LikeLike
Erik the slayer;
We haven’t been debating theonomy. We have been debating TLINOF.
Two completely different animals. BTW, how are you doing on “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”? To be honest, I found it very boring imho, but very thorough. I would use it as a reference book if I were you. I would highly suggest you read the chapter at the end on New England.
God bless you bro!
LikeLike
Gordon: Note how frequently in Galatians 3:6-14 Paul contrasts belief/faith on the one hand, with
works/doing/law on the other hand. The contrasts are both frequent and sustained: There are
five references to faith/belief on the Abrahamic side, and five references to doing, abiding,
works, and “not faith” on the Sinai side.
Gordon’s Abraham’s circumcision of Isaac was not a condition of getting Isaac; God already fulfilled the pledge to give Abraham a seed before requiring that this seed be circumcised. At Sinai, however, the matter is entirely different: the conditional blessings depend upon Israel’s obedience. If anyone doubts this, just ask the question: How many long years of blessedness did Moses and Aaron enjoy in the so called “promised land”? Zero. And why was this so? Because the people disobeyed. While the land was eventually given to the Israelites, the terms of the Sinai covenant delayed their inheritance by forty years, and diminished the actual blessedness of the land during the generations of their tenure there. And even the inheritance of the land was not because of the
stipulations of Sinai, but because of the promises made to the patriarchs, as Moses interceded for the Israelites in those terms:
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own
self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this
land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it “forever.”
And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people”
(Ex. 32:13-14).
Gordon: Note that what follows this is a quotation from the Mosaic institution of the covenant itself, NOT SOME LATER ABUSE THEREOF.: “But the law is not of faith, rather‘The one who does them shall live by them,’” citing Leviticus 18:5. Paul explains what he means by saying the law is not of faith by reference not to some first century Jewish misunderstanding, but by reference to the institution of that covenant through the mediatorship of Moses.
LikeLike
(I both moisturize and keep all hair to a tasteful minimum–upon these two habits hang all the law and prophets of metrosexualism.)
LikeLike
Gordon asserts: “How many long years of blessedness did Moses and Aaron enjoy in the so called “promised land”? Zero. And why was this so? Because the people disobeyed. ”
Me: Balderdash! The reason Moses couldn’t go into the promised land, was for *his* sin, when he struck the rock twice, misrepresenting God. Just before Moses died the Bible says Moses had the eyesight and vigor of a man twenty years old! Had he not misrepresented God, who knows how long God would have allowed him to live?
Gordon is a hack. He can’t even get the story straight! Why would anyone listen to Gordon who is slipshod historian at best. Plus, a man, who writes all kind of wrongs? Moses begged God to let him go into the promised land, and God told him not to ask again.
God does have a sense of humor; Moses did make it to the promised land some 1500 years later at the transfiguration, right before Christ was crucified. What a blessing that was! So Moses did make it to the promised land, “in a sense”.
LikeLike
Sean pontificates: “Paul, in a number of places, but particularly here in Gal. EMPHASIZES the discontinuity by contrasting the principle of grace through faith with Lev. 18:5; “the one who does them shall live by them”.
Balderdash! You can’t get away with asserting such an outrageous charge! How is that not a strong continuity? Who is the *life giver* if not the Christ? The one who does them were the elect who were in Christ. Christ is our life! They (the elect) obeyed from the heart and were obedient to God. Since everything that is not born of a heart of faith is sin; how can anyone listen to such rubbish that Lev. 18.5 could offer life apart from Christ?
This whole republication nonsense needs to be put to rest!
LikeLike
McMark honestly asks: “Does the new covenant has a secondary law-aspect as well, so that “temporal blessing” is conditioned on our keeping covenant? If so, Doug, what are these other “covenant” blessings which are not gospel blessings found in Christ? What do you tell a sinner, Doug? Your sin will cost your temporal blessings? Or your sin has put you out from the new covenant and lost you salvation?”
Mark, you are framing the questions all wrong. You’re just half baked bro! First of all the *new* covenant includes the Mosaic, they are just different administrations of the same covenant in substance, all centered in the saving work of Christ, who is our life.
So there is really only *one* covenant of grace. Jesus promises the 7 churches that if they overcome through persecution, he will give them manna from heaven and authority over the nations in the now and now; along with other temporal blessings for obedience. There are MANY temporal blessings for faith, and MANY curses for lack thereof.
H
LikeLike
Paul Hill died by lethal injection in Florida State Prison on September 3, 2003, aged 49.
Gordon: John Murray jettisoned the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it.
Gordon: The first generation of the magisterial Reformers would have emphasized discontinuity. Calvin believed that Rome retained too much continuity with the levitical aspects of the Sinai administration.
Gordon: The word covenant is rarely employed in the Bible; indeed Paul never uses the expression. Where it is used, there is almost always an immediate contextual clue to which biblical covenant is being referred to, such as “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) The New Testament writers were not mono-covenantal regarding the Old Testament (see Rom 9:4, Eph 2:12; Gal 4:24).
mark: nor did they equate faith and works, as Doug does. The law commands doing. Sinners need the grace of what Christ has done.
LikeLike
Doug – BTW, how are you doing on “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”?
I see it in the stack in the laundry room when I’m down there ironing my clothes.
I did finish Hart’s Westminster West history last night, though, so I’m ready to choose my next book.
Did you know that Westminster West had a graduate named David Lee Roth in the mid-80s? There was also a graduate named Steven Hart. D.G.’s brother?
I also saw the names of the notorious Irons’ listed amongst the graduates.
LikeLike
Another name that caught my eye had the middle name “Thomas” and the last name “Sowell”. The economist Thomas Sowell’s son?
LikeLike
Gordon: “John Murray jettisoned the notion of distinctions of kind between the covenants. He wrote that was not “any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray believed that the only relation God sustains to people is that of Redeemer. I would argue, by contrast, that God was just as surely Israel’s God when He cursed the nation as when He blessed it.”
Earth to Gordon!!! Read the new testament!
It’s as if Gordon has never considered that Jesus threatens temporal curses (even death!) on his own churches in Revelations 2 and 3 (See the letters to the 7 churches) How lame is that? Direct comparisons can be made with Jesus stern warnings, and God’s dealings with Israel. In fact in anything, Jesus appears much more proactive coming down on his churches than he ever was with Israel!
Take a listen to the Lord Jesus own words;
Revelation 3:3 “Remember, then what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”
This blows Gordon’s premise to smithereens! God still judges his people (local church) in a corporate manner!
Come on McMark! Man up, boy! Quit hiding behind the words of others. This is the same kind of curse God put on Israel when they were unfaithful! What do you make of Jesus saying, “and you will not know at what hour I will come against you”!!
There is no way around it Mark, Jesus is threatening *sovereign judgment* on the church at Sardis some twenty years after her founding! IF they will not repent! How is this any different than the old testament in terms of temporal sanctions (curses, in this case) for being unfaithful? If anything, Jesus is far more proactive NOW, than during the time of the law.
Talk to me Mark! How about telling me what *you* think, man to man?
McMark, let’s see if you are able to interact with the implications behind the warnings to the 7 churches. I want to hear you!
Sean, you are welcome to jump in and try to save Mark, he needs it.
LikeLike
Revelation 3:3 “Remember, then what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.”
Sean or Mark; here we have our Lord Jesus warning the church at Sardis that he will come against them, if they don’t repent. And they won’t even see it coming! BTW, when God says he will come against you, that is an act of sovereign judgment! That is a temporal curse! That is exactly how God judged Israel during the law! Yet this is new testament instruction straight from mouth, of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ!
Why doesn’t Gordon interact with the letters to the 7 churches? Isn’t that sound new testament instruction? Hmmmmm?
Psssst; because it blows a big hole in his specious republication theory. Gordon just pretends Jesus didn’t say those words, I guess.
LikeLike
Doug,
I just saw McMark by the pool, everyone was watching you in your water wings flail about in the shallow end.
LikeLike
Doug Wilson’s son-in-law, Ben Merkle, is also a Westminster West graduate. I got to know his sister in the 90s. Neat lady.
LikeLike
Look below the surface and you’ll see that Doug is skinny-dipping, too.
LikeLike
Ha ha Sean; just deal with the temporal curses the Lord Jesus was promising a new covenant church, unless they repented of their sin.
LikeLike
Doug,
Your objections have been answered directly. I can’t for the life of me understand what you’re going on about. God ‘cleans house’, Paul instructs churches to ‘clean house’. What you can’t seem to stomach, in this instance, is Paul’s characterizing of Sinai as one of cursing and law and the Abrahamic as promise and faith. You keep going after a straw man. No one who’s read Gal. or Gordon for that matter, recognizes the caricature you’re attacking. We all just keep waiting for you to deal with what Paul actually says in Galatians, well, at least I do. I understand you’re a monocovenantalist and are going to want to flatten out all the distinctions and discontinuities. Wash, rinse, repeat.
LikeLike
Btw Doug, how’s the interview process for the new female pastor going?
LikeLike
I’ve heard Douglas Wilson is a very nice man as well. I know someone who grew up in Moscow, and he says Douglas Wilson is the real deal. A man who walks the walk, in God’s strength of course. A truly humble man.
LikeLike
Sean, instead of snide comments; how about dealing with the temporal curses Jesus warned would befall to the church of Sardis, unless they repented?
This blows your republication theory away!
LikeLike
Sean blathers: Btw Doug, how’s the interview process for the new female pastor going?
Me: How is that conducive to dialog? Sean, can you “man up” and explain how churches in the new covenant are receiving blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Faith verses unbelief and all that sort of thing. How is that different from God blessing Israel for obedience and cursing them for unbelief?
Do you see a connection?
LikeLike
Doug, I already have. God Judges the Church. Full Stop.
The issue is how Paul characterizes Sinai and contrasts it with the Abrahamic and new. As far as snide, you get dealt with appropriately.
LikeLike
Doug, reading well actually requires nuance and holding more than one thing in your mind at a time as you read. Analogia Fide, New interpreting the Old, asking the right questions, being content with what is revealed, didactic giving meaning to apocalyptic and/or historical narrative or poetic etc etc etc.
LikeLike
Here is my question Sean; do you see an analogy with how God judged Israel in the old testament, to Jesus judging his church in the new?
LikeLike
Doug,
Analogy? Do you mean do I see a similarity? It’s similar in that it’s God doing the judging. It’s dissimilar in that God is judging ethnic, geo-politically defined Israel per blessing and cursing sanctions tied to the land AND operating on a principle of DO this and live, DON’T Do this and die. Jesus bore this real curse typified through God’s dealing with nation-state Israel such that those who are united to Jesus in his death and resurrection no longer face these sanctions. The Sinaitic administration is pedagogical to lead us to the Christ who bore the curse. The parallel you are trying to make would actually leave the curse of the law an ongoing concern.
Gal 3
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.
The Law and the Promise
15 To give a human example, brothers:[f] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Doug, you really need to reconcile with the text.
LikeLike
Sean, listen to Dr. Venama:
Before I compare the way Estelle and Gordon interpret Paul’s use of
Leviticus 18:5 with that of other Reformed exegetes, it should be observed that
they give little attention to the meaning of this text in its original, Old Testament
setting. While Estelle acknowledges the difference between Leviticus 18:5 in its
“original setting” and in Paul’s use of it (111), he does not offer an account of
the difference. However, the reason Paul’s appeal to Leviticus 18:5 raises a number of difficult exegetical questions derives precisely from this difference.
In its original setting within the Mosaic economy, Leviticus 18:5 can scarcely
be understood apart from other essential elements of the covenant of grace.
For example, the obligations of obedience stipulated in Leviticus 18:5 assume
the truth of Israel’s redemption from bondage by God’s outstretched arm, and
are placed within this context in a manner that is similar to the promulgation
of the law at Sinai. When the Lord calls his people to holiness, he does so
as one who is holy, but also as one who graciously makes provision for the
justification and sanctification of his people.
It is especially noteworthy that the statutes of the Mosaic covenant to
which Leviticus 18:5 requires compliance include all the provisions in the
Levitical legislation that concern the offering of sacrifices for the cleansing
away of the guilt and pollution of sin. Indeed, all of the ceremonies of the law
to which Israel is subject constitute a typological prefigurement of the person
and work of Christ as Mediator and Savior. Furthermore, the Lord, who makes
provision for the removal of the guilt and uncleanness of the people through the
Levitical legislation, also promises the people that he will sanctify them (see,
e.g., Leviticus 22:32–33). In this context, Leviticus 18:5 can hardly be read to
be a republication of the covenant of works, which obliges Israel to a perfect
obedience as a basis for her blessing in the land of promise. This would not
only wrest Leviticus 18:5 from its setting within the Mosaic economy and the
Levitical legislation, but it would also suggest that this economy was no longer
undergirded by the promises first made to Abraham, who was justified before
God through faith alone and in no other wise than believers are justified in the
New Testament economy. When Estelle and Gordon maintain that Leviticus
18:5 republished the covenant of works, they offer little or no explanation of
how this comports with these fundamental features of the Mosaic covenant as
an administration of the covenant of grace. More important than their failure to explain how Leviticus 18:5 fits within the framework of a covenant administration that was substantively a
covenant of grace, Estelle and (especially) Gordon dismiss a common Reformed
interpretation of Paul’s use of this text in Romans and Galatians. As we have
seen in our consideration of the view of the Mosaic administration in Calvin,
Turretin, and Witsius, these formative writers in the history of Reformed
theology consistently interpret Paul to be addressing a “legalistic” abuse or
misappropriation of the teaching of Leviticus 18:5. Remarkably, Gordon, in
the course of his rather dismissive treatment of John Murray’s view of the
obligations of obedience under the Mosaic covenant, writes as though Paul’s
argument cannot possibly be read in any other way than the one he presents.58
In offering his criticism of Murray, Gordon actually criticizes a rather standard view in the history of Reformed interpretation of Paul’s argument in Galatians.
Even were Gordon able to prove that Murray could have made “no sense”
out of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, as he alleges, he would still have to
acknowledge that the interpretation of Paul’s argument that he dismisses was
fairly common, and probably predominant, among the principal exegetes of
the tradition.
Me: You see Sean? It’s you and Gordon who have fallen out from our tradition
LikeLike
Remarkably, Gordon, in the course of his rather dismissive treatment of John Murray’s view of the
obligations of obedience under the Mosaic covenant, writes as though Paul’s argument cannot possibly be read in any other way than the one he presents.58
Me: Really?! This is how “out there” Gordon really is!
In offering his criticism of Murray, Gordon actually criticizes a rather standard view in the history of Reformed interpretation of Paul’s argument in Galatians. Even were Gordon able to prove that Murray could have made “no sense” out of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, as he alleges, he would still have to acknowledge that the interpretation of Paul’s argument that he dismisses was
fairly common, and probably predominant, among the principal exegetes of
the tradition.
Me: Ouch! How humiliating for Gordon!
LikeLike
This paragraph shows just how bad Gordon missed it, as with all the republication boys:
For the purpose of our assessment of the arguments of the authors of The
Law is Not of Faith, it must be observed that, in none of these three uses of the
law of God, does the law function at any level as a kind of republished covenant
of works. In all of its uses and promulgations after the fall into sin, the moral law
serves the gracious purposes of the covenant of grace in Christ. Whether in its
“first” or “third” uses, the law does not serve covenantally as a kind of repetition
of the prelapsarian covenant of works. Rather, the law serves to communicate
the gospel of Christ’s person and work, not only in his obedience to all of its
obligations on behalf of his people but also in his work of renewing his people in
the way of increasing conformity to the law’s obligations. In the striking words
of Francis Turretin, in the history of redemption “the law is not administered
without the gospel, nor the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legalgospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith.”99
Me: Amen and amen!!!
LikeLike
There is a bur under the blanket, so to speak, and that is Dr. Meredith Kline bazaar view of typology, listen to Dr Venama observe:
There are two observations that need to be made about this feature of the
biblical argument of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith.
First, the stimulus and source for this understanding of the typology of
the Mosaic covenant is undoubtedly the biblical-theological formulations of
Meredith Kline.
In the writings of Reformed theologians in what I have termed
the “formative” period of the formulation of covenant theology, the language
of a “works principle” in the Mosaic economy is not found. However, this
language is frequently employed by Meredith Kline in his biblical theology of
the covenants of works and of grace, and it is evident that Kline’s formulations
lie behind those of several of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith.
The idea that the covenant of works was republished “in some sense” is a significant
part of Kline’s understanding of the distinctive nature of the Mosaic economy.
In Kline’s view of the Mosaic economy, there are two levels or strata that reflect
distinctive inheritance principles. At the basic and organic level of the Mosaic
administration as an administration of the covenant of grace, the salvation
of the individual member of the Old Testament people of God was by grace
through faith in Christ. However, at the level of the Mosaic economy as an
administration that republished the covenant of works, Israel’s national
inheritance of and tenure in the land of promise was based upon a works
principle.
The following statement of Kline’s view illustrates the basic similarity
between his conception of the typological function of the works principle in the
Mosaic economy and that of several of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith:
A cursory reading of this rather complex statement of Kline’s view demonstrates
the significant parallels between his conception of the typology of the Mosaic
economy and that of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith.
Second, the claim that the Mosaic economy republished the covenant of
works in a typological manner with respect to Israel’s inheritance and blessing
in the land of Canaan begs some important questions regarding the nature of
biblical typology. Though this is a complicated topic in the history of theology,
biblical types may be defined as those features, including events, persons,
or institutions, of the Old Testament that prefigure or foreshadow their New
Testament realities.90 Biblical typology focuses upon those features of the Old
Testament economy that typify, symbolize, and foreshadow features of the
New Testament economy. As Geerhardus Vos observes, “[a] typical thing is
prospective; it relates to what will become real or applicable in the future.”91
An obvious and important instance of biblical typology is the Old Testament
tabernacle and temple.
LikeLike
Sean listen to Murray on Paul’s use of Lev. 18:5
In his commentary on the book of Romans, Murray devotes an appendix
to the question of Paul’s appeal to Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5. Murray
devotes special attention to this question since, as he acknowledges, Paul’s
use of Leviticus 18:5 seems to contradict the meaning of the passage in its Old
Testament context. In the Old Testament economy of redemption, Leviticus
18:5 does not appear in a context “that deals with legal righteousness as
opposed to that of faith.”67
Rather, Leviticus 18:5 seems to present the law in the same way as it is presented in Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and in many other passages in the Pentateuch, namely, as a rule of gratitude that
norms the conduct of a redeemed people in their life-fellowship with the Lord. According to Murray, Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 cannot help but raise the question: “could Paul properly have appealed to Lev. 18:5 as an illustration of works-righteousness in opposition to that of faith?”
68 In Murray’s answer to this question, three “distinct relationships” are identified in which the principle enunciated in Leviticus 18:5, “the man that does shall live,” has particular
relevance. First, in “a state of perfect integrity,” Murray argues, the law of God reveals
a “principle of equity in God’s government.”since the law discloses to human
beings what accords with God’s will, obedience to the law will invariably be pleasing to God and warrant his approbation and justifying verdict, whereas
disobedience will always be displeasing to him and warrant his disapproval
and condemnation. God always judges human conduct according to the truth,
whether it be conduct that pleases or displeases him. In the state of Adam’s
integrity before the fall, it was possible for him to enjoy God’s approval by doing
what the law required. However, by virtue of Adam’s fall and disobedience, the
law of God as such can now only expose him and his posterity to condemnation
and death, since all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. Since the fall of
Adam, man’s original relationship to the law is no longer operative. Now the
law can only reveal the sinfulness of all and their just liability to condemnation
and death.
Second, “within the realm of sin” or the world subsequent to the fall of
Adam, the principle, “the man that does shall live,” must be regarded as
“totally inoperative” as a means for obtaining favor and acceptance with God.70
According to Murray, the absolute contrast that the apostle Paul wishes to
set forth in Romans 10:5, 6 between the righteousness of works and the
righteousness of faith, is a contrast between doing what the law requires and
embracing what God freely gives in Christ. When Paul adduces Leviticus 18:5
to illustrate this contrast, he appeals properly to what the language of this
text by itself expresses.
Leviticus 18:5 expresses what “holds true when lawrighteousness is operative unto justification and life and also express[es] the conception entertained by the person who espouses the same as the way of acceptance with God (cf. also Gal. 3:12).”71 When the apostle Paul appeals to
Leviticus 18:5 to prove the futility of obtaining a right standing with God on
the basis of works, he properly demonstrates the futility of any such endeavor.
No one is able to do all that the law requires, and therefore no one is able to
obtain life through the works of the law.
And third, the purpose of Paul’s quotation of Leviticus 18:5 is shaped by
his polemic with those who would appeal to their works of obedience to the law
as a basis for justification and life. In making his appeal to this passage, the
apostle legitimately opposes any attempt to use the law as an instrument of
self-justification. However, in Murray’s judgment, the misappropriation of the
law as a means to obtain life and justification before God by Paul’s opponents,
does not mitigate the proper use of the law as a norm for Christian obedience
and sanctification.
“But we must not suppose that doing the commandments
as the way of life has ceased to have any validity or application. To suppose
this would be as capital a mistake in its own locus as to propound worksrighteousness as the way of justification. … In the realm of grace, therefore, obedience is the way of life. He that does the commandments of God lives in them.”72
When Paul adduces Leviticus 18:5 to expose the futility of any effort to obtain justification upon the basis of the works of the law, he does not thereby deny the legitimacy of an appeal to Leviticus 18:5 in support of a sincere and grateful obedience to the law of God. Nor does he deny the sense in which such sincere obedience is the way of life and blessing for the redeemed people
of God.
From these comments of Murray on Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5, it is
apparent that he follows in all important respects the interpretive approach of
theologians in the Reformed tradition whose views we have surveyed. Though
several authors of The Law is Not of Faith challenge this interpretation, it
represents a cogent and more common Reformed explanation of Paul’s appeal
to Leviticus 18:5 in Romans and Galatians.73
LikeLike
For Ridderbos, it would be a mistake to conclude from Paul’s
argument in Galatians 3 that the apostle regarded the Mosaic economy to be at
variance with the gospel promise previously revealed through the Abrahamic
covenant. Such a conclusion would imply that the apostle Paul’s view of the
Mosaic economy was inconsistent and contradictory at key points.
Me: That’s what I’ve been saying all along! God is not double minded! There is only one door to salvation. It’s been Jesus in both administrations!
LikeLike
Doug,
I appreciate that Dr. Venema believes differently, just like John Murray believed differently. Neither addresses the actual text of Gal 3 and the contrast that Paul is drawing. A lot more COULD’VE been said but there is a need in Gal. 3 to let the text speak. As noted, there is a contingent following Murray who hold to a monocovenantal view of the covenants. The historic validity is highly dubious considering Murray himself considered his views a RECASTING of covenant theology. IOW, Murray viewed his move to understand the covenants as all administrations of sovereign grace as novel.
It’s a principle in hermenuetics to allow the NT to interpret the OT. Paul had apostolic authority to do just that. Ultimately, Murray and Venema’s complaint is with Paul. It’s why I’ve asked for the counter exegesis. I can point you to any number of historic treatments showing the venerability of republication, Kline didn’t invent this view, whereas Murray’s is novel according to Murray’s own assessment. So, where is the counter exegesis? So far lots of table pounding about how it can’t be. Deal with the text. The text says it was given for the pedagogical purpose of imprisoning those under it in their sin. They didn’t MISUNDERSTAND IT or MISUSE it. The Law accomplished it’s purpose.
Gal 3
11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
Me: The above is Paul’s interpretation given to Lev. 18:5. He CONTRASTS it with faith.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Me: Paul gives the PEDAGOGICAL purpose of the Law. The Law successfully performs it’s evangelical purpose, but itself(the Law) is NOT the gospel nor is it of Faith. The Abrahamic covenant by which the promise is given IS of Faith.
LikeLike
What is the sound of one theocrat babbling?
I guess we need not ask any longer.
LikeLike
Sean attempts: “I appreciate that Dr. Venema believes differently, just like John Murray believed differently. Neither addresses the actual text of Gal 3 and the contrast that Paul is drawing.”
Me: Wrong!!! Read Venema’s whole critique! He shows how the normal understanding of Gal 3 is explained in the three uses of the law. Not a working principle!!!
Using Gordon’s abberrant logic, God would be shown to contradict himself! Gordon is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Mosaic economy is an extension of the Abrahamic covenant. To miss this obvious truth, puts you “weirdo-ville”. You talk and act like Scofield disciples; and I know, I was raised dispensational premillenialist.
Sean says: It’s a principle in hermenuetics to allow the NT to interpret the OT.
Yea? Tell that to McMark! LOL! And then show him all the new testament instruction on baptizing your children. Think before you write Sean! Our justification for including our children as covenant members is found in the old testament, primarily! Don’t be a hypocrite, and start telling me we get all our truth’s in the new testament. I know McMark would concur.
For you to fall for Gordon’s and Van Drunen’s specious theories (working principle put in the law by God) just shows you’re a youngster who hasn’t read the Bible very much. God himself said the reason he made the Mosaic Covenant was because of the promise he made to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Could there be a contradictory way within God? Of course not!
Really Sean, this republication theory needs to be set aside. It’s absurd!
LikeLike
Bobby, you can *say* I’m babbling, but do you notice not one of you’s can refute the Scriptures I use to prove that Jesus still puts covenant curses on his church?
I could hear a pin drop Old lifers! Since that is true, you’re whole republication theory crumbles like dry, month old cake.
LikeLike
Doug,
Israel was unfaithful, therefore they were driven out of the land.
Who have you found in the thousands of years since Israel who has been faithful and has thus kept their land. The Chinese? The Native Americans? Americans?
If the Mosaic law was gracious, why was Israel driven out?
It seems like there was an awful lot that was conditional on obedience there, and if a covenant is conditional on obedience it is not exclusively gracious.
LikeLike
Doug,
I read all of Venema’s critique. When you decide to deal with the text in Gal. 3 and Paul’s treatment of Lev 18:5, well, call Zrim or Erik or McMark or Bobby or Todd or Jed or Jeff..no no wait Call MM. That’s what you need to do. MM wants to talk with you at his site about the old covenant and the new. He told me he’s starting to see the truth of theonomy and just needs some one on one from you about what to believe. When you tell him, make sure you’re forceful about it, don’t give him an inch.
LikeLike
“do you notice not one of you’s can refute the Scriptures I use to prove that Jesus still puts covenant curses on his church? I could hear a pin drop Old lifers! Since that is true, you’re whole republication theory crumbles like dry, month old cake.”
Another possibility is that you aren’t even wrong (as St. Pauli would say). You come across as proud, verbose, and unteachable, so perhaps some of us have simply decided that it isn’t worth engaging your rants (Prov. 26:4 and all that). Something to consider anyway…
LikeLike
sbd – You (Doug) come across as proud, verbose, and unteachable…
Some days he even gives Richard a run for his money.
LikeLike
Doug’s self-declared victory reminds me of an oral argument I heard a few years back in a case that immediately preceded ours on that day.
The appellant stood up to the podium and launched into a rambling diatribe about the errors of the lower court’s decision. Practically every one of his statements involved some misstatement or twisting of the law. The three judges sat in silence and asked no questions during his 15 minute argument. Then, the appellee’s attorney came to the podium and said, “Your honors, we respectfully disagree with the appellant’s arguments, and believe that the district court’s judgment is sound.” Then, he sat down. After court was dismissed, I overheard the appellant’s attorney say to his associate, “We must have blown them away; they didn’t even know how to respond.” The next morning at 10 a.m., the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment without opinion. Sometimes silence is the best response to foolishness.
LikeLike
Or Kevin Durant’s response when asked about Royce White’s tweets dissing him during the 4th quarter of the other night’s game:
“Who is he?”
LikeLike
Zrim posted May 1, 2013 at 1:09 pm: “DTM, my gays tell me I’m a metrosexual. How’s that for being hip enough? But I own dogs, not cats.”
I sometimes tell Ozarkians that the two biggest differences between Italians and hillbillies are that we dress better and carry smaller guns which can be hidden more easily. My mother knew fashion well, and routinely bought from places like Saks Fifth Avenue, so I might fit that stereotype better than most people I know.
As for animals, anyone who owns cats can’t be all bad. Dogs — don’t know about that. I grew up with German shepherds and I was sometimes used for bite practice in dog training, so while I am quite aware of canine loyalty, I am also quite aware of what dogs can do on command. Bite suits stop the teeth, but those are still some awfully strong jaws.
LikeLike
Some dog in Central Iowa just bit off its female owner’s nose two days ago. No thanks.
LikeLike
sbd – You (Doug) come across as proud, verbose, and unteachable…
ET: Some days he even gives Richard a run for his money.
RS: As the old saying goes, proud men can spot pride (whether it is there or not) better than anyone in OTHERS.
LikeLike
DTM, well everybody knows never to get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is never to go against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Or 2k. And I think the proper term is “hill people.”
LikeLike
Richard,
I’ll admit I too can give you a run for your money! That’s why we butt heads so much. I don’t make a pretense of having “religious affections”, though. That’s the difference between an Old Schooler & a New Schooler. We admit to our sanctification being very much a work in progress.
LikeLike
RS,
Never heard that one before…kinda clunky for an “old saying”.
LikeLike
sdb exclaims; “Another possibility is that you aren’t even wrong (as St. Pauli would say). You come across as proud, verbose, and unteachable, so perhaps some of us have simply decided that it isn’t worth engaging your rants (Prov. 26:4 and all that). Something to consider anyway.”
Me: If that’s the case, then I’m truly sorry and give me another chance.. I am teachable sdb! It’s just I can’t abide in teachings that are self contradictory. (A God ordained works principle?) Maybe it’s not a good excuse, but I feel outnumbered here, and sometimes get carried away with my rants. But if you read my posts, you should *know* I write from the heart. Just give me a good counter point, and I will behave.
LikeLike
Doug,
Israel was unfaithful, therefore they were driven out of the land.
Who have you found in the thousands of years since Israel who has been faithful and has thus kept their land. The Chinese? The Native Americans? Americans?
Erik the new covenant analogy is the local church; see Jesus stern warnings to the 7 churches in Asia Mior. Jesus warned the church in Sardis that she lost her first love and that if she didn’t repent, Jesus would take her lampstand.
This is the same kind of judgment Israel faced when she was unfaithful; God knows how to judge his people. God judges the heart of the matter with his people. So while the church will have ups and downs, as we are either faithful, or unfaithful, God still knows how to judge his people.
We have the same exact ethical standard of life, the saints in the Mosaic covenant had. There is no difference in that respect.
Erik asks: “If the Mosaic law was gracious, why was Israel driven out?”
Me: Is the new covenant gracious? If so, then why did Jesus threaten to take Sardis’s lampstand away? That is driving his Spirit from the church!!!
Erik observes: It seems like there was an awful lot that was conditional on obedience there, and if a covenant is conditional on obedience it is not exclusively gracious.
Me: Erik, read Revelations chapter two and three and then get back to me. There are the same conditional blessings for obedience, and curses, even DEATH for disobedience. Wake up bro! There is no difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the gospel in substance. And that is straight from our WCF, which I believe.
LikeLike
Erik, I apologize for not making my post above very clear. You start out by asking the questions to me.
LikeLike
Sean weakly attempts: “Doug,
Analogy? Do you mean do I see a similarity? It’s similar in that it’s God doing the judging. It’s dissimilar in that God is judging ethnic, geo-politically defined Israel per blessing and cursing sanctions tied to the land AND operating on a principle of DO this and live, DON’T Do this and die.”
Wrong-o! Sean, Jesus is our life, even in sanctification! That’s what do this and live means! Jesus is our obedience, when we are walking by faith. That means with a broken and contrite heart. Take a listen to Paul in Romans 6:16
“Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one w2hom you obey, (Pay attention Sean!) either of sin, which leads to leath, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?”
Me: Notice Sean, that obedience IS LIFE, which is just another way of saying we were “in Christ”. To not walk by faith, IS DEATH. We still today just like back when Moses wrote Lev. 18:5 will either walk by faith (in Christ) which is our life; OR we will walk in our own strength which is death.
The administrations were the same covenant “in substance” since they both looked to Christ.
LikeLike
To everyone at Old LIfe!
I super highly recommend you guys check out Greg Bahnsen’s lectures on Revelations, especially chapter two and three. You can pick these up very cheap for a few bucks, and they are amazing! You want to get smart, with systematic theology? You want to know *why* republication is impossible? Read these few lectures and you will start to know where I’m coming from. Van Til who was previously A Mill was so impressed he said “every christian should hear these lectures”. I believe Van Till died a Post Mill saint.
Go to Covenant media foundation. I assure you, you won’t be disappointed!
LikeLike
Doug – “There is no difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the gospel in substance. And that is straight from our WCF, which I believe.”
Gosh, someone should have told Jesus that. It could have saved him a lot of time, shame, hassle and pain.
Good grief, Doug. Where does one even begin with you?
LikeLike
Doug,
Do you believe that our salvation is conditional on our obedience to the Law of God?
LikeLike
Doug,
Is every Jew who was driven out of the land in hell?
Is every Christian who was in a local church that Jesus has “taken away their lampstand” in hell?
I think you have a hard time separating the temporal and the eternal.
LikeLike
Doug;
Wrong-o! Sean, Jesus is our life, even in sanctification! That’s what do this and live means! Jesus is our obedience, when we are walking by faith.
Notice Sean, that obedience IS LIFE, which is just another way of saying we were “in Christ”. To not walk by faith, IS DEATH. We still today just like back when Moses wrote Lev. 18:5
Me; straight Thomistic RC without the sacerdotalism. Doug, go read Walter Marshall(marrow men)
Click to access GospelMystery.pdf
LikeLike
Erik asks: Doug, Do you believe that our salvation is conditional on our obedience to the Law of God?
No. The ground of our salvation, is the completed work of Christ alone on our behalf. But all of us who have been saved must produce good works, if our faith is real. (born of God) If it’s not fraudulent. (See the parable of the sower) We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, but that faith is never alone. It’s a true and living faith that will persevere to the end.
LikeLike
Doug,
Is every Jew who was driven out of the land in hell?
Me: No. Daniel is a great example! He was driven out of the land, but he still witnessed the Triune God before many kings.
Erik asks: Is every Christian who was in a local church that Jesus has “taken away their lampstand” in hell?
No. Read the passage Erik! Even after threatening to take their Lampstand away (if they don’t repent) Jesus commends them for hating the works of the Nicolaitans, which God also hates. Sounds like they were theonomic, eh? What are the works of the Nicolaitans? Some sort of sexual depravity going on in their day.
Erik advises: I think you have a hard time separating the temporal and the eternal.
Me: Not at all Erik. We are instructed to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling”. My faith rests in Christ’s completed work on my behalf. (Praise God!) But that doesn’t mean I don’t press on to the higher calling found in Christ. Both are true.
LikeLike
Doug – “But all of us who have been saved must produce good works, if our faith is real. (born of God) If it’s not fraudulent.”
Erik –
What was the minimal amount of works required for Israel to stay in the land?
What is the minimal amount of works required for Jesus to not take away his lampstand?
If your answer is somewhere between “zero” and “perfect lawkeeping” how do you know?
LikeLike
Doug – Not at all Erik. We are instructed to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling”. My faith rests in Christ’s completed work on my behalf. (Praise God!) But that doesn’t mean I don’t press on to the higher calling found in Christ. Both are true.
Erik – Who here denies this? What are we arguing about?
LikeLike
Doug – “But all of us who have been saved must produce good works, if our faith is real. (born of God) If it’s not fraudulent.”
Erik –
What was the minimal amount of works required for Israel to stay in the land?
Me: Erik, just as it is today, it was a “heart issue”. God know how to judge his people.
What is the minimal amount of works required for Jesus to not take away his lampstand?
Me: Once again Erik, I’m a man like you. I am not able to judge the churches collective heart. Jesus says he will take care of that stuff
If your answer is somewhere between “zero” and “perfect lawkeeping” how do you know?
Me: Erik this is why we work out our salvation with “fear and trembling”. We can’t rest on yesterday’s revelation. We are in a *relationship* with God. He wants us to offer ourselves a living sacrifice EVERYDAY, which is our reasonable service. None of us are perfect, but if we confess our sins, to God daily we walk in his blessing.
LikeLike
Doug,
None of this stuff you are saying now is theonomic. The reason it’s hard to have a productive conversation with guys like you and Richard is that you kind of make things up as you go along according to your own readings of Scripture. You’re both moving targets and this gets old pretty quick for those who try to dialogue with you. It’s like trying to have a theological discussion with a 6-year-old. The arguments will be inconsistent and dependent on the 6-year-old’s mood that particular day.
LikeLike
You need to read the OPC Report on Justification and recognize the true implications of your view of the Law, even if you can’t see it. The leaders in your church recognize it.
Click to access justification.pdf
LikeLike
Erik, I think we can all go through times of doubt, I know I have. Especially when I have walked in rebellion to God. My walk with God has really had it’s ups and downs. But if I’ve learned one thing in my 55 years here on earth. Is that God want’s to have an close relationship with us, just like he did with Israel. He uses husband and wife imagery with both Israel and his church to show how intimant.
Why did God save us? So he would be our God, and we would be his people. He wants us to love him. But since we battle the flesh our confidence in Christ is something that is played out in our lives in real time. My salvation does not hinge on my ability to follow God, but my following God is the result of him saving me.
LikeLike
What your view of the law leads to is self-deception about how well you keep it. You curse and insult people here pretty much every day. We’re all used to it, so no one flinches, but this is just one example of how you don’t keep the law.
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” – Matthew 5:22
LikeLike
Erik, the position that I take in the debate over the book The Law Is Not Of Faith, is the main or normal *reformed* view. It has nothing to do with justification. Hart and company have departed from the normal understanding that there is only one covenant of grace, divided by different administrations.
My posts are mainly out to prove that there were temporal blessings for obedience both during the time of the law, as well as now. There were also curses for disobedience for both Israel and the church, as Scripture attests.
This whole fantasy that Israel had to keep perfect obedience to stay in the land is poppy cock! Just look at all the ordinances that offered forgiveness?
LikeLike
I appreciate your calm and reasoned tone today. If you can keep this up day-in-and-day out people will dialogue with you more seriously.
LikeLike
Doug – Erik, the position that I take in the debate over the book The Law Is Not Of Faith, is the main or normal *reformed* view. It has nothing to do with justification. Hart and company have departed from the normal understanding that there is only one covenant of grace, divided by different administrations.
Erik – From Amazon’s listing for “The Law is Not of Faith” – “This book explores issues pertaining to the doctrine of republication, once a staple in Reformed theology, a doctrine with far-reaching implications for justification, Paul’s theology, our relationship to Old Testament law, and more.”
This seems to be an historical debate.
LikeLike
You frequently cite Venema as being on your side. He doesn’t appear to be as down on the book as you are:
“This provocative volume makes a historical and biblical-theological case for understanding of the Mosaic administration in the covenant of grace as in some sense a ‘republished’ covenant of works, which teaches that only perfect obedience to the requirements of the law is sufficient to secure the covenant promise of life in communion with God. The authors ably refute recent attacks upon the classic Reformed understanding of the grace of free justification on the basis of the entire obedience and sacrifice of Christ alone. Though I am not persuaded by every formulation here, this volume deserves the careful attention of anyone who prizes the biblical teaching that the believer’s justification rests not on any works of his own, but solely on the full obedience of Christ.” –Cornelis Venema, President and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed Seminary
LikeLike
I know Erik, Dr. Venama is very polite, but a careful reading of his fifty page plus review leaves no doubt, that he disagrees with TLINOF.
There are some things in TLINOF that I even agree with! But this notion that God’s law is antithetical to faith in Christ just boils my blood! Nothing could be further from the truth imho.
LikeLike
Erik, it boils down to this, the only proof of this *working* principle in the law, is Paul in Galatians 3!!!
Now Erik, Galatians 3 is one of the most difficult and hard to understand chapters in the whole Bible. And Gordon wants to tell us, that Paul suddenly springs a new teaching that the law had two principles against each other? It doesn’t make sense for one second. At least to me. Can you make any sense out of two ways of salvation found in the law?
Me neither.
LikeLike
Doug, if it’s poppycock, then how much obedience was required to stay in the land? Did God reveal how much? If not, you’ve made God arbitrary (not to mention that you missed the point of the OT, but we’ve all seen that for a while).
LikeLike
Erik,
There’s more than one place, sort of like the entire book of Romans. Here’s a good link on Rom 9:32 which basically sinks Doug’s entire premise by which he argues that they(jews) failed because they failed to pursue it by faith. As if that would make any sense regardless, because of the repeated pedagogical use of the law, the necessity of Christ to come at all and if the law and it’s correspondence to faith is in essence the same as the NC those ‘curse sanctions’ that christ nailed to the cross, yea, not so much.
Click to access romans_932.pdf
LikeLike
Erik asks: Doug, if it’s poppycock, then how much obedience was required to stay in the land?
Me: You are framing the question wrong. It’s not a matter of *how* much obedience to stay in the land, or how much obedience so our church doesn’t get it’s lampstand pulled back by Jesus; it’s a *heart* issue. God wants it all! He wants to be number one in our life as in “first love”!
So to ask “how much law keeping, or obedience is to miss the point. Each day we are to offer ourselves up a living sacrifice. If you do that Erik, you will be fine!
LikeLike
DGH, for you to ask, “how much obedience” to stay in the land, is just like asking “how much love” must I love Jesus with, so he doesn’t take our churches lampstand.
Jesus asks for our whole heart, not “how much”. Jesus wants it all. He’s the judge. “It’s heart issue”, Hart! When we fall short, we cry out for mercy, knowing we have an advocate with the Father. Stay in the conversation.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
DGH pontificates: “Did God reveal how much? If not, you’ve made God arbitrary (not to mention that you missed the point of the OT, but we’ve all seen that for a while).”
Me: who are you to call God arbitrary? Since when do you get to make up the rules? We have the same ethical standard that Israel had. God knows how to judge his people, and it’s not up to you to ask, “how much”? How lame is that?
Who told you it was a matter of “how much”, anyway? Just to give you a hint Darryl, Paul told you to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Perhaps you should be less flip about salvation, and walk like Scripture tells us to walk. We rely in Christ as our righteousness even in our good works.
LikeLike
DGH let’s never forget that God is longsuffering and doesn’t ever give us what we deserve, “right away”. Listen to Jesus own words:
“But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I GAVE HER TIME TO REPENT, BUT SHE REFUSES TO REPENT OF HER SEXUAL IMMORALITY.
Me: Okay Darryl, Notice that Jesus has been patient. He doesn’t have a hair trigger when he’s judging his people. But if we won’t repent, (and none of us knows exactly when or where that point is) Jesus says he will strike her children dead! These are the people who are Jezebel’s disciple in the church. Jesus says he will strike them dead!!!
This is every bit a temporal as the Mosaic covenant when God killed some in Israel for the same sin! It would be foolhardy to ask, “how much immorality can I do, before Jesus will kill me”?
Yet that seems to be DGH’s main question, which is a false question.
LikeLike
Erik, what do you make of these temporal blessings Jesus promises to those who conquer in the church of Pergaman?
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.”
Me: Would you ask Jesus how *much* conquering you have to do, before you get the manna and a stone?
That is just a silly, as asking how much law keeping you need to do to be saved. It’s God working in and through us Erik, IF you are truly saved, (and I believe you’re a good brother Erik) You will produce the fruit of the Spirit and you will persevere. It’s a benefit of being born of God.
But this question of *how* much is unbiblical! imho You need to say, you must endure to the end! Which is a direct quote from the Lord Jesus BTW
LikeLike
Doug – It’s not a matter of *how* much obedience to stay in the land, or how much obedience so our church doesn’t get it’s lampstand pulled back by Jesus; it’s a *heart* issue. God wants it all! He wants to be number one in our life as in “first love”!
So to ask “how much law keeping, or obedience is to miss the point. Each day we are to offer ourselves up a living sacrifice. If you do that Erik, you will be fine!
Erik – Ouch. I don’t do that well, either. When Jesus moves from “external” obedience to the law to “heart” obedience in the Sermon on the Mount (“You have heard it said…but I say to you”) he is making lawkeeping HARDER, not easier. You deceive yourself, Doug, if you think you keep the law “in your heart”. You don’t. Neither do I or anyone else here. We see that on exhibit in our interactions each and every day.
LikeLike
Consider how Ursinus & Olevianus put sanctification in the third (gratitude) section of the Heidelberg Catechism. Good works, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer are all expounded upon.
The second (grace) section includes who Christ is, Christ’s work, justification, the sacraments, preaching, and church discipline.
The distinctions between these two sections are profound and essential to what it means to be a Reformed Christian.
LikeLike
When you exhort people to “keep pressing on!”, consider that as Reformed Christians we say that God is primarily the one at work in our sanctification. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the Westminster Shorter Catechism has 6 questions on the Sabbath. What do we do on the Sabbath? We gather with the church to hear preaching, to pray, and to partake of the sacraments. The rest of the day we rest and then we perhaps gather with the church again in the evening. This is a day far more for receiving what God grants us to strengthen us in the Christian life than it is for “doing” or “pressing on”.
One of the most valuable concepts I learned as a new, Reformed believer is Law & Gospel, Word & Sacrament. “Law & Gospel”, as in, there is a difference between them, “Word & Sacrament”, as in, those are the primary means by which we grow as Christians. This is life-changing, paradigm-shifting stuff.
LikeLike
EC: One of the most valuable concepts I learned as a new, Reformed believer is Law & Gospel, Word & Sacrament. “Law & Gospel”, as in, there is a difference between them, “Word & Sacrament”, as in, those are the primary means by which we grow as Christians. This is life-changing, paradigm-shifting stuff.
RS: On the other hand, the Scriptures themselves do not hold out the Sacraments as primary means by which people grow as Christians. We do not see Paul teaching that the Sacraments are the primary means we grow as Christians in the only real places he spoke of the Supper in parts of I Cor 10 and 11. What we do see is that “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (II Peter 1:2) and “that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (II Peter 1:3). This passage fits with the letters of Paul where he begins the letter with a “grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
LikeLike
Erik says: When you exhort people to “keep pressing on!”, consider that as Reformed Christians we say that God is primarily the one at work in our sanctification.”
Me: Erik, what do you *think* about Paul’s exhortation?
Phil. 2:12
“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”
Erik, Paul clearly agrees that God works in us, but he also tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, BECAUSE God is working in us!
My concern with some of you guys, is that you NEVER talk like Paul does over and over again.
Erik, Why do you think it’s so hard for Old Lifers to talk about working out their salvation with fear and trembling??? I never ever hear anyone say anything like that!
LikeLike
Jesus says: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.”
Erik, would you ask the Lord Jesus, “how much obedience do I need to do, before I get some of that manna? Would you ask Jesus, “how much law keeping should I do, to get one of those cool stones with a name on it, only I know”?
I wouldn’t think you would 😉
So why would anyone ask some of the bazaar questions Darryl keeps asking?
How much law keeping to stay in the land? Puleeze!
To ask such a flippant question makes you guilty the second it comes out of your mouth, no?
LikeLike
Doug, you have warmed Richard’s heart (and once again established the neonomian links between Edwards and Bahnsen).
LikeLike
Doug, unless you are a person thoroughly shaped by our therapeutic times (hardly your profile here), then asking a question is not exactly pontification. If you can’t rightly assess a comment, how much more the word of God?
LikeLike
But, Richard, you have to remember we’re the ones who subscribe the Belgic, which says:
“We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith.
He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.
For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.”
LikeLike
Doug,
Look at the context of Paul’s statement in Philippians 2:
Christ’s Example of Humility
2 “So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,1 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,2 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Lights in the World
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. 17 Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. 18 Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.”
This passage is pure law for the Christian, and like all of the law, needs to be viewed in the context of the gospel. In other words, interpret Paul in light of Paul. Christ is our lawkeeper and the only way we are enabled to keep some small measure of the law ourselves is through hearing the Word & partaking of the sacraments. God uses these means to sanctify us and help us slowly grow as Christians.
LikeLike
When Paul says “therefore” in v. 12, he is saying, “In light of what Christ has done”. Does Christ just leave us to our own efforts at that point? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Erik, as long as you understand the law, like David you will be fine. David loved the law! Take a listen to a man after God’s own heart, on how we need to see the law with some select cuts from Psalm 119
verss 174: “I long for your salvation, O LORD, and your law is my delight.”
See Erik? No such thing as Golawpel! There is no conflict with our salvation in Christ, and delighting in the law! David didn’t mix up Christ with the law, but David still loved the law, because it’s holy!
verse 136: My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.”
This is why we should all be concerned when people in America flagrantly mock God’s law like the sodomite marriage issue. Erik, we *should* feel like David, who was a type of Christ.
verse 158: “I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands.”
Erik, why do you suppose David (who was a man after God’s own heart) looked at the faithless with disgust? Shouldn’t we feel that way as well?
verse 113: “I hate the double-minded, but I love your law.
Once again, David hated the double minded! Amen and amen!
verse 160: The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
Notice the sum of the word is truth, there is no phony works principle tucked in the law.
verse 97: “Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.”
Erik, how about praying that God makes verse 97 a reality in your life? Ask God to show you how to love, and view his law as you should.
verse 127 “Therefore I love your commandments above gold, above fine gold.”
Erik, can you honestly say that? I know I can’t, but we should both pray that God makes that a reality in our hearts. If David, (who was a man after God’s own heart) could say that, so should we!!!
LikeLike
Doug – “Erik, as long as you understand the law, like David you will be fine.”
Erik -If David loved the law, what’s with that Bathsheba thing? How helpful was David’s love for God’s law to him at that hour?
I just can’t accept your framework for understanding Reformed theology and most other Reformed people don’t either, but that’s not news to you.
LikeLike
Richard – “On the other hand, the Scriptures themselves do not hold out the Sacraments as primary means by which people grow as Christians.”
Erik – First off, “Word & Sacrament” (and prayer, in the Westminster formulation), do not seem to indicate that the Sacraments are “primary”, whatever you mean by that.
Since you’re a Bible guy, consider this argument:
Read Matthew 14:13-21 where Jesus feeds the 5000. Note the “taking – blessing – breaking – giving” pattern with Jesus and the bread.
Then read Matthew 26:26 where Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper with the same formulation of “taking – blessing – breaking – giving”.
Then note John 6 where Jesus is feeding people physically but goes on to tell people that He is the bread of life.
Clearly Jesus is pointing to the Supper as much more than just a memorial or remembrance, thus the stress it receives as a means of grace in the Reformed Confessions.
My point is, you can be a Bible guy and have a robust sacramental theology at the same time.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, you have to remember we’re the ones who subscribe the Belgic, which says:
“We believe that our good God, mindful of our crudeness and weakness, has ordained sacraments for us to seal his promises in us, to pledge his good will and grace toward us, and also to nourish and sustain our faith.
He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.
For they are visible signs and seals of something internal and invisible, by means of which God works in us through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they are not empty and hollow signs to fool and deceive us, for their truth is Jesus Christ, without whom they would be nothing.”
RS: What I was arguing against, Zrim, was that the sacraments are the main way Christians grow. I am not arguing that they are not a way, but that they are the main way or the main means of grace.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, I’ll admit I too can give you a run for your money! That’s why we butt heads so much. I don’t make a pretense of having “religious affections”, though.
RS: So no love and joy of the Holy Spirit? That does not sound good at all.
EC: That’s the difference between an Old Schooler & a New Schooler. We admit to our sanctification being very much a work in progress.
RS: I think that the difference is something else because those who believe the truth about religious affections know that the whole of sanctification is also a progressive work of God.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: One of the most valuable concepts I learned as a new, Reformed believer is Law & Gospel, Word & Sacrament. “Law & Gospel”, as in, there is a difference between them, “Word & Sacrament”, as in, those are the primary means by which we grow as Christians. This is life-changing, paradigm-shifting stuff.
Erik quoting Richard: Richard – “On the other hand, the Scriptures themselves do not hold out the Sacraments as primary means by which people grow as Christians.”
Erik – First off, “Word & Sacrament” (and prayer, in the Westminster formulation), do not seem to indicate that the Sacraments are “primary”, whatever you mean by that.
RS: Erik, you were the one that used the phrase (see just above) and that is what I am giving an argument against.
EC: Since you’re a Bible guy, consider this argument:
Read Matthew 14:13-21 where Jesus feeds the 5000. Note the “taking – blessing – breaking – giving” pattern with Jesus and the bread.
RS: Yes, a miracle, but no sacrament.
EC: Then read Matthew 26:26 where Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper with the same formulation of “taking – blessing – breaking – giving”.
RS: Yes, so? Just because He followed a basic formulation like that does not mean that it is the primary means by which Christians grow.
EC: Then note John 6 where Jesus is feeding people physically but goes on to tell people that He is the bread of life.
RS: Indeed, but there is still no mention of the sacraments in that passage. In fact, Peter tells Jesus that He had words of eternal life, not the sacrament of eternal life, but words of eternal life (John 6:68)
EC: Clearly Jesus is pointing to the Supper as much more than just a memorial or remembrance, thus the stress it receives as a means of grace in the Reformed Confessions.
RS: No, Jesus is not doing that in John 6. He also did not say that it was a primary means by which we grow as Christians.
EC: My point is, you can be a Bible guy and have a robust sacramental theology at the same time.
RS: Depending on what you mean be being a Bible guy and a robust sacramental theology. Virtually all people withing the real of Christendom claim to be Bible guys. Nevertheless. the point at issue was your statement: ““Word & Sacrament”, as in, those are the primary means by which we grow as Christians.”
LikeLike
Richard,
I won’t be sending you any connect the dots puzzles for Christmas.
LikeLike
Richard,
The good news is that there’s a whole big world of evangelicals out there who are willing to share your views on the sacramants (especially the Supper). You can go to their churches & partake and they will tell you it’s no big deal — just a remembrance of Jesus. No church membership required. It will be grape juice, too, which I know you’ll appreciate.
LikeLike
Oh, and SC88.
🙂
LikeLike
Richard, then you were arguing against a view that wasn’t even being put forth. But the way you semi-revivalist experimental Calvinists do the Communion Season, one wonders just who is making more of the Supper than is warranted.
LikeLike
Romans 4: 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Of course Doug would qualify this……now to the one who works in the wrong way, his wages are counted as his due….now to the one who works with the wrong motives, his wages are counted as his due….now to the works without a good heart, his wages are counted as his due
Doug wants to get rid of the “as his due”, because he sure’s that the judge is not strict, that the judge will cut those in the covenant a little slack, that Jesus will pick up the difference, so Doug resents the “how much” and “how often” and “how long” questions and suggests that even asking them is evidence of a bad heart.
But the answer is clear. All or nothing. There is no balance, there is no tension. Whatever way you work, if the reward is conditioned on works of any kind,then the result must be “as his due”.
The answer is zero or 100%. Eternal life is not by our works. This is why Romans 9 speaks of those not even pursuing the law receiving the righteousness. Those who “receive the kingdom” are like children who are totally dependent on somebody else. The gospel is not about children becoming like adults, but about adults becoming like children when it comes to depending on the work of another.
How much are Doug’s children doing to stay in the family?
from Sam Leith, London Telegraph 2005 —The Calvinist idea is that divine grace, over which we have no control, brings about faith. Faith brings about salvation. Ergo, if you’re not touched by grace, there’s nothing you can do…. This is a pretty crazy view to take, most of us would agree, and historically it has tended to be discouraged by both civic and religious authorities for rather obvious reasons.”
Romans 9:11 teaches that we cannot teach grace alone without teaching “for the elect alone”.
“Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”
LikeLike
Guys,
I have to support Richard here, he so far is only objecting to the sacraments being presented as a primary means of grace; our own standards call them secondary, not primary. Obviously as a baptist he would view them a bit differently, but one of my concerns with weekly communion is that in many people’s mind the Supper moves from secondary to primary, which is unhealthy and imbalanced.
LikeLike
Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”
Doesn’t the apostle Paul understand that you can say “not by works “ without talking about election? Why doesn’t Paul just say: “by faith and not by works”? Why does he bring in this idea of a remnant which is elected by grace?
Paul writes about election in order to explain what he means by works. Unlike Doug, Paul does not regard faith and works as synonyms. Nor does Paul regard works as a substitute for faith, or faith as a substitute for works. Nor is Paul Goldilocks–just the right balance of both. No, Paul does antithesis. If our works, not grace. If grace, not our works
LikeLike
Todd,
Q. 88. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.[184]
If the Word, sacraments, and prayer are “secondary”, what is “primary”?
Richard’s the one who created the straw man (thanks, Bryan) by only commenting on the sacraments.
See if I have your back on bestiality again…(ha, ha).
LikeLike
Todd,
I also know you feel strongly about getting everyone out in an hour which could be coloring your judgment on weekly communion.
LikeLike
Todd, weekly is routine and routine has a way of restraining the over-realization of a thing. It’s making a practice less than routine (e.g. monthly, quarterly, the yearly Communion Season) that tends to elevate its meaning and import. This is the irony of your opposition to weekly communion: the more time put between its practice the more pietism creeps in, and voila, week long self-examinations.
LikeLike
@todd
Could you reference the creed or catechism that categorizes certain means of grace as primary and others as secondary? I’d be interested in what is meant by such a distinction. I wasn’t aware of that distinction.
Also, I fear that we too often equate “Word” with the homily. I see no reason why that should be the case. For the most part, I prefer to have more responsive readings, 2-3 psalms sung, and a homily that exceeds no more than 15-20 minutes. It strikes me that longer homilies are borne out of a revivalistic tendency to believe that the congregation needs to be taught something. In general, I think we should suppose that most in the pew are familiar with the Scriptures and are well catechized. Lengthy, didactic homilies seem to suppose that that’s not the case. Also, my maternal side is Dutch (RCA), so I’m genetically predisposed to want the worship service to end in under 60 minutes.
LikeLike
Erik,
No, the length of service has nothing to do with my concern with weekly communion. And the preaching and teaching of the Word is the primary means of grace. And while I know you are only joking on the bestiality issue, do not let those introducing a new legalism define the debate. My only point about bestiality laws was to defend the practice of all the churches that we do not discipline people for voting a certain way in the political realm, even on the state enforcing against sexual sins, etc…. If they want to change the practice let them introduce those changes in our denominations and let them be debated and voted on. And do not let them define as radical those who defend the Christian liberty we have always allowed.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Homily? Presbyterian & Reformed? What am I missing here?
I have no objection to long sermons, as long as the text being preached warrants it. Today the best stuff was at the end of the sermon. We’re usually at 90 minutes from beginning to end and that is fine with me.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Those terms are not used in the confessions, but used in the reformation writings and are reflected in WSC Q&A 89. How is the word made effectual to salvation? ANSWER: The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.
“With the Reformation the emphasis was shifted from the sacraments to the Word of God. Luther gave great prominence to the Word of God as the primary means of grace. He pointed out that the sacraments have no significance apart from the Word and are in fact merely the visible Word.”
(Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 607)
If this restoration of preaching to a place of centrality in the worship of God’s people was a feature of the Reformation, embracing Lutheran and Reformed churches alike, it was most especially a distinctive feature of the Reformed churches. Though the Reformed churches did not abandon the historic Christian view of Christ’s real presence in the sacraments, they insisted that the pre-eminent means by which Christ exercised communion with his people was through the Word preached. (Cornelius P. Venema – THE DOCTRINE OF PREACHING IN THE
REFORMED CONFESSIONS)
“The Reformers sometimes said that the Word of God is primary and the sacraments are secondary.” (RC Sproul)
Zrim,
That certainly could happen, but it all depends on how the Supper is presented and fenced. I have rarely seen, at least in my circles, such week-long self-examinations in prep for the monthly Supper.
LikeLike
sdb: RS, Never heard that one before…kinda clunky for an “old saying”.
RS: It is an old saying as to the heart of it, but my memory might have changed a bit and so clunked it up.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Doug, None of this stuff you are saying now is theonomic. The reason it’s hard to have a productive conversation with guys like you and Richard is that you kind of make things up as you go along according to your own readings of Scripture.
RS: EC, you just made that up.
EC: You’re both moving targets and this gets old pretty quick for those who try to dialogue with you. It’s like trying to have a theological discussion with a 6-year-old. The arguments will be inconsistent and dependent on the 6-year-old’s mood that particular day.
RS: I know that you are hard pressed to keep up with those 6-yr olds as you have just admitted trying to have discussions for them, but maybe that is why you are hard pressed when trying to discuss a real theological or biblical issue. You have been trying to do that with 6 yr olds too much.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard,
I won’t be sending you any connect the dots puzzles for Christmas.
RS: Okay, but try connecting the dots to the next two comments.
EC: My point is, you can be a Bible guy and have a robust sacramental theology at the same time.
RS: The Pope thinks that about himself as well.
LikeLike
todd: Guys, I have to support Richard here, he so far is only objecting to the sacraments being presented as a primary means of grace; our own standards call them secondary, not primary. Obviously as a baptist he would view them a bit differently, but one of my concerns with weekly communion is that in many people’s mind the Supper moves from secondary to primary, which is unhealthy and imbalanced.
RS: Thanks, Todd, for pointing that out. That is all I was trying to get at from EC’s comment.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard, I won’t be sending you any connect the dots puzzles for Christmas.
RS: Okay, I will stop resisting and just say it. One, you stress the sacraments much like Rome does. 2. You celebrate a say of the birth of Christ just when Rome tells you. 3. You even follow Rome in its celebration of a mass (Christ–mass) on the day that Rome tells you to do so. Perhaps a good book on hermeneutics would be a good gift for you on any day but December 25. The mail does not run on that day as it follows Rome as well.
But back to hermeneutics. You cannot just connect some dots and expect to have a theological picture come into view. The text in its own context must say what it says and nothing more.
LikeLike
todd Bobby, Those terms are not used in the confessions, but used in the reformation writings and are reflected in WSC Q&A 89. How is the word made effectual to salvation? ANSWER: The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.
RS: I thought I might add a couple from the Larger Catechism.
WLC Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.[992]
Q. 155. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening,[993] convincing, and humbling sinners;[994] of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ;[995] of conforming them to his image,[996] and subduing them to his will;[997] of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions;[998] of building them up in grace,[999] and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.[1000]
Todd: “With the Reformation the emphasis was shifted from the sacraments to the Word of God. Luther gave great prominence to the Word of God as the primary means of grace. He pointed out that the sacraments have no significance apart from the Word and are in fact merely the visible Word. (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 607)
RS: Which was Calvin’s view according to Wallace and his book on Calvin and the Sacraments.
LikeLike
Belgic Article 33: The Sacraments
He has added these to the Word of the gospel to represent better to our external senses both what he enables us to understand by his Word and what he does inwardly in our hearts, confirming in us the salvation he imparts to us.
LikeLike
Sean, take a listen to Turretin; I think he answers some questions you have on Galatians 3
In defense of the fourth opinion, Turretin argues that the Mosaic administration was an administration of the covenant of grace. Since there are only two kinds of covenants, a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, he rejects outright the idea that the Mosaic administration was a third kind of covenant.
For Turretin, the Mosaic administration was “as to substance and species … nothing else than a new economy of the covenant of grace.”36 The Mosaic covenant was no different in its substance than the covenant with Abraham, though by its promulgation of the law it was “clothed as to external
dispensation with the form of a covenant of works ….”37 The specific purpose of the Mosaic administration’s promulgation of the law was not to reinstitute a covenant of works with Israel, but to remind Israel of her sinful inability to do what the law demands and thereby cultivate a more ardent thirst for the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
The law served Israel as a pedagogue that led her by the hand to Christ, and taught the people that there is no basis for salvation than that which is found in him. In his elaboration of the place of the
law, narrowly considered, within the Mosaic administration, Turretin offers an account that closely resembles the one we have already observed in Calvin.
The Mosaic covenant may be viewed in two aspects: either according to the
intention and design of God and in order to Christ; or separately and abstracted
from him. In the latter way, it is really distinct from the covenant of grace
because it coincides with the covenant of works and in this sense is called the
letter that killeth and the ministration of condemnation, when its nature is
spoken (2 Cor. 3:6,7).
But it is unwarrantably abstracted here because it must always be considered with the intention of God, which was, not that man might have life from the law or as a sinner might be simply condemned, but that from a sense of his own misery and weakness he might fly for refuge to Christ.
In this explanation, Turretin is making a point that we witnessed in Calvin’s
conception of the Mosaic administration. When New Testament writers
(especially the apostle Paul) contrast the “law” of Moses and the covenant of
grace in Christ, the contrast is not between the Mosaic covenant as such and
the covenant of grace.
The contrast is between the law, abstracted from its setting within the Mosaic administration and considered only in terms of what it demands and promises, and the covenant of grace. However, when the law, narrowly considered, is regarded as having been promulgated by God through
Moses to teach Israel to find salvation through works of obedience, then the law has been turned to a design contrary to God’s intention.
Within the purposes of the God of the covenant, the Mosaic law was designed to serve the
preaching of Christ and to point Israel to the only Mediator whose obedience
could procure salvation. In a statement that both anticipates and opposes the
appeal of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith to a passage like Galatians3:12, Turretin observes that Paul speaks of the law “not as taken broadly and denoting the Mosaic economy, but strictly as taken for the moral law abstractly and apart from the promises of grace (as the legalists regarded it who sought life from it).”39 In Galatians 3:12, accordingly, the apostle Paul is not equating
the “law” with the Mosaic administration as such, and then sharply opposing the Mosaic administration to the covenant of grace. Rather, the apostle is contrasting what the law, wrested from its covenant setting, demands, and arguing against his legalistic opponents who pursued a righteousness that consisted in obedience to the law.
Though I will have occasion in what follows to consider further Turretin’s
view of the role of the law in the Mosaic economy, it does not appear from
my summary thus far that Turretin understands it to function at some level
as a covenant of works. To be sure, Turretin affirms that the law, narrowly
considered, reminds Israel of the requirements and consequences of obedience,
and thereby closes the door to justification and life by the works of the law.
In this respect, the law reiterates the demands of the covenant of works and
shows why the promise of life and blessing cannot be obtained through the
law. However, in doing so the law serves the gospel of God’s grace in Christ,
demonstrating that the covenant of works has been wholly abrogated as an
instrument for obtaining life. Part of God’s purpose in giving the law within the
broad framework of the Mosaic economy was to point Israel to Christ who alone
fulfills all the obligations of the law on behalf of his people. To view the law as
though it were given covenantally as a means for obtaining the blessing of life
and justification would be to “abstract” the law from the promises of grace that
are an integral part of the Mosaic economy. Indeed, such an abstraction of the
law from its divinely-intended place within the Mosaic economy is the error
of the legalists whom the apostle Paul opposes in his letter to the Galatians.
Though the Mosaic administration may include a formal republication of the
law’s obligations, together with the consequences that follow in the instance of
obedience or disobedience to its requirements, it does not thereby reinstitute
at some level the pre-fall covenant of works.
LikeLike
Good work Todd! Once again, you show christian charity to men you normally disagree with, such as Richard. I really like that about you Todd, God bless you and keep pressing on!
Rest in his completed work,
Doug
LikeLike
Doug, how exactly is this Turretin? If you were writing a paper, you get an F for confusing someone writing about Turretin with Turretin. You actually need to read the real sources instead of relying on everyone else who supports your view.
LikeLike
Todd/Bobby/Richard, advocates for frequency understand that the Word is the primary means of grace. What we don’t understand is why any means of grace would be neglected, that is if it does what we confess it does—if Word and prayer are regular every week then why not sacrament?
Todd, then you haven’t experienced certain Dutch Reformed circles where it’s quarterly and navel-gazey. But how do you avoid the natural result that infrequency nurtures, namely that staving it off must mean it’s extra special? Think birthdays versus every days.
Erik, I have to admit Bobby is quite onto something about long and didactic sermonizing. It feels like another way the Reformed can baptize the intellect. Are we being made into disciples or pupils?
LikeLike
ZrimL Todd/Bobby/Richard, advocates for frequency understand that the Word is the primary means of grace. What we don’t understand is why any means of grace would be neglected, that is if it does what we confess it does—if Word and prayer are regular every week then why not sacrament?
RS: One reason would be that Scripture gives us examples of longer sermons and only one example of giving the Sacrament. Timothy was commanded to preach the Word in season and out of season, but never to give the Sacrament. So the emphasis of Scripture is on preaching Scripture.
Zrim: Todd, then you haven’t experienced certain Dutch Reformed circles where it’s quarterly and navel-gazey. But how do you avoid the natural result that infrequency nurtures, namely that staving it off must mean it’s extra special? Think birthdays versus every days.
RS: But we are commanded to examine ourselves before we take the Supper. Self-examination is not the same thing as gazing at the navel as one must be examining one’s life and heart.
Zrim: Erik, I have to admit Bobby is quite onto something about long and didactic sermonizing. It feels like another way the Reformed can baptize the intellect. Are we being made into disciples or pupils?
RS: But notice the polarizing view of Bobby betweem the Word and Sacrament, not to mention your possible view as well. While it is true that long sermons that sound like one is reading a commentary and going through position A -F can be nothing more than baptizing the intellect, still the Scripture speaks a lot about preaching and certainly it was the view of the Reformation that preaching be returned to the center of worship. A sermon of decent length (30-45 min) is not that long when Christ crucified is being proclaimed in the sense that Christ is being proclaimed rather than a scholarly work on a text or topic.
When the sermon is the focus it will be longer, but when the Sacrament is the focus the sermon will necessarily be shorter. It is much the same in so-called evangelical circles. The more music that they have (call it worship) then the shorter the sermon. So it would appear to me that the praise bands and a focus on the Sacraments do the same thing, which is to take the focus away from the sermon which is supposed to be the proclamation of Christ crucified since that is what Paul says he did. If Calvin was right, then preaching Christ is the main thing and it must be the focus.
LikeLike
I agree with dgh about the connection between Edwards and Bahnsen. But the agreement between theonomy and the “federal vision” view of objective sacraments is even tighter. As Gary North would explain, the beauty of the law is that law lets you off the hook after you have done enough, so you don’t need to feel infinitely guilty.
In such an economy, a time limit of one hour sermons would be “grace”. God save us from the Al Martins and Spurgeons of the world who pour their theology through every verse, two or three chapters a year….
Peter Leithart: “Calvin was fatally wrong in suggesting that Galatianism was found wherever there is an emphasis on ritual. Calvin not withstanding, the redemptive-historical move that the New
Testament announces is not from ritual to non-ritual, not from an Old Covenant economy of signs to a New Covenant economy beyond signs.”
Against Christianity, p80
LikeLike
Doug,
Interesting quote-see Darryl’s comment. However, the quote does acknowledge both a republication of the pre fall covenant but not formally considered(here I would argue the Abrahamic underlies the mosaic admin.) and the use of this republication for pedagogical use. It’s a good start. Two things I don’t see argued; one, there is no putting forth of the law ‘legitimately’ pursued if pursued by faith. That’s an important negation. Accomplishment and pursuit of the law that justifies(rightly, legitimately) if pursued by faith(assuming grace empowered and holy spirit enabled) is an RC scheme. Your language and explanation tends to trend this direction. Second, the misuse/abuse intepretation is stated but an exegetical case is not argued for it from Galatians. I’m still holding to Paul’s explanation of Lev 18:5 as a contrary works principle. Now, remember there’s other things that we could say about the law, but in Gal. this is what Paul is choosing to highlight at this point and is his ground for arguing the pedagogical use of the Law. We don’t have complete agreement, but this is moving in a better direction.
LikeLike
Paul Zahl on Imputation preaching: It will always make you feel worse about yourself, in order to then make you feel better about God. Infusion instead offers you a way to feel better about yourself, that will not last if you do not dot every “I” and cross every “T”, and ultimately, it will let you down on the day that you die.
The nature of imputation is cyclical while the nature of infusion is progressive. This preaching is for brand new people, or life-long Christians. Imputation gives you the same church every Sunday of our life, year in, year out, rain or shine. It is: “Welcome to the atonement (once again)”. There is no graduation, only Christ and Him crucified.
Imputation preaching always returns the individual to first principles. Christ’s death and resurrection is always the antidote to whatever ails you. Infusion of grace, on the other hand, can only ever hold the carrot of a better day soon (or at some point in the future) in front of you. Infusion views the spiritual life as being a marathon, as being an opportunity to persevere. Imputation preaching says the race has already been won.
Where advice is needed infusion preaching says the classic: “Don’t just sit there; do something!” Imputation instead retorts: “Don’t just do something; sit there in faith!” Infusion typically teaches that “God’s hands and feet on Earth are his people.” Imputation insists that God has His own feet and His own hands.
Imputation preaching often discourages. It always suggests repentance. Imputation preaching believes in tears and despises false progress, fake answers to daily problems. It lets the individual cry without offering false hope. Phony dreams must die. Imputation believes that the old being does not need to be sustained, and that it cannot be reformed. This means that imputation often encourages collapse. Imputation cannot encourage improvement. Imputation always hopes for something new and for something from the outside!
LikeLike
Richard – The text in its own context must say what it says and nothing more.
Erik – So you’re not a Trinitarian? Where’s your proof text on that.
Who is “you”? Me? The Presbyterian & Reformed Confessions? Presbyterian & Reformed churches?
I’m actually sympathetic with you on Christmas. I’m not enthusiastic about the Church recognizing these Holidays. The Lord’s Day is sufficient.
Let me know if you find a Reformed Baptist church that doesn’t recognize Christmas.
LikeLike
Zrim – Erik, I have to admit Bobby is quite onto something about long and didactic sermonizing. It feels like another way the Reformed can baptize the intellect. Are we being made into disciples or pupils?
Erik – Both. How else are we going to take on the Doug’s & Richard’s of the world?
I fear that those who are critical of preaching suffer from having a bad preacher. When you have a good one, you are excited about hearing sermons and are always looking forward to the next one. Find a better preacher.
LikeLike
Zrim: Todd, then you haven’t experienced certain Dutch Reformed circles where it’s quarterly and navel-gazey.
Todd: True, I have not experienced that.
Zrim: But how do you avoid the natural result that infrequency nurtures, namely that staving it off must mean it’s extra special? Think birthdays versus every days.
Todd: Well, I would actually call monthly frequent opposed to infrequent, but I just don’t see it treated as more special than preaching because it is monthly. Our diaconal offering is once a month also, but I don’t see anybody treating that more special than the regular weekly offering.
Zrim: Erik, I have to admit Bobby is quite onto something about long and didactic sermonizing.
Todd: I agree, which is why I am not comfortable with the practice of taking notes during a sermon. I realize some people learn better that way, but this is not a college lecture. When you read Calvin or Luther’s sermons, you see that they were not very long sermons, and they were fairly simple. I wish I could find the quote, but I remember reading Luther somewhere that if it takes you more than 30 minutes to preach a passage you yourself probably do not understand it. I would add, or you are more interested in your own thoughts than the meaning of the text.
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the sacrament of “ordination” has priority over both Word and sacrament. All elders have an equal vote in the local session. But In some denominations, the “ordained” pastor is given no vote in the local congregational session. In “presbyterianism” local congregations are united in accountability to a regional body called the presbytery, or, among Continental Reformed bodies, the classis. Presbyteries are made up of clergy from each parish, as well as other clergy such as theological college professors, chaplains, and retired ministers. When there is a larger number of “ordained” clergy than ruling elders, additional ruling elders are appointed to redress the imbalance. The clergy in the presbytery are not required to represent the majority view of their congregations.
None of this strictly applies to Independent Presbyterian in Savannah. Things will be ok if the local ordained pastor is respected by other respected clergy, in our denomination and in others, both famous and not…
LikeLike
Richard, I don’t see how just because a sermon is rightly Christ and him crucified justifies long windedness. It’s bad stewardship of time, frankly, and it only nurtures sentimentalism. If dining is the analogy, even good food should be limited and modestly consumed.
Erik, we sit under orthodox gospel preaching (WSC trained). Quality isn’t the problem. But when the point gets made five or six times, one wonders if over-emphasizing the audible Word is at least part of the reason the visible Word is so infrequent. Todd worries about over-emphasizing the latter, but my point is to balance the two and make both regular, which would mean editing the sermon. Besides, isn’t simplicity a Reformed virtue? If Jesus tells us to keep our prayers concise and not long winded, why not sermons?
Todd, bingo on note taking. I’d only add that the ear is the muscle of faith (not the hand). I often wonder if we’ve lost the ability to listen well and how note taking has only added to it.
LikeLike
DGH, good point, that post was Dr. Venama recapitulating Turritan, my bad.
LikeLike
Sean says: “I’m still holding to Paul’s explanation of Lev 18:5 as a contrary works principle.”
Me: Sean, both you and Gordon *assert* that Paul is teaching a working principle. He’s not! Moreover, Gordon doesn’t attempt to interact with what Lev 18:5 meant in it’s original context. As Dr. Venama points out, it certainly wasn’t teaching a working principle in it’s original context. This is very problematic for anyone to take Gordon seriously.
To believe Gordon, Paul suddenly springs a new understanding of the Sinai law, in the letter of Galatians. Before Galatians, we didn’t see this “working principle” taught in Scripture. But now, Gordon insists we have to accept that Paul is talking about the discontinuities within the law itself in principle. Rubbish!
Gordon, never interacts with the *normal* understanding of Galatians, he just demands we must accept his self contradictory thesis. I wouldn’t trust Gordon as far as I could throw him. Since he didn’t interact with the *normal* reformed understanding of Gal 3, I feel no need to take him serious. Gordon is so inept, he didn’t even know that Dr. John Murray had written on the Lev 18:5 question quite extensively. In other words, Gordon is a slip shod theologian. He doesn’t even get the facts correctly before he huffs and puffs.
,
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I don’t see how just because a sermon is rightly Christ and him crucified justifies long windedness. It’s bad stewardship of time, frankly, and it only nurtures sentimentalism. If dining is the analogy, even good food should be limited and modestly consumed.
RS: It depends on what one thinks long windedness is. The person that loves the taste of good food or drink seems to extol the virtues of that food or drink and is not so concerned to make sure that the time is short. The soul that loves Christ wants to taste and see that the Lord is good. In good preaching, as noted by Erik (can’t believe I am in agreement on him, so maybe I am wrong here), one wants to hear more. When I hear a good preacher (one who preaches Christ Himself and not just something about Him from a text) I am disappointed when the sermon is over. Good food should be chewed well and that takes time as opposed to those who swallow down fast food.
1 Peter 2:2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard – The text in its own context must say what it says and nothing more.
Erik – So you’re not a Trinitarian? Where’s your proof text on that.
RS: There is no proof text on my not being a Trinitarian, but then again I am a Trinitarian. There is also no proof text on my being a Trinitarian, but that is because I am not mentioned in the Bible by name. However, if you are wanting me to prove the Trinity by one text, then of course not. But if you are wanting to see the Trinity taught in the Bible, one can take several texts and show what they mean in their own contexts and THEN and ONLY THEN show how the teaching of the texts fit together.
LikeLike
Richard – However, if you are wanting me to prove the Trinity by one text, then of course not. But if you are wanting to see the Trinity taught in the Bible, one can take several texts and show what they mean in their own contexts and THEN and ONLY THEN show how the teaching of the texts fit together.
Erik – But not infant baptism or the value of the sacraments? Hmmmmm……..
LikeLike
Reformed and Presbyterian anti-intellectualism? Now I’ve seen it all. Do I have to become a stinking Episcopalian to get some peace?
I wish I could find the You Tube clip of Norman (a Presbyterian) meeting Jessie’s (a Methodist) family. You guys sound like the Methodists. That’s from “A River Runs Through It”, by the way – the best movie ever about Presbyterianism and fly fishing.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Paul Zahl on Imputation preaching: It will always make you feel worse about yourself, in order to then make you feel better about God. Infusion instead offers you a way to feel better about yourself, that will not last if you do not dot every “I” and cross every “T”, and ultimately, it will let you down on the day that you die.
RS: John Owen was a great teacher of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ for justification, but he also spoke of the infusion of grace in sanctification as well. The teaching of Owen in that regard was much like the teaching of Christ in John 15, where Christ is the vine and we are the branches. Apart from Him we can do nothing. Infusion, at least as some of the older writers taught it, was not opposed to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ for a forensic justification. It was in line with union with Christ and His life in the believer who lived on the strength of grace alone. It is not so much the teaching of sin that renders us utterly helpless, but the teaching of grace does that even more. The teaching of sin teaches us a level of helplessness, but the teaching of grace teaches us that we can do absolutely nothing that has the slightest good in it apart from the grace of Christ working that in us. That does not make a person feel good about himself, but indeed drives the person to an even deeper level of helplessness and utter reliance upon the grace of Christ. The teaching of infusion in terms of sanctification (as Owen did) should never make a person feel good about self, but only drive him or her to utter reliance on grace alone at each present moment.
LikeLike
Richard, one sign of long windedness is when the same point gets made multiple times. And I get wanting more of a good thing, but the Bible and good sense teach limitations of even good things. They also teach about self-control, discipline, and restraint, not to mention creaturely limitation, as in there is only so much human beings can effectively take. My worry is that sentiments like yours and Erik’s (and lots of folks) reveal an American made spirit that says if one is good then two is better (and even more is FREAKING AWESOME!!!!).
I’m an advocate of two services every Lord’s Day, but it’s not unusual to hear in our ranks something like this: “Some wonder why two services, but I say why not three or more?” Well, because God knows our frame and that we are dust. Here’s hoping we do, too.
LikeLike
Erik, the best line from that movie was Skerritt’s: “A Methodist is a Baptist who can read.”
LikeLike
Richard,
We’ve agreed on two things today. We need to go have ourselves a love feast together.
Zrim,
“Erik, we sit under orthodox gospel preaching (WSC trained). Quality isn’t the problem. But when the point gets made five or six times, one wonders if over-emphasizing the audible Word is at least part of the reason the visible Word is so infrequent.”
That’s why you bring Hart’s Presbyterian & Reformed Dictionary to church with you. Once you’ve grasped the point, you move on to some other learning.
LikeLike
Erik Charter quoting Richard – However, if you are wanting me to prove the Trinity by one text, then of course not. But if you are wanting to see the Trinity taught in the Bible, one can take several texts and show what they mean in their own contexts and THEN and ONLY THEN show how the teaching of the texts fit together.
Erik – But not infant baptism or the value of the sacraments? Hmmmmm……..
RS: Again, each individual text has to be dealt with in its own context. We have to be careful to be conformed by the text rather than sprinkle what we want into it.
LikeLike
Zrim: Erik, the best line from that movie was Skerritt’s: “A Methodist is a Baptist who can read.”
RS: That is the type of thing that people come up with when they are caught up with fiction.
LikeLike
Zrim, sounds like you are rejecting redundancy. I despise, hate, and loathe redundant preachers who just say things over and over and over.
But seriously, if a preacher is repetitious there may be a growth oppportunity if someone talks to him about it. I know of a preacher that “grew out of” that sort of thing.
But if it’s not about redundancy I hope there’s some brakes on your quest for more sacrament and less sermon.
LikeLike
Zrim,
So how were all those Cliffs Notes you read in high school & college?
Do you enjoy your beer from a shot glass?
I’m not even going to ask about your sex life.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, one sign of long windedness is when the same point gets made multiple times. And I get wanting more of a good thing, but the Bible and good sense teach limitations of even good things.
Zrim: But when the point gets made five or six times,
Erik: I’m not even going to ask about your sex life.
RS: Indeed
LikeLike
What do we make of the men & women that Larry McMurtry’s writes of who read Proust’s monumental A la recherche du temps perdu” (In Search of Lost Time; earlier translated as Remembrance of Things Past) from beginning to end and then start over again?
Richard is not allowed to answer.
LikeLike
M&M, there is indeed a brake: it’s not “less sermon, more sacrament” so much as a regular and modest amount of both audible and visible gospel. Some might call it striking a balance, but now I’m repeating myself.
Richard, another sign is repeating comments somebody already knows he made and responding to every single sentence. Little wonder you’re a fan of 90 minute sermons.
Erik, ah, the anti-intellectual card. Please hold, I have Paul Manata on line two.
LikeLike
Repetition is the “mother of learning”. Jesus said things like truly, truly, when he was emphasizing an important concept. We all know that everything Jesus said was true. He never told a lie. But many of his teachings used repetition to drive home his points. From reading the gospels, how long do you think Jesus taught in his sermons? Just a few moments? Or did he teach for most of the day?
Zrim, would you say Jesus was long winded when he taught the 5 thousand? He taught so long, they needed food.
I like a good well thought out sermon. I’m good with a 45 to 60 min. sermon. I’ve enjoyed teachings that went on for an hour and a half. I’m pretty much good with any time.
LikeLike
Erik: Reformed and Presbyterian anti-intellectualism? Now I’ve seen it all
Todd: Sorter sermons do not need to lack depth. It usually takes much more discipline to preach a short sermon than a long one. You can make your points without added repetition, fluff, unnecessary stories, using twenty other verses to say the same thing you already said from that verse, etc… and still give people solid meat. The business world understands this much better than the religious world. Executives have studied the work of psychologists who through years of testing have seen that the average attention span for adults who need to focus on one thing is about 20 minutes. Businesses have modeled their presentations around this truth. Next time you are anywhere where one person speaks for more than 20 minutes, look around and notice the doodling, looking at the clock, drowsiness, etc… Preaching shorter sermons is simply recognizing and valuing human limitations and capabilities.
LikeLike
Doug, and I’ve nothing against time consuming didactic instruction. It just seems to me that would be better suited for a pre- or post-service class than the stated worship service itself. Again, context.
LikeLike
Todd,
Amen. The first and last lesson you learn in a good business school; ‘tighten it up.’ If a memo is over a paragraph much less a page, it’s not getting read. That’s just how it is.
LikeLike
Sean, I learned the value of conciseness from a Baptist ST prof who made us submit summaries of various doctrines in no more than one or two sentences. “No, too long, try again. No, still too long, do it again. No, again.” The tendency to push back as hard as an admittedly dumbed down age shoves can boomerang and leave sinners heavily yoked.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Got it reinforced last night leading two diaconate candidates through the confession. It’s 6:30, eyes start glazing over by 7:00 and I’m brilliant and interesting and entertaining to boot. The trick is making them read ahead and come with questions and cover a lot of ground, then you can extend to an hour.
LikeLike
Todd – Sorter sermons do not need to lack depth. It usually takes much more discipline to preach a short sermon than a long one. You can make your points without added repetition, fluff, unnecessary stories, using twenty other verses to say the same thing you already said from that verse, etc… and still give people solid meat.
LikeLike
As far as being short-winded goes, we have 30 cell phones at work and I’m upset with myself if I don’t have the lowest number of minutes & texts. I’m usually around 200. My teenage daughter is usually at the top with at least 4,000+.
It helps that I rarely wear deodorant or brush my teeth.
LikeLike
Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 18:5 don’t appear to give any support to Murray and Venema:
LikeLike
I respect people’s opinions here so let me throw out a situation:
You have a Sunday school class on a Book of the Bible that is led by an elder. The class is using a book written by a Protestant Reformed author. The church is a United Reformed Church. The book asks a lot of provocative questions that almost seem designed to stir up dissention in the class. A man in the class, not an officer, not even currently a member, uses the opportunity to make impassioned statements, each several minutes long, expounding upon his views on what I would believe to be matters of Christian liberty – how Christians should dress, how Christians should abstain from alcohol, how families should be structured, etc. The man is known to have pietistic, revivalistic tendencies and to also be affiliated with the “family centered church movement”.
My questions:
(1) What right does the man have to speak freely?
(2) What duties do the elders (one teaching, two in the class) have to monitor, and if necessary, counter, what the man says?
(3) What right do other members of the class have to speak against what the man says? How forceful can this rebuttal be?
(4) To what extent is a Reformed church a “free speech zone”?
(5) Does the Regulative Principle of Worship extend to Sunday School?
(6) Is a “controversial” Sunday school class a class that is being done “decently and in good order”?
LikeLike
David R,
You’re making me doubt Doug assurances that I’ll “be o.k. if I love the law like David did”.
He hasn’t told me if I get a Bathsheba with that or not.
LikeLike
Erik, that sounds like a lot of Todd questions.
1) Seems to depend on the class structure, participatory or lecture
2) If he’s propounding error, it needs to be met.
3) As long as the class is structured for it, I have done a decent amount of this, when necessary, and only if the teacher isn’t handling it.
4)Not sure what you mean by free speech, but even in the PCA you’re not allowed to teach against the confession
5)I would argue yes, but in the PCA we seem to think the RPW means; ‘whatever is not prohibited’
6) Not normally. I got the misfortune of handling hot potato issues for a number of years, it can be done well and with understanding and even consent by your ‘opponents’ or you can be an arse. Shoot for the former.
LikeLike
Another question,
What is your experience with taking on members with “nontraditional” views with the hopes that they will come to change those views as they are exposed to “better preaching and doctrine”?
Do people change their nontraditional views after a certain point in life?
Does it change the answer if the incoming members would have 5 votes in a relatively small church (say, 40 voting members)?
LikeLike
Sean – 5)I would argue yes, but in the PCA we seem to think the RPW means; ‘whatever is not prohibited’
Erik – Thanks, Rev. Frame.
LikeLike
Erik,
paedo/creedal baptism is normally a bear. Theonomy is easier if it can be done across a table. Most other issues I find to be dependent in good part by how effective you are at communicating the truth and refuting error. Being courteous, kind, and considerate goes a long way. The vitriol or consternation that can be reached on the interweb, I find rarely takes place in person.
LikeLike
Zrim says: Doug, and I’ve nothing against time consuming didactic instruction. It just seems to me that would be better suited for a pre- or post-service class than the stated worship service itself. Again, context.”
My OPC has Sunday school after our first service, where the teaching is usually longer than our worship service. But I have a hard time seeing a large distinction. We don’t have all our musicians nor do we partake of the Lord’s supper, but for Sunday school, but we still sing a couple hymns, and have great teaching. It’s usually one of our Elders that leads Sunday School. We recently went through Hebrews with our lead teaching Elder, who is one smart cookie. It was great!
LikeLike
Sean – The vitriol or consternation that can be reached on the interweb, I find rarely takes place in person.
Erik – This is what’s tricky about an adult Sunday school class with an audience of 20-25 people. Testosterone & adrenaline start flowing.
LikeLike
Erik,
In the words of, I believe Joel Coen, to Matt Damon; “hmmm, yeah, suck less”
LikeLike
Spurs win. Heat lose. Good night.
LikeLike
That’s what we do. In the service of prudence and circumspection however, we will be going all Tonya Harding on Stephen Curry.
LikeLike
The press conference with Ginobli was almost exciting as the game. I am pulling for the Spurs because they can beat the Heat. But Curry is fun to watch. This should be the final. Both teams can score more in a half than most teams in the East.
So the Baylys don’t really want debate. They believe in freedom for only those with their views.
I can tell you that the Heat don’t want to have to make jumpshots. Dwayne Wade without the free throw line is a pretty sad case…
LikeLike
Thanks a lot, guys. I DVRed the Warriors/Spurs game and am only in the first quarter. Sigh…
LikeLike
Is anyone aware of a good history of how pietism has impacted American Christianity? I am especially interested in the 20th century — temperance, rejecting certain forms of literature & entertainment, The Bill Gothard Institute, the Family Centered Church Movement, baking your own bread, homeschooling, etc. Maybe it hasn’t been written yet.
LikeLike
Sorry Erik. The gist was we sucked until we didn’t and that coincided with Curry getting tired and the Spurs throwing a 6-7 guy on him with a 7-2 wingspan, Parker finally remembered he can’t be stopped going to the rim and Manu finally made it do what it do
Darryl’s Lost Soul and that Old Time Religion. Horton’s; Made in America Not sure if they get all the way up to homeschooling.
LikeLike
Thanks, Sean. I know Harrison Barnes and want the Warriors to win, but I don’t have much hope.
LikeLike
I just bought, “The Lost Soul of American Protestantism” for free on Amazon with my points.
There was a used copy for $.01. The next cheapest was $23.82. Online shopping at its finest.
LikeLike
Got the other two on Amazon, as well.
LikeLike
Erik, you might find a lot on pietism here.
LikeLike
EC, I want my royalties!!!!
LikeLike
Thanks for the link.
Tell the cats I’m sorry for taking food out of their mouths. I’ll try to buy the global history of Calvinism new (comes out in June – can be pre-ordered on Amazon now).
I’m going to come peruse your vast library and see how many books I can find that are second-hand…
LikeLike
You can buy the global history of Calvinism new, add something you are going to buy anyway (like deoderant) to get the order up to $25, and get free shipping. I did that and got you your royalties, D.G.
Sometime I would be fascinated to learn how the publishing world works for an author. Whenever I hear how many copies a book sells I try to calculate how much the author made, but I have no idea what authors’ deals with publishers are so I don’t know what to multiply by.
LikeLike
Sean,
You were down 14 with 4:31 to go!
In an NBA game if you are down by 8 with 8:00 to go you only have a 20% chance of winning and this probability continues for each minute after that (down by 4 with 4:00 to go, etc).
LikeLike
Erik,
Like I said we sucked until we didn’t. The Warriors were in control ’till 4 min to go, then, not so much. The Spurs are like OL; they’re contrarian and they’re old, which means they’ve become uber-efficient with their effort, oftentimes to the chagrin of old man Pop. They’ll keep playing Curry with Parker and Joseph and then when it matters spring Leonard on him and run backside help when Curry tries to go around. Hopefully Duncan won’t still be fighting the flu on wednesday and if Splitter is back, they’ll seal off the paint. They’re gonna live with Curry having to score 45-50 a game for the Warriors to stand a chance, they figure the percentages are in their favor that he won’t, and they’ll double down on making sure nobody else gets to go off.
LikeLike
I agree with that analysis. The Warriors just don’t have enough big time players yet, which was evident in the last 4 minutes last night. I did admire their continued fight through two OT’s, though. It would have been easy to give up after losing that lead. Their biggest asset is their coach.
LikeLike
Mark Jackson could have better used Bogut, especially in the end. He can be really great. Why was Splitter out? I missed the beginning.
In my current study of Lutheranism, I came to a blog collective of Lutheran pietists
http://pietist.blogspot.com/
Of course one of my anabaptist teachers (Dale Brown) wrote a popular introduction to pietism, and the folks at North Park Seminary in Chicago are experts.
http://www.northpark.edu/About/Exploring-North-Park-University/Evangelical-Covenant-Church
I do what I do. Even if nobody is in the forest to hear Tonto….
LikeLike
I’m not sure that I’m buying the primary/secondary distinction. Most of your citations are to sources of rather recent vintage. Also, I don’t read the WSC as implying what you say it implies, especially as the thought is not fleshed out more in the WLC and WC.
I do agree that 20-minute homilies are preferable. Based on my anecdotal observations, shorter homilies are often more tightly crafted and argued than longer ones. I’ve heard my fair share of homilies that last for 45-50 minutes but that have only 5-10 minutes of content.
As a lawyer, I try my hardest to keep my briefs short and to the point. Long, rambling arguments are rarely persuasive. They just annoy.
LikeLike
McMark, Splitter caught a bad ankle sprain in the Laker series. He’s a 10 and 10 guy who can neutralize Bogut on the block and allow Duncan to show on the high screen pick and rolls. If Splitter is back they’ll try to force Curry off the 3 point line and make him a driver and a mid range shooter.
LikeLike
Mark – “I came to a blog collective of Lutheran pietists”
Erik – That kind of makes sense. Why do I picture a bunch of dwarfs living together in the forest?
Mark – I do what I do. Even if nobody is in the forest to hear Tonto….’
Erik – I embrace that.
LikeLike
Bobby,
There is so much out there on the reformation bringing back the primacy of preaching that I wouldn’t know how to begin, and I wouldn’t dismiss Berkhof or Sproul so quickly. These are highly qualified church historians. As for the confessions, it is a simple comparison, what is said about preaching is not repeated when it comes to the sacraments. The Spirit of God makes the reading, “especially the preaching….” Unless you want to suggest the sacraments are more valuable than the reading of the Word, the Confession exalts the importance of preaching above all other means for salvation and sanctification. And while the reformers believed you could have a worship service without a sacrament, they did not believe you could have a worship service without the preaching of the Word.
“Now in order to do away with these misuses, it is necessary to know, first of all, that the Christian congregation never should assemble unless God’s Word is preached . . . no matter for how brief a time this may be. Therefore where God’s Word is not preached, it is better that one neither sing, nor read, nor even come together.” (Martin Luther – Concerning the Ordering of Divine Worship in the Congregation” -1523)
“Further, nothing fosters mutual love more fit- tingly than for men to be bound together with this bond: one is appointed pastor to teach the rest, and those bidden to be pupils receive the common teaching from one mouth…. The Lord has therefore bound His church together with a knot that He foresaw would be the strongest means of keeping unity, while He entrusted to men the teaching of salvation and everlasting life in order that through their hands it might be communicated to the rest.“
(Calvin’s Institutes, IV, III, l)
LikeLike
Scott Clark has been on a roll recently ( I think it might be best of Scott Clark archives week).
To be brief, this one’s for Doug.
http://heidelblog.net/2013/05/the-grace-of-law/
LikeLike
Nice find, Mark.
LikeLike
McMark: I read Scott Clark’s piece and thought he laid an egg:
Here is Clark making a rookie mistake:
“Since Christ has delivered us believers from the curse of the law it no longer terrifies us relative to our righteousness before God. Since we are free from the curse and condemnation we are free to delight in God’s law and to see its wisdom and perfections.”
Me: Wrong!!! It seems as if Clark has never read the old testament. If he’s read the OT he apparently forgot that David was free to delight in God’s law as well. Does Clark have a reading disorder, or is he merely trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Has he ever read the Psalms 119? Clark is an antinomian professor who needs to wear the term he richly deserves. Reading Clark is harmful to your spiritual health.
Here is the correct position. (The law *contained* the gospel in figures.) That is common Puritan lingo. something that escapes Clark. I wouldn’t trust Clark, as far as I could throw him!
Hebrews 4:2 “For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them,
Me: Why didn’t the gospel benefit them Clark and McMark?
“because they were not united by faith with those who listened.
Me:This puts Clark’s whole theory to repute. How could they hear the gospel or good news just like us? THE LAW CONTAINED THE GOSPEL IN FIGURES, THAT’S HOW!
LikeLike
Let’s take a good look at Hebrews 2:2 because it destroy’s this notion that the law didn’t contain the gospel.
“Hebrews 4:2 “For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.”
Okay McMark, Sean, or anyone else! How did the gospel come to us, JUST LIKE THEM? Hmmmm?
Via the law?
Bingo!
Can you just admit you’ve been checkmated by Hebrews? Those ordinances that offered forgiveness for sin, prefigured the saving work of Christ, when offered in faith! This is why our reformers called the *ceremonial* law, the gospel in figures! It’s the same good news! It pointed to Christ when seen through eyes of faith!
This just goes to show that Scott Clark has no business teaching anyone. He should be stripped of his professorship, and sat in the corner with a dunce hat on!
LikeLike
Do we need Joe Bayly to do to the BBs what he did to Bill Gothard?
LikeLike