The more committed you are to a high view of the church (teaching, worship, and government), the less concerned you are about political causes and cultural transformation.
This law came back to me after reading a post that commended an article by John Frame, who was yet again singling out Mike Horton. At one point, Frame writes:
[Horton] brings up the distinction between the church and civil society. But one can surely acknowledge such a distinction without disavowing attempts of the former to influence the latter. So far as I know, nobody in this discussion thinks that the state should administer sacraments, or, again, that the church should lead Christians into armed warfare. So to bring up these issues is to make a straw man argument.2. Horton asks whether the kingdom of God is a culture, created by man, or God’s sovereign action? Certainly the latter. Again, I know of no evangelical who thinks otherwise. Does this distinction mean that we should take a passive stance, waiting for God to deal with social evils, rather than seeking to alleviate them by our own resources? Scripture never draws this sort of conclusion. The sovereignty of God never excludes human responsibility in this way.
Frame’s objections to Horton — no one is actually denying the distinction between the church and the wider culture — actually put Frame in the hot seat. The reason is that he is well on the record for having worship services that are fully accessible to people who aren’t in the church. In which case, the anti-2k critics are not as firm in their distinctions between the church and the world as Frame thinks. For 2k’s critics, the goal is a Christianized culture, maybe not as moral as the church, but more so than what you get in a secular arrangement. And for these same critics, the church domesticates its distinct teachings and practices to be open to a wider part of the community. The relationship appears to be that as the church lifts the boat of culture, the church also lowers itself several notches below (in this case) Reformed ideals.
2Kers, on the other hand, have no trouble separating the church’s standards from those of the culture. The two are distinct. When the lines blur, you get New School Presbyterianism — nationalistic, revivalistic and evangelistic, and moralistic. When they don’t, you get the kingdom of heaven, the means of grace, and the gospel.
Old Life 
I think this is quite a helpful post, at least to me in understanding where you are coming from.
I think there is attraction for me in that I take a high view of polity, worship and the sacraments.
However I think it wrong to cut ourselves off from the broader society, very hard to do anyway with all that Shiraz flowing. I don’t think in terms of a “Christianised culture”, but I can see the difference between a culture deeply impacted by Christian understanding/practice and one that is not. I think at best our actions are more about preserving what is good and wholesome. I don’t think ssm, and what might come after a good thing and I certainly don’t think we should sit idly by and let it happen. To argue so, which I think is the end point of this post is to disavow teaching of our Lord (I mentioned on the following post the parable of the Good Samaritan) and the history of the church in providing care regardless of whether a person was in or out of the church.
However, thank you Dr Hart you have made things clearer for me, I’m not quite so confused. I agree that there is the danger you identify in the sentence, “The relationship appears to be that as the church lifts the boat of culture, the church also lowers itself several notches below (in this case) Reformed ideals” – that is a helpful way of putting matters, even though I don’t think we have that ‘luxury’ – in life we are always suspended between dilemmas like this one you describe.
LikeLike
Another reason why I don’t pay attention to secondary sources (Frame) to tell me what a primary source (Horton) is teaching.
Both have been very helpful in the struggling pilgrimage (H is more my thing than F) and, having read most of each man’s works, I guess I could write out a third-party summary of their diffs, but that’s too easy.
LikeLike
Presumably the Westminster Assembly was not concerned teaching, worship, and government in the church.
How silly. You speak much of distinguishing the Old Life from the New School. You seem to pay no serious attention to the Westminster or Geneva. But, of course, you are more enlightened than they are.
LikeLike
When Piper denies that “the culture” is the report card of “the church”, he is attempting to deny the inherent relationship between the shape of church (translated down, for apologetic reasons) and the shape of “the culture” (profane grace “common” to all, instead of “providence”), but he nevertheless still has the same Reformed view of “the culture” as the brothers Niebuhr did. First, he assumes one and only one visible “the church”. Second, he assumes one and only one “the culture”.
But some of us still think we can buy gas and drive down the road, without being responsible for other cultures and societies. We can still be a visible congregation, without at all thinking that “public” history depends on us to make it go in the right direction. The earth is the Lord’s.
I Cor 5: 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.
II Cor 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17 Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
18 and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”
Matthew (the ex-collector for the empire) 18:5 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
LikeLike
Fighting for the right of non-Christians to hear watered down knock-offs of rock music in Christian churches. Yeah, that’s the hill I want to die on.
The last evangelical (RCA) church I went to they had a video promoting vacation Bible school or youth group or something to the tune of “I’m Sexy and I Know It”. I haven’t recovered yet.
Maybe the New-Schoolers need a new slogan – “Raising and lowering all the wrong bars — and demanding you stay out of bars”
LikeLike
Phil,
I would love to respond to your post if I had any idea what it meant:
“Presumably the Westminster Assembly was not concerned teaching, worship, and government in the church.”
???
LikeLike
David,
What is the biblical basis for expecting non-Christians to do things that are “good & wholesome” apart from Christ?
LikeLike
Erik,
In the words of my favorite theologian, Hank Hill, on “Christian Rock”:
“Can’t you see you’re not making Christianity better? You’re just making rock n’ roll worse!” Amen!
LikeLike
For an example of a Reformed work that appears to be impacting culture in all the right ways, consider Divine Hope Reformed Bible Seminary:
http://www.divinehopeseminary.org/
LikeLike
Richard,
I think I remember that episode (and laughing at that line).
LikeLike
Divine Hope is a great idea because it’s not about wringing our hands about crime or trying to look pious by the things that we oppose. It’s about meeting people where they are at and trying to give them something that will help them improve their lives, and doing it on their turf.
What if instead of battling gays we offered to have a Reformed Bible study in a gay bar every week for a month? Even if our minister and elders were the only ones that showed up. We could even agree to table the subject of homosexuality. The Bible talks about a lot of other things, after all. Maybe some people would come to faith and decide not to practice homosexuality anymore. But even if they didn’t, we might understand each other a little more and decide to become friends, our differences notwithstanding.
Our church is in a downtown setting a stone’s throw from the most prominent gay bar in town. Maybe I’ll see if my pastor would consider trying that.
LikeLike
Erik: “stone’s throw”.
Bruce: Funniest thing read all day.
LikeLike
What is the biblical basis for expecting non-Christians to do things that are “good & wholesome” apart from Christ?
RS: Being salt of the earth and light of the world, not just salt and light of the Church. When this is done, that is, being salt and light of the earth and world, the salt is salty and the light is not hidden in a basket. Then men, believer and unbeliever alike, glorify God, though in different ways.
Mat 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;
15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
LikeLike
Richard,
That answer and passage comes nowhere close to answering my question.
LikeLike
What is the biblical basis for expecting non-Christians to do things that are “good & wholesome” apart from Christ?
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
LikeLike
Bruce,
And I wasn’t even trying…
LikeLike
Tom,
Unbelievers knowledge of the law is enough to condemn them, but does it empower them to obey?
Another way to ask the question – Why did the OPC decide not to allow the Boy Scouts to meet in their church buildings?
LikeLike
I would argue that a lot of people in Reformed churches look at these questions all wrong because they have been influenced more by evangelicalism and arminianism than by Reformed theology. When you really grasp the Reformed Confessions it turns your understanding of a lot of these things on its head.
Frame left Westminster West when it became apparent to all that he was on a different wavelength than most of the faculty. Now he writes exposes of “Escondido”. I would suggest he was the one who lost his way, though, and not the men who remained there.
LikeLike
Philip Larson,
How silly. You speak much of distinguishing the Old Life from the New School. You seem to pay no serious attention to the Westminster or Geneva. But, of course, you are more enlightened than they are.
In Calvin’s Institutes, a book with eighty chapters, only the final chapter touches on politics. In the Westminster Confession, a document containing 32 chapters, only one of them touches on politics. What does that say about the relative level of concern for politics and cultural transformation?
LikeLike
Tom, Unbelievers knowledge of the law is enough to condemn them, but does it empower them to obey?
You asked, the Bible answered, Erik.
Another way to ask the question – Why did the OPC decide not to allow the Boy Scouts to meet in their church buildings?
I have no idea. You keeping talking and I’ll halt you if and when you start making sense.
Late Add: The Spit Hits the Fan
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/espns-chris-broussard-calls-homosexuality-448377
In a special one-hour episode covering the immediate effects of Washington Wizards center Jason Collins’ coming out as a gay man on the cover of Sports Illustrated, [Steve] Broussard briefly started discussing his personal beliefs about homosexuality.
“If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, the bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that that’s a sin,” said Broussard, comparing homosexuality to any other sex outside of marriage. “If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ.”
Broussard was on Outside the Lines to discuss the potential ramifications of an openly gay player in the NBA, and he noted that there were others who felt the way he did who might have reservations about discussing them openly.
“As a Christian, I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin,” said Broussard. “There are a lot of Christians in the NBA, and just because they don’t agree with that lifestyle, they don’t want to be called bigoted and intolerant.”
Your call.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you’re actually willing to slow down and be serious, where do you get the idea that hearing the law gives one the power to obey the law?
The third and fourth sections of the Canons of Dort deal with this question, as do questions 3-11 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
Once you grasp these truths you tend to lose a little of the “us vs. them” paradigm.
LikeLike
David R.,
Ironically, Van Drunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” gives politics about the same weight. If I remember right he waits until the final chapter to deal with politics, and even then you get the impression he is doing it reluctantly.
LikeLike
The relative weight of Van Drunen’s emphases confirms that he not about preventing Christians from being politically active, he is about getting them to examine what the Christian faith is truly about. The same is true of the Reformed Confessions. The things that animate many 21st century Reformed people are not the things that animated the Reformers. The Reformed understanding of justification was not “old hat” for them.
LikeLike
Tom,
Key word there is “expecting”. Not “capable”.
LikeLike
EC, first you tell me I’m too serious, then not serious enough. But I’m quite serious, don’t let the jovial spirit and delicious pith throw you.
Now then, I’m not really interested in you pointing at your canons. What we all need is you being able to explain their meaning and truth coherently. So far, the signal-to-noise ratio is disappointing.
You asked
What is the biblical basis for expecting non-Christians to do things that are “good & wholesome” apart from Christ?
One answer is to be found explicitly in Romans 2:13-15, to which you responded, well wait, let’s check the record
https://oldlife.org/2013/04/the-first-law-of-2k-dynamics/comment-page-1/#comment-82592
Ah. You didn’t respond at all. You dodged with a question instead of offering a rebuttal. Tell us about the OPC and the Boy Scoutsd, by all means. If you have something to say, by all means take the time to say it fully and intelligently. But these elusive drivebys are not principled discussion: they are seldom relevant, even more seldom containing anything resembling affirmative argument.
If this blog is to just be “inside 2K Presbyterian baseball,” where 3 of you snort at everyone outside the 30,000 souls who claim membership in your church, then just say so. I’m sure the rest of us will leave.
If not, the least you can do is explain your thinking, forthrightly and fully. Who knows? You might convince somebody of something. But in the meantime, you cannot gloss over Romans 2, for it’s central to the argument that what lies between savage anarchy and theocracy [or between totalitarianism and theocracy] is indeed the natural law, written on the human heart.
In the least, at the very moment you owe your religious liberty to the natuaral law principles on which this republic was founded. That’s not opinion, that’s historical truth, and one 2K cannot simply gloss over.
Looking forward to a greater depth in our continuing conversation.
LikeLike
What is the biblical basis for expecting non-Christians to do things that are “good & wholesome” apart from Christ?
NP: Tom, Key word there is “expecting”. Not “capable”.
I don’t expect much out of Christians either, let’s be honest here. But in speaking of the real world, let’s say I’d rather take my chances on Aquinas and natural law than that Marx fellow and, well, you know.
FTR, I think there’s a whole non-doctrinal discussion to be had of human nature that would include both the Gospel and the natural law–man’s ability to respond to them, the capability to recognize the good when he sees it. [This contrasts with any “gnosticism,” that the good is intrinsically inside man waiting to be discovered. Therefore no conflict with the concept of man’s fallenness or the need for God’s revelation of Himself and His Will.]
Now this gets derailed into the tall weeds of the “grace” discussion, but Locke also has an elegant argument that although man was capable of deriving the natural law as well as the Gospel, all the best philosophers of 1000s of years never did. Therefore God sent Jesus to man to bring divine revelation, God’s Will and God’s Word.
Is “general” revelation’s revelation–the natural law–completely compatible with the scriptures? Of course. Truth cannot contradict truth. Is general revelation the complete story of God, heaven, salvation, the Trinity, whathaveyou? Of course not. You need “special” revelation for that–burning bushes, the prophets, the Bible.
But we can use “general” revelation as the starting point for how to live together–and we’re crazy if we don’t. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal, anarchy or theocracy. Governments cannot win any man salvation, but they can safeguard his life, liberty and perhaps most importantly, the religious freedom to pursue it. And those are the real words to Yankee Doodle Dandy.
LikeLike
Tom,
All men will be held accountable by God for their obedience (or lack-thereof) to natural law, but to suppose that it is our duty to expect them to obey is beyond the bounds of what Scripture calls us to do of those outside the church. We call men to repentance, not obedience to NL.
The point of those verses you cited is not for Christians to bash unbelievers over the head for their failure to obey NL (i.e., “You better obey this or else your society is going to the toilet”) but to reveal their sin and call them to repentance (as well as establish that all men are under sin – a-la Romans 3:23 – if we’re going to take Romans 2 to its logical conclusion).
I don’t see the NT writers spending a whole lot of time writing to the churches about changing the corrupt Roman society… Prayer and Submission maybe, but outside of that you’ve got a lot of heavy lifting.
LikeLike
We call men to repentance, not obedience to NL.
So if the Bible didn’t ban murder, we don’t care? If the Bible doesn’t specifically mention abortion, we don’t care?
I don’t see the NT writers spending a whole lot of time writing to the churches about changing the corrupt Roman society
Yes, we just had this one, but Nero’s Rome isn’t the same thing as modern America. So if the Bible doesn’t explicitly ban slavery, we don’t care?
LikeLike
Phil, whack a mole.
If you’re not nice to me (an officer) you get thrown in jail according to Westminster and Geneva.
How do you like them modern apples?
LikeLike
“The catastrophe must be consummated even to the end. Israel must have neither land, nor temple, nor king (there are two kings, one protected, the other deported, but Jeremiah and Ezekiel worked unremittingly to destroy their influence). In short,there must be nothing left of Israel from a human point of view, no room for political hopes, in order that the song of true hope will be heard. This ‘political nihilism’ is essential to the OT conception of sin,”
Paul Ricoeur, Symbolism of Evil, p62
mark: let me ask RS some question about that “salt and light”.
1. Do you believe in “common grace”? Do you think God loves the non-elect? What’s the difference, if any, in your mind, between “common grace” and “providence”?
2. By what standard do we judge the salt and the light? Is the Mosaic economy the standard? If no, what is the standard for those who claim to be agents of God’s wrath? Is there a different standard for them than there is for Christians? If so, what is that standard?
LikeLike
Tom,
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
As Paul goes on with his argument in Romans, how many does he conclude will indeed be declared righteous because they have kept the law?
What are the implications of his answer to my original question?
“What is the biblical basis for expecting non-Christians to do things that are “good & wholesome” apart from Christ?”
The reason the OPC decided to not be affiliated with the Boy Scouts is because they are an organization that teaches people that they can be good as a result of their own efforts, apart from Christ.
The Boy Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
No one is saying the Boy Scouts are an evil organization, but this is by no means the gospel and it is confusing to people when a Reformed Church is tied in with them.
LikeLike
The Scout Law:
A Scout is:
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
Brave, Clean, Reverent
What does the Bible say about our ability to obey even this law apart from Christ?
LikeLike
Based on the Scout Oath and the Scout Law I am wondering on what basis they are keeping homosexuals out? Homosexuals can follow the Scout law as well as anyone else absent a fleshed out theology of God and sin.
LikeLike
The reason the OPC decided to not be affiliated with the Boy Scouts is because they are an organization that teaches people that they can be good as a result of their own efforts, apart from Christ.
Thanks for answering your own question, Erik. Next time, let’s cut to the chase and skip hide-the-salami!
So far, it sounds completely ridiculous to me–I was a Boy Scout and never ever got that impression. That last one in the Scout Law is “reverent,” which always meant to me that religion was a necessary part of a Scout’s honor.
You guys overthink a lot of this stuff IMO. But it’s great to see you more forthcoming on what you actually believe. Frankly, it’s been a not very interesting game of cat and mouse around here where you or Darryl says something mysterious and oracular, somebody guesses at what you’re saying, y’all tell them they’re wrong, and that they should go read some book or church document.
Feh.
It certainly seems a game designed to keep people at bay more than draw anyone in. Which is OK if that’s what you’re about, sending messages in code to each other. I’d have thought shutting the Boy Scouts out was some variation of shunning them for rejecting homosexuality, so if you’re making some public statement with that, nobody’s hearing it. And I’d rather have Scouting in the house for my kids than most alternatives or defaults.
Although if this passes
http://www.christianpost.com/news/lds-church-criticized-for-endorsing-boy-scouts-proposal-on-accepting-gay-members-94835/
there’s plenty new reason to rock’n’roll. ;-P
LikeLike
Tom – That last one in the Scout Law is “reverent,” which always meant to me that religion was a necessary part of a Scout’s honor.
Erik- Do you find “religion” in general to be of value, regardless of which religion it is? If so, why? If not, why not?
No ones hiding anything, but I don’t want to just preach. I’m trying to have a conversation.
LikeLike
But we can use “general” revelation as the starting point for how to live together–and we’re crazy if we don’t. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal, anarchy or theocracy.
TVD (or is it the cutesy, self-satisfied, and chest thumping PLM reincarnated with dopey frames?), what exactly are you pushing against around here? 2kers understand pretty well that general revelation is perfectly sufficient to norm civil society, even happily getting smeared for saying as much is to ‘dis the Bible and hermetically seal of the public square from it. Fubar. We’ll even invoke the patron saint of neo-Calvinism to help out, Uncle Abe:
Does it follow, therefore, that the sooner we stop our observation of life the better, so that we can seek the rules of state polity outside life in Holy Scripture? This is how some mistakenly think that we reason…However, the opposite is true. Calvinism has never supported this untenable position but has always opposed it with might and main. A state polity that dismisses and scorns the observation of life and simply wishes to duplicate the situation of Israel, taking Holy Scripture as a complete code of Christian law for the state, would, according to the spiritual fathers of Calvinism, be the epitome of absurdity. Accordingly, in their opposition to Anabaptism as well as the Quakers, they expressed unreservedly their repugnance for this extremely dangerous and impractical theory.
If we considered the political life of the nations as something unholy, unclean and wrong in itself, it would lie outside of human nature. Then the state would have to be seen as a purely external means of compulsion, and every attempt to discover even a trace of God’s ordinances in our own nature would be absurd. Only special revelation would then be capable of imparting to us the standards for that external means of discipline. Wherever, thus, this special revelation is absent, as in the heathen worlds, nothing but sin and distortion would prevail, which would therefore not even be worth the trouble of our observation…However, if we open the works of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza and Marnix van St. Aldegonde, it becomes obvious that Calvinism consciously chooses sides against this viewpoint. The experience of the states of antiquity, the practical wisdom of their laws, and the deep insight of their statesmen and philosophers is held in esteem by these men, and these are cited in support of their own affirmations and consciously related to the ordinances of God. The earnest intent of the political life of many nations can be explained in terms of the principles of justice and morality that spoke in their consciences. They cannot be explained simply as blindness brought on by the Evil One; on the contrary, in the excellence of their political efforts we encounter a divine ray of light…
…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and As though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.
LikeLike
Tom,
Caring is not the same as enforcing. I care that unbelievers disobey God’s law, but I can’t do anything to enforce God’s law upon them. To do so would be to treat them like they’re members of the Church, when they are clearly not. We work with the same substance that all men have in common – i.e., what is Natural. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that male and female anatomy are structured a certain way and accomplish certain functions – I do not need scripture to tell me how one ought to use these.
In addition, isn’t it strange that God holds men accountable even when they never had the bible? Apparently unbelievers can know quite a bit about how they ought to conduct themselves, bible or no bible.
And America may not kill Christians like Rome, but they make up for it in babies.
LikeLike
Where I’m headed is trying to think through what it means to be a faithful Reformed Christian in public vs. a generic, conservative, culture warrior. William F. Buckley is not Jerry Falwell is not D.G. Hart and there are reasons why this is the case.
LikeLike
I don’t have my copy of “Between the Times” (Hart’s history of the OPC from 1945-1990 with me), but if I recall the decision on the Boy Scouts was made far before the onset of the culture war (I’m guessing 1950s). The decision is important because it reveals how Old School Presbyterians think through issues involving the purity of Christ’s church.
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=278&pfriendly=Y&ret=L29zLmh0bWw%2FYXJ0aWNsZV9pZD0yNzg%3D
LikeLike
What is your church affiliation & background, Tom? I need a frame of reference on you.
LikeLike
If you’re a Southern California guy and we could get you excited about conservative Presbyterian & Reformed churches, that would be great. There are a lot of good P&R people, churches, and other resources available there.
LikeLike
In addition, isn’t it strange that God holds men accountable even when they never had the bible? Apparently unbelievers can know quite a bit about how they ought to conduct themselves, bible or no bible.
Yes! Shall we consign Aristotle to hell? Spent most of his life trying to find the truth, if not God Hisself. What a pity he never got Benny Hinn on TV!
I have no idea what you people believe at this point. Let’s start stating it plainly, what do you think? Is Aristotle in hell? If I’m God, I give the guy a pass. But I’m not God.
Frankly, I think you’re all afraid of each other, or afraid of being found out in front of each other. I’m a skilled “close reader,” NP, what is not said reveals as much as what is said. Fortunately, you’re a pretty straightforward guy, so you make it unnecessary for me to use my Straussian powers of penetrating the fog of said/unsaid oracular bullshit. For which I give you props.
I read every word written here [exc for Brother Zrim, who has lost my confidence and any claim to my time], especially those written by our host Darryl G. Hart, whom I routinely read twice because he’s such a clever fellow—first for what he says, the second time for what he rather pointedly leaves unsaid. Few of us have the Straussian power to penetrate a Darryl G. Hart essay; in no small part because the Christians of Hitler’s Germany were so lame they let Hitler ramp up to the Holocaust. 2K isn’t just a theology, it’s an excuse for moral cowardice.
[By contrast, the Brothers Bayly leave nothing unsaid. Ever. One reading is plenty enough. But this is not to insult them terribly. Plainspeaking is a virtue as well.]
And America may not kill Christians like Rome, but they make up for it in babies.
Nate, I have been a coward on this issue, and on so many others. Commenting at Darryl’s blog here is part of my “coming out party” as it were. I have studied and written on philosophy, history and politics over the past few years, but this [and a foray to BaylyBlog] has been perhaps the first time I have spoken from the heart about what the Gospel has been nagging my arrogant know-it-all ass about all these years–to quiet my brain and open my heart.
Darryl has attracted me in his insistence that politics are not the cure to the evils of this world. This should be a duh. OTOH, if the Barmen Declaration preserved the Church at the price of the Holocaust, well, we must make a reckoning on that.
Has that reckoning ever been made? This is my question, Darryl. The rest of this, the Boy Scouts vs. Christ, and all the rest of the trivial nonsense that gets batted around here, well, that’s chickenspit, brother.
LikeLike
Tom,
For those of us who are officers in conservative P&R churches it’s not hard to know what we believe about Christianity since we have subscribed to either the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confessions, Canons of Dort) or the Westminister Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Shorter & Longer Catechism). Most people who subscribe to one accepts most or all of the other.
For example, we have an elder in our United Reformed Church (Three Forms) who was an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Westminster) for years before he came over.
As far as what we believe about Non-Confessional matters, that can differ a lot. For instance, Hart liked “The Master” and I thought it sucked. He thinks the Jerry Sandusky case got blown way out of proportion, I was o.k. with the outcome, etc. What differentiates us from most Christians is we don’t blend these issues together with what we believe about the Christian Faith. What we believe about the Christian faith is way more important.
As far as where Aristotle is, I don’t know. I think it’s likely that God applied Christ’s atonement backwards in time as well as forwards. “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15.6).
LikeLike
The question of the Nazi voter is a complex one:
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm
Once Hitler was in power, what was the church to do about it? What would the American Christian church do about a Fascist dictator today? Churches don’t have armies.
You also have to ask the question, would a lot of Conservative American Christians not be willing to vote for a far-right wing demagogue today if he campaigned against the left? Hitler was no fan of Communists.
LikeLike
The Bayly’s won’t even stand behind their axe-wielding deacon when he damages a building. They’re going to support assassinating a leader who has the power to put them in a camp or to put them to death? They missed a great chance to put up or shut up and they blew it.
A lot of Reformed Christians in the Netherlands were courageous in hiding Jews. Dordt College put on a conference on this subject when I was in college at Northwestern.
LikeLike
Thx for your reply and the Presbyterian scorecard, Erik.
Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confessions, Canons of Dort) or the Westminister Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Shorter & Longer Catechism).
I’ll consult this when in doubt. Although I’m not sure it’ll help.
What differentiates us from most Christians is we…
“We” kinda gives me the willies, “differentiates us from most Christians” makes my head hurt, if not my heart. This is not to say I accept every sloppy theology that comes down the pike with equanimity, esp Beatitudism and Barney the Christosaur.
As far as where Aristotle is, I don’t know. I think it’s likely that God applied Christ’s atonement backwards in time as well as forwards. “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15.6).
Sweet, EC. See, if it were up to me, I’d send a lot of contemporary Christian a-holes down the chute before Aristotle.
Fortunately for them, it ain’t up to me. 😉
Peace, brother, and thx for the considered reply.
LikeLike
Tom,
No problem.
It’s important background because “the regulars” here really are in harmony on the Confessions and, more specifically, the “Old School” Presbyterian expression of those Confessions. If you read one Hart book, read “Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America.”
When I read it, it really was a life-changing book for me (although I was already an elder in a Reformed Church). It’s a really interesting story as well.
LikeLike
Another way to view us is as men who in general don’t believe that the Reformation “improved” as time went on, with one exception — the untying of the Civil Magistrate from the church. Pretty much any other innovation — Pietism, the First Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, have done more to hurt the heritage of the Reformation than to advance it.
You will find men here who take exception to that notion (like Jonathan Edwards enthusiast & Reformed Baptist Richard Smith) and other Reformed men who are outside the mainstream of their Reformed churches (like Theonomist Doug Sowers), but they form the loyal opposition opposed to the Old Life norm.
LikeLike
Tom,
NL can’t save nobody, not even Aristotle. Otherwise we wouldn’t need Jesus and we would just need to listen to Aristotle…
I stick around because of Darryl’s endearing charm. It’s like being at a dinner party and you know your buddy is the guy who actually tells you that you have a piece of spinach stuck between your teeth.
And I’d bear my heart as well but I’m afraid you would find it quite unbearable…
LikeLike
NL can’t save nobody, not even Aristotle.
I’m not going to litigate that one. It’s up to God.
LikeLike
Eric, yep.
LikeLike
Nate, but I’m also the guy who will fill your wine glass so you can swish the spinach from between your teeth.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Another way to view us is as men who in general don’t believe that the Reformation “improved” as time went on, with one exception — the untying of the Civil Magistrate from the church. Pretty much any other innovation — Pietism, the First Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, Pentecostalism, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, have done more to hurt the heritage of the Reformation than to advance it.
RS: Perhaps the real issue in Christianity is not to advance the heritage of the Reformation, but to do all to the glory of God in Christ which is to say glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The First Great Awakening did not hurt the heritage of the Reformation, though indeed you may argue that, but instead it (as a whole) was a work of God in advancing the cause of Christ. The Second Great Awakening, as it is termed, was far more mixed than the First. It had Finney, who was a clear Pelagian ordained by the Presbyterians, who brought in some new measures and was a train wreck to the Gospel. On the other hand, there were men like Asahael Nettleton and Edward Griffin. But again, if advancing the heritage of the Reformation is the issue, that is not to be found in Scripture or the Confessions which tell us that the Bible is the real standard.
EC: You will find men here who take exception to that notion (like Jonathan Edwards enthusiast & Reformed Baptist Richard Smith) and other Reformed men who are outside the mainstream of their Reformed churches (like Theonomist Doug Sowers), but they form the loyal opposition opposed to the Old Life norm.
RS: It is interesting that liberals like Perry Miller admired the gigantic intellect of Jonathan Edwards and bemoaned the fact that he was a slave to the Bible, yet conservatives today cannot see how much he was a slave to the Bible. Yes, gasp, I believe Jonathan Edwards was closer to the heart of the issue of the Bible and reality (God and His glory) than John Calvin. No I don’t believe that the Reformers were perfect nor was the system they set out perfect. Since the Bible does not teach the Reformation alone as being important, I will stick with Scripture. In the words of Luther, unless you can prove from Scripture or evident reason…
LikeLike
D.G. in his piece on the Boy Scouts that he links to:
“Again, sex and families are important. But they are part of the common culture, not matters of religious orthodoxy.
To fail to see this difference is to have confused the politics of the civil kingdom with the politics of the eternal one. Put differently, civil religion is a poor imitation of ecclesiastical religion.”
Indeed.
LikeLike
Richard,
Still awaiting your launch of “Newlife.org”.
LikeLike
Too bad the Old School wasn’t very concerned with being confessional, since they persisted in the sin of Isaac Watts that made the church to sin, and didn’t really seem to have much of problem with the sin of Thomas Welch that made the church to sin either.
Then you have the fun little bit at the Old School GA voted overwhelmingly that Roman Catholic baptisms were not actual Christian baptisms. – Y’all going to sign on to that as well?
LikeLike
Oops, someone beat you to it, complete with a 2nd Commandment violation on the front page:
http://www.newlife.org/
LikeLike
Andrew,
We’re just better Old Schoolers than those Old Schoolers.
John Murray argued for exclusive Psalmody in the OPC. The URC emphasizes Psalms over hymns.
Chalk the grape juice option up to allowing in too many Baptist converts. Just kidding, but it’s a factor in my URC (actually Baptist wives of Reformed men).
Even today not everyone is overly excited about recognizing Catholic baptisms, although my URC does.
Now let’s examine your presumably theologically pure tradition…
LikeLike
You have no idea, but ask away, I may even answer for a while — or not. That reason is that it’s not about me or my theological tradition more or less pure as it may be. It’s about the Word of God which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that is the only rule to direct us in our chief end how man is to glorify and enjoy God (cf WSC 1,2)
LikeLike
You gloried in your tradition, and I pointed out that your tradition is full of dross, and you respond that URC emphasises true worship, while polishing the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. I didn’t and don’t glory in my tradition, so perhaps you might want to rethink that too.
LikeLike
As a fellow URCNA I understand and cheer for you in your struggles on here, Erik.
This denom provides a chance to have clarity of mind, do my job to the best of my moral and skill abilities, engage in unlettered/dilettantish theology spelunking as time and energy permits, and sit back and shake my head at a lot of what goes on here.
[I always take the grape juice option, for a few reasons, and will pity anyone sorry enough to worry about the concept in the first place.]
LikeLike
DG, once again, your charm wins us all over
LikeLike
Andrew – It’s about the Word of God which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that is the only rule to direct us in our chief end how man is to glorify and enjoy God (cf WSC 1,2)
And if you’ll expound upon that ex nihilo we can have a second Richard Smith in our midst.
What’s with citing the Westminster? Lots of tradition wrapped up in that.
Maybe these are your spiritual forefathers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement
LikeLike
You can’t escape tradition and you can’t escape creeds (even if they are unwritten). It’s just a question of which tradition & which creeds you embrace and why.
LikeLike
My URC pastor became Reformed while studying at a Church of Christ college (Pepperdine). Not the norm.
LikeLike
Nate, encouraging to know I still have IT.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Forgive the elementary question, but by which of the standards proposed (Church standards and cultural standards) ought a Christian govern his own household? If you’d rather not condense a nuanced answer, feel free to point me to a good resource on this question.
Thanks in advance,
LikeLike
Saying its not about the tradition doesn’t mean that I am trying to escape it, epistemology is a lot deeper than you think, and I don’t buy into your postmodern deconstructionalism where you get to subjectify every word, phrase and text to mean whatever you want it to mean. (as you demonstrated in your reply) Plus, there seems to be no room in your thinking for the work of the Holy Spirit, as sad as that may be.
If you had even the smallest of clues you would not have answered thus. If you ever actually become reformed, we would be able have a conversation about reformed theology, but since you have been only educated in a post-modern counterfeit to actual reformed theology, you confuse your counterfeit with actual reformed theology when it is presented to you. STBU.
LikeLike
Keith, the short answer is Bill Gothard. ba dop bop.
The long answer is it’s a mixed government. Since families are open to non-Christians as part of creation and providence, the running of them has to come from common sources. And even Christians will differ about how much television their kids can watch and it will depend a lot on the way these Christians read cultural standards — even if they do baptize them in Christian-speak. At the same time, what will set a Christian family apart are the religious exercises — worship, prayer before and after meals, catechesis, and wives submitting humbly and joyfully to hubby.
Okay, I’ll stick with the religious exercises.
LikeLike
Thanks for the answer. I will consult my copy of the Basic Youth Conflicts seminar textbook.
I guess I want to say that the Christian family is a different thing (and has different ends) than a generic family. You could make the same comparison between the Church and a generic house of worship. I’ll continue to noodle it.
LikeLike
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
Ooops, wrong thread. Appy-ologies. ;-(
LikeLike
Andrew,
Thanks for the charming interaction. Next time I’m in town I’ll introduce you to my Pit Bull, Booger. You two will really hit it off. Good to see you’re exhibiting those fruits of the Spirit you speak so highly of.
It’s an Old Life truism that the more a commenter speaks of the Spirit, the more disagreeable and nasty they tend to come across.
LikeLike
9 times out of 10 if someone claims to be Reformed and starts talking about “The Enlightenment” and “Postmodernism” you can count on it that they are either in the Wilson or Bayly camp.
Those folks aren’t crazy about tradition either — that’s why they’re attempting to re-write it.
LikeLike
Andrew, way to come out of nowhere, roaringly. Is that your mode of operation at a cocktail party? Must be fetching.
LikeLike
Keith, don’t go all Aristotelian-Thomist on us with this teleology jazz. If the Confession of Faith is any help, here is the purpose of marriage: ” Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” It looks to me like only the Christian family fulfills the bit about the church. The rest is good for everyone.
LikeLike
So I’m working the breakfast shift and in walks Andrew…
LikeLike
One of the cooks is Nicholas Cage.
LikeLike
Mean people suck.
Mean people who are funny I can do business with, however.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Mean people suck.
RS: Only a mean person would ever say that. Physician, diagnose thyself.
LikeLike
Richard,
You don’t do humor well. Stick to being annoying. You have a gift.
LikeLike
Erik CharterL Richard, You don’t do humor well. Stick to being annoying. You have a gift.
RS: I was not joking. By the way, who decided that you are a good judge of humor? Oh, you.
LikeLike
Thank goodness for You Tube:
LikeLike
There you go again with your subjectifying.
But for the record I only mentioned (prior to these upcoming instances) the Holy Spirit once, so you are not demonstrating even passing analytical skills about that. While it is true tha one is more than zero, it doesn’t really work with the phrase “the more…”. Also, that does seem to bear out that you don’t much care fore any mention of the Holy Spirit, but then that was my point previously. Always with you its “it’s how it is said, or more properly how you hear it”, such hyper-sensitive feelings you have. I guess its a good thing you have a pit bull for protection since its hard to defend yourself with all those hurt feelings.
It’s also interesting to note you had to resort to a not-so-veiled threat of violence “Next time I’m in town I’ll introduce you to my Pit Bull,…”. That indicates you folded pretty fast, faster than I thought you would. Hey I guess it’s progress that you didn’t deny what I said, but of course now that I pointed that out, you’ll have no choice. But more substantially, do you mean I am disagreeable like lots of people accuse John Calvin? Thank you, really, such high praise indeed. Anything not understood by you to be winsome cannot be true, — yeah that seems to be about right.
LikeLike
Hey Darryl
No offense, but your blog comes across not so much like a cocktail party but rather more like a dive bar in the not so nicest of neighborhoods.
LikeLike
Andrew Duggan: There you go again with your subjectifying.
But for the record I only mentioned (prior to these upcoming instances) the Holy Spirit once, so you are not demonstrating even passing analytical skills about that. While it is true tha one is more than zero, it doesn’t really work with the phrase “the more…”. Also, that does seem to bear out that you don’t much care fore any mention of the Holy Spirit, but then that was my point previously. Always with you its “it’s how it is said, or more properly how you hear it”, such hyper-sensitive feelings you have. I guess its a good thing you have a pit bull for protection since its hard to defend yourself with all those hurt feelings.
RS: So refreshing to read. Someone else sees the real subjectifying of things here.
LikeLike
Well, yes, it’s like a cocktail party, without the actual party.
I come here for the ideas, which I think are pretty interesting. I like Darryl, too, but he’s a lot more fun in person, i.e., at a real cocktail party.
Since I’m a pastor, I’ll indulge myself in an exhortation. Frankly, this thread is a low point in dialogue. Regulars, visitors, let’s all pick it up a notch. I do have a sense of humor, and occasionally chuckle. Darryl’s the host, he can post what he wants to. Let’s not all try to emulate him. It clutters up the discussion.
To borrow a line from T. David Gordon, this is exhibit A in “disincarnated communication.” Let’s at least try to talk to each other like we would if we were in the same room.
If you think I’m a weenie for saying it, well. Come to DC. I’ll buy you a drink.
LikeLike
Brian, and I’ll pour it on your head.
LikeLike
Andrew,
You missed the point. You would like meeting my Pit Bull because you are one (assuming I had one and it was the opposite sex).
If Richard has affinity for your comments, be very afraid.
If you two manifest the Holy Spirit, I’ll pass on being Spirit filled.
Who just starts attacking without anyone even knowing who they are or where they come from church wise? I did this on a Democratic Party website for a few days until I realized I was being a loser. Hang out with people you like so you can be happy, then maybe people will see you are filled with the Spirit.
LikeLike
Regarding the OPC and the Boy Scouts:
Considering the big brother-little brother relationship between the CRC and OPC until the last generation or so, I am guessing that the OPC’s Boy Scout debate — which which I am not familiar in detail — may be best understood in connection with the CRC’s strong objections to the Boy Scouts with led to the creation of the Calvinist Cadet Corps and Calvinettes. At one point the Banner editor was regularly writing attacks on the Boy Scouts in which he used terms of vituperation more typically used for Masons and Methodists in Christian Reformed circles of that day.
The CRC’s attacks on the Boy Scouts were part-and-parcel of the whole “separate Christian organization” movement, which in the Netherlands led to “pillarization” with confessional Calvinists essentially separating themselves into their own subculture of Christian schools, media, colleges, and even labor unions. The argument was that any organization (such as a public school of the older generation) must be rejected which answers “yes” to the question of “can we teach morality without reference to God.” Once that premise is granted, the attacks on the Boy Scouts, public schools, and fraternal organizations starts to make much more sense.
It’s also pretty hard to ignore the fact that Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting, was a wartime enemy of the Boers and his model for the Boy Scouts was probably a group of British boys, the Mafeking Cadet Corps, who helped the British military in a town commanded by Baden-Powell while under seige by the Boers during the Boer War in South Africa. I am not foolish enough to think that theology was merely an excuse for the Dutch opposition to Scouting, but the history of Scouting certainly played a role back in an era when the reputation of Scouting was more closely connected with the military and with Britain than its reputation is today in the United States.
I don’t think this Dutch Reformed debate on separate Christian organizations and how they apply to the Boy Scouts has much if anything to do with the modern American “culture war” context, or even the historic Old School-New School debate.
Now maybe the OPC dealt with the Scouting issue differently than the CRC, based on Old School principles rather than Dutch concepts. I don’t know. But the practical reality is that a number of OPC churches got involved with Calvinist Cadet Corps and a fair number still are involved.
LikeLike
The toughest part about being Reformed is dealing with the pathological people at the fringes of Reformed churches. 5% of our people consistently cast the other 95% in a bad light. Mean, nasty, disagreeable people who can’t find a church because no one interprets everything their way. It’s one of the most ridiculous things in all of Christianity We have Confessions to unite around. Those who can’t join in should just bug off as far as I’m concerned. We’re better off without you.
It’s almost enough to make one cut their tithe in half and return to happy clappy watered-down evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Those Calvinist Cadet Corps boys must look nifty in their little black Genevan gowns with Swiss Army knives (what else?) dangling from their waist sashes.
LikeLike
DTM,
Actually it’s rooted in the Presbyterian idea of the Spirituality of the Church that you just spent thousands of word vilifying.
LikeLike
Scoop, pardon, but I think you’re being waited on at Tuininga’s place to show how Lee’s congressional speech violates 2k.
LikeLike
Of course Richard’s congregation’s Edwardsian Explorers’ smocks have little hatches at the midriff from navel gazing.
LikeLike
*for* navel gazing…
LikeLike
Erik:The toughest part about being Reformed is dealing with the pathological people at the fringes of Reformed churches. 5% of our people consistently cast the other 95% in a bad light. Mean, nasty, disagreeable people who can’t find a church because no one interprets everything their way. It’s one of the most ridiculous things in all of Christianity We have Confessions to unite around. Those who can’t join in should just bug off as far as I’m concerned. We’re better off without you.
Yes, Erik, but Dispy was far far worse.
It’s just that the bitter disappointment that people cause on Reformed forums seems worse… so much better was expected, just what is their bleeping problem….
LikeLike
Unlike Neocalvinists, Old School Presbyterians don’t feel the need to create separate “Christian” versions of common things. They do refrain, however, from compromising their churches by bringing these common things inside the church (i.e. The Boy Scouts). an OPC kid could be in the Boy Scouts, a Boy Scout troop just couldn’t be hosted in an OPC church building.
LikeLike
Kent,
It’s my own fault. To think that you are going to be active on the internet and not have to deal with this 5% is like going to a Pink Floyd concert and thinking you won’t smell any pot. It’s just a question of how long I’m willing to persevere.
LikeLike
Erik, if you were ever at a Fundy Baptist Church growing up (I think you were, but not sure) there were 3 or 4 very sad characters who walked the aisle every week to confess they had committed the same sin again and kept getting told that this wasn’t the proper forum for dealing with the matter. And they refused to get a job or contribute to the church or society.
Well… I think these are the same people who found some solace in intro Reformed theology and have blown a gasket all over again.
LikeLike
Erik: re: Floyd and pot expectations
nah… I’ll resist the urge to copy and paste half of the Savoy or WCF, or 50 out of context Bible verses, or half the US Constitution…
LikeLike
In a return to evangelicalism my standards would be incredibly low. If I got a good cup of coffee and saw some cute girls on Sunday morning I would call it good.
LikeLike
Kent,
The big difference with the aisle walkers is that these were generally pretty humble but troubled people. It was the guy who had his act together on the outside (and never walked the aisle) but who was an angry, judgmental tyrant at heart who is akin to our 5%.
LikeLike
Erik: This is why men just stand there with the garden hose, minimally watering their lawns, it’s the only peace and quiet they can possibly muster up in the week.
Or why old men just stare into space, any hope for decency they wanted to find in the world has been crushed to powder. With the internet giving access to all forms of loons, our generation will be sitting and starting into space twenty years ahead of our time
You mean we’ve built a way of finding a few people on the planet to talk to with similar interests and then people are going to invade it and totally ruin it for no reason but their kicks and jollies?
LikeLike
erik: The big difference with the aisle walkers is that these were generally pretty humble but troubled people. It was the guy who had his act together on the outside (and never walked the aisle) but who was an angry, judgmental tyrant at heart who is akin to our 5%.
Yeah, they were sad characters, married too (their unbelievably longsuffering spouses….)
One in particular took up the cause of KJVO when my church wanted to go NIV. He campaigned mightily, sent out brochures and called all members once a week to bother them. When the church went NIV he took off with 2 others to form his own church.
LikeLike
Kent – You mean we’ve built a way of finding a few people on the planet to talk to with similar interests and then people are going to invade it and totally ruin it for no reason but their kicks and jollies?
Indeed. There are a handful of people I have “met” here (you being one), who have really encouraged me in my Christian faith. There is another handful who have done exactly the opposite. Not coincidentally, the ones who have encouraged me are the ones whose beliefs are in line with the proprietor of the site (he is one of the ones who has encouraged me).
I just don’t understand people who get off on constantly being contrary to people who they know disagree with them. I think Satan was probably this way before he fell.
Now if someone wants to come here and humbly, politely disagree, then that’s great. But to hammer on the same disagreements day after day after month after year is one of the sickest things I’ve ever witnessed.
LikeLike
Rather it is more likely you retroactively changed it (the point). But then that’s what you do. If that was really your point, then well, it didn’t take too for you to move to pimping your dog (assuming you had one …) for bestiality. See, your calling me a dog doesn’t actually make me one, and the purpose of the introduction could only mean one thing or why else would the sex of your dog (assuming you had one) matter?
— Thanks for playing.
However, I’ve only just dropped by the Ministry of Truth to see what’s new in reformed theology and church history. Keep up the good work. DGH just might sponsor your Party membership, but I’m not sure that Outer Party members can sponsor new members directly.
LikeLike
Andrew,
I have a song for you:
Unsincerely,
Erik
LikeLike
Andrew,
And say “hi” to the other 7 members of your church for me. What was it called, again? Oh yeah, Westboro Baptist.
LikeLike