Brian Lee has some very helpful and wise reflections on his decision to open Congress in prayer. I call it a capitulation to the nation’s civil religion. I believe this is fair even though it hurts to say it because Brian is a good friend and a Reformed pastor whom I respect. It is fair because (I won’t give reasons for befriending Brian) civil religion is precisely the theme by which Brian frames his post-prayer considerations:
Civil religion is thick in America. “God” is on our money, and in the Pledge of Allegiance, not to mention in the Declaration of Independence. We regularly ask him to bless America at ball games. And every session of the U.S. House and Senate opens with a prayer.
Recently the question of civil religion became very concrete for me. I was asked, as a pastor in Washington, D.C., to serve as guest chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives, and open that body with prayer. The question of “Whether and what sort of civil religion shall we have in America?” quickly became “Should I pray in the House of Representatives? If so, how?”
But Brian went ahead and prayed even though he remains torn about whether he should have prayed. The whole piece is worth reading but I highlight the best reason he gives for not praying (even though he did — it’s confusing):
2) The difference between Congress and church.
Before you file this under “most obvious argument ever,” take a moment to consider exactly what the essential difference is. A church is a particular worshiping community, a creedal body, because it prays to a particular God. When I pray publicly in church, I therefore pray in the first person plural. That is, I pray in common and on behalf of every member of that community. While guests are welcome to observe and join in, there is no presumption they must do so. In doing so I presume for all to whom we are praying, and how we are praying, and why we expect our prayers to be answered.
To whatever degree “Christian” may describe America, we are quite obviously not a creedal nation. Membership in Congress is explicitly not subject to a religious test; it is in this sense an anti-creedal body. It is therefore impossible for me to pray before Congress as I pray in church, on behalf of the assembled body, for Congress does not have an agreed-upon God. However, while I may not be able to pray on behalf of people who don’t share my faith, I can certainly pray for them. In this way, I occasionally pray for sick unbelievers when I’m invited to visit them in the hospital.
Christians must not presume false unity within a pluralistic group by praying in the first person plural on their behalf. If we do pray in such settings, we must pray as individuals, to a particular God, for the group. And indeed, this seems to me most consistent with the pluralistic character of our polity, that we retain our religious distinctiveness even as we enter the public square, instead of pretending as though there is none.
That difference and the pervasiveness of civil religion would have been enough for me (feeling all full of my abstract self) to decline. Another reason is one that Richard Gamble highlights in his book, In Search of a City on a Hill. That is, American Christians (especially conservative ones) have been way too silent about the state taking over Christian language and ideas. Gamble writes:
Today, 50 years after the city on a hill first appeared in modern political rhetoric and nearly 400 years since John Winthrop shepherded his flock to New England’s shores, Americans are left with a secularized metaphor, politicized by the Left and the Right and nearing the point of exhaustion. The metaphor has been forced to carry an impossible load of nationalist, populist and collectivist aspirations. Americans have inherited two political cities looming so large in the media, the political culture and even the church, that together they have eclipsed the historical Winthrop and the biblical Jesus. The biblical metaphor, appropriated by the Puritans and reinvented by modern Democrats and Republicans, has been transformed so successfully into a national myth that few can see or hear these words without all of their modern political meaning attached. Even many Christians, how might be expected to guard their property more vigilantly, argue over which national values the politicized city should stand for and miss the fact that they have lost their metaphor. They argue over which party ought to build the city, over whether Kennedy’s or Reagan’s vision best defines the city, rarely stopping to consider whether Jesus ever had America in mind in the Sermon on the Mount. Such is the power of civil religion in twenty-first century America. Even if Americans manage to convince themselves, in spite of the evidence, that John Winthrop envisioned a glorious future for American ideals and institutions, can they really convince themselves that Jesus intended the United States to take up his disciples’ calling as a city on a hill? Distracted by a contest between two early political cities, Americans forget that the original city on a hill was neither Democrat or Republican. It was not even American. (178-79)
In other words, most of the critics of 2k who fault the notion of two kingdoms for secularizing politics, or culture, or child rearing, wind up secularizing Christianity by making it serve ends that are common (and even profane). At least 2kers are up front about the secular and try to preserve the uniqueness of Christianity. The integralists, the ones who want to see all of life whole with everything Christian, dumb Christianity down.
And it is for the reason that civil religion is so hard wired in American political discourse that I would have preferred that Brian Lee decline the invitation to pray before Congress. If he could have editorialized before praying, and explained that he was praying only as a minister, praying for (not with) Congress members, then perhaps it would have been useful. But as it is I fear that the huge appetite of American civil religion will swallow up his good prayer and thoughtful post-prayer reflections.
Old Life 
I struggle with praying before a basketball game (and have recently decided — for the second time — not to). My reasoning is (1) That not everyone playing is a professing Christian, and (2) There are sometimes conflicts in the game that go unresolved — guys giving cheap shots and not apologizing, guys yelling at each other, guys using bad language with each other. If it’s a “Christian” game then these things need to be dealt according to Matthew 18.
I have been opposed by a young Pentecostal who says that everyone needs more of God and more prayer. I don’t bother arguing with him and grant him his right to freely exercise his religion, but I refrain from offering a prayer myself.
A basketball game, like a session of Congress, is a “common” activity and doesn’t require the sanction of individual Christians or the church.
LikeLike
I visited Pastor Lee’s church just after you had lectured there, DGH, and encourage others living in the area or passing through to attend.
I’m going to raise one limited issue. That is, we can’t have private interpretations of public acts that are contrary to how they are likely to be received. Obviously, we can in fact have private interpretations but we should not. The vow is a compelling example, certainly, in which it is dowright duplicitous to maintain an idiosyncratic definition of its words that are reasonably understood by the audience in a different way.
The question I have about Congressional prayers, is “how are they reasonably and objectively received?” Here is part of that context:
“Last Thursday, a Hindu priest from Parma, Ohio, delivered the opening prayer to the House in conjunction with Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee addressing a joint meeting of Congress.
…The House has a full-time chaplain, currently a Roman Catholic priest, but on occasion invites guest religious leaders to deliver the opening prayer. Last week, in another first, the prayer was given by a Roman Catholic nun.”
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Hinduism/2000/09/Hindu-Prayer-In-Congress-Criticized.aspx#
In this context in which people of very different faiths submerge their differences for the sake of the Congressional prayer it just seems to me that the objective message is that participation in the civil sphere is of greater importance than maintenance of religious distinctives. Then there seems to be a tacit agreement in which the speaker is praying to his our her God while others may borrow those same words to pray to their Gods; it’s hard not to perceive that as a distant relative to the “many roads to one God” idea. So, yes, it seems like an objective observer would conclude that religion has been tamed & co-opted for the end of serving a particular government.
To be clear, I am sure that none of this reflects Pastor Lee’s goals or thought-processes. But does a subjective understanding of one’s acts override the reasonable interpretation of those acts in their context? This has been my struggle with civil religion.
LikeLike
Thanks very much for this, dgh. I agree very much with your position. I also appreciate the confusion when true friends disagree with us about something we find to be so clear (and even important). This again shows us how important it is for us to have these true friends. Irony and sarcasm only take us so far, and I am glad that you and Brian Lee are friends indeed.
I know that “secular” people can be “really” married and “actually” friends. But it’s good to know that Christians can be also.
Those who can’t collaborate in any way with “civil religion” are pretty alienated. Maybe the “exile” is a result of the vestiges of fundy-ism from how you were raised. But as I remember it, you were American Baptist, mainline, not that fundy. And…I don’t know anything about Brian Lee’s mom and dad….
LikeLike
On second thought, fundies as I know them (my dad and mom) are not so alienated from being patriotic americans as I imply. They were alienated from the academy, from science, from music, but not so much from voting segregationist etc.
But my dad has changed. Now he has fox news, bumper stickers on his car. 40 years ago he would have had no tv to watch fox news, and any alliance with Romanist (or Mormon) political partners would have been unthinkable. Maybe it’s very much like Douglas Franks tells it in his wonderful book Less Than Conquerors. They were all for having power when they had it, but when they lost it, they claimed that power was corrupting and started talking about a pretrib rapture and/or the “interior life” of their soul. And then Ronnie and Falwell tempted them, and the dumbing down has followed.
dgh: he critics of 2k who fault the notion of two kingdoms for secularizing politics, or culture, or child rearing, wind up secularizing Christianity by making it serve ends that are common (and even profane). At least 2kers are up front about the secular and try to preserve the uniqueness of Christianity. The integralists, the ones who want to see all of life whole with everything Christian, dumb Christianity down.
LikeLike
MM – In this context in which people of very different faiths submerge their differences for the sake of the Congressional prayer it just seems to me that the objective message is that participation in the civil sphere is of greater importance than maintenance of religious distinctives.
Erik – Indeed. If this thinking were to triumph in Confessional Presbyterianism you, D.G., and the other OPC men will need to repent of your forefathers’ restriction on the Boy Scouts meeting in your churches.
Bryan is URC so you are off the hook for now.
LikeLike
This issue (the one of Pr. Lee’s prayer at the congressional session) is much the same, but on a much smaller scale, as the one that caused a major schism within the LCMS, first at the post-9/11 Yankee Stadium “interfaith” prayer service and most recently at Newtown, CT. Confessionalists with the synod opposed the attendance at either event by an LCMS pastor because of their synergistic nature. More liberal members supported their attendance on the grounds of inclusiveness and community support.
I believe there has been some retraction of earlier comments made by synodical leaders, but I’m not sure where they stand now. LCMS bloggers feel free to chime in.
LikeLike
I take sides with Mencken and his “secularist” hero Nietzsche against the Roman Catholics anxious to drink the kool-aide of Fox News. The very definition of “ressentiment” is being against something because Obama is for it. And I should know, because if the pope says the sky is blue, I have to do some more inductive study…
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/nietzsche-an-american-icon.html
LikeLike
The Missouri Synod clergy guy was only following the example of Tim Keller. The ultimate problem is not the association with civil religion and false gospels. The problem is that the message gets changed to something not only “dumbed down” and generically Pelagian.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/lutheran-pastor-apologizes-for-praying-at-newtown-vigil.html
Tim Keller at a post 9/11 ecumenical religious meeting: “we now know what the answer isn’t. It can’t be that God doesn’t love us.”
Keller once upon a time signed on to the Westminster Confession which explains in its chapter 3, first paragraph: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely ordain whatever comes to pass.” This is not “allowing”.
Paragraph three of the confession chapter 3: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.”
For the manifestation of His glory—that is how the Bible itself explains it. Romans 9:13 declares “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Romans 9:22 tells the truth: “God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory.”
The Bible was written to those who believe the Christian gospel (not the message of tolerance and loves everybody), so when Bible readers see a “loves us”, they need to ask the question “who’s the us?” Civil Religion always gives the wrong answer to that question.
According to the Bible, God does not love all sinners, and that love is never conditioned on the sinner. God has ordained evil things to happen to both the non-elect and the elect, but the promise of Romans 8:28 is that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
LikeLike
I can’t but wonder what those who affirm Lee’s decision would make of another, less political and more domestic scenario: a neighbor invites the myriad local religionists to her home and pray for her sick son. Is it appropriate for the Reformed believer to take his turn at the bedside after the Mormon and before the Muslim? How would this not be an act that affirms the pluralist ethic that we are one amongst equals, as opposed to maintaining the Reformed principle of antithesis? Or would it be more prudent to assure our friend that we will remember her son in our daily prayers, as well as even requesting he be remembered in our church’s weekly intercessory prayers?
LikeLike
It would appear that DG has forgotten this prayer, that *should* be on the forefront of our heart, (if you are truly a believer)
:Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Me: Last I checked, NBA games are played on planet earth, no? So Darryl, why do you oppose prayer in the name that is above all names? Shame on you!
LikeLike
McMark, according to Philippians 2:10 Paul is exhorting everyone! Get that? Everyone includes everyone! And everyone is to confess the truth, that Jesus is Lord of all to the glory of God.
Is it pleasing to God when Jesus name is lifted up?
Answer: Yes!
LikeLike
McMark blunders: “According to the Bible, God does not love all sinners, and that love is never conditioned on the sinner.:
Me: Nonsense! Find that in the Bible! Hint: it’s not there. God most certainly loves all men in some ways. The Bible says God loved Israel, even those who were not elect. Remember Jesus weeping over Jerusalem? The Bible tells us that God was a faithful husband to Israel, “even though only the remnant were saved”. This of course nukes your unbiblical theory.
It is true, that God only expresses a “saving” love for his sheep. But to deny that God loves all men in some ways, puts you out of bounds!
You need to grow up, and put these foolish constructs behind you. God allows all men to experience, love, joy, happiness, good food, the sun, the rain, and all sorts of things that we don’t deserve. It’s called “common grace” which stems from love!
Nuff said!
LikeLike
Doug,
For someone who has (presumably) been in the OPC as long as you have, your first response to almost any question is universally ham handed and just plain bad. Your pastor(s) should perhaps be brought up on charges. Your last three comments may be three of your worst. Seriously, how long have you been in the OPC? You sound like you’ve been weaned on a fundamentalist pickle.
LikeLike
McMark offers a Scripture out of context: Romans 9:13 declares “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Me: If you bothered to take a closer look at the full counsel of God’s Word, you would understand that God is talking about his *saving* love, not general love. Let me prove this with Scripture:
Deuteronomy 2:2
“You are about to pass through the territory of your brothers, the people of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. So be very careful. Do not contend with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of your foot to tread on because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.”
Me: Notice young Mark, that God honored the children of Esau! Do you notice that God spared Esau’s descendants? Does that sound like God hated Esau and his descendants? No?
THEN QUIT TAKING THE BIBLE OUT OF CONTEXT!!!
If you took the time to read the whole Bible “in context” you would have to confess that God has a general love for all men especially Esau’s descendants whom he protected from Israel. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! McMark, you give Calvinists a bad name, when you misrepresent God. You make us stink!
Stop it!
LikeLike
Erik, please be specific and show me where I am out of line? I learned systematic theology from Greg Bahnsen, who was in good standing in the OPC until the day he went to be with the Lord.
Psssst, he was never brought up on charges, either!
Oh, and Erik, at least I was attempting to be specific. Show me, with Scripture where you think I have missed the boat.
LikeLike
Doug,
Your attitude of “the more prayers the better regardless of who is saying them and with who” reeks of the worst strains of evangelicalism. How in the world did you learn that from Bahnsen? As you would probably say, “Greg is rolling over in his grave!”
And what are you talking about with NBA games? What did I miss? Go Warriors, by the way.
LikeLike
Go warriors?! Pshaw. It’s time for Curry to have an ‘unfortunate’ occurrence. A little ole defense on the perimeter and Blair to ‘meet him in the air’ (it’s even sanctified that way)on the way to the rim.
LikeLike
Doug,
I think you missed the premise. Context matters!
When one offers up Christian prayers in that context, the prayer is likely to be construed as a prayer to the American-created god of civic Christianity. Because the god of American civic Christianity is a false god, we should be careful to avoid giving the appearance that we practice the false and blasphemous religion of civil Christianity. It’s not the subjective intent that matters. What matters is how one’s conduct would be perceived by a reasonable objective observer.
American civic Christianity should be no less offensive than any other false religion. In fact, Christians should take greater offense at it, given that it seeks to trade on the goodwill of Christian orthodoxy. But you and the revivalists seem to be content to settle for a fair measure of admixing.
LikeLike
Erik, Bahnsen would not be agaisnt praying before a game! I think it’s a good thing to have a prayer before a game, that God would watch over all in the name of Jesus. My pastor prays every Sunday for America. How is that different than having a Pastor pray in the name of Jesus, before a game?
My pastor also prays for the lost every Sunday. Aren’t we called to be fishers of men? Shouldl’t we have a heart for the lost? Didn’t Jesus have a heart for the lost? Look at how his heart went out to the rich young ruler. I see no conflict, as long as the prayer is prayed in the name of Jesus, in God’s will.
LikeLike
Sean – Go warriors?! Pshaw. It’s time for Curry to have an ‘unfortunate’ occurrence.
Erik – They need to make a quick trade for some of the Bulls. Noah would knock him on his butt a few times.
LikeLike
Bobby – the prayer is likely to be construed as a prayer to the American-created god of civic Christianity
Erik – Is this the same god who ensures that everyone who dies, regardless of religion, “is in a better place”?
LikeLike
Doug – My pastor prays every Sunday for America. How is that different than having a Pastor pray in the name of Jesus, before a game?
Erik – Because one is in his church praying with Christians and the other is in an arena praying with whomever?
If we pray with everyone, should we invite everyone to partake of the Lord’s Supper as well?
Don’t we actually insult people when we pray in Jesus’ name with them if they don’t have true faith in Jesus? And if we don’t pray in Jesus’ name, what are we doing?
Praying with someone is not the same thing as preaching the gospel to them.
LikeLike
Doug,
Would you pray with a “Sodomite” in a gay bar or with a murderer in a prison?
If not, why would you pray with a miscellaneous sports fan or Congressman?
I could have put the Congressman in the first sentence, but…
LikeLike
Come on Erik, you know you stalk the maternity ward looking to splash water on unsuspecting babies.
LikeLike
Bobby, I have no idea what America’s civic religion means. It sounds like something made up in Darryl’s head.
Erik, my reading of the Bible says to ” rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is the will of God concerning you.”
I can’t see how this excludes praying an appropriate prayer in either Congress or at a basketball game. In fact, I don’t think there is such a thing as a “no prayer” zone.
With that said, there are plenty of prayers that I can not say amen too. All prayers should give glory to God, being Christ centric. But, for you to say that you wouldn’t pray for a basketball game, leaves me wondering why?
Pray without ceasing!
LikeLike
Erik, I would, and do pray *for* sodomites. What do you mean by praying *with* a sodomite? By the way, (to pray) means to pray in the will of God. And that is always a good thing to do in every circumstance.
There is no such thing, as a God free zone. We are commanded to “pray without ceasing”. Why would you cease to pray for the players in an NBA game? I really don’t get it.
LikeLike
Doug,
Your denial of the existence of civic Christianity explains a lot. I’d suggest that makes you much more a follower of Doug Phillips and David Barton than Rushdoony and Bahnsen.
LikeLike
Erik – Because one is in his church praying with Christians and the other is in an arena praying with whomever?
Having a Pastor praying for an event like Congress or a ball game is a good thing, in my humble opinion.
Erik: If we pray with everyone, should we invite everyone to partake of the Lord’s Supper as well?
Me: My OPC opens the Lord’s supper for everyone. We do ask if you aren’t a believer to abstain, but it’s open. And I don’t have a problem with it.
Erik: Don’t we actually insult people when we pray in Jesus’ name with them if they don’t have true faith in Jesus? And if we don’t pray in Jesus’ name, what are we doing?
Me: Erik God has commanded all men to repent and bend their knee to Christ Jesus! And you worry about insulting them?
Erik: Praying with someone is not the same thing as preaching the gospel to them.
Me: When a Pastor is leading a group in prayer that’s a good think!, Do you have a Scripture prohibiting that from taking place?
LikeLike
Erik: Don’t we actually insult people when we pray in Jesus’ name with them if they don’t have true faith in Jesus? And if we don’t pray in Jesus’ name, what are we doing?
Me: Erik, think about your question, was Paul worried about insulting unbelievers, when he told them God has commanded all men to repent? Jesus is Lord! Was Jesus worried about insulting the Pharisees when he called them white washed tombs?
Me again: Erik, we all have the ministry of reconciliation 24/7 We don’t know when God will change a heart. But the last thing we should do, is hide it under a bushel. Let the whole world know that Jesus is Lord, and every other way of salvation, is a false way.
Erik asks: Would you pray with a “Sodomite” in a gay bar or with a murderer in a prison?
Me: What would I be doing in a “gay bar”? So no. BUT with a murderer in prison? Sure, especially if I was in a prison ministry. Many Christians have committed murder, (think of King David) the difference is true Christians repent and are covered by the blood of Jesus.
LikeLike
Erik, most murder happens in the heat of the moment, usually a crime of passion. (over 70% I believe)That is quite different than a man living in sodomite perversion. Most murderers feel real bad afterwards, even those who are not Christians. If a Christian commits murder and then repents, he is in good standing towards God, why should we withhold our love and fellowship? At least until he gets executed and goes to be with the Lord.
Once either a murderer or a sodomite repents and confesses Jesus as Lord I consider them my brother. And even if they have not repented, I would be willing to pray for them.
Hey! I even pray for DGH! All joking aside, I feel DGH is a far greater threat to the body of Christ than a murderer, or a sodomite. He influences precious sheep like you, and that boils my blood.
LikeLike
Rousseau coined the term in chapter 8, book 4 of The Social Contract (1762), to describe what he regarded as the moral foundation essential for any modern society. For Rousseau, civil religion was intended simply as a form of social cement, helping to unify the state by providing it with sacred authority. In his book, Rousseau outlines the simple dogmas of the civil religion: Deity, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of sectarian exclusivism.
Yes, I too notice the contradiction in that last idea. In the name of inclusion, all the non-patriots are not tolerated. You may be a citizen of heaven in private, but you must kill in public for the public if the public needs you….
You know that Doug’s patriotic religion has become his idol, because he regards even the abstention from his nationalistic religion as a greater threat to churches than abortion/ murder.
I hope I can stay awake for the game tonight–my favorite two teams left in the playoff, but I still have to pull for the Spurs because they are more likely to beat the Heat. Having an enemy is what makes watching sports so much fun. I also hope that the Spurs have to score at least 120 to win. And I do want the refs to call fouls when those “meetings in the air” happen.
Doug says I’m young! Retired guys like me should be able to stay awake. But I never got my nap today.
LikeLike
the chaplains of civil religion
billy graham and son, along with evangelicals
explain that it makes no difference
what sectarian minorities might say
because history tells us,
america is always exceptionally good
this is the story that still pays off
the chaplains defend the narrative
thank a generic god for constantine or hitler
and all those who kill to make it possible for us
to worship our way
grateful to the killers who stand between us
and apocalypse
thankful we do not have to face truth
since we have fox news to agree with us
the soldiers are cheap, their lives also,
they kill for us so that we don’t have to
(which is about the same as jesus dying for us)
the chaplains cost more but they assure us
the sacrament is liminal, and voting is our sacrament
here now and no history and no need for history
some historians focus on bad stuff, they undermine our collective will
LikeLike
All joking aside, I feel DGH is a far greater threat to the body of Christ than a murderer, or a sodomite. He influences precious sheep like you, and that boils my blood.
Whoa. This is where the going gets weird.
Tim Bayly, as a faithful follower of this blog, surely you’re reading all this. Which is worse, a 2Ker or a sodomite? [No hedging.]
LikeLike
The Spurs had 5 different head coaches in 1992. Can you name them?
Cotton Fitzsimmons
Bob Weiss
Larry Brown
Bob Bass
Jerry Tarkanian
Rex Hughes
John Lucas
Bob Hill
Gregg Popovich
LikeLike
I really am confused. Does this mean I can’t invite Darryl to speak at our church events in the future… or just that he won’t come even if I do?
[I suppose you guys would have all been a bit more upset if you had seen me bow before the mace off camera…]
Believe me when I say that living in DC, I deplore civil religion as much as all the rest of you, and Gamble is spot on. Christians failing to take issue with the abuse of biblical language is one of my greatest concerns. I know it is not kosher to pick a fight with MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights movement, but the “justice rolling down” is not civil justice.
So I buy virtually all of the arguments against making this prayer, but a few things gnaw at me.
As a historian, it bugs me a ton that we are debating a question that virtually no Christian would have ever debated before. That’s just weird, morally, and speaks to the uniqueness of the 2K position in America today. Nothing wrong with being unique, but the historian (and logician) tells me it shouldn’t happen very often.
Paul and early church, because they were a minority and there would rarely if ever have been a parallel situation (can we imagine one? What if they would have asked Paul to pray to his God for the wise proceedings of the debate on Mars Hill? What would he have done?). Under Christendom, no one would have ever questioned such an act.
Anyone familiar with an analogue, or a discussion of Christians pondering this before? Did any Fathers at the time of Constantine push back again “civilizing” of religion? In the American context, has anyone had this debate? I trust DGH — or Gamble… thanks, Darryl, for pitting me against him… at least next time let me challenge him on pullups or something I have a chance with — will provide an OPC parallel and/or study committee report.
My point about the uniqueness is that I think we should all admit that the 2K way of thinking about these issues doesn’t remove the messiness of living out the particularities of our confession in the common sphere. Not saying anyone ever said that, but I think an outsider reading this blog (not that I’ll ever read it again) could come away with the impression that 2K was cut and dried and created two neatly bifurcated spheres.
Second, and related to the above, why should we object to being one of many particular religions in the common sphere, alongside the others? Isn’t that precisely what we want to be, in the eyes of the civil magistrate?
Zrim’s comparison about a neighbor who asks us to pray for their son, along with Rabbi, Imam, etc. Yes, that’s horribly confused. Since it is a neighbor (and not a nation), we could explain this to him: “Our gods are incompatible; if any one of them is real, they won’t honor you hedging your bets by seeking prayers be made to all of them, prayers to Christ are honored because of our faith in the merits of Christ.” So he responds, “Yes, I understand all that — as much as a confused man like I can — but please, I want to hear you pray to your God. Perhaps it will encourage me. Perhaps it will help me believe there really is a God up there.” Surely, one good response is to assure the man that you will seek God’s face in your private prayer. Perhaps you invite him over to dinner, or to church, to hear you pray for his son. That might be best. But is it the case that a Christian can’t pray to his own God publicly (or semi-publicly) in a pluralistic context? Is it not perhaps permissable that we say, “friend, I will pray for your son, and perhaps God will hear my prayer… Lord knows, I really want the Lord to heal him, though I don’t know his will.” Might that in some context be a loving thing to do?
The LCMS analogue (Yankee Stadium / Newtown) breaks down, I believe, in that those ministers were joining in interfaith services. I would not do that. I would not pray alongside other faiths, other denominations in a multifaith service. Nor would I have prayed had I been restricted in what I could pray.
Again, doesn’t 2K create a common, pluralistic sphere, where we live side by side with people of all religions? Are our founding documents better or worse for naming Nature’s God? Are we likely to get religious freedom (I was at Monticello today… what a spot) if there is nothing whatsoever of the Jeffersonian bastardized deity? So aren’t we sort of counting on the very best of all possible civil governments to be confusedly aware of a divine source for their judgments regarding good and evil? And how irrational is it for that common government to say “we’re not going to enforce matters of worship, but we are going to welcome those religions who will pray for our just founding in the public square?” Or do we need to insist that the cultural institutions operate with cultic purity?
So yes, civil religion is a great evil; Christian silence or accommodation to it is also highly problematic. I am highly ambivalent about military chaplains (haven’t thought hard enough about it to rule it out entirely), but am certain that I could never take a job as a government / legislative chaplain. I presume that if every guest chaplain prayed an orthodox prayer, as I did, the office would probably go away. I also presume that you should pray a prayer assuming that you in all likelihood won’t be invited back.
I suppose, therefore, that I understood my prayer as something of a protest against civil religion, a protest certainly bound to be misunderstood by the vast majority of Americans — and in that sense propagating the flood of civil religion — but one that nonetheless could be explained to those with ears to hear, those willing to read this blog or my article or a lecture or sermon I deliver on the subject. And in that latter sense, perhaps helping a very little bit to curtail civil religion in one of the few places (confessional Christianity) where it has a chance of being curtailed.
But this latter rationale only washes, I think, if the act itself isn’t morally wrong. I get that in the context of American civil religion, merely propagating civil religion is wrong for Christians. But outside the context of America, in some hypothetical common, pluralistic state without our cultural / religious baggage, would it ever be permissible to pray a prayer in such a setting?
Is the command of Christ against public prayer the determining factor? Others? Would you all demur from a prayer over a meal, say in the context of a “conservative” (but not explicitly christian) school gathering?
LikeLike
Bobby says: Your denial of the existence of civic Christianity explains a lot. I’d suggest that makes you much more a follower of Doug Phillips and David Barton than Rushdoony and Bahnsen.
Me: Bobby, I didn’t deny the existence of civic Christianity, I just don’t understand what you mean by it. Moreover, is it a biblical concept? If not, then WHO CARES?.
I do believe it’s always good thing to pray an appropriate prayer before Congress, or I should say, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Everyone at Old LIfe would do well to quit constantly labeling people. It prevents you all from communicating and causes people to talk past each other.
LikeLike
Doug – But, for you to say that you wouldn’t pray for a basketball game, leaves me wondering why?
Erik – Because I don’t want to “bless” the game, have guys act like idiots, and then feel a duty to sort out the mess. When the game is over I just want to go back to work and eat lunch.
LikeLike
Doug,
I have no idea what you are talking about “praying before an NBA game”.
“Hey! I even pray for DGH! All joking aside, I feel DGH is a far greater threat to the body of Christ than a murderer, or a sodomite. He influences precious sheep like you, and that boils my blood.”
You need to get the plate in your head adjusted before I can debate with you any more. I think your neighbor’s microwave oven or the emissions from the Martian craft hovering over your house are affecting your brain.
LikeLike
DGH: And it is for the reason that civil religion is so hard wired in American political discourse that I would have preferred that Brian Lee decline the invitation to pray before Congress. If he could have editorialized before praying, and explained that he was praying only as a minister, praying for (not with) Congress members, then perhaps it would have been useful.
BL: To be fair, I guess Darryl has answered my long winded question, and the act isn’t (in his eyes at least) inherently wrong.
I guess then the question comes down to a matter of wisdom on editorializing before the act (on the floor of Congress? I wonder if I could have filibustered… dang, wrong chamber), or after (which I planned to do all along, in what is inherently a limited scope.
LikeLike
Is that a screen cap from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Sweet.
LikeLike
Brian –
I see it less as a 2K issue than as an issue of whether or not ecumenism is a wise thing for Presbyterian & Reformed people to do. If you can say that you did not have to compromise your prayer in any way, then I can live with it. If you felt pressure to “tone anything down” because of your audience, then that may be a problem. I know when I pray in a mixed group my prayers tend to be watered down, not very thoughtful, and rather tokenish. That’s why I’ve stopped praying in mixed groups.
Another problem is the motivation of “Congress” asking for prayer for God’s blessing, followed by legislating without regard for whether or not God is pleased with what they are doing. If you pray before the opening of a consistory meeting, a classis meeting, or synod, you can presume that the vast majority of delegates are sincere in wanting to do God’s will. I can’t say that I can honestly presume this of Congress.
I don’t judge you harshly for your decision, these are just my thoughts. I would caution you, however, that if there was ever a town full of whores it is Washington D.C. and you need to be on guard constantly against those who would use you and your office for their own gain.
LikeLike
Gary Lee says: “My point about the uniqueness is that I think we should all admit that the 2K way of thinking about these issues doesn’t remove the messiness of living out the particularities of our confession in the common sphere. Not saying anyone ever said that, but I think an outsider reading this blog (not that I’ll ever read it again) could come away with the impression that 2K was cut and dried and created two neatly bifurcated spheres.”
Me: Amen, and amen! That is exactly what it sounds like! And I don’t like it one bit! Have you 2Ker’s gone mad?
LikeLike
Erik, Jesus prays for both *us* daily, and we still act like idiots some times! If it’s good enough for Jesus, who is our example, it should be good enough for us.
What every happened to “pray without ceasing”?
LikeLike
Why am I not surprised that Doug is calling Brian Lee ” Gary Lee”. Next we’ll be talking about Rickie Lee Jones. Thanks for the laughs tonight, Doug!
LikeLike
I’m sure Rickie Lee’s about at the point she’s going to go postal on the next person that asks her to sing that song.
LikeLike
Like I said men, an appropriate prayer is ALWAYS a good thing. Just because I am not up to speed on what you mean by civic religion doesn’t change the appropriateness of praying.
LikeLike
Oops, my apologies to Brian.
LikeLike
Wonder what DGH thinks about the OPC’s having military chaplains.
LikeLike
Vermonster,
Page 6
Click to access 4.2.pdf
LikeLike
All of this tempest in a teapot! Pastor Lee had an opportunity to proclaim the true God and His Christ to Caesar. He took the opportunity. Paul did the same. Pray that Christ would use it to His own glory.
Yes, 2K provides important warnings. Yes, the opportunity required wisdom. Brian Lee was well equipped for the challenge. We should thank him rather than rake him over the coals, pouring out vile in the name of ahistorical abstractions. I am not talking about DGH, his criticism was friendly and respectful but comment boxes rarely show such restraint. It is exactly this kind of infighting that makes the Reformed Churches appear to absurd… most of our time is spent attacking each other. We waste too many resources making the good the enemy of the perfect.
I agree with Pastor Lee. 2K is an old, well established truth in Reformed circles. From the 2nd Book of Discipline to the Covenanters to the American Presbyterian experience we have always knows that there are two Kingdoms and Christ rules them differently. Nonetheless, I know of no discussion that ever went down like this way. Those Crown and Covenant Presbyterians would not have understood the criticism. Neither would Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, or Machen.
Therefore, rather than criticize the man, I wish to thank Pastor Lee for his great work on behalf of the Kingdom, and the wisdom he has displayed by understanding both the opportunity and the pitfalls.
LikeLike
Doug, that’s easy. I refuse to idolize the American God of civil religion. If you ever grasped 2k, or even the example of Daniel, you might be able to see the problem of leading people who don’t believe in Christ to think they have Christ’s blessing.
LikeLike
Tom, now you get a dose of how manichean the world of Calvinism can be. Don’t you love it?
LikeLike
Brian, thanks for weighing in. You ask about history. It strikes me that monasticism of the Benedictine variety was a protest against the civil religion of Constantine and Eusebius, and that the reforms of the papacy under Gregory VII at the time of the Ivestiture Controversy was another push back against using Christianity for civil ends.
As for the problem of 2k being messy, I don’t think anyone denies that. In fact, it strikes me that 2k recognizes the messiness of a pluralistic society far better than the Religious Right or the Bayly Bros. But messiness only lasts as long as your considerations about a decision. Once you decide to act, then you can evaluate on which side of the line the decision falls.
LikeLike
Brian (and Doug), see how your actions can be interpreted? You have a theonomist’s blessing? My goal in life is never to be misunderstood by a theonomist.
LikeLike
Bill, but Brian didn’t preach. Paul did. That strikes me as cherry picking for the Covenanter cause.
LikeLike
DGH- he who prays in public preaches twice? Maybe?
LikeLike
Goals in life are like “law”, a good thing to have even if you know now it won’t happen. When I try to communicate to a reconstructionist, I think I have succeeded when they become angry but it usually becomes clear that they don’t know why yet.
But, hey I can agree with them that wey cannot separate the moral from the ceremonial law.
The sermon on the mount is not merely Jesus explaining how people misunderstood unchanging “moral law”. The new covenant is not merely the old covenant with the ability to keep it.
Saying that it’s the law (even for Christians) says nothing about the ability of us to keep it
an Arminian says, but if we can’t keep it, then it can’t be law
–so do some antinomian/ fatalist Christians who deny the “third use”
but they are both wrong
LikeLike
The Covenanter cause would have been better served by going all James Renwick Willson before the New York State Legislature and condemning the whole debacle… but maybe DGH is closer to the Covenanter cause than he might suspect.
After all, it was the Covenanters (among American Presbyterians) who most strongly resisted a false civil religion as a replacement for biblical Christianity.
LikeLike
Brian,
I appreciate your response. Please know that I wasn’t suggesting that the act is inherently evil. But, as you note, context can make a difference. We live in a nation where civil religionists have misappropriated certain aspects of confessional Christianity in their effort to create an American civil religion. So, that makes our situation somewhat unique. We are called to practice confessional Christianity in a culture where there’s a strong measure of superficial overlap between our religion and the civil cult. The issue became more complicated after the late 1970s, as more conservative variants of the civil cult began to emerge under the banners of the Religious Right and the Culture Wars.
So, then, what do we make of civil religion? And should we take a different approach to more conservative variants of it?
Confessional Christians probably agree that mainline civil religion, such as that identified by Bellah, is a false religion and that its principles have no place in confessional churches. But confessional Christians seem to disagree on the merits of the conservative civil Christianity (CCC) that began to burgeon in the late 70s. Theonomists and revivalists have generally embraced CCC. While they may acknowledge its problems, they see it as a useful tool for promoting confessional Christianity and the general interests of its adherents. In contrast, there are those of us who take a more skeptical view toward CCC, and see it as nothing but another false religion that we should shun.
I’m in the latter category. I also believe that most of the principles advocated by CCC can be argued just as persuasively, if not more so, with exclusive reference to general revelation. In other words, I see no reason to misappropriate Christian language to talk about the merits of criminalizing abortion or the merits of granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Otherwise, we run the risk that the church’s prerogatives become confused with those of CCC.
But, as you note, this is a newer issue, at least in some sense. In its current form, CCC has only been around for about 30-35 years. And whether we admit it or not, our thinking is always much more ad hoc and anecdotal than we may like to admit. Neither Scripture nor the writings of the Reformers provide any clear-cut answer on how we should deal with CCC. We get general principles, at best. And sometimes those general principles are in tension to a degree. Thus, we are never going to arrive at any singular “Reformed” or “Biblical” approach, nor should we.
But our discussions would probably be a bit more productive if we all admitted to and came to terms with the ad hoc, developing nature of our thinking on this issue. Inevitably, our current problem is unique. And if we fail to grasp that, we end up talking past each other a lot.
LikeLike
Brian, thanks for picking up my domestic analogy. But it remains unclear what the difference is, other than to say the rules are somehow different when it comes to the political. Why? It seems to me your explanation as to why we’d refrain from taking our neighbor’s invitation to take our turn in between other religionists up is just as well when our magistrate invites us. So, what exactly changes when it goes from a neighbor’s house to a nation’s house? Why is it not sufficient to stay in our own sacred house and offer up prayers for all men and magistrates, even when we’re not invited?
Bill Chellis (and sounds like Doug) evidently got the idea that you preached Christ to Caesar (and wants us to rejoice), which you clearly didn’t. Does that bother you at all?
LikeLike
EC: Another problem is the motivation of “Congress” asking for prayer for God’s blessing, followed by legislating without regard for whether or not God is pleased with what they are doing. If you pray before the opening of a consistory meeting, a classis meeting, or synod, you can presume that the vast majority of delegates are sincere in wanting to do God’s will. I can’t say that I can honestly presume this of Congress.
BL: I would presume any time a common grace institution, or an individual unbeliever, asked you to pray for them, their motivations MUST be wrong. While we should try to point out their error, I don’t think we should let it stop us praying for them, even, perhaps, publicly.
LikeLike
FS: Gary Lee says:…
FS: Oops, my apologies to Brian.
GL: No worries, Frank Sowers. I’ve been called worse things than “Hal” before. You just tell Mary Lou I’ll see her in the morning.
LikeLike
Gents, please rest assured (it was the point of my jesting in initial response) that I appreciate all the feedback, and don’t take any of it the wrong way. I don’t feel abused.
Darryl was kind enough to suggest he wouldn’t ping me on this issue. I wrote the article and let him know I welcomed him and his readers weighing in to kick off a reasoned discussion on this blog.
Remember, this is DC. You should never discount the fact that I might just have been seeking my Sister Souljah moment to make clear that I’m just 2K, not R2K, or TooR2K.
LikeLike
McMark, you are on the wrong web site. The reformers understood that the Mosaic covenant IS the new covenant you dope! New means renewed, not brand new! They are both the same covenant in substance (see the WCF) separated by different administrations, all centered in Christ, who is our obedience. How did Moses obey the law? The same way we do! In Christ, who is our life.
It was just as true for King David, as it is for believers today. You need to find a baptist website, because you’re the gum on the shoe here.
Here is something for you to work with: God loves all men in some ways. God loves some men in all ways. See? That what God’s word teaches!
Oh, I apologize for calling you a youngster. You just *sound* like one; almost as if you just discovered Calvin’s five points, and have gone haywire like youths usually do when they hear the news. When you say God only loves the elect, you make yourself *sound* like you’ve never read the Bible. I notice that you were unable to interact with the Scripture I provided where God showed mercy to Esau’s descendants.
Pssssst, mercy is a type of love.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I think you misunderstood my use of your analogy. I meant to say that I would pray for the sick child. It was late on a long day.
LikeLike
Zrim et al,
Yes, the confusion RE preaching Christ vs. praying is problematic. Many Christians are so anxious to hear the name of Christ uttered in high public places that they automatically conflate any mention with proclamation… I do think this reflects a lot of minority status insecurity and paranoia.
And we need to embrace our minority status. I think the most important end to civil religion confusion is coming to terms with our smallness in the world, and letting go of any expectations that our nation / culture would (or ever has) behaved in a Christian manner.
BUT, while perception is clearly a factor in our actions, I don’t think it should be the only factor. I don’t think we should let misperceptions have a final claim on our public behavior, especially when we are not intentionally seeking to obfuscate and deceive. DGH and Zrim (and perhaps others) seem to imply we should never speak or act when we know we might be misunderstood.
Sometimes a prayer is just a prayer (and not proclamation, instruction, meaning, etc.). I.e., I prayed presuming that prayer had merit on its face, and that the Lord might grant it. I prayed out loud in public because I thought it might have value in that setting, instructionally for how we should pray for common grace institutions, and otherwise. I also prayed knowing there would be a good deal of confusion and error in those who heard it. So I tried to balance those things out… and frankly continue to weigh the impacts as I reflect on how it was perceived.
LikeLike
Now back to sermon prep. Thanks, gents.
LikeLike
No worries Brain. Douglas Wilson is 2K as well. He’s just not R2K or Kookie 2K like Hart and Zrim.
BL responds to Erik: I would presume any time a common grace institution, or an individual unbeliever, asked you to pray for them, their motivations MUST be wrong. While we should try to point out their error, I don’t think we should let it stop us praying for them, even, perhaps, publicly.
Me: Amen and amen!!!
LikeLike
DGH spouts off: ” If you ever grasped 2k, or even the example of Daniel, you might be able to see the problem of leading people who don’t believe in Christ to think they have Christ’s blessing.:
Me: If you grasped 2K you would realize that bringing up Daniel isn’t helping your conception of R2K in the slightest. Darryl, have you read the book of Daniel? Both Daniel and his friends testified to the true and living God to the Magistrate! Yikes!! Listen to what King Nebuchadnezzar said to Daniel’s friends
Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is not other god who is able to rescue in this way.
Me: If Daniel’s friends were R2K like you: (and thank God they were not) they would have said no no king, you can’t punish people for not give glory to God in public, your the Magistrate! You need to be neutral! You might offend unbelievers!
Darryl, do you see how absurd your version of R2K is?
LikeLike
Brian, yes, I got that you’d pray for the child. But my point has to do with the context of that prayer. And while we both have no qualms praying for our neighbors and nation, it would seem where you see a difference between the context of a neighbor’s request and a magistrate’s, I don’t, and I’m still unclear as to what you think that difference is. And my point isn’t that “we should never speak or act when we know we might be misunderstood.” It is to wonder about how prudent it is to reinforce potential confusions.
After all, if you’d refrain from your neighbor’s request because it would presumably only reinforce her “horrible confusion,” why reinforce the same potential confusion of fellow citizens?
LikeLike
henry lewis: Presbyterians in the pews want their ministers to pray a good and moving prayer extemporaneously. If he uses a written prayer then lots of people get jumpy. That’s because a minister should be a real man of God, and real men of God don’t need crutches when they pray. Thus well intended, well constructed, and theologically sound prayers are supposed to proceed organically from the godly heart….
Charles Hodge. “The great objections to the use of liturgies are… that they never can be made to answer all the varieties of experience and occasions; and that they tend to formality, and cannot be an adequate substitute for the warm outgoings of the heart moved by the spirit of genuine devotion.”
henry lewis: Here is the clincher for some…A read prayer cannot be a sincere prayer, and that’s because sincerity has to be conveyed in one’s own words; it cannot rely on the language of others.. Carried to its logical conclusion, as it is, with the left side of the liturgical/piety spectrum, this notion means that to express our deepest feelings for God we should not use English, or Latin, or any other known tongue; instead, we should devise our very own language…. But in some cases using inherited words is a good thing. What is more, some of the best prayers are ones that depend heavily on the language of Scripture or the rich idiom of the Shorter Catechism.
Click to access 3.4.pdf
LikeLike
Bill, but Scotland as the New Israel?
LikeLike
Doug, I have read Daniel, and if you ever read A Secular Faith, you’d know that Dare to be a Daniel is part of my call to 2k. The reason is that Daniel submitted to the schools of the Babylonians (surely a challenge to the w-w types since pagan religion suffused those schools) and he excelled in the learning of the Babylonians. He also excelled at their politics.
I guess the only one around here with a brain is Pastor Brain Lee.
LikeLike
mcmark, brilliant!!
LikeLike
Bill – We should thank him rather than rake him over the coals, pouring out vile in the name of ahistorical abstractions.
Erik – Next you’ll accuse us of hating on Brian.
LikeLike
Mark- Goals in life are like “law”, a good thing to have even if you know now it won’t happen. When I try to communicate to a reconstructionist, I think I have succeeded when they become angry but it usually becomes clear that they don’t know why yet.
Erik – You’re at my level of sanctification where you define your success in the Christian life by who is ticked off at you. I’m just not sure if that’s a high level or a low level.
LikeLike
Brian – BL: I would presume any time a common grace institution, or an individual unbeliever, asked you to pray for them, their motivations MUST be wrong. While we should try to point out their error, I don’t think we should let it stop us praying for them, even, perhaps, publicly.
Erik – I would pray for, even with, an individual unbeliever if they asked me because they are an individual. “Congress” is not an individual, but a mixed body if there ever was one. To play with Buckley’s quote, I would rather pray with the first 435 people in the Washington D.C. phone book than with the U.S. Congress. At least many of those folks are innocently obtuse.
LikeLike
Brian,
Tell us they at least bought you breakfast in the morning.
I’m kidding. I’m kidding.
LikeLike
If a transcript of the prayer becomes available, please post it here.
LikeLike
Just so everyone knows there is still harmony amongst the 2K Community, Mikelmann & I got together last night at a local watering hole for 2 hours to watch basketball and discuss theology and life. We plotted how we could all get together for a similar event at Hillsdale sometime.
How’s your wife cooking for large groups, D.G.? We can all bring our sleeping bags.
LikeLike
King Nebuchadnezzar says:
“Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is not other god who is able to rescue in this way.”
DGH quickly rebukes: “King Neb, are you crazy? That would be violating peoples conscience! You will just wind up insulting a bunch of people! Let’s just ask that people follow their own idea of who they *think* god is, so we can all just get along.”
LikeLike
Erik, maybe you can have a slumber party!
LikeLike
Erik, does God transcend Congress? Who has more authority?
Then why wouldn’t you pray to the one, who has all authority in heaven and on earth? The one who says he can move mountains, if you had only a tiny seed of faith?
Erik, who is in control? God or the kingdoms of this world?
Have a good prayer, and start thinking bro!
LikeLike
DGH mcmark, brilliant!!
Me: McMark, stupid!!!
LikeLike
Erik, I’m the cook. It’s a small house. M&M knows.
LikeLike
Doug, you read comments as well as you read the Bible — which is you read whatever you want into the text. Here’s what I wrote:
LikeLike
D.G.,
M&M mentioned your gracious hospitality. I was jealous. We can tent it.
LikeLike
I find it curious that the Hindu prayer seems more specfically Hindu that the Christian prayers are allowed to be Christian. Here it is:
Let us pray.
We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.
Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.
May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for hemselves.
United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord. Peace, peace, peace be unto all.
Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson.
Amen.
That looks kind of sectarian, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Right, DGH, we’ll just tent on your lawn. Blues, cigars, and other fine things into the wee hours. Hopefully Hillsdale won’t think we’re affiliated with the Occupy movement.
Invite Doug, and give him accurate directions, only to some guy named Darren Hart in Detroit who lives next to a gay bar.
LikeLike
Now I’m getting confused. Here’s another prayer:
Reverend Jesse Reyes, San Jose Catholic Church, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, offered the following prayer :
Gracious and loving Father, we thank You for this beautiful day.
We ask You to send Your Holy Spirit of good counsel and fortitude to all who make the law; enlighten their minds and their hearts to be moved with compassion and to be conducted in righteousness and be eminently useful to Your people over whom they represent.
May they have the courage to promote peace and harmony, and bring us the blessings of liberty and equality.
We make this prayer through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
He prayed in the name of Christ. Did I wrongly think that is a no-no?
LikeLike
This will be the last one. It’s um, interesting:
The Chaplain, the Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, offered the following prayer :
Gracious God, we give You thanks for giving us another day.
Lord of the ages, ever faithful to Your promises, be with Your people now and forever.
The sun grows dim and the daylight is measured. In the darkness, phantoms loom. The eye cannot discern as the distance fades. Be a light for us.
Help the Members of this people’s House make clear judgments that will propel us into a future filled with hope. Remove all clouds of darkness that they might follow the patterns of light that come from Your gifts of wisdom and understanding.
O Lord of the ages, ever faithful to Your promises, be with Your people now and forever.
Amen.
There might be an easier way, but you can go to the online Congressional Record and search “prayer” at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=Record
LikeLike
Doug, and when as a result of attending the University of Babylon “God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning,” the neo-Cal hyperventilates that putting a covenant child in a pagan school is a form of child sacrifice and soul murder.
LikeLike
Tom, now you get a dose of how manichean the world of Calvinism can be. Don’t you love it?
Oh, Darryl, you charmer. I’d chosen this over BaylyBlog. Even before they banned me.
http://baylyblog.com/comment/34737#comment-34737
LikeLike
Oh yeah, Doug. I meant to clarify, we went to a straight bar and Sean, his wife, and their gay friends weren’t there. Some of the heterosexual women might have been giving MM and I the eye as it got later so we had to get the heck out of there.
LikeLike
Tom,
Thanks for the Baylyblog link. I needed to go back there like I need a cockroach to crawl in my ear tonight after I go to sleep. Tim Bayly’s latest post:
“Theological critique of Escondido Two Kingdoms Theology (VII)”
It has a whopping three comments.
LikeLike
DGH your lame brained attempts at analogies, aren’t analogous. While it’s true that God preserved his seed while Israel was under Sovereign judgment in captivity to Babylon, it doesn’t follow from there that a Christian would willingly send his child to a school that undermines God’s Word. It fact, you will be found derelict if you do. Did anyone in Israel send there young children off to Pagan schools before there were under judgement? No? Then shut up already! Was Daniel a child, or was he already trained in the law?
For Darryl and Zrim to see Daniel’s situation as analogous to sending our young children to pagan schools, makes you both look like fools of the highest order. I would suggest you *both* find a big bucket, then fill it with mostly with ice and then add water, wait about a half hour, and then plunge you head in it, at least five times, then slap yourself, HARD. If you can’t slap yourself hard enough, ask me to help. I would be happy to knock some sense in the both of you’s. Repeat the bucket and slaps until you come out of your mental stupor.
Darryl, you get an F- on your bogus analogy!
LikeLike
Erik says: “Oh yeah, Doug. I meant to clarify, we went to a straight bar and Sean, his wife, and their gay friends weren’t there. Some of the heterosexual women might have been giving MM and I the eye as it got later so we had to get the heck out of there.”
Me: Good looking out bro!
LikeLike
Oh Darryl and Zrim, I promise to really put some mustard on those slaps, in love of course 😉
LikeLike
DGH says: I guess the only one around here with a brain is Pastor Brain Lee
Ha ha, I *think* Zrim has one. Unfortunately we have no evidence it’s still working. Can anyone say “brain dead’?
LikeLike
Erik sez: “… Just so everyone knows there is still harmony amongst the 2K Community, Mikelmann & I got together last night at a local watering hole for 2 hours to watch basketball and discuss theology and life. We plotted how we could all get together for a similar event at Hillsdale sometime …”
Jump off the expressway on your way over there for a visit. I live just a few miles North of I-88 in one of those Chicago ‘burbs that might otherwise be called Jerusalem (wait, maybe Zion). Give me advance notice and I’ll whip up a batch of my BBQ’d ribs served with some of the excellent local craft brew.
LikeLike
Doug, long ago as a freshman at the University of Molech, I had a soft-spoken and ascot-donning English Comp prof who would take a whole letter grade off for grammatical barbarisms (the Lord bless and keep you wherever you are, Dr. Shumsky). I think you’d be at a -Z by now.
LikeLike
M&M, having Doug in Michigan is too close for comfort.
LikeLike
Doug, wrong. Haven’t you heard, we are strangers and exiles? That’s right out of the Bible (which apparently you only believe when it agrees with you).
LikeLike
Doug, it’s Brian, not Brain.
LikeLike
George,
We’ll pick you up.
LikeLike
TVD:
In your comment on BB, you wonder why 2Kers are more concerned with the Baylys and other neonomians than we are with the President or Jim Wallis.
Again, you seem to be missing a key point related to ecclesiology. Most of us primarily object to the neonomians because they are seeking to misuse the authority of Christ’s church to bind the consciences of believers on various political questions. In other words, it’s not so much the substance of their opinions that bothers me; it’s their misuse of church authority to seek to bind the consciences of others to agree with them.
The neonomians and I probably agree on a number of political issues. But I have no interest in binding the conscience of others on these issues. Moreover, I have no interest in baptizing my own views as “the Christian view.” The light of nature provides us with ample means from which to make political arguments. We should rely on it, and stop trying to drag Christ into the mix.
Please know that I’m not saying this because I’m in agreement with Jim Wallis or the President. Most political questions are complex. When we restrain ourselves to arguing from general revelation, we are far more likely to appreciate the complexity and recognize the policy implications of any particular law or regulation. But when we ignore general revelation in favor of something we perceive to be the teaching of Scripture, we are far less likely to see the implications of what we’re proposing and are therefore far too likely to ignore reasonable objections to our views.
And maybe that’s where the rub lies. When I discuss politics with someone, I’m not interested in jousting against a straw man. To the contrary, I want to hear and consider the strongest and most cogent objections to my views. Otherwise, I can have no confidence that my views are correct. After all, I don’t assume that I have all the answers, and am eager to talk with others to understand more about a particular problem or issue. I’ve met few neonomians who are like this, however. For example, I’ve noticed that most 2Kers on this blog are open to modifying their views when others raise cogent objections.
But you see none of that from neonomians like Richard and Doug. And you see none of that at places like BB. Instead, the neonomian believes that he has already arrived at the right answer and that the purpose of dialogue is only to bully or shame others into agreement. The neonomian prefers to joust with straw men. He will never modify his views in the face of cogent objections. Rather, he will twist others words, and then argue against the twisted version of what they said.
In that sense, I have often wondered whether neonomianism is more of a psychological condition. While most 2Kers probably accept that there’s a place for authority, I’d guess that few of us are authoritarians. In contrast, neonomians seem to be pretty comfortable with authoritarianism, if not preferring it outright.
LikeLike
DGH, Context, context, context! So you read that verse and *think* the church is to be in permanent exile? Puleese! Dunk your head in the bucket again! Repeat and slap yourself!
So Darryl, were the settlers at New England in exile? LOL! They were in a HUGE majority you boob! Read the kingdom parables Darryl!, Once the meal is all leavened, that excludes both exile and minorities. You see Darryl? You will have to read the whole biblical account to get your world view right, and NOT hang it all on one verse taken out of context.
When the church was first birthed after Christ died, she was indeed in exile for a short time. And in *some* places in the world today,that still *may* true. But that has not always been the case, you lousy excuse for a historian!. New England was over 80% Christian! Christiandom ruled Europe for centuries, you ingrate! And when they ruled, THEY WERE NOT IN EXILE! Was Geneva in exile while Calvin was alive? No? Then Stop it!
Really Darryl, you reading the Bible is like watching a train wreak!
LikeLike
Zrim, the grade you need to worry about isn’t going to be your spelling, you voter of lawlessness! When you vote FOR sodomites unions, or abstain, you will have to face the king of kings, then what will your excuse be to Him? If I were you, I’l fall down on my face and repent while you still can, lest there come a day when it will be too late.
Now go dunk your head, and slap yourself silly!
LikeLike
Bobby bellows: ” The light of nature provides us with ample means from which to make political arguments. We should rely on it, and stop trying to drag Christ into the mix.”
The wise man builds his house upon the rock. Why would you argue with our Lord? Bobby, it seems as if you want to build our nations policies (house) on everything BUT God’s commands.
How can you be considered Christian in any meaningful sense? What does the light of nature show you regarding punishing kidnappers? And how can you be sure?
This isn’t a straw man Bobby, it’s an honest question. Why would you trust natural men’s autonomous opinions over Christ’s?
LikeLike
Doug,
You make this too easy.
1. Scripture provides very little specific guidance about how the civil magistrate is to go about making its criminal laws, contract laws, property laws, etc. The only way that you can reach a contrary conclusion is to reject outright the legitimacy of any civil authority that is not under church control. While you the the neonomians talk a good game on that front, you seem to be long on talk and short on action. If you, Richard, and other neonomians truly believed what you say, you ought to be out seeking the overthrow of the government. But you’re not. Instead, you’re activism consists of little more than questioning the faith of those with whom you disagree.
2. The “house” reference from Matthew 7 has nothing to do with establishing national policies. If the Sermon on the Mount suggests anything, it’s that our obedience is a spiritual house that is being built in the place where moth and rust do not corrupt.
3. General revelation is still God’s commands. It is just as much from God as special revelation. By refusing to acknowledge this, you place yourself more in line with the gnostics than with Christian orthodoxy. All revelation, whether special or general, is God’s. There is no way to function but to draw from God’s commands.
4. Why do you, Richard, and other neonomians persist in concluding that everyone who disagrees with you is not a Christian. In that sense, you prove my point about authoritarian bullying. When you can’t proffer a persuasive argument, you simply write off those who disagree with you as non-Christians. Thus, I concur with David Gordon when he judges that neonomism is not merely a theology for the unwise, but also a theology for the never-to-be-wise. After all, you, Richard, and other neonomians have cut yourselves off from the primary means of acquiring wisdom, and will therefore remain infantile in your thinking until you learn the lessons of Proverbs. In that sense, revivalism and theonomism are just two sides of the same anti-intellectual coin.
LikeLike
Bobby says: “1. Scripture provides very little specific guidance about how the civil magistrate is to go about making its criminal laws, contract laws, property laws, etc.”
Me: Nonsense! Read the law Bobby! There is plenty of instruction on how God views sin/crime! And what punishment is appropriate for a given offense. All of Scripture is God breathed and good for instruction, reproof, and correction. Listen to the Apostle Paul:
1 Tim. 1:8-13
“Now we know the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else in contrary to sound doctrine, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOSPEL OF THE GLORY OF THE BLESSED GOD, with which I have been entrusted.”
Me: Paul is using the law as it refers to punishing crime in the here and now according to the law! Now Bobby, notice a couple of things. Paul says the law IS good present tense for punishing crime! Paul didn’t say, the law used to be good for punishing criminals. He said it’ IS good if we use it lawfully. Paul says punishing crime by the law is in accordance with the gospel!!!!!!
And how should a society punish crime in a God glorifying way in accordance with the gospel? Read the law Bobby, and it will answer many questions! Who knows how to punish crime better than God? Who knows what better than the law giver himself?
Finally, I am not saying you are not a Christian. I am saying you are not being consistent. I don”t know you Bobby, but you seem to be an honest man seeking the truth. I would suggest you read “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”. It will go a long way to educating you on *how* God wants many crimes to be punished. Not all crimes, but God’s law gives us enough, that with prayer, the fruit of the Spirit, we can make great head way!
There is no contradiction with Natural law and Special revelation, therefore, we should look to the more clear, instead of asking unchristian men their opinion. By the way, “house” stands for more than just your personal life, it stands for your family, church city and nation. Jesus is the King of Kings, and has something to say when it comes to ethics in every realm, both church and State.
As for Zrim and DGH, while I strongly disagree with them, I have stopped well short of saying they are not Christian. Just horribly confused, and opposing God, although they don’t seem to grasp it yet. They *should* be ashamed of themselves imho.
LikeLike
Bobby, do you remember Frank Sinatra’s song “The house I live in”? Even Sinatra understood that “house” can refer to a nation. So when Jesus commands us to build our house of the Rock of God’s commands, that includes nations!! There is no such thing as a “God free zone”.
Nuff said!
LikeLike
Oh Bobby, when I said “how can you be considered Christian in any meaningful sense, I meant your view of politics. I still consider you a brother in Christ 🙂
LikeLike
TVD:
In your comment on BB, you wonder why 2Kers are more concerned with the Baylys and other neonomians than we are with the President or Jim Wallis.
Again, you seem to be missing a key point related to ecclesiology. Most of us primarily object to the neonomians because they are seeking to misuse the authority of Christ’s church to bind the consciences of believers on various political questions. In other words, it’s not so much the substance of their opinions that bothers me; it’s their misuse of church authority to seek to bind the consciences of others to agree with them.
Thx for the reply Bobby. I understand your argument, but the Calvinist circular firing squad still seems to pale next to some of the great evils in the world–not gay marriage and such, but late-term abortion, and in other eras, the Holocaust, slavery, etc.–that Christian witness definitely has the power to help defeat.
Further, by your own lights, your first loyalty should be not to your church, sect, or denomination, but to the Bible itself! When President Obama or Jim Wallis or the social Gospellers or the Barney the Christosaurians claim Biblical warrant for socialism or gay marriage or whatever, the silence can be deafening. Ecclesiology be hanged–defend the Bible!
LikeLike
Tom,
Since God says homosexuality is a great evil, and a death penalty crime, who are you to down play it? What gives you the moral high ground to contradict God? I’m with you on abortion but as for sexual sins, as I just posted above, Paul says the DP for homosexuality is in accordance with the gospel. Who are you to deny this????
LikeLike
Doug, even the father of neo-Calvinism doesn’t agree with you. Did Kuyper need a bucket of ice water as well and to scorn the opinions of unbelievers?
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, let me try to be clear. Shedding innocent blood is something God hates, and so should we, amen? But God has destroyed whole cities and nations for homosexual perversions, this we can not deny ie Sodom and Gomorrah, amen?.
God told Moses the reason He was giving Israel the 7 nations to Israel, was for their sexual perversions, and that they sacrificed their children to Moleck. For those precise reason the land vomited them out. God then sternly warned Israel, that if she did these *same* sins, the land would vomit her out as well. Let me prove this in the Bible.
Look at Leviticus 18:30
“Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unlcean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
What were these sins that caused God to destroy a whole region of the world? Look at these sins in verse Let’s look at few verse before verse 30. Let’s look at 20:23
“You shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you lie with any animal ans so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it, it is perversion.”
Me: Tom, God says he kicked out nations in Palestine for the very same sins we’re talking about today! Let’s not say abortion is more important and rugnant that sexual perversions! Both are deadly for any nation. We as Christians should be willing to love our neighbor enough to tell the truth. Our God does not change! If he would destroy nations in the past homosexuality and bestiality and sacrificing our babies let’s not put them in numerical order of evil. They all deserve the death penalty, even if our society isn’t there yet. We need to pray that God would change enough hearts to make those statutes the law of the land. That just means we pray the Lord’s prayer in faith. God does all the heavy lifting.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Zrim, quit posting straw dogs! I don’t care about Kuyper in the slightest!
I post Scripture and you post someone’s opinion. I show how Scripture backs up my view, and blabber on about someone I could care less about! BTW, Kuyper didn’t think we were perceptually in exile you dolt! You aren’t even reading the posts Zrim. Your post of Kuyper is out of context; sort of like you 24/7
Now go and dunk your head again, repeat and then slap yourself accordingly!
P.S. AS I have explained zillions of times, no one wants to duplicate Israel! So quit perpetrating a canard. Stop it!
LikeLike
FWIW, I would *guess* about 75 to 80% of ((America’s) current laws are theonomic in source, as I speak! Let’s come together in unity, ad pray that we as a nation get our sexual ethics in line with the law. Our prayer in faith can move mountains! Let’s fight the good fight! Our God is able to change societies collective hearts . If he’s done it before, (and he has) he can do even greater things in our future than we can even imagine. Let’s be holy and pray God’s will on this earth.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Go Warriors!!!
LikeLike
Yes Zrim the school marm, I meant perpetually not perceptually above, but then I hoped you would have known that being a English major and all.
LikeLike
“but the Calvinist circular firing squad still seems to pale next to some of the great evils in the world–not gay marriage and such, but late-term abortion, and in other eras, the Holocaust, slavery, etc.–that Christian witness definitely has the power to help defeat.”
Sometimes you just seem unrooted but it’s starting to look like you have two ultimate commitments. Here is one: the culture war must be engaged. The second – based on your various comments about whether enough people believe this or that – seems to be a defense of mainstream evangelicalism. And you throw out anything that gets caught in these two filters.
But if I’m wrong please clarify.
LikeLike
Tom – Thx for the reply Bobby. I understand your argument, but the Calvinist circular firing squad still seems to pale next to some of the great evils in the world–not gay marriage and such, but late-term abortion, and in other eras, the Holocaust, slavery, etc.–that Christian witness definitely has the power to help defeat.
Erik – What role did Christianity play in stopping The Holocaust? If anyone is to receive credit for ending the Holocaust it should probably be Japan, which foolishly bombed Pearl Harbor, or the USSR, which eventually overran Germany from the East. In a sense even the USSR getting into the war can be credited to Hitler himself, who foolishly broke his non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded.
If anything, Americans prior to Pearl Harbor hindered the U.S. doing anything about the Holocaust because of antisemitism. Many (Christian) Americans didn’t want more Jews in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/books/review/fdr-and-the-jews-by-richard-breitman-and-allan-j-lichtman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=books&emc=edit_bk_20130405&
LikeLike
Doug,
“Our God does not change! If he would destroy nations in the past homosexuality and bestiality and sacrificing our babies let’s not put them in numerical order of evil. They all deserve the death penalty, even if our society isn’t there yet.”
Doesn’t Christ teach that the sins of the heart deserve death as well? How do we get at those? If looking lustfully is adultery and anger is murder where do we go from here?
LikeLike
wfw asks: Doesn’t Christ teach that the sins of the heart deserve death as well?
No he does not.
How do we get at those? If looking lustfully is adultery and anger is murder where do we go from here?
Sins of the heart, are not to be punished by the Magistrate.
LikeLike
Tom,
Since God says homosexuality is a great evil, and a death penalty crime, who are you to down play it? What gives you the moral high ground to contradict God? I’m with you on abortion but as for sexual sins, as I just posted above, Paul says the DP for homosexuality is in accordance with the gospel. Who are you to deny this????
Yo, Doug, let’s chill a bit. No, I don’t put sodomy up there with the Holocaust. Or baby-killing.
If you want to get scriptural, there’s the question of whether Christians are bound by the Mosaic code, and indeed there’s no evidence that the Jewish people routinely executed people for homosexual acts anyway. You gotta use some sense here.
Further, Deuteronomy:
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
There’s ZERO evidence the Hebrews ever did that! [And a good thing, too. You keep killing your sons and there wouldn’t be many Jews left before long.]
So, we gotta use a little sense here–even if we’re not bound by the Mosaic Code, it doesn’t mean that God thinks gay marriage and drunk and disobedient children are OK. But it also doesn’t mean they’re capital offenses anymore either–if they ever were.
LikeLike
Doug,
I ask: “Doesn’t Christ teach that the sins of the heart deserve death as well?
You say: No he does not”.
Wow. Atonement? Death of Christ? Sins of the heart not involved here?
“Sins of the heart, are not to be punished by the Magistrate.”
Says who?
LikeLike
“but the Calvinist circular firing squad still seems to pale next to some of the great evils in the world–not gay marriage and such, but late-term abortion, and in other eras, the Holocaust, slavery, etc.–that Christian witness definitely has the power to help defeat.”
Sometimes you just seem unrooted but it’s starting to look like you have two ultimate commitments. Here is one: the culture war must be engaged. The second – based on your various comments about whether enough people believe this or that – seems to be a defense of mainstream evangelicalism. And you throw out anything that gets caught in these two filters.
But if I’m wrong please clarify.
You guys here don’t even understand each other very well, and go in circles. I’m surveying the landscape and even the most coherent of you seem to have contradictions with your own tradition.
I realize “every man’s a minister,” but you guys are so atomized, not only is there not much of a “visible” church left, there doesn’t even seem to be an invisible one.
So now I see that “mainline Protestant…churches are spiritual wastelands and they are practicing a different religion from Christianity, as J. Gresham Machen identified in “Christianity & Liberalism” way back in 1923.”
OK, great. I’m starting to get it. If Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza developed a Reformed theory of resistance and rights, that’s not Reformed. If the Baylys don’t play socio-political ostrich, they’re not Reformed. Most of mainline Protestantism–they’re not even Christian! Most of those still calling themselves “Presbyterian”–still no good. And you guys keep telling each other you’re in error. You keep drawing the circle smaller and smaller until everybody but you is outside it.
Whose Calvinism is it, anyway? Each of you has his own church–The Church of the No True Scotsman.
[And no, Erik, don’t ask. It’s too exhausting to explain things to you. Perhaps some of you will get it, and mebbe even one will find it funny. Heh heh. The Church of the No True Scotsman.]
LikeLike
TVD,
“we gotta use a little sense here”
Yes. It’s called reason. Van Til’s warrior children urge reason does not work the same for the unbeliever as it does for the believer. Alas, the antithesis leaves us with little sense left to share. It’s all or nothing.
LikeLike
<i.TVD,
“we gotta use a little sense here”
Yes. It’s called reason. Van Til’s warrior children urge reason does not work the same for the unbeliever as it does for the believer. Alas, the antithesis leaves us with little sense left to share. It’s all or nothing.
Fine, stone your drunk and disobedient children.
LikeLike
TVD,
Hey man, I like reason and my children may be drunk but they’re very obedient.
LikeLike
TVD,
Telling these theonomy types to settle down and think through their rhetoric is soooo hilarious. Kinda like infiltrating a Klan rally and suggesting that taking of their sheets will allow people to see the earnestness on their face. Or better, the cross will light with regular just as well as with premium and you could save some cash.
LikeLike
But, Doug, I am reading your posts. Bobby said that the Bible very little specific guidance about how the civil magistrate is to go about making its criminal laws, contract laws, property laws, etc. You blustered back that there is plenty of instruction on how what punishment is appropriate for a given offense and that nobody knows how to punish crime better than God. That’s replicating Israel. But if you don’t want to replicate Israel then quit clearly implying you want to replicate Israel.
But you sure seem angry. And for a law man you sure seem incognizant of the way Jesus himself upped the ante for anger and insults:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 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.”
LikeLike
Doug, well, your dismissal of exile explains a lot. You really think you can immanentize the eschaton. That is a heresy, both theological and political. But given your level of reading — if Bahnsen didn’t say it — then you are likely ignorant of the matter. But it does not mean you are innocent.
LikeLike
Tom,
I became a member in a church with the Westminster Confession of Faith as its secondary standards (second to the Bible) as a teenager and I think I will remain in one til death us do part. Have you read that document? I think it’s rad. Does that help understand a little about one of the lurkers at old life? Who we are, I mean? Peace.
LikeLike
Wow, Tom. That’s three or four inches of combox you used and you still couldn’t show any self-awareness of what your own convictions are. Just more railing that seems to indicate you feel comfortable in the mainstream. And, really, Beza is the litmus test? But I’ll continue to read your comments and hope at some point you’ll evolve into self-awareness.
LikeLike
Doug,
Again, you seem to be arguing against a straw man instead of against the argument I made. When you quoted me, you intentionally omitted the qualifying sentence that followed, which reads, “The only way that you can reach a contrary conclusion is to reject outright the legitimacy of any civil authority that is not under church control.”
Your reasoning requires that we reject the legitimacy of any civil authority that is not under church control. But your own conduct is not consistent with that. This is where the neonomians are all bark and no bite. Instead of working to topple the government, you are sitting in front of a computer typing into a combox.
And, by the way, about 0% of our laws are theonomic in origin, assuming that you are implying that they are based on special revelation. Where do you get this stuff. The common law emerged out of the secular courts established in the mid-12th Century by Henry II. As you may recall, Henry II was not so much a friend of the church. Sure, there’s a general consistency between certain civil laws and special revelation. We should expect that. After all, our laws are largely drawn from wisdom gained by studying general revelation. Because the general revelation is also God’s revelation, we should expect there to be some general consistency between our civil laws and God’s special revelation. But that doesn’t imply that special revelation was a source of our civil laws. Nor does it imply that everything condemned in Scripture must be criminalized in society.
LikeLike
Doug – Zrim, quit posting straw dogs! I don’t care about Kuyper in the slightest!
Erik – Doug, you’re priceless around here. If you didn’t come here of your own free will we would have to pay you. Go look up the word “foil” in the dictionary (not tin foil).
LikeLike
Great post, Dr. Hart. I am actually buying Van Drunen’s book on this 2k stuff, after I finish this post. It’s high time I start thinking about this stuff you guys write about. Until next time,
AB
LikeLike
Tom – And you guys keep telling each other you’re in error. You keep drawing the circle smaller and smaller until everybody but you is outside it.
Erik – Sorry, Tom. In the age of google your attempts at intellectual superiority don’t go very far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Try having a discussion instead of attempting to deliver a knockout punch with every comment.
You do continue to figure it out — We (the core of guys here, minus the obvious ever-present opposition of Doug & Richard — are arguing for Old School conservative Presbyterianism (and the Continental Reformed Churches of the Reformation). No one is hiding it. It’s no great mystery. Look at the archives for the first four volumes of the Nicotine Theological Journal. It’s all there laid out.
You claim you have been reading Hart for years, but I don’t believe it.
And condescension doesn’t serve you well when people can read the whole conversation for themselves. Make winning arguments vs. getting frustrated.
LikeLike
Tom,
The reason I spend time with you is you spout a lot of the same cliches I used to when I thought I had to defend a lot of the things you are defending. You don’t have to, and it’s liberating once you finally realize that. I’m trying to set you free.
I’ve given up trying to do that with Doug.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Agreed. It’s not really clear to me what neonomians want. They say that they don’t want to re-establish Israel. Yet, apart from a de facto re-establishment of Israel, it’s hard to envision that they could ever be satisfied with any other civil authority.
And if they truly believed that our government was so corrupt, you’d think that they’d have something to offer besides words. At least Carrie Nation acted on her theological convictions.
LikeLike
DGH, the Bible also says the Christ has inherited the nations and the world, and we are co-heirs with Christ, Right now! To Rome during the first forty years after Christ, believers were looked upon as a tiny sect within the Jews. The Jew were the first enemy of the church. They were trying to destroy the church. Rome ended up siding with the Jews, when Nero went crazy and started persecuting the church full force around 66 AD.
I can show you Scriptures that say we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. To make the absurd charge that I am trying to immanentize the eschaton is a nonsense term. Everyday the world is being transformed, the question is, in who’s image? Will the earth slowly transform like leaven more into conformity with God? Just read the kingdom parables for the answer.
LikeLike
Guys there is no such thing as a neonomian. It’s a very unhelpful label, that is impossible to pin down it’s meaning. Please don’t call me such a ambiguous word.
Thanks in advance
LikeLike
Erik, Zrim’s posting Kuyper had nothing to do with my point. Call me a foil, but at least Zrim *should* read and understand the point before you change the subject. Now I have been guilty of the same thing,. I just saying………..
I gave a Scriptural rational as to *why* God has destroyed other cultures. The reasons, were not what Kuyper was talking about. I’m sure that Kuyper would not vote for sodomite marriage. So Zrim is just trying to change the subject with subterfuge.
Erik, I will try to keep a civil tongue in my pin. Don’t give up on me bro!
LikeLike
TVD,
Telling these theonomy types to settle down and think through their rhetoric is soooo hilarious. Kinda like infiltrating a Klan rally and suggesting that taking of their sheets will allow people to see the earnestness on their face.
Now dat’s funny, WJW.
Wow, Tom. That’s three or four inches of combox you used and you still couldn’t show any self-awareness of what your own convictions are. Just more railing that seems to indicate you feel comfortable in the mainstream.
You don’t know anything about me. I’m relieved the attempts to pigeonhole me fail–then maybe people will just stick to the points being discussed instead of getting an ad hom hook into me.
Tom,
The reason I spend time with you is you spout a lot of the same cliches I used to when I thought I had to defend a lot of the things you are defending. You don’t have to, and it’s liberating once you finally realize that. I’m trying to set you free.
I’ve given up trying to do that with Doug.
I’ve given up on you, Erik, sorry. If you have a point in there somewhere under your ADD torrent of comments, it’s impossible to sustain a discussion of it. And you’ll grab any weapon at hand, no matter how irrelevant, when things are going south on your point.
And pls don’t try to enlist me against Doug or anybody else. At least he has a sense of humor, which makes this fun even when unenlightening. That’ll do as a bottom line.
Guys there is no such thing as a neonomian. It’s a very unhelpful label, that is impossible to pin down it’s meaning. Please don’t call me such a ambiguous word.
Thanks in advance.
See, that’s funny too.
_____________________________
“Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.”
LikeLike
DGH says: “You really think you can immanentize the eschaton. ”
Me: No Darryl, not me. Jesus said his kingdom is like a tiny seed, and grows slowly into a giant tree where the birds rest in the branches, or better yet, like a women who put leaven in some meal, until it’s all leavened.
The kingdom is transforming right before our eyes everyday! It’s God who gives the growth, (not me) through the prayers of the faithful, and the preaching of God’s Word and sacraments administered by the local church.
I pray for more of God’s kingdom rule everyday in every realm! Do you call that immanentizing the eschaton? ” Isn’t that how Jesus said his kingdom would grow and take over? Isn’t’ that the top priority issue, Jesus told us to pray for. First that the name of Christ would be hallowed, and that his kingdom would advance, like it is in heaven. A little more everyday!
Didn’t Jesus command us to baptize and disciple every nation in the name of Christ, instructing them in *all* of God’s commandments? Didn’t Jesus promise he would be with us to the end?
Well, until Christ comes on the final day, let’s pray for more of Christs kingdom to conquer in every sphere and in every nation. Hasn’t Jesus already inherited the nations? Then let’s pray for more of his rule in every area of life. Starting with ourselves, our family church, city state nation and yes the whole world. Them’s are marching orders.
LikeLike
Bobby says: “Your reasoning requires that we reject the legitimacy of any civil authority that is not under church control.
Me: Not true Bobby. I am not saying our government is not legitimate, but laws that prohibit what God says is evil, *should* be changed. I think the church should be more vocal, although I think this is primarily a *spiritual* battle. We don’t battle flesh and blood but spirits and principalities. So I am not saying our laws are not legitimate, but many are unethical. And for that reason they need to change.
Bobby: But your own conduct is not consistent with that. This is where the neonomians are all bark and no bite. Instead of working to topple the government, you are sitting in front of a computer typing into a combox.
Me:Bobby, please quit calling me a neonomian. It’s a very ambiguous term that I don’t wear. Plus, since you already misunderstood me earlier, let’s let it rest.
Thanks in advance,
LikeLike
Doug’s version of 2k:
“the Bible also says the Christ has inherited the nations and the world, and we are co-heirs with Christ, Right now!”
“To make the absurd charge that I am trying to immanentize the eschaton is a nonsense term.”
Erik is right. You can’t buy this entertainment anywhere else.
LikeLike
Doug, so now you’ve inherited the dictionary?
LikeLike
Doug, you rejected the label strangers and exiles. You said I had to read that in context. Well, the context, if you had a clue about redemptive history, is between the times, between the comings of Christ. In that time, while Christ has gone to prepare a place for his people, we are exiles and strangers.
But don’t let Reformed theology get in the way of your full-throated, red-blooded, theonomic neonomianism.
LikeLike
Doug, Kuyper’s words have EVERYTHING to do with your points. Your complete dismissal of a Reformed stalwart and father is more than a little telling. But if you can wave your hand and make a figure like Kuyper disappear then I’ll do the same with Bahnsen, a relative blip on the Reformed radar.
LikeLike
Bobby, bingo. But we should be thankful that the theos don’t have the courage of their convictions.
LikeLike
I’ve been away since Saturday. Here you go, Erik:
http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/display_gc.html?id=1935
And yes, I am vain… I still enjoy seeing my words in print. Here is the link to the Congressional Record:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-04-30/pdf/CREC-2013-04-30-pt1-PgH2399-9.pdf#page=1
Creator, God, merciful and just.
You dwell above in holiness, a father to the fatherless, protector of widows and orphans. Dear Lord, rescue the weak and needy. Deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
Give wisdom to this body. You hold all things in Your almighty hand, and You have established this House of Representatives and every governing authority as Your servants that they might protect the defenseless, praise those who do good and punish those who do evil.
Preserve and protect our President.
Humble all these Your servants with Your holy law, which You shine forth in all our hearts. Help them to seek peace.
You are a God who saves. Convict us of all our sins that we might know deliverance from these our wicked ways.
Hear this prayer for the sake of the merits of Your only Son, the crucified and risen Lord, Jesus Christ.
Amen.
LikeLike
DGH: Doug, it’s Brian, not Brain.
There was a very embarrassing moment in second grade when I wrote “Brain” on my home work, instead of Brian. Given that I was one of the smarter kids in the class (RC parochial school, and I’m not talking Sproul), I got a fair bit o’ ribbing. Not to say that this typo hasn’t continued to follow me…
LikeLike
First off, whatever it is they think they’re doing up in Michigan it ain’t bbq, a coleman and brats ain’t cutting it. Second, never mind the halls of congress, how do I get my reformed baptist in laws to stop praying in restaurants. Is there anything more self-righteous or inconsiderate than making the waitress wait on your five minute sermonette/prayer while balancing six plates of food. It’s like we decided; ‘let’s not only be rude, but let’s openly blame our faith for it’.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Yeah, it’s interesting. Once you cut through all of the bluster of guys like Doug, Richard, and the Baylys, you find that their proposals are none too different from those of Jim Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer. In that sense, it strikes me that neonomianism is just semi-Pelagianism repackaged in the language of Reformed orthodoxy.
LikeLike
Brian,
That’s a solid prayer. Maybe I’ll shift my position to “if you’re asked to pray by a mixed body, do it in a way that is so sectarian and pointed that they won’t ask again.” If my basketball guys ask me to pray again I’ll roll out an article from the Canons of Dort on limited atonement. That will put an end to their requests.
LikeLike
Tom,
When you’re ready to make some arguments from a theological perspective that anyone can identify I’m ready to listen. It doesn’t have to be a post that takes you a half hour to write. You come here wanting to teach everyone, but I think you still have a lot to learn. I know I do, but I generally learn the most from people who are grounded in something. Your worldview is an inch deep and that doesn’t lend itself to serious consideration of the issues we deal with here.
LikeLike
Sean,
Just be thankful there’s no laying on of hands.
Public expressions of piety are not high on my list. I figure my prayer at night with the family can cover all three meals, plus snacks.
LikeLike
My main goal and motivation for being on this site is to inspire and direct my reading (and hopefully the reading of others). If you come here and get your ass handed to you on a topic you might try to save face, but internally you say, “Crap, I’d better do some reading on that so I know what the flip I’m talking about.” The stack by the bed keeps growing, but that’s pretty exciting.
Last night in NTJ 4.4 two (three) of my favorite authors converged when Hart/Muether quoted a passage from the essayist Joseph Epstein (editor of “The American Scholar” during the golden age of the 70s-90s). It doesn’t get much better than that.
LikeLike
Tom says “You don’t know anything about me.”
Yes, and that’s the problem. We explain our positions and give justifications. You hide (or maybe you aren’t aware of) your perspective. So did you come for a conversation with mutual learning or did you come to rail and then stage an indignant exit? You’re entertaining enough, so why don’t you just play well with others and stick around?
Tom’s quote:
“Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” r “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.”
This looks like a pre-fab, stock comment you’ve been saving. But really it has no application here, because we are churchmen. It’s your culture-war buddies who tend toward a low view of the church. You know, it’s church-as-huddle to get prepared for political and cultural activism.
LikeLike
Tom,
If you’re here you have to deal with me. It’s kind of like trying to be here without dealing with Richard or Doug. No one’s that lucky.
LikeLike
DGH listen to Psalms 2
The LORD said to me, You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron’
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel”
Does anyone *think* Jesus hasn’t asked yet????
LikeLike
Psalm 72
“May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!
May desert tribes bow down before him and his enemies lick the dust! May the kings
of Sheba and Seba bring gifts! May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!
Questions DGH; was King David immanatizing the eschathon?
LikeLike
Bobby, theonomists are Calvinism’s version of Methodists. But more honest theos will readily admit having a co-belligerency with the religious rightists. But then there are the Doug Sowerses who arrogantly dismiss even Abraham Kuyper but cheer on Brian Lee.
LikeLike
Sean, I have never seen a Christian make a waitress wait while holding plates. Once she puts them down, then we bow our head and pray.
LikeLike
Zrim, read a post before you pop off! Are you seriously implying that Kuyper would vote for sodomite marriage?
You aren’t just wrong, you’re stupid wrong! Stop it!
LikeLike
Bobby, disregard anything Zrim says about theonomy. One, he’s never read theonomy, so he hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about. Listening to Zrim pop off about theonomy is like listening to a three year old lecture you on higher math. Zrim simply understand theonomy.
LikeLike
Bobby, Calvin was *theonomic* to the bone! It bugs poor Zrim, but it’s true.
LikeLike
DG says: “Doug, you rejected the label strangers and exiles.”
Not at all! Read the post Darryl. What I said, is that when Christians out number unbelievers it can hardly be said with a straight face that we are in exile, like Daniel was.
Darryl, when New England was founded it was over 80% christian. How were believers in exile, you poor excuse for a historian?
DG, Context context context!
Now go dunk your head in the bucket and slap yourself again!
LikeLike
Doug two things; where do you go where everyone gets served at the same time? and It still comes off as self-righteous, what about Jesus’ admonition to not pray as the hypocrites on the corner where everyone can see them, but pray instead in secret where only God can see and repay?
LikeLike
Erik, after reading Brian’s prayer, maybe you can understand what I meant, by an appropriate prayer. Moreover, you could pray that prayer before your basketball game with just a few changes.
LikeLike
Go dunk your head in a bucket and slap yourself again. Doug, is that why you lack a lot of the frontal lobe executive functions?
LikeLike
No Sean, that is Darryl, slapping himself, not me
LikeLike
Sean, it’s a matter of the heart. When we pray before we eat, it’s not to be seen by others. Are you saying you don’t pray before you eat?
LikeLike
Doug – Sean, I have never seen a Christian make a waitress wait while holding plates. Once she puts them down, then we bow our head and pray.
Erik – You and your imaginary friends?
LikeLike
Erik, you have a copy of TICE. Open it up to chapter on New England. Can anyone with a straight face say that those Christians were in exile like Daniel? Has Darryl lost his mind?
LikeLike
Erik, do you say grace before you eat?
LikeLike
Didn’t Jesus pray and thank God before he fed the 5 thousand? If it’s good enough for Jesus, why can’ t we do the same? Or was Jesus guilty of praying before men?
LikeLike
Doug – Erik, you have a copy of TICE. Open it up to chapter on New England
Erik – I’m working up to it. When I read it, I’ll read it in full.
Doug – Erik, do you say grace before you eat?
Erik – No. I pray in the morning alone, at night with the family, and as needed as I deal with you & Richard.
LikeLike
Doug, I’m saying I’m reluctantly drawn into it(you can’t fight every battle, every day). I think it’s mostly done for effect and, to me, comes off as presumptuous and self-righteous and trivial. It’s another example of where evangelical piety has run roughshod over biblical piety and a failure to abide scripture’s warnings about the heart in service of ‘witness’. I pray at home in private. I also have never put an ichtus on my car or worn a t-shirt with a cartoon depiction of Jesus on a bloody cross, reading; ‘no pain no gain.’
LikeLike
Sean or Erik: Didn’t Jesus pray before he fed the five and the four thousand? And a follow up, isn’t Jesus our example? Or, was it only okay for Jesus to pray in public, and not us?
LikeLike
Sean, I hear you. I even agree that we need to be careful to not be external wanting to be viewed by men. But I don’t fault a brother who wants to give thanks before a meal. Personally, I don’t think there were restaurants back in Jesus day. Maybe there were, but I doubt it. When we put food into our body, I think it’s a good thing to thank God, if we can do it without pretense.
Does that make sense to you?
LikeLike
Doug, what’s so complicated? Theonomy denies WCF 19 on the fulfillment of the law, which is effectively a denial of Jesus’ messianic fulfillment, which is functional Romanism which has the upshot of being neonomian and disguised as Reformed. It’s prosperity gospel for the politically and legislatively inclined and so appeals to those more interested in law than gospel.
ps I’ve no idea what Kuyper would’ve said about gay marriage (you should try and put “I don’t know” in your own vocabulary, if you have the chutzpah). What in thee heck are you going off about with that? The point is this: you say the OT is a handbook for legislative and political questions. Kuyper says that Calvinism has never tolerated that absurdity. Calvin may have been a theocrat but he was no theonomist. In his day they were called Anabaptists.
LikeLike
Doug,
R. Scott Clark shoots down Theonomy and he’s a seminary professor. The debate’s over.
http://heidelblog.net/2013/03/belgic-confession-art-36-magistrate-advance-gospel/
LikeLike
Sean,
Have you ever worn a tee shirt that says “Dew the Jew” or referred to yourself as Rev. Tim Tom?
That clip will never get old.
LikeLike
Doug – Personally, I don’t think there were restaurants back in Jesus day
Erik – Archaeological evidence has proven that tacos were being sold out of vans in ancient Palastine, at least until the Roman health inspectors could locate them and shut them down.
LikeLike
Zrim says: “Doug, what’s so complicated? Theonomy denies WCF 19 on the fulfillment of the law.
Me: Wrong as per usual! We’ve gone down this road before. How can you make the same silly mistake over and over again? Even Dr. Meredith Kline (the father of R2K) admits that theonomy does not deny WCF19! And Kline hated theonomy!
Kline admits that the WCF is largely theonomic. You need to grow up, and start acting like a man.
Stop it!
LikeLike
Doug, you read Kline the way you read the Bible: selectively. But if Kline says theonomy doesn’t turn WCF 19 on its head then I disagree. After all, if Kuyper can disagree with Calvin on the magistrate then why can’t I with Kline? Plus disagreement beats arrogant dismissal.
LikeLike
Erik says: “R. Scott Clark shoots down Theonomy and he’s a seminary professor. The debate’s over.”
Hahahaha! R. Scott Clark doesn’t believe in evolution! He’s a pine nut!
Really Erik, Clark was great at criticizing Douglas Wilson on his blog.
Personally, I think Clark *knew* Wilson would clean his clock and make a fool of him in public.
LikeLike
Erik, so when did you start reading Epstein?
LikeLike
Zrim diagree all you want! You still have never read “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”. You don’t know what your talking about!
LikeLike
Doug, to Jesus’ asking, why isn’t God answering?
LikeLike
Doug, he was if he wasn’t seeking a better country. Hebrews — check it out.
LikeLike
Zrim, it’s Brain Lee.
LikeLike
Zrim, Oh the irony! It has been shown over and over again, that the authors of the WCF were largely theonomic. Just look at the laws that were passed in their day. Yet to believe you, they contradicted themselves in the Confession that they wrote!
God back to the drawing board Steve, you flunked!
LikeLike
Doug, you may not quote Kline unless you include more than that one reference. Next time I am deleting your comment.
LikeLike
DG wonders: “Doug, to Jesus’ asking, why isn’t God answering?”
Me: He is, slowly like leaven.
The world is a far better place today, than it was in 67AD
Our nation has largely Christian laws today. Much better than Roman law! Moreover Christianity is the largest religion in the world today, growing faster than Islam.
God is listening and working, let’s keep praying the Lord’s prayer in faith!
LikeLike
Doug, what was so bad about Roman law? God chose crucifixion as the means by which to demonstrate perfect justice. More arrogant dismissals.
Darryl, maybe Doug’s barbarism has created a new adverb, as in “You aren’t reading the Bible very brainly.”
LikeLike
Zrim, a humble apology would be nice from you. Just admit you don’t know what your talking about concerning WCF 19:4
You have tied your brain into knots of contradiction. Stop it!
LikeLike
Zrim babbles: “Doug, what was so bad about Roman law?
Didn’t Roman law allow a man to marry his father’s wife?
Think, before you talk Zrim!
LikeLike
And here I present Dr. Meredith Kline, the father of R2K admitting that WCF 19.4 can not be against theonomy!! Ahh, inner peace at last!
I would really appreciate an apology from both Zrim and Darryl, who have fought me of this for years. Zrim, feel free to disagree with theonomy, but please quit lying about it violating our Confession. Deal?
LikeLike
Doug, you have to quote Kline on something else if you’re going to quote this. It’s gone.
LikeLike
Why Darryl? Why delete germane evidence?
You asked for it, and I gave it. Do you need more references?
LikeLike
Doug, I tolerate a lot here. Don’t like it, go over to Wilson’s blog and kiss his arse.
LikeLike
Darryl, why don’t you want to see evidence that Kline knew that theonomy was not against 19.4?
I have said many harsh things about you in the past, but why would you delete Kline? I don’t get it.
LikeLike
DGH Zrim says: “But IF Kline says theonomy doesn’t turn WCF 19 on its head then I disagree.”
Me: I am just proving that Kline did in fact say that WCF 19.4 was not against theonomy. Why would you delete my evidence? Zrim wanted to know, and I proved it!
What is your beef?
LikeLike
D.G. – I started reading Epstein early in my bookselling days when I picked up a big stack of “The American Scholar”. I read an essay he wrote about how, when he was an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, he decided to structure his life so he could go to class in the morning, come home, go to sleep, get up, do his homework, and then stay up all night reading whatever he wanted. What a magical life! That captivated me and I’ve liked him ever since. I have probably his first 15 books but have a long way to go as far as reading all of them.
The “Scholar” under his editorship was great. So many great pieces by interesting writers. You would have fit in well there. When they replaced him it was a travesty, but common sense and mild conservatism have been out of vogue in the academy for a long time so it’s a miracle he lasted as long as he did.
His essays on academics and scholars are some of the best things I’ve ever read. His mentor, Edward Shils, is also excellent in this area:
http://www.amazon.com/Portraits-Gallery-Intellectuals-Edward-Shils/dp/0226753379/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1368472233&sr=8-16&keywords=edward+shils
LikeLike
Doug, the Bayly’s want an apology for my interpretation of their sermon to the President, you want one for my interpretation of theonomy. My, you fellows are sensitive.
LikeLike
Doug,
Can you name five books on theology or church history that you have read in the last decade that did not involve theonomy? You may be guilty of one-hit-wonderism.
LikeLike
Flock of Seagulls was great and all, but I’ll be o.k. if I never hear “I Ran” again. I do enjoy hearing “The Safety Dance” from time-to-time, though:
LikeLike
“Come on Eileen” is also always welcome:
LikeLike
Zrim, that’s because for all the blustering about a ‘masculine christianity’ they’re really just overcompensating. They have pills for that now.
LikeLike
This is an exciting turn of events, and I don’t often use “exciting.”
DGH, you should delete at least one post per week from Doug. Say you’re going to do it and then do it. Don’t explain why. It’ll mess with his head; pretty soon he’ll need the light on when he goes to bed.
LikeLike
Where is Doug going to go to complain that his post got deleted? Baylyblog?
LikeLike
The neonomians and I probably agree on a number of political issues. But I have no interest in binding the conscience of others on these issues. Moreover, I have no interest in baptizing my own views as “the Christian view.” The light of nature provides us with ample means from which to make political arguments. We should rely on it, and stop trying to drag Christ into the mix.
Please know that I’m not saying this because I’m in agreement with Jim Wallis or the President.
Bobby, as I wrote on the other thread to Darryl, I personally am fine with faith in politics. But if Wallis or Obama are going to baptize their social Gospel views as the “Christian” or Biblical view, well, I think it’s stupid to let them win the point by default–and I think it’s even stupider for 2K “conservatives” to assist them by trying to castrate other conservatives!
A principled 2Ker could argue not the contrary [conservative] point, but that Jim and Barack ought to back off claiming THEIR view as the Christian or Biblical view.
Because when Barack misuses the “brother’s keeper” argument over and over again, I want to scream. A 2Ker would have the best standing to tell him to cut it the hell out!
[Bush wasn’t nearly that bad. He seldom if ever used the Bible as a weapon against his political enemies. Frankly, I think it was because he took the Bible more seriously, but that’s another discussion.]
LikeLike
MikeLMann:Tom says “You don’t know anything about me.”
Yes, and that’s the problem. We explain our positions and give justifications. You hide (or maybe you aren’t aware of) your perspective. So did you come for a conversation with mutual learning or did you come to rail and then stage an indignant exit? You’re entertaining enough, so why don’t you just play well with others and stick around?
First of all, I gave up debate awhile ago. Yes, I’ll debate a particular point or factoid, but digging in “my” position and arguing it against “yours” pretty much dooms us to ending up where we started. And I fancy meself as not set in stone just yet.
Further, by self-identifying as a ybiyrgbf-ist, one finds himself defending everything every ybiyrgbf-ist ever said or did–and since most debaters are only interested in winning, they go for the throat and use the weakest arguments and dumbest idiots on the other side as a cudgel. You can see plenty of that even here. [Every time the Baylys are mentioned, heh heh.]
So I prefer to discuss one issue at a time, on its own merits. My most recent one, equating homosexual conduct less with the Holocaust than with being a drunk and disobedient child, is something I’ve thought long and hard about. [If it helps my theological street cred, read that as “prayed” about.] As is no secret here, I do not support gay marriage. But when people are talking the death penalty for homosexual conduct, even if this train is bound for glory, that’s where I get off, brother.
LikeLike
Tom,
On what grounds do you oppose gay marriage? Lots of conservatives & libertarians don’t.
LikeLike
SSM isn’t exactly relevant at the moment, Erik, another rabbit hole, but I’ll leave it here for now: That all sexualities are created equal is a self-evident lie.
LikeLike
Erik, I’ve called Zrim a dolt! I’ve called Darryl all sorts of names, that I felt were appropriate at the time, and I get deleted for quoting Dr. Meredith Kline?! LOL! LOL! LOL!
I must have hit a nerve, eh? Kline according to DG is a genius, lol! He’s such a genius, that he contradicts Darryl’s warped view of being a strict subscriptionist at some very key points. First, Kline confesses that the WCF was theonomic! That kicks DG, (hard!), square in the stones! Next Kline admits that the revision was theonomic as well! Double ouch!
This makes DG look ridiculous when he weakly attempts to miss lead us all, that is within the WCF. Which he clearly is not!
All my name calling if fine. But when I come out with proof positive that both the original 1646 and the revision are theonomic documents DG melts like the wicked witch of the west and starts deleting my posts. I find this hilarious to the zenth power!!!
DG, where is your sense of fair play?
LikeLike
Tom, here:
https://oldlife.org/2010/05/why-evangelicals-arent-conservative/
LikeLike
Erik says: “Can you name five books on theology or church history that you have read in the last decade that did not involve theonomy? You may be guilty of one-hit-wonderism.”
Me: Erik, you would like my library! I have read at least a hundred books on the reformation, most have nothing to do with theonomy.
I only have about five or six books on theonomy. I don’t need anymore. I am most interested in books on the covenant of grace. I avoid Meredith Kline, like one would avoid the plague, even though I have read some of his work. Kline was way too full of himself and did not understand typology.
LikeLike
TVD,
The last time I checked, neither the President nor Mr. Wallis have suggested that those who disagree with them are necessarily not Christians. By contrast, neonomians, like Richard, Doug, and the Baylys, make agreement with their political views a test of orthodoxy. Besides, within conservative Reformed communions where I tend to find myself, neonomians are a far bigger problem. I’d generally like to protect my own church from the pollution of theonomism and revivalism.
LikeLike
Erik asks: “On what grounds do you oppose gay marriage? Lots of conservatives & libertarians don’t.”
Me: The word of the LORD!
Nuff said!
LikeLike
Bobby, I thought I was very clear. I don’t say you are not a christian, I just say you are inconsistent.
LikeLike
Tom, here: https://oldlife.org/2010/05/why-evangelicals-arent-conservative/
Mr. “Zrim”, that you had to go back to 2010 and only came up with a “Pox On Both Their Houses” post rather proves my point. [POBTH arguments are also by definition lame. One House at a time rocks, however.]
But I sincerely appreciate you engaging my point rather than steering around it. [Really.]
LikeLike
@Tom;
Hang in there brother! Even many of my views are in flux. Don’t let these wacky radical two kingdom guys intimidate you. They seem tough, but they will soon melt like mist. Almost as if they were never there.
Only the word of the LORD will stand!
LikeLike
TVD, The last time I checked, neither the President nor Mr. Wallis have suggested that those who disagree with them are necessarily not Christians.
Now that’s a sharp argument, Bobby. Cheers.
By contrast, neonomians, like Richard, Doug, and the Baylys, make agreement with their political views a test of orthodoxy.
Well, that’s only if everything outside the doors of your church is “political.” I strongly question that premise, for reasons given previously–“society” and “community,” which are not synonymous with “the state,” but a tertium quid. [This is where “2K” comes up 1K short.]
Besides, within conservative Reformed communions where I tend to find myself
Well, this is where the Calvinist circular firing squad comes in. I’d ask you how it’s working so far, but the obvious answer is that it’s not.
neonomians are a far bigger problem. I’d generally like to protect my own church from the pollution of theonomism and revivalism.
This is why I grabbed the Screwtape quote about “jargon.” Lobbing these pejoratives at each other is your ecclesiastical sport I guess, but meanwhile somebody done stole your whole church while you True Scotsmen were busy playing theological caber toss.
LikeLike
@Tom,
Let’s not forget, this same Steve Zremlin you’re talking too, admitted three years ago, that he would probably vote *FOR* gay marriage!!! LOL! LOL! LOL!
His own words indict him! Now watch Steve *lamely* attempt to explain his way out of his own bad confession.
LikeLike
Tom,
I was asking to take your theological pulse. There are a lot of conservatives who are against gay marriage but would have no problem with getting something on the side from the 18-year-old opposite sex babysitter. Both are violations of the seventh commandment.
LikeLike
Bobby – Besides, within conservative Reformed communions where I tend to find myself, neonomians are a far bigger problem. I’d generally like to protect my own church from the pollution of theonomism and revivalism.
Erik – The last two Sundays I have had – ahem – conversations at church with neomomians and revivalists. Welcome to my world.
LikeLike
Douglas,
You are in rare form today:
“That kicks DG, (hard!), square in the stones!”
Talk about a true original.
LikeLike
Erik opines: ” was asking to take your theological pulse. There are a lot of conservatives who are against gay marriage but would have no problem with getting something on the side from the 18-year-old opposite sex babysitter. Both are violations of the seventh commandment.’
Me: Erikl what does God say about these different sin/crimes? Or do you know?
LikeLike
Thanks Erik, I am in rare form. But my words ring true in this case!
LikeLike
Tom – Well, this is where the Calvinist circular firing squad comes in. I’d ask you how it’s working so far, but the obvious answer is that it’s not.
Erik – Quite well, actually. The OPC is 75+ years old and the URCNA is getting close to 20. We meet our budget and have a great time. Our influence far outweighs our size, as your continued presence here attests. How is bedside Baptist where you attend?
Freedom of religion in America is a wonderful thing.
Also, not sure what you’re so mad about. 95% of fundamentalists and evangelicals appear to be on your side.
LikeLike
Doug – Me: Erikl what does God say about these different sin/crimes? Or do you know?
Erik – Ask your buddy, Tom.
LikeLike
Doug,
Would Meredith Kline have been fit to teach your dog’s obedience class? How about R. Scott Clark?
Could D.G. Hart teach church history to your gerbil?
LikeLike
Tom, I was asking to take your theological pulse. There are a lot of conservatives who are against gay marriage but would have no problem with getting something on the side from the 18-year-old opposite sex babysitter. Both are violations of the seventh commandment.
I thought equating homosexual conduct contra Leviticus with the drunk and disobedient children in Deuteronomy [rather than taking part in the Holocaust] would make that rather clear. I guess I can get even more obvious and pedantic, but it’s getting to be too much like work.
[I thought it was a rather coherent scriptural argument. Perhaps you’ll pass it on sometime when somebody’s foaming about the “sodomites.” You can work the babysitter in there too; I agree with you.]
LikeLike
A Neomomian or a revivalist can seriously impact your church life if they become an officer. A Theonomist, however, will merely be an oddity because they pretty much all confess that theonomy being implemented is hundreds if not thousands of years away. In this regard they are very much like postmillennialists. It’s nice to talk about, but so what?
The Neonomian will have your wife & daughter wearing hats & long dresses and will be harassing you over what movies you watch and where your kids go to school. The revivalist will take issue with your confessionalism and “dead” formalism and seek to probe the true state of your soul. Most likely your church will start to shrink and you’ll start struggling to pay your bills. They’re on their fourth church in the area and you were the only church dumb enough to fall for it.
LikeLike
Tom,
You can’t presume people read and digest your thousand word posts that take you a half an hour to compose. Just have a conversation if you want people to understand you. When you are talking to someone do you say, “I’ll be back in a half hour”, and then return in 40 minutes to read a paper with four riddles, three veiled references, and a haiku in it?
LikeLike
Tom carries on a conversation:
LikeLike
Earth to Erik! Most of our laws are theonomic as we speak! Somewhere near to 70%! Our nations sexual ethics have gone down hill, to be sure. But most of our laws are already theonomic.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
LikeLike
Tom, You can’t presume people read and digest your thousand word posts that take you a half an hour to compose.
I’m either too brief or too long; in either case, you don’t understand, so what’s the difference? Leave me be and stop burying my comments under quibbles and irrelevancies.
But I reckon Darryl likes you fencing his table, or if that be too flip, playing junkyard chihuahua. The incessant yapping chases away all except the most determined of critics, and eventually them too.
LikeLike
C’mon dudes, heed Trueman. And acknowledge that we out here are continuing to pay the cable bill for this OLTS channel. Viewing entertainment to the Max!
http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/post-46.php
LikeLike
Doug,
You speculated that it was 80% yesterday. Did it fall 10% overnight?
Of course, I pointed out to you that it’s actually 0%. Our laws are based on pragmatic wisdom drawn from general revelation. General revelation and special revelation both have their source in God. Thus, it’s not surprising that our laws are generally consistent with special revelation. But that doesn’t imply that they are in any way based on special revelation. Nor does it imply that every aspect of special revelation ought to find a parallel rule in our civil laws.
As usual, your error lies in that you discount the value of general revelation.
LikeLike
Yah, AB, but every time it starts getting interesting, it flips back to the Chihuahua Channel. No wonder it’s losing so many subscribers.
LikeLike
Our laws are based on pragmatic wisdom drawn from general revelation. General revelation and special revelation both have their source in God. Thus, it’s not surprising that our laws are generally consistent with special revelation. But that doesn’t imply that they are in any way based on special revelation. Nor does it imply that every aspect of special revelation ought to find a parallel rule in our civil laws.
Bobby, that’s exactly the discussion going on over @ my home blog.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-wilson-and-scottish-enlightenment.html
You’re spot on with Aquinas, Locke, Blackstone, and American Founders Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson. Props, sir.
LikeLike
Tom, it’s not clear what you’re after. You complain that principled 2kers should push back against the likes of Wallis claiming their social and political view as thee biblical view. You are pointed to an instance and say fubar.
But if you’ve been listening, the point is that the religious rightist is the new Protestant liberal. The reason he receives so much ire is his claim to conservatism instead of being a rightist. Nothing about him is conservative, from his views on institutional and creedal religion to his worship practices to his over-realization of politics and legislation. He’s warmed over liberalism.
LikeLike
I was going to say, Tom, that here on the Klingon home world Qo’Nos, we need some blood wine to smooth things over. I mean, the testosterone is pouring off my tablet screen as I read. We need to golf, fellow left coast dude.
LikeLike
Tom – I’m either too brief or too long
Erik – No, brief is good. Talk like you would in a bar. If you make a winning argument, I’ll acknowledge it. I’ve said you ask good questions in between the bursts of hostility.
LikeLike
Tom, if you want my opinion of the thought out here, it’s a high regard for Biblical Christianity that requires a 2k stance. Nothing less than a pure gospel will do, so at least for my part, I appreciate the effort to keep politics out of my Sunday morning sermons. Shows you how little I know, but I’ve got David VanDrunen’s book on this topic sitting in my kindle for android app here, just a few taps away. Just take it easy, and that seemed like interesting stuff in the comboxes on your blog. We’re a bit yippy at times, and as much as I hate pointing out when others have a log in their eye, I really should be focusing on spec in mine. And if you thought that last part was a slip while reading it, take another sip of the pale ale. It’s nice and smooth. Peace.
LikeLike
AB
Van Drunen is the problem, not the solution. Moreover, he’s deep, wise, and thoughtful. I wouldn’t let anyone I love or care for, get near that poor excuse for a theologian.
He will go down in infamy, among reformed thinkers in my humble opinion.
LikeLike
AB: the testosterone is pouring off my tablet screen as I read. We need to golf, fellow left coast dude.
Now yer talkin’, brutha, although my best hole is always the 19th. And we gotta kidnap Erik. He’s always saying this is a pub, sitting over there at the end of the bar with his pink glass and one of those little umbrellas in it.
I say we buy him a dozen Scotches and make a real Presbyterian out of him.
LikeLike
I don’t know about you, Tom, but I’m a little worried of what Erik and his mad skills on the basketball course will reveal about us when we play with him someday. I’m not sure what Erik’s drink of choice is, but that’s between you and him. A little early for me to have a mimosa by checking in here at old life. I’ll try to read comments tonight. Off to my day job…
LikeLike
You two are never getting on my course:
http://www.harvestergolf.com
Since Tom is a fan of things that attract large numbers I’ll see if I can get him on the $9 municipal, though.
LikeLike
Doug – Van Drunen is the problem, not the solution. Moreover, he’s deep, wise, and profound. I wouldn’t let anyone I love or care for, get near that poor excuse for a theologian.
He will go down in infamy, among reformed thinkers in my humble opinion.
Erik – With Doug around, there’s no need to bring Tad Otis back from the grave.
Doug, When D.G. goes to Turkey, do you think he could trust Van Drunen to feed his cats & change the litter box or would he not be intelligent enough for that task?
Would you put your 9 months of community college up against Van Drunen’s J.D. and Ph.D. any day of the week because you’ve read those 5-6 books on theonomy and “hundreds” of books on the Reformation (that you never seem to get around to talking about)?
LikeLike
Erik, I believe Van Drunen’s living in God’s two kingdom’s is a snare to the body of Christ. The large majority of reformed thinkers agree with me! It has nothing to do with how much college I have under my belt. I’ve studied the Bible for years. Take RC Sproul for example, I’ll bet he hates it, every bit as much as me. And Sproul insn’t even theonomic!
LikeLike
Doug,
You seem to be the only one arguing against it here. Go find some of your myriad allies and invite them to come here and join you. Or are you a dying breed? If you are, don’t tell Tom. He’ll mock you.
LikeLike
Erik, please read Dr. Venama’s review of “The Law Is Not Of Faith”. Venama points out that both Gordon and Van Drunen were the most provocative and sarcastic. Here’s the rub. Neither one of these guys interacted with normal or common perspectives explaining Gal 3 Which is the three uses of the law.
Instead they insist on a new novel way of understanding Paul, as the only way to possibly make sense out of Gal 3. I guess Calvin, and all the other reformed hero’s were all wrong. But they don’t feel the need to interact with the normal understanding. This isn’t good scholarship Erik. (That’s putting it nicely)
It should give us all pause, before we believe a word they say. In other words Erik, it’s not just me, the majority of reformed scholars disagree with Gordon and Van Drunen’s work on TLINF and Living in God’s two kingdom’s.
I side with the majority.
LikeLike
Video of Rev. Lee’s prayer:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseProFormaSession50
LikeLike
Doug,
Neither one of these guys interacted with normal or common perspectives explaining Gal 3 Which is the three uses of the law.
Gordon’s entire essay is an interaction with the traditional view of Galatians 3. He argues against it on the ground that Paul is contrasting actual historical covenants, namely, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic. Have you read the essay?
LikeLike
Erik,
Thanks for that. You think it might go viral?
LikeLike
Doug,
I checked Amazon today and “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” is at 28,230 and “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” is at 490,561. Scoreboard.
Osteen’s “Become a Better You” is at 6,542 so that puts us both in our places.
Rob Bell’s “Sex God” is at 26,794 so at least Van Drunen is keeping pace with him.
Hart’s “Calvinism: A History” is at 226,756 and it’s not even out until June.
Hart’s “Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and The Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America” is still at a respectable 78,073.
Dan Brown’s “Inferno” is #1 and Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” is #2.
LikeLike
David R.,
No, not unless Lee threw a pie in Nancy Pelosi’s face.
LikeLike
Why Tom is All Wet When He Accuses Us of the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy — and Why Denominations Are a Good Thing:
Tom,
Here’s an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy:
“The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the ‘Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again’. Hamish is shocked and declares that ‘No Scotsman would do such a thing’. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, ‘No true Scotsman would do such a thing’.[2]
When the statement ‘all A are B’ is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of ‘true A’.”
I don’t know how you think this applies to us. We can’t be narrow sectarians in our own tiny denominations (which you say we are) AND also be guilty of this fallacy. If we had stayed in the Mainline Presbyterian church and were making this argument that our Mainline Presbyterian Church is great but that the liberals in our church are not “true Presbyterians”, you would be correct, but we claim no affiliation with liberal Mainliners at all and have no ecclesiastical fellowship with them.
Since you are a conservative do I get to lump you in with Ayn Rand’s followers and then, when you demur, accuse you of the No True Scotsman fallacy? You are the one trying to lump people together, not us.
LikeLike
Erik, you yourself wrote that 90 years ago, JG Machen et al decided that the “mainstream” Protestants don’t even practice “Christianity” anymore. Yes?
That’s what I mean by “No True Scotsman.” You draw a small circle and everything outside it isn’t true Christianity. I’m just at a loss on how to get you to understand anything outside your self-inscribed circles.
“If it’s not Scottish, it’s crap!”
LikeLike
Todd, Gordon needs to take his exception. He believes that the Mosaic Covenant was essentially different than the Abrahamic. When the WCF says they are one covenant in substance.
That simply blows Van Drunen and Gordon out of the water. They are teaching something different than reformed theology. They are baptists pretending to be reformed.
LikeLike
I’m on board as long as we’re all Wets.
LikeLike
RE the true wet scotsmans (scotsmen?)
TVD, I think most confessional reformed folks on this site would answer this question RE the marks of the church. Erik was speaking in shorthand. Machen was describing liberalism in the mainline, and said liberalism (as an ethos or system of theology) was not Christian. Machen was correct.
But if you think in terms of the church, I think it’s pretty fair to say that Machen would say of the main line what Calvin said of Rome (with some qualifications), namely, it is exhibiting few if any marks of a true church. Doesn’t mean there aren’t any Christians in it.
Erik’s point is that the answer to Machen’s objection is to faithfully join yourself to a church. In extremis, church officers, being excluded from a fading body, may have to re-affiliate. We don’t celebrate this. But we remain churchly in our Protest, and not individualistic.
We aren’t perfectionists. We are all happily members of deeply flawed churches that are confessionally Reformed and more often than not exhibit the marks of a true church.
At least that’s how a continental Reformed guy would explain it, based on Belgic Confession articles 27 – 29.
LikeLike
Doug, are you familiar with seventeenth century views of the Mosaic covenant?
There were a wide range of views, as they are today, but the view that Mosaic economy was in part or to some degree a republication of the covenant of works was not unheard of. To say the WCF rules this view out is to be ignorant of the context in which that document was written.
You are reading the “oneness of substance” argument too woodenly, as it has had significantly more flexibility through the history of Reformed thought. The view in TLNF does not deny the unity of the Abrahamic covenant throughout redemptive history.
LikeLike
Tom also misses the point that, in spite of his cynicism, words can and do still mean things. If I say I’m an “evangelical” or a “Presbyterian”, then I agree those are rather hollow words today that could mean many things. But if I say I am “an elder in the United Reformed Churches in North America who holds to the Three Forms of Unity” or “an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who holds to the Westminster Standards”, then I have said something that is verifiable. He can read my church order, he can read my Confessions. We can have a dialogue.
When he comes as a generic American conservative, maybe a Christian, maybe not, and wants to criticize us, how is that a fair fight? He won’t even go out on a limb far enough to tell us who he is or what he is about? It is impossible to fight with rootless men.
I have an atheist friend who is a Professor of Religion and we could talk all day because he knows where I stand and I know where he stands. It’s a fascinating discussion and I think we both learn a lot. It’s the rootless or intellectually inconsistent man I struggle talking with.
LikeLike
Doug,
Todd, Gordon needs to take his exception. He believes that the Mosaic Covenant was essentially different than the Abrahamic. When the WCF says they are one covenant in substance.
1. Gordon is very forthright about his scruples with the Confession, as you would learn if you listened to his lectures on Paul and the Law. I understand that John Murray also took numerous exceptions to the language of the Confession.
2. The WCF does not mention either the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants.
3. Samuel Bolton, a Westminster Divine, also held that the AC and MC were essentially distinct, and yet, though he considered his view to be in the minority, his orthodoxy was never questioned.
LikeLike
Tom – Erik, you yourself wrote that 90 years ago, JG Machen et al decided that the “mainstream” Protestants don’t even practice “Christianity” anymore. Yes?
Erik – Yes, in “Christianity and Liberalism” Machen makes the argument that theological liberalism is an entirely different religion than biblical Christianity. You should read his argument and see if you can refute it. It’s an intellectual and exegetical argument, not one based on emotion.
LikeLike
Tom – That’s what I mean by “No True Scotsman.” You draw a small circle and everything outside it isn’t true Christianity. I’m just at a loss on how to get you to understand anything outside your self-inscribed circles.
Erik – So using that logic, how can you say that conservative principles are superior to liberal principles? Aren’t you drawing a circle around conservative principles and leaving liberal principles on the outside? I don’t think you object to drawing circles, you just seem to object to the size of the circle, but on what logical grounds?
You had this argument with Richard last week and I never saw you bring the debate to completion.
Why is the circle that says we “shouldn’t live in a whorehouse” valid? What if I just say you are being a prude?
LikeLike
I agree with Bryan’s comments to Tom.
LikeLike
That’s Brian (Lee), not Bryan (Cross). Have to be careful agreeing with “Bryan” around here…
LikeLike
Do keep hanging in here, Tom. I’ve been here a year and there are guys I’ve learned from in spite of them driving me nuts. If nothing else you’ll know what you believe and why more firmly than you did when you came here.
LikeLike
Erik’s point is that the answer to Machen’s objection is to faithfully join yourself to a church. In extremis, church officers, being excluded from a fading body, may have to re-affiliate. We don’t celebrate this. But we remain churchly in our Protest, and not individualistic.
Thank you, Brian. The net result is the same, y’all just don’t like the pith and wit of the No True Scotsman analogy, which is deadly accurate. Sorry about that.
I do appreciate the distinction that you seem to be making, that the theologians who faithfully keep the Piece of the True Cross are the ones booted out by the heretics, and then they take their piece of the True Cross down the street and start a new church. The New Church of the Old True Cross, The Orthodox New Church of the Old True Cross, the Unified New Old Church of the Old True Orthodox Cross, that sort of thing.
Still, the result is that the original church no longer has a piece of the True Cross, and they have slipped into a non-True Christianity, so who booted whom is of academic interest, but not of theological interest.
It’s not that I don’t understand, although it gives Erik great comfort to believe that I don’t. It’s an old story, in fact, my interest in Reformed ecclesiology was piqued by the Unitarian Controversy of the mid-1800s, which we’ll recap for those who came in late:
The Trinitarian question had been papered over for a century, but then the unitarians made their legal move on the pulpits, then the churches, and won. The Congregationalists left. To this day, the Congregationalist churches of the Revolutionary era are owned and controlled by the Unitarian Universalist Church, which doesn’t even necessarily believe in God anymore. I got one report of a Wiccan priestess in the pulpit. God bless theological diversity, eh?
Anyway [and this has gotten too long for Erik’s ADD, so it’s just us chickens here now], it’s still a saying in New England: “The Congregationalists kept the faith, the Unitarians got the furniture.”
I get it, I get it. But from any distance, the problems of schism, heresy, dogma and replacing the Magisterium with various Confessions has become one big Groundhog Day. [The movie, not the pagan holiday.] It appears that the price of Reformation is Atomization, not catholicism [small “c”].
LikeLike
Brian (the brain) says: “There were a wide range of views, as they are today, but the view that Mosaic economy was in part or to some degree a republication of the covenant of works was not unheard of. To say the WCF rules this view out is to be ignorant of the context in which that document was written.’
Me: Brian, I am aware, and even agree that God republished the law, written on mans heart. (standard stuff!) As a blessing, not as a way of salvation! This is where Gordon and Van Drunen flew off the tracks into the “twilight zone”. God did republish his law, originally written on mans heart, yes and amen. BUT this ridiculous notion, that the Mosaic law is a fundamentally different covenant than the Abrahamic Is out of bounds and 100% unconfessional! Find that in our confessions! It’s not there! Moreover, it doesn’t even make sense! Why would God offer a false way of salvation?
This notion that the law taught salvation by works, is both new novel, and heretical! Our Confession calls the Mosaic Covenant the same in substance as the Abrahamic, Gordon disagrees! He needs to take an exception, and be stripped of his Professorship, YESTERDAY.
Both Van Drunen and Gordon are trapped in a conceptual contradiction.
Finally Brian, the authors who wrote TLINOF can’t agree with each other as to how the law was republished. None of them are on the same page! So the book can’t be taken seriously. It’s a mish mash of contradictory drivel.
LikeLike
Erik, I would highly suggest you read RC Sproul’s “What Is Reformed Theology”. I read it about ten years ago. I wish all Old Lifer’s would read it.
As an aside, on page two or three, Dr. Sproul states that theology is the queen of science. When Rev Bret MacAtee made that comment a few month’s ago on Dr. K’s blog M&M was stunned, and acted like he had never heard that before.
Here’s a very important point. Someone said recently that M&M is an officer in his church! How could someone be an Elder or a Deacon in an OPC and NOT know that? The fact that theology is the queen of science is part of the a,b,c’s of reformed theology, found on page three of what is reformed theology, YET M&M seemed unaware of that foundational truth. In other words, he has no business being an Elder if he doesn’t know the basics of reformed theology.
Personally, I like M&M. But as an officer in Christ’s church? No way, no how!
LikeLike
David R.
The WCF doesn’t have to mention the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, because they are all included! There are two covenant one pre fall and one post fall. All of the post fall covenants are one covenant of grace, the same in substance while separated by different administrations.
I am not saying that Gordon and Van Drunen are going to hell, but they need to step down from teaching at Westminster West. They are out of bounds on the question of the covenant of grace.
Murray’s disagreement was in calling the first covenant, a covenant of works. He thought that was miss-leading, causing some people to think Adam had to earn salvation. That was not what the reformers meant by covenant of works.
Gordon on the other hand, is against our confession in a fundamental way. He really needs to take an exception.
LikeLike
Tom, our committee on ecumenicity is hard at work. NAPARC represents one way we try to relate to others we deem close. Patience is required.
LikeLike
David R. states: “3. Samuel Bolton, a Westminster Divine, also held that the AC and MC were essentially distinct, and yet, though he considered his view to be in the minority, his orthodoxy was never questioned.”
Me: I didn’t say Gordon or Van Drunen are headed for hell. But surely they shouldn’t be allowed to teach at Westminster! Just like Samuel Bolton would not be allowed to teach a contrary view of the covenant of grace in Seminary of all places!
LikeLike
Tom – I get it, I get it. But from any distance, the problems of schism, heresy, dogma and replacing the Magisterium with various Confessions has become one big Groundhog Day. [The movie, not the pagan holiday.] It appears that the price of Reformation is Atomization, not catholicism [small “c”].
Erik – I made it to the end. So assume your pessimism is correct. Why are you a conservative and not a hedonist? Just what are you seeking to conserve?
And small c Catholicism united around what?
LikeLike
Doug, I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about, nor would I be stunned to learn of the idea of theology as the Queen of Sciences. Having said that, Dooyweerdian neo-Cals don’t believe theology is the Queen of Sciences and the interplay of theology and philosophy is interesting. The neo-Cal point of view is flavored by German idealism while the 2k point of view is informed by a natural law philosophy. Neither theology nor philosophy drop down from heaven untainted but are the work of men in a certain age and place; time and place affect both fallible fields of study.
Your point of view seems more dominated by personality or psychology than philosophy or theology.
Your characteristic ill-informed and sophomoric insults suggest that you are either antinomian with regards to the ninth commandment or that you lack self control. Whichever is the case, your continuing to post in a public forum is about as prudent as an alcoholic loitering at bars.
LikeLike
AB: Tom, our committee on ecumenicity is hard at work. NAPARC represents one way we try to relate to others we deem close. Patience is required.
Hey this Calvinist scorecard is really cool.
http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
Name
Members
Churches
Worship
Theology
Standards
Bible Version
Notes
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
346,814
1,757
M
M
WS 1789
MIX
This church was formed in 1973 as the National Presbyterian Church, adopting its current name the next year. It is now the second-largest Reformed denomination in the U.S. There is a blend of Reformed practice and modern broad evangelicalism. The author of the site attends a PCA church.
Notables: RC Sproul Sr, Harry Reeder, George Grant, Rick Phillips, Tim Keller, Steve Brown
Memberships: NAPARC, WRF, NAE
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
30,000
335
T
C
WS 1789
ESV
A very conservative Reformed denomination. The OPC came into being (as the Presbyterian Church of America) in 1936 as a breakaway from the old northern PCUSA, then changed its name later due to a lawsuit by the parent body.
Notables: J.G. Machen+, Greg Bahnsen+, G.I. Williamson, D.G. Hart, John Fesko, Alan Strange, Robert Reymond
Memberships: NAPARC, ICRC
Plus a few 100 others. First you have to keep track of ’em all before you can make ecumenical nice-nice. Mercy.
LikeLike
Tom,
And coming back full circle, how is anything we do as Presbyterian & Reformed Two Kingdoms men a hindrance to your project (whatever it is)? So we want to sit out the culture war. You can only fight it if everyone joins in? Are you not for freedom of religion and freedom of association? Why are you so riled up?
As a conservative I would think you would be pro-freedom. It’s the left who thinks they need to get everyone organized, united, and falling in line.
LikeLike
Tom,
That scorecard is pretty cool, thanks.
How many members in those churches are killing members in the other churches over their differences?
Zero. It seems like freedom of religion is working pretty well.
I think we might have a Roman Catholic who is afraid to admit It for some reason in our midst. Has Called to Communion become shrewder? Usually they’re content to just come here and take beatings in plain daylight.
LikeLike
Tom emerging as the resident persecutor of Conservative Presbyterian & Reformed churches. What a nice addition to the cast of regulars. That will be a profitable use of the non-renewable resource known as your life, Tom. Good move by you.
LikeLike
Doug – Here’s a very important point. Someone said recently that M&M is an officer in his church! How could someone be an Elder or a Deacon in an OPC and NOT know that? The fact that theology is the queen of science is part of the a,b,c’s of reformed theology, found on page three of what is reformed theology, YET M&M seemed unaware of that foundational truth. In other words, he has no business being an Elder if he doesn’t know the basics of reformed theology.
Personally, I like M&M. But as an officer in Christ’s church? No way, no how!
Erik – Doug, You’ve officially become an insufferable jackass and I should know as one of the last ones to suffer you. Show me where accepting R.C. Sproul’s position on anything is a prerequisite for serving as an OPC elder.
LikeLike
If you want to hear from that committee’s chairman, google, ‘animus components conference 2009’, or just go to the website of the presbytery of northern California and Nevada. The transcripts from Dr. Knight and others are worth reading.
LikeLike
Doug,
I am not saying that Gordon and Van Drunen are going to hell, …
That’s very gracious of you. Nice to see you’re capable of some nuance….
Murray’s disagreement was in calling the first covenant, a covenant of works. He thought that was miss-leading, causing some people to think Adam had to earn salvation. That was not what the reformers meant by covenant of works.
No, Murray’s disagreement was in calling the first covenant a “covenant.” That’s a pretty fundamental departure from chapter seven.
Gordon on the other hand, is against our confession in a fundamental way. He really needs to take an exception.
As I’ve mentioned, he’s taken several.
LikeLike
*animus imponentis
LikeLike
And my claim to fam, other than being on a game show while in college, was getting personal during the Q and A session of that conference. Check the transcripts and you will find me. Being on a game show was fun, no? Too bad spinning the wheel with bob barker was where that ended for me. Good night, all.
LikeLike
Tom,
Can you point to instances in the history of religion (or even of nations) where there has not been continuing cycles of rise, decay, demise, and renewal or reformation? Even the Roman Catholic (your Roman Catholic?) church had three popes at the same time 500 years ago. Why would they need Councils if even they did not need to adjust course from time-to-time? What conservative utopia do you think you’re living in.
And don’t mistake being a polymath for ADD. I can follow your train of thought, whistle Dixie, and work all at the same time, no problem. You’re not that complex.
LikeLike
Doug,
Let me be frank with you for a moment. I believe I’ve earned that right. You need to knock off the personal insults of the “that man should not be teaching theology” or “that man should not be an elder”. If you’re serious, contact the seminary or church in question. You look like an idiot when you do that here and you lower the level of discourse on this entire site. Anyone but Hart would have banned you months ago and you are testing even his monumental patience. Once you are banned from here you have nowhere to go that you want to be, because no one else will tolerate your rants. Just chill out and stick to the substance of your argument. If people agreed with you there would be a whole denomination of theonomist churches but there clearly is not. Until there is, knock it off.
LikeLike
Erik, you’ll do anything to win, incl playing dirty if necessary. Those you consider your theological enemies or “persecutors” don’t need to “win” that bad [it’s a hollow victory at best anyway], so there are lines they don’t cross that you will.
In the end, you do indeed “win” every argument. Sort of like you can win any argument with your spouse if you’re willing to cross that line. But then one day, your spouse, your marriage, [your church?] is gone…
So it goes. Peace, bro.
LikeLike
Tom,
I can’t win any arguments with Richard.
Where do you think I have played dirty? Believe it or not I like to lose an argument, because if I do that means I’ve learned something new and I will change my course in light of that. You’re just arguing from perspectives I’ve already had and moved on from so you’re fighting an uphill battle.
How do you think I went from being an evangelical Baptist who subscribed to the Conservative Chronicle in college to a 2K Reformed elder 20 years later? People made winning arguments with me. No one says we have to stay in the same place spiritually & intellectually forever.
My wife wins lots of arguments with me. She’s a wise woman.
LikeLike
Tom,
One thing I would appreciate is that if you would “come clean” with your religious affiliation or lack thereof. Maybe you had a bad experience with Reformed churches. Maybe you used to be in a church and aren’t now. Maybe you’re an atheist. Whatever it is, if we know, maybe it will help us have a mutually beneficial conversation. It’s difficult to argue with a black box, though.
LikeLike
Erik, I will tone it down, and refrain from personal insults. I get carried away when I get asked questions like, have you read any books other than theonomy? I happen to love reformed theology! And I have a great passion for understanding the covenant of grace. Zrim has ridiculed me from the day I met him some three years ago. I will try to not return his vitriol with some of my own.
I apologize for lashing out at M&M, he didn’t deserve my ire. Please forgive me Mike.
LikeLike
Erik,
I would say that you’ve won plenty of arguments with Richard. You can tell when Richard changes the topic or simply goes silent. Or when he takes your statement out of context, so as to argue against a straw man of his own creation.
I did have a question, though, about one of your comments to TVD. You suggested that you once felt a similar conviction about the things that animate the neonomians. And you went on to explain that you now feel free not to bear that burden any longer.
Can you expand on that? Frankly, I’m interested in what makes social conservatives tick. My own personal practices are socially conservative, but I don’t really care whether or not others make the same life choices that I do. As long as I can enjoy good friends, good wine, and good conversation, I’m pretty happy. I see no reason to bother myself with tending after the bread-and-circus crowd.
LikeLike
Doug,
O.K. I’m going to save your comment and remind the “Bad Doug” when he slips up.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I’ve never won an argument with Richard that he would admit (ha, ha).
I don’t feel a burden to fight the culture war for several reasons:
(1) What’s going on in the church is way more important so that is where I would rather spend my time and energy.
(2) A lot of the culture war is about splitting people into two camps around an issue and raising money from both sides.
(3) I’m not crazy about trying to get other people to do things or trying to control what they think about things.
(4) It’s just not that interesting.
(5) As a Calvinist I’m convinced that if God gets displeased enough with what others are doing he can take care of it and there will be nothing but a greasy spot left.
That being said, I do take the Law of God seriously and want to keep it the best I can personally. The trick there is separating true lawkeeping from legalism, which leads to fights with Neonomians in the church.
LikeLike
M&M this was your exact quote over on Kloosterman’s blog “Cosmic Eye”
“McAtee says:
“Also, the wonder of presuppositional philosophy makes the tasks of knowing across the disciplines much less arduous then you think. The presuppositionalist understands that economics, politics, law, science, education — is all theology by another name. Theology remains the Queen of the Sciences. Get your theology right and it is all down hill from there.”
M&M: “If this was over on Old Life I would take it as a parody of neoCal. But you’re serious, right? DTM and NDK, do you affirm this?”
No one answered you Mike, but I almost did way back on Nov. the 2nd of last year.
Me: It seems to me as if your were mocking McAtee with derision, calling his writing a parody of a neoCal.. Moreover Mike, you seemed totally unaware that theology IS the queen of science.
But Erik is right as rain. I shouldn’t disparage you (M&M) for not knowing this, even though you were mocking Bret McAtee who was *as usual* the guy who was correct in this case. I was frankly stunned, that you had never heard this.
So I get accused of only reading books on theonomy, and men like you, who are “Elders” don’t seem to be aware of one of the basic tenants of reformed theology. I lost my temper, and blasted you in a sinful way. I humbly apologize, but I hope you can see where I was coming from.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Erik, as I just proved, anyone can look back seven months and read things anyone of us has said. There are some things I’ve written, that I wish I could take back. Thank God for his precious sacrifice, amen?
Meanwhile, all I can do is ask for a little patience with you guy, whom I do consider my brothers in Christ, God is not through with me yet. Please understand this, I am not here at Old Life to convince everyone of theonomy. I am much more concerned with this new kind of 2K.
LikeLike
Bobby, I will take the time later to show you what I mean, by saying most of our laws are theonomic. Right now, we are talking past each other. For instance, the Bible says that a murderer must be put to death. So if your state has the death penalty for murder, then it is theonomic, with that statute. My state of California used to have the DP for murder, kidnapping, and rape. Those are all theonomic penalties. Theonomy just means God’s law.
Now California only has the DP for murder, so in the theonomic sense we have regressed.
LikeLike
FWIW, Erik, you have been on very good behavior as of late. You are really holding your tongue. I am proud of you!
Blessings,
LikeLike
Doug, if you need my formal ackowledgement then I do accept your apology.
But my point remains. For now you are sorry and you may truly try to communicate in a more constructive way but it will only be a short time before you will be back in the same rut again. You are who you are, and that’s not going to change dramatically at this stage in your life. Your passions run ahead of your judgment and this is the kind of hobby that will make that happen on a regular basis. Have you talked to your pastor about this?
I will respond to your specific point just briefly, and I may not respond to you again because I don’t want to encourage you to continue. Over at Dr. K’s place I was addressing the idea that if you have certain presuppositions then “economics, politics, law, science, education” are easy. Know theology and you know those. That’s absurd; if 2ks had a site like The Onion we might attribute that quote to someone but he actually said it himself.
LikeLike
Uh pardon, Doug, but I’ve ridiculed you with vitriol for three years? This thread seems more or less like any other exchange, and can you honestly read through it and find ridicule and vitriol coming from me? But read through again and take note of who calls who a dolt and a boob. Elbows may get thrown here and there and pointed disagreements ensue, but ridicule and vitriol?
So your inability to distinguish between the former and the latter is just more example of what gives the theonomic and fundamentalist mind to the same inability to nuance, to say nothing of the inability to grasp the triadalism of older 2k thought. You simply cannot conceive of an area of life that is neither holy nor unholy but simply common, nor can you conceive of any area of life that is about neither righteousness nor sin but simply wisdom and prudence. And that’s a huge problem because most of life is lived in those areas.
See, that was an example of being pointed without being insulting. Here’s more: quit taking cues from the annoying culture of the offended and whining for apologies and about ridiculing vitriol when someone simply has robust and visceral disagreements with you. (If I said something about sounding like a little girl, that would be borderline insulting, so I won’t.)
LikeLike
From “What Is Reformed Theology?” By RC Sproul
A Theology, Not A Religion:
This movement to reduce religion to its essence had a subtle but dramatic effect. The study of religion supplanted the study of theology in the academic world. This change was subtle in that, to the general populace, religion and theology were the same thing, so people felt no dramatic impact. Even in the academic world the shift was widely accepted with barely a whimper.
Several years ago I was invited to address the faculty of a prominent Midwestern college with a rich Christian and Reformed tradition. The school was without a president, and the faculty was engaged in a self-study to define the college’s identity. They asked me to address the question, “What are the distinctives of a uniquely Christian education?”
Before my lecture the dean showed me around the campus. When we entered the faculty office building, I noticed one office with these words stenciled on the door; Department of Religion. That evening as I spoke to the faculty I said: During my tour of your faculty I noticed an office door that announced “Department of Religion. My question is two-fold. First, was that department always called the Department of Religion?”
My inquiry was greeted by silence and blank stares. As first I thought no one was able to answer my question. Finally an elder statesman of the faculty raised his hand and said, “No, it used to be called the ‘Department of Theology.’ We changed it about thirty years ago.”
“Why did yo change it?” I asked.
No one in the room had any idea, nor did they seem to care. The tacit assumption was, “It doesn’t really matter.” I reminded the faculty that there is a profound difference between the study of theology and the study of religion. Historically the study of religion has been subsumed under the headings of anthropology, sociology, or even psychology. The academic investigation of religion has sought to be grounded in a scientific empirical method.
The reason for this is quite simple. Human activity is part of the phenomenal world. It is activity that is visible, subject to empirical analysis. Psychology may not be as concrete as biology, but human behavior in response to beliefs, urges, opinions, and so forth can be studied in accordance with the scientific method.
To state it more simply, the study of religion is chiefly the study of a cedrain kind of human behavior, be it under the rubric of anthropology, sociology, or psychology. The study of theology, on the other hand, is the study of God. Religion is anthropocentric; theology is theocentric. The difference between religion and theology is ultimately the difference between God and man—hardly a small difference.
Again, it is a difference of subject matter. The subject matter of theology proper is God’ the subject matter of religion is man.
Me: The reason I posted this, is number one, I love RC Sproul, number two, I think this distinction will benefit everyone here at Old LIfe.
LikeLike
Self-control is a very underrated fruit of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim, you have ridiculed theonomy as long as I’ve known you. To make matters worse, you don’t even understand theonomy! You haven’t even read theonomy in christian ethics!
Like King David, my eyes shed streams of tears when people reject your law. You ridicule the notion of theonomy and I take that personally. When your posts start deriding theonomy, you might as well be spitting in God’s face, from my perspective. Because you are not respectful, instead you are flippant.
That’s how it sounds from my point of view, and I might add, that is exactly what Ron and many, many others have accused you of. You talk like a smart aleck, mocking God’s law. I find that very offensive.
This doesn’t excuse me for firing back insults, I humbly apologize. But if King David shed streams of tears, because men poo poo the law, perhaps you can try to understand how I feel, when a confessing Christian (like you) takes a caviler approach to the law. .
Even if I am in error Steve, you have no right to ridicule God’s law. Yet that continues to be your main way of attacking theonomy. I will stop the insults, and just pray for you. Please pray for me as well.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Kent says: “Self-control is a very underrated fruit of the Spirit.”
Me: Amen and amen!
LikeLike
And I sure know…
LikeLike
@Zrim, let me add one final point and I’ll drop this for the night. I love RC Sproul! I have read most of his books, I feel knit to the heart with that precious resource, who is my big brother in Christ. But he is not theonmic; yet I would love to talk with him regarding theonomy; and you know what? We would get along famously! Actually I have spoken with RC Sproul in person, and he’s a sweetheart. He would never ridicule the law!
I have Elders in my church that are not theonomic, and we get along beautifully! We talk theology 24/7! They would never ridicule God’s law! Never in a million years!
Much like Dr. Kloosterman who is also not theonomic, but he still loves the law and fears God. So I can disagree with Christian men, and feel no anger, because of their attitude towards God’s word. What I have a hard time with, is people who call them-self a confessing Christian, and then deprecate the law. You speak of God’s law, in a mocking, sneering, rolling the eyes, tone. And that upsets me. Please think about the way you conduct yourself, as I do the same.
I’ll pray for you, and please pray for me.
LikeLike
Kent says: “And I sure know…”
Me: As do I….
Heck, I’m the guy getting all emotional, letting my passion get the better of me. As for M&M, if Erik can get his temper under control, (and he has) why would you say I never will? Come on Mike, if you have a little faith, pray for your brother. That being me.
Thanks for accepting my apology.
LikeLike
Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
I have a question for everyone at Old Life. Can anyone of you men, say amen to this prayer? Does anyone at Old life meditate of the law of the LORD day and night?
I would love to here what David R or Todd or even M&M, has to say about the first Psalm. Please expound brothers!
LikeLike
TVD: I get it, I get it. But from any distance, the problems of schism, heresy, dogma and replacing the Magisterium with various Confessions has become one big Groundhog Day. [The movie, not the pagan holiday.] It appears that the price of Reformation is Atomization, not catholicism [small “c”].
BL: Tom, I’m not sure you do get it. Your analogy of taking the “one true piece of the cross” may be how things appear from where you sit, but that’s certainly not the ecclesiology I’m operating with in a continental Reformed confessional tradition.
Yes, BC 29 is targeting Rome and its abuses. The author Guido de Bres was burned at the stake, along with a few thousand of his countrymen, so that’s natural enough. But in the context of Calvin on the marks, it’s not binary at all. The marks aren’t indivisible pieces of the cross. They are the essential expressions of the Gospel in Christ’s church, wherever they may be found. And when they are not found — voila — you don’t have “church” in any meaningful sense.
It isn’t the Reformation that creates this state of affairs, this loss of catholicism as you call it. This “false church” phenomenon has been around since the apostles. The Reformation describes it differently, and no doubt it manifests itself differently after the crackup of Catholicism (with a Cap C). But the medieval Catholic church was never truly universal, or catholic. It was always atomized… it just had a high sheen gloss of christendom and papal unity. Post Reformation, these atoms no longer need to express any nominal unity with a papal head in the same way, and the civil situation changes radically, to boot.
I need the marks — Word, Sacraments, Discipline — because I’m a sinner. I need to join a true church because outside of it — apart from the Gospel — there is no salvation. That’s why I care about the church… not to say I’m right and Francis is wrong. What alternative, exactly, are you proposing?
Heck, the Gospel could be preached faithfully in a Roman Catholic church next Sunday… though the constitution of that body, and the discipline and training of its ministers makes it highly unlikely.
LikeLike
Not day and night, but I have memorized the 23rd and 1st half of the 27th Psalm and repeat them constantly when going to sleep or just waking up, or in the midst of another medical examination.
A quickly memorized 2 or 4 lines from Psalm 119 is also great for these times, but it doesn’t stick as well as the other 2 mentioned Psalms.
LikeLike
M&M look what I just found over at Greenbaggins. It the second post science the queen of sciences!
“Theology needs to reign once more as the queen of the sciences. Only then can we halt the progressive fragmentation of knowledge and seek to reunify knowledge again. Kant was wrong. God can and has revealed himself to man. Only by that revelation can our nous (“mind”) be renewed. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Scripture does that by the power of the Holy Spirit. This has far more authority than science ever could.”
Me: Read the whole article, it’s very interesting.
LikeLike
Kent says: Not day and night, but I have memorized the 23rd and 1st half of the 27th Psalm and repeat them constantly when going to sleep or just waking up, or in the midst of another medical examination.
A quickly memorized 2 or 4 lines from Psalm 119 is also great for these times, but it doesn’t stick as well as the other 2 mentioned Psalms.
Me: Right on Bro! I love the Psalms it’s one of my favorite books in the Bible. Hebrews is my favorite, Psalms is next, and the rest are in a tie.
LikeLike
John Piper began a sermon by reciting several verses and sections of Scripture for 15 or so minutes, which repeated listening allowed a lot to sink in.
I often tend to memorize and learn better from hearing than from reading.
LikeLike
Good post Brian (the brain) Lee!
LikeLike
Brian Lee writes: It isn’t the Reformation that creates this state of affairs, this loss of catholicism as you call it. This “false church” phenomenon has been around since the apostles. The Reformation describes it differently, and no doubt it manifests itself differently after the crackup of Catholicism (with a Cap C). But the medieval Catholic church was never truly universal, or catholic. It was always atomized…
Brian, thx for your considered reply. I had a gig tonight and thought of our discussion the whole way there and home. 😉
Without litigating your assertions about the history of the [Roman] Church chapter and verse, the level of “atomization” is simply not comparable then or now to the dozens or hundreds of Reformed sects we see here.
http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
The point here is not to overly argue the numbers or the particular whys of history and schism–or to blame you or Machen or Hart or Charter for beating a principled retreat away from the Mainline.
We could stipulate your entire historical argument and arrive at the same place: there is a structural obstacle to a Reformed catholic Church. [Big “R”, small “c.”]
Schism became the principled alternative, and once you’ve had a schism [or a divorce], it gets easier the next time.
Further, non-normative theologies have no place to go but out. “Federal” visions seem quite doomed, ecclesiastical Missouri Compromises that paper over differences until things inevitably go boom. And that riff makes a lot of sense: the Roman Church never minded fighting a Civil War, and remains intact–today tolerating some/many non-normative theologies without excommunication. Not a pluralism or a “federalism,” but merely a tolerance of a theological “margin of error.”
But Reformed Christianity as a coherent entity simply does not exist. This isn’t a contentious opinion–this is what you and Darryl and Erik say yourselves. “Protestantism” represents 33-50% of Christianity, but “Protestantism” is a merely catchall for “not Catholic.”
None of this is saying who is right and who is wrong theologically, only to say that if Christ only came and died for the 0.000000001% of the human race who are in your ecclesia, I say the hell with your theology and the horse it rode in on.
[And I don’t think you’re saying that or believe that, Brian, not for an instant! At least I hope not. But these things need to be addressed and discussed. This schisming thing is out of hand. Tell me that if John Calvin were faced with the choice of a church with a gay bishop or an infallible pope, he wouldn’t pick the latter.]
LikeLike
Doug, nobody over here has ever mocked the law. In fact, against those of you who have held up civil disobedience as a virtue, some of us have called it a vice since the Bible nowhere condones any form of disobedience, civil or otherwise. The Christian life may be summed up in one word: obedience. How is that to mock the law?
LikeLike
Doug,
It is absurd to suggest that criminal laws against murder are theonomic. Countless societies criminalized murder, even without having access to God’s special revelation. There’s no explanation for that phenomenon but to admit that such laws are not theonomic, but are rather based on pragmatic principles drawn from general revelation. Moreover, even in our own society, there is no evidence to suggest that special revelation served as a guide to the development of our legal tradition. While Blackstone acknowledges certain consistencies between special revelation and the common law, he does not attribute this consistency to causation. Your statement implies causation, which is flatly rejected by every credible scholar who has studied this issue. (And, no, I don’t count theonomist historian David Barton as a credible scholar.)
Also, the “queen of the sciences” issue seems to me like nothing more than fundamentalist Bible thumping. If you think that special revelation can serve as a sufficient guide to teach someone how to be an economist, then it’s clear that you have no idea what economists do. And what about particle physics, medicine, etc.? To the extent that there is a queen of the sciences, it is mathematics. Your statements in this regard again confirm that theonomy is nothing but anti-intellectual Bible thumping par excellence.
And why is it mockery of the law to recognize its limits and to confine its applicability to those limits? It strikes me that the law is mocked more by those who force it to speak to all kinds of issues on which it is largely silent, and thereby allow it to unjustifiably ridiculed by the surrounding culture.
Lastly, it strikes me that your advocacy of theonomy has more to do with the Culture Wars than anything else. Every theonomist I’ve met seemed to have an excessive interest in the sex lives of other people. Maybe theonomy is just a cheap excuse to go about sticking your nose in other people’s business like a busybody.
LikeLike
TVD,
I’d suggest that Reformed theology is fairly consistent on certain essential issues. It may appear inconsistent to you because you want the church to speak with a unified voice on matters that Reformed churches have left up to the consciences of individual believers. This is particularly true in the realm of culture and governance. There have certainly been some times when consciences have been less free than at others. But the general thrust is to seek unity only in essential principles that are laid out in Scripture with little ambiguity. The relationship of the Abrahamic Covenant to the Mosaic Covenant is one such issue where Reformed churches have historically accepted a variety of views.
LikeLike
Hey guys,
I’ve been just trying to get used to folks 2k or federal vision languages out here in the blogs still. But I dropped this question in another post and it seems here is a much better place to engage it.
If the “state” in a given place or era decides to vigorously punish something contrary to the faith, should the Church then not condemn it for fear of the states action? In our day maybe homosexuality in Iran or even Germany in the 40s. Just a question I am wondering how others would answer. What is the Church to do if or when the “state” begins to actively do…?
LikeLike
Erik, ditto on Epstein. I started reading AS back in the mid-80s. I have also met JE twice. When he spoke at ISI, my wife and I were his personal guides through cocktail hour. He “knew” we were cat people. Our Isabelle is named for his.
LikeLike
M&M, but if I mess with his head, I hear they have pills for that now.
LikeLike
Tom, you’re fine with faith in politics. I’m not. Now who’s to say who’s right?
LikeLike
Doug, As I explained, the rule here is that you cannot be a one-note Johnny (while actually violating the ninth commandment — calling Scott Clark names). So you may quote Kline all you want but we’ve heard you many times on Kline’s review of Bahnsen. Been there, move on, or get deleted.
LikeLike
Doug, you missed my stones. You missed me entirely. Keep pressing on.
LikeLike
Bobby, Lane Keister, who is hardly a fundamentalist wrote the post that “theology is the queen of science. See Greenbaggins It’s a common reformed distinctive. RC Sproul wrote the book, “What Is Reformed Theology?” and he is surely not fundamentalist.
LikeLike
Zrim and Tom, btw I did critique Wallis in A Secular Faith and the evangelical left in From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin. Apparently Tom only reads blogs.
LikeLike
Doug, 1 person (Venema) does not comprise a large majority of Reformed thinkers. Or is this theonomic math?
LikeLike
MichaelTX: When America was first founded we had the death penalty for sodomy in every state, according to the Christian faith. You should read the laws New England put on the books. Many were taken straight from Leviticus.
LikeLike
Dr. Venanm says: “In my estimation the failure of the authors of The Law is Not of Faith to
affirm vigorously the positive function of the law as a rule of gratitude in the
Mosaic economy is not accidental. Because the authors of The Law is Not of
Faith view the moral law of God to express necessarily the “works principle” of
the covenant of works, they do not have a stable theological basis for affirming
the abiding validity of the moral law as a rule of gratitude.”
It seems to me, that the men who wrote TLINOF can’t affirm this Psalm
Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
LikeLike
Tom, the price of Christianity was atonomization. Think Christ and the apostles. They weren’t political activists. Maybe that pre-Constantinian time is the pattern for the secular (as in the saeculum — between the advents) and maybe Constantinianism is the source of all bad theology.
LikeLike
DGH, do you mediate of the law day and night? Can you affirm the first Psalm?
LikeLike
Doug, if economics and politics is theology by another name, say hello to Paul Tillich (he was not a contributor to The Law is Not of Faith).
LikeLike
Michael: The Epistles recommend very clearly outline the life that is expected of your basic believer, often in high detail.
Frequent imperatives to work hard, not be a leech, not be a jerk, to worship God appropriately, obey the law and government, and not be a useless nuisance or gossip or addict are often not heeded; sometimes proudly and deliberately so.
Government in North America, at times, has cracked down on mere expression of conscience, and may again do so.
And accepting one’s suffering for a just punishment, mostly because one was a jerk or broke the law, does not get special commendation.
There is no magic answer, just a day to day existence to carry our cross with the gifts given us, reading the Word and trying to let it sink in to perfect application.
LikeLike
DGH demands: “Doug, As I explained, the rule here is that you cannot be a one-note Johnny”
Me? Tell that to Zrim, who keeps repeating the same tired canard; namely, that WCF 19.4 makes hay theonomy. As I have pointed out, even Dr. Kline knew that’s not true. And Kline hated theonomy! But Kline had enough integrity to admit the WCF is a theonomic document, I wish Zrim would follow Kline’s example.
Zrim, integrity is good!
LikeLike
DGH: Do you have a stable theological basis for affirming the abiding validity of the moral law as a rule of gratitude? Please explain.
LikeLike
DGH, do you mediate of the law day and night? Can you affirm the first Psalm? Do you delight in the law?
LikeLike
Doug, that basis would be the Bible, see Old and New Testaments. Do you have a theological basis for calling the law a ministry of condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9)?
LikeLike
Doug, I am telling you to stay away from Kline unless you’re going to read more than his review of Bahnsen? Or do you read my warnings the way you read Scripture?
LikeLike
Doug, none of your business. But if Psalm 1 does not have Christ in view, we are all toast.
LikeLike
DGH, have you read RC Sproul? I’m curious, how do you label him? You seem to have a label for everyone. What label to you attach to yourself?
LikeLike
Tom, saying that Reformed Christianity as a coherent entity does not exist, is like saying that the world as a coherent entity does no exist. What standard are you applying to Calvinism? Why? Nothing else measures up to your standard, except for the ethereal (and gnostic) RC magisterium.
But if the task of Christianity was not to unite the empire, then coherence is overdone.
LikeLike
Doug, Sproul is a Reformed popularizer, whom I respect as someone who does what he does. When it comes to ecclesiology and churchmanship, I’d like to ask some hard questions.
LikeLike
DG this is where your buddies blew it, according to Dr. Venama:
“The argument of the authors seems to be something like the following: because the moral
law of God, rooted as it is in God’s holy and righteous character, always requires perfect obedience, and because God’s moral government requires that obedience be rewarded and disobedience be punished—the moral law is essentially a covenant of works.
For this reason, VanDrunen seems compelled to conclude that the moral law of God is no longer the rule of conduct for believers in relationship to each other within the “spiritual kingdom” of the
church of Jesus Christ. VanDrunen even goes so far as to suggest that the law that is “written upon the heart” of the new covenant people of God is not substantially the same moral law that was promulgated in the Decalogue through Moses.
Even though the other authors of the volume do not explicitly make this claim, the implication of their arguments, which equate the law with its demands and consequences with the works principle of the covenant of works, seems to lead in the same direction. For the same reason, the authors
assume that Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith supports the
republication thesis.
However, when Chapter 19 affirms the abiding validity of
the moral law, it does so to emphasize the positive role of the law as a rule of
conduct for the covenant people of God, and not to suggest something like the
republication of the covenant of works through Moses.”
Me: Seems like Van Drunen is out of his element, eh?
LikeLike
Doug,
I know and even Jefferson was for Sabbath laws. I just kind of wonder how the arguments go. I being Catholic, have some history in my Church which many hate for good reasons at times. And many of the actions hated were done by the “state” or people acting after the judgments of the Church. I just wonder what the Church should do other than proclaim the laws and actions unjust. As a Catholic, I see the Church not only as a unified one but also as a billion plus visually unified and then “separated bretheran”. So I have a “we the people” and a “we who are one” type thing going. I don’t see how with a 2K vision of the Church could really be separated from the people. Though I would be able to separate the official Church proclamation from the action of the people or the “state on behalf of the people.
LikeLike
DG the reason I posted Dr. Venama above, is because I don’t believe Van Drunen can affirm the first Psalm. Van Drunen is unable to delight in the law. This is against reformed theology at a core level.
LikeLike
kent,
Yeah, if all would live by the scriptural exhortations then the governments of the world would be out of business. Day by day in this already here but not yet Kingdom of God.
LikeLike
Doug, it seems to me someone needs to read Gal. 3 and exegete it.
Michael, I responded to Beckwith’s article
LikeLike
MichaelTX: The concept is the one and the many. God created mankind to image him. And God encompasses both community and person hood in his own being, without conflict.
I would highly suggest that you read Rushdoony’s “The One And The Many”. It’s a classic and may answer some of your questions.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Sorry Doug,
That second to last sentence should read:
I don’t see how with a 2K vision that the Church could really be separated from the people.
You know the old “here is the Church, here is the steeple; open it up and here’s all the people” line.
LikeLike
Sean, can you affirm the first Psalm? Do you delight in the law day and night? Do you see the law as our rule of life?
LikeLike
MichelTX, Christ has already inherited the world, and has the title king of kings. He says we are co-heirs with him! Wow! We are to take the good news, (the gospel) which is the sword of the Spirit, and disciple every nation in the name of Christ, instructing them in all of God’s commandments. Jesus said he will be with us to the end.
My prayer is for the unity of the body of Christ.
LikeLike
DG do you see the irony? Here you insist that the church sings the Psalms only, yet you don’t even agree with the Psalms! You can’t say amen to the first Psalm! You certainly don’t like Psalms 119! You can’t say amen to delighting in the law day and night!
What gives? Why would you demand the church sing something you aren’t in agreement with?
LikeLike
Michael, my focus in on my piety, my health, doing what I can hour by hour to handle what is going to happen today at work, commuting, leisure time, etc…
Sometimes I like to dip into theology and think up thoughts that have almost nothing to do with my first sentence focus.
Ruined by the billions, rescued one by one…
LikeLike
Doug, some of us alleged law mockers subscribe the Heidelberg Catechism, the entire third section of which is devoted to the third use of the law. Why are you asking if anybody sees the law as our rule of life?
LikeLike
Sean, this is for you: Listen carefully to Dr. Venama:
“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.”
Me: This is the correct view in my humble opinion.
LikeLike
Zrim, do you delight in the law? Is it your meditation both day and night?
No? Then why would you insist on the church singing something you don’t believe?
LikeLike
Jesus said he will be with us to the end.
My prayer is for the unity of the body of Christ.
I’m with you there Doug. It will always be the question as to whether we will be one in Christ or one apart from Christ though. The temptations for “peace, peace when there is no peace” can be great. This is why I believe it is so important that we seek to know our faith well and understand others well. Then we speak with the utter love of Christ towards each other. Love and Truth conquers division and death. Even if we find out it is our own lack of Love and Truth that we need. (by the way I am speaking of me and my heart) Just met you today. Nice chattin
Peace,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Doug,
I have no idea who Lane Keister is. Based on a Google search, I only came across a guy with a music degree and a non-academic theology degree who pastors a church in South Dakota. I have a PhD and a JD, both from top-tier schools, and have studied English common law extensively as part of my academic interest in the origins of antitrust law. So, I see no reason why I should defer to Mr. Keister. Further, as to queens, I will defer to Carl Friedrich Gauss over Mr. Keister.
Frankly, I’m starting to wonder whether you ever have an independent thought. Or do you simply come here and mindlessly regurgitate isolated snippets you’ve heard or read from some arbitrarily chosen selection of theologians.
I’ve read Greg Bahnsen, and have some appreciation for his contributions to the field of Reformed apologetics. But Bahnsen understood the context in which his ideas were proffered, and also had some recognition of the shortcomings of his philosophy. For example, his ideas suffer the shortcomings of all philosophies that rely so heavily on Kantian/idealist notions of epistemology. In that sense, Bahnsen understood that his ideas were a departure from the realist epistemology that had prevailed in Reformed circles until that time (except in Holland). He knew that many of his assertions were implicitly qualified by his borrowing from Kantian presuppositions about the nature of knowledge.
Bahnsen’s prolocutors have generally lacked such a perspective. They only read Bahnsen or other theonomists. It is impossible to understand theonomy unless you invest a significant amount of time reading German philosophers from 1780 to 1920, especially Kant and Hegel. One should also read Rushdoony, as he tends to be a bit more intellectually forthright about his assumptions than Bahnsen was. At this point, you’re nothing more than a teen girl at a Justin Bieber concert. You toss around a lot of accusations, cite to obscure pastors in South Dakota, and pretend that you have some grasp of the intellectual issues at play. Well, sir, with all due respect, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. And until you stop reading the uninformed musings of Messrs. Keister and Venema and start reading Kant, Hegel, Fichte, etc., you won’t know the first thing about theonomy.
In all honesty, theonomy would have been a blip on the screen if its rise hadn’t coincided with the rise of the Culture Wars. It was a way for advocates of the Culture Wars to pretend that their ideas relied on some academy-tested philosophy. But few of them had any idea what they were buying into. They still don’t.
For the most part, 2Kers think for ourselves. We come here to learn from each other and to think through issues that have been at play in Reformed circles ever since the Reformation. That discussion isn’t furthered by the presence of an intellectually lazy person like yourself, who pulls a few quotes out of context and starts planning how you can hold a heresy trial for everyone who disagrees with you. Bahnsen certainly believed that he had the stronger position. But he knew the weaknesses of his position, and knew that agreement with him was not a test of orthodoxy. But until you understand something more about the genealogy of theonomy, you’re not really offering anything more than what we can get from the Family Research Council website.
LikeLike
DGH, the question should really be directed at you. Do you love the law? Do you delight in the law more than gold, yes fine gold? Is it your meditation all through the day and night?
No? Then why would you insist that the church sing something you don’t believe?
Talk about an inner conflict! Yikes!
LikeLike
Doug, stop abusing poor Venema. You need to deal with the text, where’s your counter exegesis. Please don’t respond until you’re laying out the exegesis of Gal. 3
LikeLike
Doug, your question is clearly draped in feigned piety. What you’re really asking is whether I affirm theonomy, and if I don’t then I must hate the law. But have you ever considered that wanting to keep the law from being prostituted in Babylon’s courthouses and to be jealous for it to norm the house of God (you know, as in I am the LORD YOUR God who brought YOU out of the land of Egypt…) might reveal the kind of delight and love you’re blustering for?
LikeLike
Bobby, I’m on good behavior, let’s not get me riled up okay? Calling me a teen girl is a little over the top. Click on to Greenbaggains and read the post, I thought it was interesting.
Just so you know, when I read, “What Is Reformed Theology?” It was Dr. RC Sproul who said Theology is the queen of science. You don’t have to agree with him, but that is a common reformed axiom. Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger!
Bobby, I would get a kick out of sitting down with you one day, and pick your brain. You might be surprised to find, that even a teen girl could teach you a thing or two.
Blessings.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’d also like to know (beating Doug to the question) if you’ve stopped beating your wife?
LikeLike
Zrim, no trick question, this has nothing to do with theonomy. Dr. Venama is not theonomic, neither is Dr. RC Sproul, but both of them love the law as a rule for our life. The question is; do you affirm the first Psalm? Do you delight in the law and meditate on it both day and night?
Just wondering………
LikeLike
Sean, are you suggesting that Paul is contradicting the first Psalm? Let’s leave Galatians alone for a moment. Can you pray the first Psalm and say amen? Do you delight in the law, and meditate on the law both day and night?
LikeLike
Kent,
Good stuff. If a man won’t take care of his own household he is worst than an unbeliever, would be how Paul would put it. Fight the good fight brother. You have my prayers.
LikeLike
DGH, I don’t know why I didn’t pick up on this before, BUT how can you sing the Psalms, when you don’t love the law? Do you love the law more than gold, yes even fine gold? Do you meditate on the law both day and night? No? I didn’t think so.
Since you don’t, why insist that the church sing something you don’t believe?
I’m sensing a contradiction in terms.
LikeLike
Doug, I can’t leave Galatians alone because it’s there where Paul explains the relationship between the abrahamic mosaic and new covenant. I don’t pit scripture against scripture, I let the clear give light to the less clear and the new gets to interpret the old and the didactic gives meaning to the poetic, narrative and apocalyptic. You need to make sense of Gal 3, its speaks to the issue at hand.
LikeLike
Zrim asks: “Why are you asking if anybody sees the law as our rule of life?”
Me: Zrim, have you read TLINOF? Listen to Dr. Venama on Van Drunen.
For this reason, VanDrunen seems compelled to conclude that the moral law of God is no longer the rule of conduct for believers in relationship to each other within the “spiritual kingdom” of the
church of Jesus Christ.”
Do you agree with Van Drunen? Then you have departed from traditional reformed theology.
LikeLike
Sean says: ” I don’t pit scripture against scripture.”
Me: Good! Then you delight in the law? Yea! Is the law your meditation both day and night?
I’m glad you don’t pit scripture against scripture. Now go tell that to Gordon and Van Drunen. Someone needs to straighten them out.
LikeLike
Doug (to D.G) – What label to you attach to yourself?
Erik – Catman, and Mrs. Hart is Catwoman. Either that or “The Dude”.
LikeLike
Sean, can you answer a simple question? Can you affirm the first Psalm? Do you delight in the law, like David? Do you meditate on the law both day and night?
A simple yes or no will do.
LikeLike
Erik, hahahaha!
I notice Hart did come out with a label for RC Sproul.
Erik, what do you make of DG believing the church should sing the Psalms only, yet he doesn’t even believe what the Psalms teaches? Darryl can’t bring himself to say that he delights in the law. So why should he force us all to sing things he can’t affirm?
LikeLike
Tom’s critique of schism & atomization is especially odd in light of his conservatism. Since when are conservatives collectivists? Has he not heard of the Southern Agrarians “I’ll Take My Stand” or Buckley’s mission to stand athwart history yelling, “stop!”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Agrarians
His critique is only valid if we say no one outside of our small denominations are Christians but we don’t say that (and he acknowledges it). We’re just calling people to reform their own churches or join ours.
Rome has a big tent but boy is there a lot of elephant poop on the floor.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I go to church with Lane Keister’s sister. Good guy and pastor (a PCA in South Carolina now, I believe). He runs the greenbaggins blog. He would not be an ally of Doug on theonomy.
LikeLike
Zrim, let me help you out. This is the rub.
“For this reason, VanDrunen seems compelled to conclude that the moral law of God is no longer the rule of conduct for believers in relationship to each other within the “spiritual kingdom” of the
church of Jesus Christ. VanDrunen even goes so far as to suggest that the law that is “written upon the heart” of the new covenant people of God is not substantially the same moral law that was promulgated in the Decalogue through Moses.”
Okay Zrim, do you agree with Van Drunen?
This is why I ask, is the law still our rule for life?
LikeLike
Doug,
I don’t know that I would have handled that as well as you did with Bobby.
May the Lord continually bless and keep you,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Thanks for backing me up Erik! You are a good brother!
Everybody should read Greenbaggins article on “theology being the queen of science. I first heard it listening to Dr. RC Sproul and later Greg Bahnsen.
LikeLike
Doug – Erik, what do you make of DG believing the church should sing the Psalms only, yet he doesn’t even believe what the Psalms teaches? Darryl can’t bring himself to say that he delights in the law. So why should he force us all to sing things he can’t affirm?
Erik – He may disagree with your interpretation of what the Psalms teach, that’s all.
He would have a hard time forcing exclusive Psalmody you or anyone outside his own church. He’s not a Theonomist with the political power to enforce it.
I can not believe you get the continued reactions that you do from everyone here (including me). I don’t know what you do for a living, but you need to cash in on that ability. You’re like the guy out dancing in front of the Pizza Hit trying to get people to come in for the lunch buffet. It’s uncanny.
LikeLike
Erik – He would not be an ally of Doug on Theonomy
Doug – Thanks for backing me up Erik! You are a good brother!
Erik – Does anyone have a Tylenol with some whisky to down it with?
LikeLike
What would happen if we adopted a “don’t feed the troll” policy with our friend Doug? If you feed him or let him bait you you have to kick in $5 to the charity of D.G.’s choice via PayPal. I would be up for it.
LikeLike
Doug: DG the reason I posted Dr. Venama above, is because I don’t believe Van Drunen can affirm the first Psalm. Van Drunen is unable to delight in the law. This is against reformed theology at a core level.
Doug: You affirm the first Psalm? Do you delight in the law? (x22 and counting)
The Brain: I’ll bite. Yes, I love the law, and “affirm” (whatever that means) the first Psalm. Here’s my recent sermon on it (though I still can’t figure out why I preached on something I can’t affirm, by your logic):
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1251311840
My question for you: Do you delight in the active obedience of Christ? The fact that he fulfilled the law on your behalf, both the living and the dying part?
Nothing you’ve said yet has thus clearly illustrated your ignorance of TLINOF or its authors. Clearly, Van Drunen an ordained minister in the OPC, loves the Law of God. Read a sentence or two of what he has written and that is clear. If you think this is a necessary corollary of other things he has written, then you clearly don’t understand his thought process. Read charitably. Listen. Work harder.
To effectively critique an opposing view, you must understand it. I think I understand where you’re coming form, but I’m not sure. Your thought is frankly incoherent at times. DVD’s thought is not incoherent. You may disagree with it, but it is quite clear. It is the fruit of a trained mind.
What VanDrunen is saying is that he loves the law differently now that Christ has come, than even the Psalmist could love it. He actually loves the Law better than the other David. For one thing, he doesn’t have to get all bloody every time he sins.
LikeLike
@Brian the brain:
How about you reading Dr. Venama’s review? Unless your insinuating that Venama didn’t understand TLINOF. It was Dr. Venama who said
“For this reason, VanDrunen seems compelled
to conclude that the moral law of God is no longer the rule of conduct for
believers in relationship to each other within the “spiritual kingdom” of the
church of Jesus Christ. VanDrunen even goes so far as to suggest that the
law that is “written upon the heart” of the new covenant people of God is
not substantially the same moral law that was promulgated in the Decalogue
through Moses.”
Me: Okay you big brain you, VanDrunen seems to contradict the common understanding of the law being our rule for life, no?
LikeLike
That’s $5 to the “Darryl & Ann Hart Catloving Seminarian’s Scholarship Fund”. Send the check to “Escondido” c/o the Rev. John Frame and it will arrive safely.
LikeLike
Always better to slowly underplay your hand.
Then you can later be put forward to the honoured guest table.
Lane/GreenBaggins is well established and beloved in the Reformed blogging community. Not the best thing to rip into him on places like this…
LikeLike
Doug,
It’s “Venema”. Doesn’t rhyme with “Panama”.
LikeLike
Come on Erik, why call me a troll? I’m your brother in Christ, first and foremost. Just because I’m not on board with DG’s 2K doesn’t make me a troll. I am the loyal opposition.
I’m really a nice guy, and I bet we would hit it off were we to meet.
LikeLike
To Doug from Brain Lee(long lost brother of Bryce Lee); Read charitably. Listen. Work harder.
Me: And ‘suck less’ per one of the Coen bros.
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.”
LikeLike
Erik, you know my spelling sucks!
LikeLike
Sean, read Dr. Venama’s answer. He shows us how Calvin, Turretin, and Witsius understood that verse, as well as Herman Ridderbos.
None of them agree with Gordon 😦
I’ll side with the majority in this case 😉
LikeLike
Lane has always been good to me. He’s never been anything but kind, and only told me to “slow” down a few times.
Moreover, it was on Lane’s blog that I met DG!
LikeLike
Doug, nothing to do with theonomy? Huh? But the question isn’t do you affirm the first Psalm. It’s:
1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and its doctrine, summarized in the confessions of this Church, to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
2. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve Him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life?
4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of this church, and in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to obey its discipline?
As a member of a Reformed church, I affirm all of that, which is to say Psalm 1 and then some.
You ask whether the law still our rule for life. Did you miss my point about the HC (see #1 above) and its third section? How can you be asking these questions ad nauseum if you are also reading anything I write?
LikeLike
Doug,
You aren’t RC, you don’t get to hide behind; ‘I believe what the church believes’. Calvin also excoriates Chilliasm and those who want to rule the state per OT civil statutes. I’ve read Venema. I’m waiting for the counter exegesis on Gal. 3. You’re dodging.
Gal 3
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.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
LikeLike
Wait, MichaelTX is hitching his wagon to Doug? These are the good old days.
LikeLike
@ Bobby: You may want to look a little closer at Rev. Lane Keister and his role in the PCA efforts to prosecute the Federal Visionists. Keister has worked pretty extensively with people who would be allies of many on the “OId Life” blog, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Keister is a regular reader here.
As for Keister being a pastor and not a professor — it certainly is not unusual for pastors of small churches to become interested in and therefore recognized experts in some relatively specialized area of theology. My understanding is that Keister has done a lot of research into Federal Vision theology that underlies what some of the Westminster-West professors have written against the Federal Visionists.
Not that it makes much difference, but Keister has left the Dakotas after taking a call to a larger pastorate.
LikeLike
Doug,
In what sense do you delight in God’s law? It seems like you only delight in it when it curses “sodomites.” It’s obvious to all readers of this blog that you are guilty of numerous flagrant ninth commandment violations and “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” You are very obviously a lawbreaker. So please explain, in what sense do you delight in God’s law? Only when it curses others?
LikeLike
For those who may be interested, here’s a link to Rev. Keister’s staff profile at his current church: http://www.lebanonpca.org/our-pastors
I was surprised that Rev. Keister had accepted the call to the Carolinas all the way back in 2011. I thought it was more recently. Time sure flies….
LikeLike
DGH: Tom, saying that Reformed Christianity as a coherent entity does not exist, is like saying that the world as a coherent entity does no exist. What standard are you applying to Calvinism? Why?
Darryl. What “Reformed theology” means depends on who one is talking to–especially when you reserve the right to idiosyncratically reform any Reformer.
Nothing else measures up to your standard, except for the ethereal (and gnostic) RC magisterium.
What I’m saying is that the Reformation kicked the problem of magisterium down the road, and the result has been atomization. Dude, where’s my church?
LikeLike
Doug, that’s interesting. Republication people can’t say the Mosaic Covenant is “something like” the covenant of works. But Venema can employ “something like.”
LikeLike
Doug, do you love the law? Don’t lie. How do you really, really know? Ask Richard for help.
LikeLike
Doug, I sing the Psalms the way Jesus taught me to, they are all fulfilled in him. Now go stick your head in the sand and pound.
LikeLike
Erik, I’m there (on not feeding Doug).
LikeLike
Tom, think Garry Wills, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi. Where’s the church indeed?
LikeLike
Doug, do you believe Psalm 1 is about Christ, or the Law?
From Venema’s statement it doesn’t follow that DVD doesn’t love the Law. I have read Venema’s review of TLINOF. Have you read mine?
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=200
It’s not a great review… I had too much to say, and too few words. But yes, I read Venema (I think before writing) and a few others. And see, I got something published, granted, only in some grubby little online journal.
I love the Law that Christ fulfilled, and therefore, it governs my life differently than it governed OT saints. Same law, different relation. It’s in the Bible. You should check it out.
LikeLike
Brain – only in some grubby little online journal.
Erik – Careful. Hart & Muether publish there.
Lane Keister & R. Scott Clark discuss the Federal Vision in the PCA on the Heidelcast. I know, Doug doesn’t think the Clark should be teaching senior citizens how to dance the mambo, but I enjoyed the program.
[audio src="http://rscottclark.org/wp-content/audio/heidelcast-24-keister-fv.mp3" /]
LikeLike
Thank you for the link to your review Brian.
To say the least, Republication is an interesting topic to mull over.
😀
LikeLike
Brian the brain asks: “Doug, do you believe Psalm 1 is about Christ, or the Law?”
Me: The law seen through eyes of faith could see Christ, just listen to David:
“Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise;”
Me: Notice David knew that salvation was according to Christ, who was the promise!
“Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law”.
Me: See how humble David was? He knew it took an act from God to fully understand God’s law!
And my favorite:
“I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.”
Notice Brain, that David approached the law in faith, as he set God’s rules before him. We should do the same. On the count, there is no difference between the law and today’s administration. The just shall live by faith, amen?.
Me: Notice Brain, that David knew he wasn’t saved by law keeping! He looked ahead to the promise! David looked at the law by faith! He approached the law, aright!
Let’s go and do likewise!
LikeLike
Sean, how many times must you be told? It doesn’t matter what Galatians 3 means! It’s irrelevant! Just understand this salient point, Sean, Paul doesn’t contradict King David. You know why? The Bible does not contradict itself, that’s why! You can’t tell me that black is white, or white is black. I won’ let you get away with it! God is not double minded. On those grounds Gordon is exposed as a dupe. Checkmate!
I will not let you get away with believing the Bible contradicts itself Sean. This is VanDrunen and Gordon’s weak spot. They are attempting to say the law had a built in antithesis. What ever that means! Even Dr. Venama couldn’t put his finger on why! That is rubbish, of the highest order. You are putting your mind into a self contradicting trick bag. Stop it!
Now, were we sitting down together, and had a few hours to kill. I would be happy to set you straight. But I am not about to undergo exegesis on one of the most difficult passages in the Bible in a combox. I would need to write about thirty pages, and that ain’t happening here. This isn’t the place.
I still love you in Christ, Sean!
LikeLike
Erik, you’re so cute always wanting to protect Darryl. I am truly humbled, that you don’t hate my guts, beyond all measure, since I am one of his biggest protractors.
This means you are a true Saint!
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Tom, think Garry Wills, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi. Where’s the church indeed?
A clever drive-by, Darryl. And hey, I wish Wills and Pelosi would do what you do–go off and start their own church, believe me. As for Gingrich, he just joined up. Unlike Pelosi, I don’t expect him to misrepresent church teaching, as that fabulous idiot Pelosi did here and was corrected publicly by the bishop:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/nickless-pelosi.htm
Bishop of Sioux City Corrects Pelosi on Church Teachings on Abortion
Indeed, that correction comes quite to bear on our discussion of magisterium and rather mutes your driveby here. Further, see my remarks above about tolerating a theological “margin of error.”
But it’s not my point to lionize the Roman Church. it’s just my observation that the Reformation churches not only repeated all its mistakes, it exacerbated them. It seems to me the Reformation did OK when the enemy was authoritarianism as embodied in the Roman Catholic Church. The wars of Christian religion settled down within 100 years or so, not bad by historical standards for a disruption so great.
But the Reformation, in largely abandoning its intellectual resources for fideism, met an enemy in Darwin and modernity [utilitarianism, libertarianism, materialism] for which it was no match. Machen saw it, but the question now is whether this Two Kingdoms theology of your [your critics call it “radical” 2K because its historical roots in Reformed theology are arguable] is a tonic for modernity, or merely fleeing the world from it in a way only the Anabaptists such as the Amish did, but Christendom [pre- or post-Reformation] hadn’t done since the catacombs.
For we seem to agree that Mainline Protestantism, which all things considered was pretty “catholic” up until 100 or so years ago, has now surrendered to the culture. Some centuries you’re the bug, but this past century you became the windshield.
See, Erik Charter mockingly invoked the image of crabby old white guys hassling innocent looking 70-yr-old ladies about gay marriage. Well, say what you want about the RCC [and you certainly do], but Benedict XVI had the stones to take on the Nuns on a Bus, who are pretty much Garry Wills and Nancy Pelosi in habits. “Magisterium” isn’t just about speculations on theology, it’s about safeguarding and preserving the church, which is your justification for your [radical?] 2K theology.
It cannot be disputed that the Roman church has done a better job of that than you have. You took your ball and went home. And that’s what this is about, not the trivial debates of rabbinical Christianity.
LikeLike
Zrim, didn’t anyone teach you not to answer a question with a question?
Can you in your heart of hearts, say you delight in God’s law? Is it your meditation all through the day and night?
If not, why not?
LikeLike
Doug, didn’t anybody ever teach you that sometimes questions are mannered ways of answering? Besides, question marks (and periods) beat exclamation points. Speaking of manners, weren’t you ever taught that ignoring someone’s responses and asking the same question over and over is just plain rude?
I’ve answered your question. Here is one for you: good as the law is, do you understand the gospel super-abounds the law? No points for merely emoting about the gospel.
LikeLike
This isn’t the best place to try to pretend Galatians 3 doesn’t exist.
Once one hears or reads about Galatians 3 in acceptable accord with one’s Covenant Theology, there is no turning back.
Just sayin…
LikeLike
TVD,
I’d suggest that Reformed theology is fairly consistent on certain essential issues. It may appear inconsistent to you because you want the church to speak with a unified voice on matters that Reformed churches have left up to the consciences of individual believers. This is particularly true in the realm of culture and governance. There have certainly been some times when consciences have been less free than at others. But the general thrust is to seek unity only in essential principles that are laid out in Scripture with little ambiguity. The relationship of the Abrahamic Covenant to the Mosaic Covenant is one such issue where Reformed churches have historically accepted a variety of views.
Thx, Bobby, and I appreciate that–as far as it goes However, this [radical?] 2K theology seems to consign every question of moral right and wrong to the realm of opinion and politics, by definition subjective. Now, I can see gay marriage being a political question, one of opinion [although I don’t agree it’s a theo-political coin flip], but there are more serious matters–slavery, being a non-Jewish citizen of Hitler’s Germany, late-term abortion–where Pontius Pilatism just doesn’t wash.
So I’m questioning the principle–although I also have an objection to the application in Darryl’s case. His book vs. Palin puts a pox on one house, whereas “A Secular Faith” goes for both. His score remains 1.5 to 0.5. If you’re to be a conscientious objector in the culture war, you must be a noncombatant.
But I’ll try to focus on the main point–whether [radical?] 2Kism is being “above” the culture, or is just another surrender to it.
LikeLike
Kent, I don’t ignore Galatians 3. I understand it very much like John Calvin. You know what the say about birds of a feather.
Paul was using the works of the law, to mean, the ceremonial law with it’s washing’s, festivals, and circumcision. Once Christ came in reality, to force former Gentile Christians to take on the yoke of the Mosaic administration (ceremonial law with it’s washing’s, festivals, and circumcision) was not of faith. So it’s a matter of context!
When you are not of faith, that means you’re denying Christ! Without Christ, one must keep all the law, which is impossible!
When Paul says the law is not of faith. Our first question should be, in what context? Was the law against faith? God forbid! Of course not. Yet! That is how Sean via Gordon, is trying to interpret Galatians 3
Yet, Paul could not have meant, that the law was never to be appropriated by faith, since David said he faithfully observed the law. It’s really not that hard to understand.
To hold on to the shadows, (ceremonial ordinances) of the Mosaic administration, AFTER Christ accomplished redemption, was not of faith. Paul did not mean, that the law was never to be appropriated by faith, lest he contradict the whole old and new testament record.
I hope that helps.
LikeLike
Doug; Sean, how many times must you be told? It doesn’t matter what Galatians 3 means! It’s irrelevant! ………………………
Me: Is this your exegesis? Actually, considering your contextualizing away, per historical circumstances, 1 cor. 5, you’re actually being terribly consistent. So, just to sum up your exegesis of Gal 3; ‘It’s irrelevant’. Galatians is Doug’s ‘straw gospel’. You know what?. Kudos to you for being consistent.
LikeLike
Doug, when you typed in “It doesn’t matter what Galatians 3 means! It’s irrelevant! ” that may not have been what you fully intended to convey….
The Gordon explanation of Galatians 3 is one of those 4 or 5 turning points in my Reformed path and won’t be shaken easily…
LikeLike
That’s okay Kent, don’t just take my word for it. You search the Scriptures and see if these things are true. Remember, we are dealing with one of the hardest passages of Scripture to understand in the new testament record. A passage that has bamboozled many a scholar through the years.
I was raised dispensational premillennialist. I was taught something very similar to what Sean learned at Westminster West. That the law was against grace! Or that the law was against faith. When my eyes were finally opened and I became reformed, (in the traditional sense) not the Westminster West sense, imagine my dismay when I found out some reformed scholars like Gordon were making the same mistakes that C.I. Scofield made in Galatians! It not only broke my heart, it pissed me off. This is why I get so emotional sometimes.
But hey, the truth will come out. Let’s be nice and kind to each other, and look at this issue with a careful eye. God has already convicted me about losing my temper. If Erik can get a grip, so can I!
God bless you all!
LikeLike
Sean, the answer to you confusion is context, context, context!
“Is the law against the promise? God forbid!”
Who was the promise Sean? Was it not the Christ?
Therefore, if the law was not against Christ, your whole argument falls to the ground by it’s own weight. Gordon can not be right! Therefore, as John Calvin, also said, Paul had to be talking about the misuse of the law, not something in the law itself.
Have a pray and a think!
LikeLike
Kent; there is an aspect of God republishing his law, that we all agree with. The moral law that God laid down for Israel, was the same law he wrote on Adam’s heart. In that sense God did republish the law. But God never gave the moral law, as a means for salvation!
God knew we were but flesh, and totally depraved! We are born of sin. We couldn’t keep the law perfectly for fifteen minutes let alone earn our salvation. So for Gordon to come away with his take on Galatians 3 that the Mosaic covenant offered a works principle is against Christ! It contradicts the need for a sacrifice! Sacrifices which pointed to our need for Christ Jesus. The idea that the law had an antithesis in it, doesn’t even make sense. Why would God contradict himself in his own law?
Have a pray and a think,
LikeLike
David R. asks: In what sense do you delight in God’s law?
When I gaze on the moral law, I see a perfect reflection of the character of God. It shows me my duty toward God and how I should act to be pleasing to God. I want to say like David.
verse 77: “Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.”
Me: The law shows me my duty towards God. I know the only way I can be pleasing to God is “in Christ”, in his strength. So his law is something I meditate on, asking God to make those statutes a reality in my life. Even though most of them are not.
verse 127: Therefore I love your commandments above gold, above fine gold.”
Me: I pray that God would make that a reality in my life. That me, Doug Sowers would treasure his commandments above all the riches in this world. Believe me, I need to pray that prayer everyday because I don’t always feel that way!
But there are days when I’m in the Word, and in prayer, when God by his grace makes those true in my life. It’s a very beautiful thing.
LikeLike
I dunno if this is of any help in the discussion of rabbinical Christianity, but
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/gal2-11.html
LikeLike
Erik/Darrell,
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Keister. It just wasn’t clear why he was being cited as an authority.
In general, I was probably getting at my general frustration in dealing with Doug: He never offers a coherent argument. We just get quotes from some smattering of sources.
While I don’t agree with Bahnsen on a number of things, he was nevertheless formulated cogent arguments that made sense. The Bahnsenites, in contrast, fall short. They are too busy tossing out quotes, and show little evidence of having understood the philosophical and theological context of Bahnsen’s thought.
It strikes me as interesting that Doug is a former dispensationalist. While Bahnsen was certainly no dispensationalist, it strikes me that a number of Bahnsenites were. That may explain why they have difficulty reading Bahnsen in context. That may explain why they have difficulty accepting any measure of disagreement on anything. For example, Doug acknowledges that Galatians 3 is difficult to exegete (and hence may be susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations), and yet would have the PCA defrock Gordon because of his refusal to accept Doug’s position. In contrast, I grew up in a mainline church, and am happy that there are denominations that can at least agree to basic Reformed doctrine. Perhaps our histories color us more than we think.
LikeLike
Doug – since I am one of his biggest protractors
Erik – ????
I haven’t heard that word since junior high.
You are a priceless man, Doug. When I meet you I am going to give you a big, wet, sloppy kiss and it won’t even have to be in a gay bar.
LikeLike
Tom – or merely fleeing the world from it in a way only the Anabaptists such as the Amish did, but Christendom [pre- or post-Reformation] hadn’t done since the catacombs.
Erik – “Christendom” kind of means that the church is running the show so there is no need for Christians to hide, unless you dare to challenge the church’s teaching on issues like, let’s see — how one gets to go to heaven? Then watch out.
Tom – “Magisterium” isn’t just about speculations on theology, it’s about safeguarding and preserving the church, which is your justification for your [radical?] 2K theology.
Erik – A Magisterium would be nice if (A) the entity proffering it had the authority to do so, and (B) It was in agreement with Scripture.
You kind of remind me of Eisenhower, Tom. You’re all for religion and think everyone should have it but have no preference as to what religion it is. You just want it to be a force for family values and conservatism in society. But what do we do with the question of truth?
Your use of “fideism” furthers my suspicion that you might be a Called to Communion plant.
LikeLike
Tom – 2K theology seems to consign every question of moral right and wrong to the realm of opinion and politics, by definition subjective
Erik – I would not marry another man, I would not feel right about owning slaves, I would not persecute Jews, and I would not have my wife or daughter seek a late-term abortion. I would hope that no one else does any of these things either. What, specifically, would you require of me beyond this and on what justification?
LikeLike
Tom,
You criticize us and offer a half-hearted defense of Catholicism, but as yet you have not offered up a coherent, full-fledged alternative to 2K. We don’t know your religious commitments, we don’t know your specific policy prescriptions, and we don’t know your strategies for achieving your goals. Pretty much all we know is you’re an angry, middle-aged white Californian who used to be on some game shows. Begin to flesh out your alternative. People could read all this and agree with you that 2K is all wet, but so what? Where do they go from there?
LikeLike
Erik, “Fideism” is my own observation about some strains of Protestantism. Calvin and Luther are often accused of being anti-reason, and although they are a bit, it’s usually used as a slander of the Reformation as irrational. Fortunately, their successors didn’t abandon reason or even Scholasticism as an intellectual method [although they of course rejected some Aquinas/RC theology]. It’s in those almost-forgotten roots, “Protestant Scholasticism,” if you will, that I have hope.
And I’m not up on Barth, but his rejection of natural theology seems of the same stripe. And as we all know, American fundamentalism was and is an alarmingly inept fideistic reaction to modernity, a rather recent phenomenon c. 1900, and gave both Machen and Mencken the willies. [See Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, that there isn’t much of one.]
So the problem is, all the good minds like Machen’s successors have taken to the hills, the Mainline no longer practices Christianity, you hate the papists, and the fundies are frigging embarrassing to any Christian with an IQ exceeding room temperature.
LikeLike
EC: I would not marry another man, I would not feel right about owning slaves, I would not persecute Jews, and I would not have my wife or daughter seek a late-term abortion. I would hope that no one else does any of these things either.
Yah, that’s what Pilate said. Good for you. Whoopdy-doo.
LikeLike
Doug, you know our answers to those questions.
LikeLike
TVD:
You hit upon an interesting point concerning Barth’s rejection of natural theology. I think Barth’s rejection is a bit more nuanced than the fundamentalists’ rejection of the same. Nevertheless, this is a point on which Barth was certainly wrong. That being said, Barth is still unquestionably the preeminent Protestant theologian of the 20th Century.
I would comment Bruce McCormack’s recent book on Barth.
LikeLike
If one began on the WSCal side, Venema’s paper wasn’t remotely convincing. If you began on Venema’s side, you think it was a resounding victory for him.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I asked Bill Dennison about a critical footnote that he had of Bahnsen in an essay included in Confident of Better Things (an OPC retrospective). He said that although Bahnsen’s philosophical explanations of Van Til were helpful, you can’t correctly understand Van Til if you read him outside of Vos. I’m not sure how the allegorical theonomists like Jordan or Leithart relate to biblical theology, but internet theonomists/”van tillian apologists” are invariably ignorant of it.
LikeLike
Mikelmann,
About me hitchin on with Doug,
I would compliment anybody who was railed by anyone the way Bobby railed him and then reacts without a desire for vengeance. Acting bold and meekly is Christ like no matter what your camp or political stances. I really haven’t been able to keep up with this thread and don’t know Doug at all. I started reading this thread somewhere around comm 350 so I am playing catchup.
LikeLike
TVD: You hit upon an interesting point concerning Barth’s rejection of natural theology. I think Barth’s rejection is a bit more nuanced than the fundamentalists’ rejection of the same. Nevertheless, this is a point on which Barth was certainly wrong. That being said, Barth is still unquestionably the preeminent Protestant theologian of the 20th Century.
Mebbe that’s what’s bothering me.
Thx for the reply, Bobby, esp picking out the important part of what I wrote! Man, that feels good.
This comment thread is now 400 comments long, so I think I’ll save the rest of my thesis and perhaps answers to Erik’s badgering for later.
A thesis that is actually being formed through these discussions, mind you–I didn’t come here just to give already-written speeches. There are some things I have learned that I brought here to test.
There I things I think I hear here, but I want to double-check that’s actually what’s being said! Oracular Magic 8-Ball one-sentence drivebys are Darryl’s preferred mode of communication in his comboxes, so there’s always that snare waiting to step into with your name on it. [Your name is “Donnie.”]
Darryl. Heh heh. ;-P
[As for my/everybody’s pal Erik, please feel free to respond to anything I’ve written over the last day or so. At this point–again–by responding any further I’m just helping to bury my pearls under pigshit. There’s plenty enough there still unburied, unaddressed, and likely still unread.]
[And FTR, I am enjoying all this. This is indeed a great bar. And I’m not angry, I’m passionate. If I’m angry about anything, it’s at myself for being such an unpassionate Pontius Pilate myself all these years. Lukewarm water. I make myself sick.]
[Yeah, yeah, you too, I know, I know.]
LikeLike
MichaelTX: Acting bold and meekly is Christ like no matter what your camp or political stances.
Heh. That’s what I wrote the Baylys about spouting that “sodomite” stuff all the time. Well, before they banned me.
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.
I said I thought they were just being stupid and destructive.
Cheers, Michael.
LikeLike
Its all about you, Tom:
http://movie-sounds.org/famous-movie-samples/braveheart-1995/our-people-know-you-noble-and-common-they-respect-you
LikeLike
“I would not marry another man, I would not feel right about owning slaves, I would not persecute Jews, and I would not have my wife or daughter seek a late-term abortion. I would hope that no one else does any of these things either.
Yah, that’s what Pilate said.”
That’s what Pilate said? What are you talking about? You may want to just stay away from trying to use analogies, Tom. Just stick with your meat ‘n potatoes “ye shall know the truth when you agree with lots of people.”
LikeLike
Its all about you, Tom:
http://movie-sounds.org/famous-movie-samples/braveheart-1995/our-people-know-you-noble-and-common-they-respect-you
If that’s a prop and I sure hope it is, AB, thx.
Erik keeps asking for biographical details. I’d rather not, even if I didn’t think he’s just looking for weapons to delegitimize me. Because it ain’t about me. I’d rather cast my swirls before pine anonymously, but I kvetch, therefore I am.
What I will say is that this is the first time and place I’ve said even this much about my beliefs. Because make no mistake, they will indeed turn upon you and render you. What’s for dinner?
Donnie.
LikeLike
Tom – As for my/everybody’s pal Erik, please feel free to respond to anything I’ve written over the last day or so
Erik – I would love to as soon as I have a clue as to what it is that you want. It’s kind of like laying in bed on a summer night listening to thunder and rain. Mildly interesting, but not communicative of anything. That’s why I call you rootless.
LikeLike
David R.
I do not delight in theonomy. I see God’s penal sanctions as true and right and expressing perfect socio political justice, but I take no pleasure in watching a murderer, getting put to death, nor a sodomiteh, rapist, kidnapper or anyone else for that matter.
When I delight in the law, I am talking about it’s moral excellence. Since I want to be pleasing to God, I look and meditate on the law, praying for the grace and faith to walk in God’s statutes, “in Christ”.
I realize that I have no ability (in my own strength) to obey any of God’s commands in a way that is pleasing to God. But in humble gratitude towards God, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. So I read the law, with a humble heart, asking God to show me how to apply his virtue in my life. In the end, he gets all the credit and glory. And I believe that is how King David approached the law as well.
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Just a goofball, here. Dude, steer clear of Barth. Barth and Tillich became imps once I met Bavinck and Mcguckin. If you are interested is the Christian religion, find the St.Cyril book by McGuckin. My two sense..
LikeLike
Brian the brain Lee:
Yes, I did read your review a couple years ago. But I have some questions about your statement up above.
BL: “I love the Law that Christ fulfilled, and therefore, it governs my life differently than it governed OT saints. Same law, different relation. It’s in the Bible. You should check it out.”
Huh?! The moral law governs our life exactly like it did King David. How was David pleasing to God? By faith in Christ, just like us today. Brian, anything that is not of faith, is sin. That was true during the reign of King David, and it’s true today. The moral law is our rule or standard for life. It’s the perfect reflection of God’s character. So we look to his statutes with joy and gratitude in faith.
. Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law to be sure, so that they have vanished. But he didn’t fulfill the moral law, he kept it! Big difference. The moral law is our rule of life today exactly like it was for the Saints of old. When you say, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, what’s that mean, we don’t have too? That’s what you sound like, when you say your relation to the law is different now.
In what sense is it different? Please explain, if you know.
LikeLike
And Tom (that last one was for you too), it’s ultimately not what any one of us believes. But what the Bible says. Don’t start down the, ‘but who’s interpretation’ stuff. Our Westminster confession covers that with the idea of perspicuity. If it’s Catholics you want to talk to, go to calledtocomunnion.com, those are all former reformed folk who love their new church. Here, we’re still ‘fighting the good fight.’ If you like anything you see, maybe check out your local NAPARC church, I would suggest an OPC, but even those are hit and miss. That is, if you are looking to share more about your beliefs. I can tell you there is a local OPC who love to hear about it. But in the end, that’s all she wrote. Adios.
LikeLike
@Brian Lee: Please let me expound brother. What do we mean by fulfill? The ceremonial laws for worship and forgiveness were the gospel in figures. These ordinances were all pointing too, and teaching us about the saving work of Christ, that was to come. They were efficacious for the time for God’s elect for the forgiveness of sin and their sanctification, and worship, in that they were centered in Christ. The Saints who walked by faith were just as pleasing to God as we are when we walk by faith. These ordinances were temporary however until the Christ could come and fulfill them, making them obsolete until they vanished in 70AD.
Nothing like that happened to the moral law! They are not obsolete, nor have they vanished and we have the same relationship with them. The moral law is still our rule of life. Now Christ kept all the demands of the law, and amen. And his record is our record and amen. But we should still walk by faith, which is just another way of saying we obey the law ‘in Christ”.
So there have been great advancements in the plan of salvation. But Christ only fulfilled (and set aside) the laws that prefigured his saving work. Loving the Lord with all your heart, is just as relevant for us today, as it was for Moses. Just because Christ loved God, doesn’t change our relation to the moral law. The laws that were a shadow of Christ have vanished. We still have the same relationship with the moral law.
So I guess what I am trying to say is; what do you mean by saying Christ fulfilled the moral law? And how do you feel your relationship is different to it now than it was for King David?
LikeLike
@Finally Brain the brain; please be specific when you say your relationship to the moral law is different than it was for King David. Don’t we both approach the law by faith in Christ? If that is true, then how can it be different?
If (the Brain) can’t respond right now I would love to hear from David R. or Todd.
LikeLike
Speaking of bold meekness,
I heard these the other day from Fr Barron in his series Catholicism. He told a story of Mother Theresa and one of Bishop Tutu. I’ll just quote him he speaks better than me anyway.
“Bishop Desmond Tutu was walking down a narrow sidewalk in South Africa. He came to a portion of the sidewalk that was more like a narrow bridge over a muddy area. Approaching him was a white man, a known racist, who said to Tutu, ‘Step aside, I don’t make way for gorillas’. Bishop Tutu stepped off the sidewalk, gestured broadly, and said, ‘I do”.
“Mother Teresa took a hungry child to the back door of a restaurant begging for some food for the child. The store owner spat full in her face. Mother Teresa wiped her face clean and said ‘Thank you for that gift for me, now perhaps something for the child”
THERE IS SOME BOLD MEEKNESS. I believe that is the kind of turn the other cheek Jesus was talking about.
Peace all. Signing out,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
M&M; I’m curious, did you get a chance to read Greenbaggins post on theology being the “Queen of science”? I would appreciate it if you would give me your feedback.
Thanks in advance,
LikeLike
Doug,
The language of Christ fulfilling the moral law on behalf of His people is not exactly a novel way of speaking, as you can see from WLC Q&A 97:
LikeLike
Here’s an excerpt from Shaw’s commentary on WCF 8.4:
LikeLike
Tom, don’t blame the Reformation. Try 1789. Without the magistrate to enforce true religion, Rome has no more authority over its members (despite all the theory) than the OPC does over hers. I grant that a Roman Catholic has a lot more to give up — Unam Sanctam vs. a report on the Boy Scouts. But it is simply wrong historically to blame diversity on the Reformation. Even in Switzerland down to the early 19th c., you couldn’t take your ball and go home. Why? Because the civil magistrate was the patron of the churches. Once the state embraced freedom of religion (as Rome did at Vatican 2 — finally), any Tom (no offense), Dick, or Harry could take their Christian ball wherever they wanted — as long as someone would pay for it voluntarily. We’re all voluntarists now.
Drive by my arse.
LikeLike
And Tom (that last one was for you too), it’s ultimately not what any one of us believes. But what the Bible says. Don’t start down the, ‘but who’s interpretation’ stuff.
Oh, I always like when the best argument is acknowledged then waved away. That’s when you know it’s the proper one.
Of course it’s about ‘whose interpretation.’ When flummoxed, just say it’s right there in the Bible, look! You guys pull that ripcord on each other every 3 posts or so. No, it ain’t about me atall, bro. I’m just sitting here watch the wheels go round and round.
LikeLike
David R.
How about explaining how our relationship changed to the moral law, in your own words? I’m not insinuating that men haven’t made mistakes in the past; of course they have. But in your own words, please explain how our relationship to the moral law has changed. And please give me a few Scriptures.
Thanks in advance
LikeLike
David R.
How do you understand the world fulfill? What does that mean to you? Please quit quoting from other guys, I want to hear what you think.
Thanks in advance,
LikeLike
We can keep pulling back the curtain, Tom, all you like. The Bible’s not a person, Jesus is. And God sent a person, not a book. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Back up, and read McGuckin if you want to get under my skin. Leave to an Eastern Orthodox priest to pull me away from Paul Tillich. Glad you stick around.
LikeLike
Doug,
You complained about Rev. Lee saying that Christ fulfilled the moral law. Now you’re complaining about me quoting the Catechism saying that Christ fulfilled the moral law. Not sure what to tell ya.
Regarding the issue of David’s relationship to the moral law, one place to start would be the blessing/curse sanctions found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Note that they all have reference to temporal promises/afflictions in the land of Canaan and thus, post-70 AD, they could have no direct application to any group of people. So here is undeniable evidence of the moral law governing the lives of OT saints differently than it governs us (though I’m sure you won’t hesitate to deny it).
LikeLike
Doug: @Finally Brain the brain; please be specific when you say your relationship to the moral law is different than it was for King David. Don’t we both approach the law by faith in Christ? If that is true, then how can it be different?
BL: Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (Heb 2.14-15).
David could commit sins that made him liable to death under the terms of the law. I cannot (at least not since I ceased being a Roman Catholic).
That’s a pretty darn big difference. And this liability to death, by the way, is what Paul means in Romans 5, methinks, when he says “sin is not counted where there is no law,” i.e., the “counting” under Mosaic law is absent from Adam to Moses, and it is absent now, for those who are in Christ. And this counting is also what was “canceled” at the cross, “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” Yes, by faith, David was forgiven of his sins. But he still had to live under the legal sanction of death.
Thank goodness for the active righteousness of Christ. No hope without it.
[That’s what I mean by fulfilled the law… not that it is still not an imperative for my Christian life, but it doesn’t threaten those who are in Christ.]
LikeLike
Bobby, the dispensational past is indeed interesting, since it really is the other end of the theonomic spectrum: dispensationalism is the extreme inability to grasp the continuity between OT and NT, while theonomy is the extreme inability to grasp their discontinuity. It would seem Doug simply simply traded errors. No surprise either, then, that he also affirms paedo-communion, which is likewise the mirror error of his credo-baptistic past.
LikeLike
Doug,
Thanks for giving me an excuse to bust out some Queen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQsM6u0a038
If MM will admit that theology is the “queen of the sciences” (whatever that means), will you agree to dress up as a drag queen and march in a local gay pride parade?
LikeLike
Hart is delayed:
Hello,
We’re writing about the order you placed on May 07, 2013 (Order# 112-8410710-5233819). Unfortunately, the release date for the item(s) listed below has changed, and we need to provide you with a new delivery estimate based on the new release date:
D. G. Hart “Calvinism: A History”
Estimated arrival date: July 01, 2013 – July 08, 2013
LikeLike
David R to Doug; You complained about Rev. Lee saying that Christ fulfilled the moral law. Now you’re complaining about me quoting the Catechism saying that Christ fulfilled the moral law. Not sure what to tell ya.
Me: That’s all terribly familiar.
Gal 3
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.
Some more of me: ‘The one who does them shall live by them’-Lev 18:5 This has no reference to the ceremonial or civil aspects but rather to the moral/legal requirement of Sinai, which according to Paul ‘imprisoned’ us all. This is the pedagogical use of the law that brought in bold relief the curse to bear on human kind(republication) that Jesus ‘hung on a tree’ to satisfy.
LikeLike
Or, said most succinctly, it’s all about Jesus. Still, here is a song I grew up on. It’s all about me, after all.:-)
LikeLike
Hart & Muether are truly the Freddie Mercury & Brian May of the Reformed Blogosphere.
I’ll go a step further and say that Hart, Muether, Rev. Brain Lee, and Mrs. Hart are akin to David Byrne, Jerry Harrison, Chris Frantz, and Tina Weymouth. They are that cutting edge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfYZFS7JvT0
LikeLike
Tom tells us how highly he thinks of himself in a comment on my blog. And he think’s we’re arrogant? I do admit to being D.G.’s attack chihuahua. What can I say? He feeds me well:
I realize you’re Darryl’s self-appointed gatekeeper and sergeant at arms and I respect you for that, Erik. But he completely embarrassed himself on his under-informed attack on the “Two Swords” papal bull Unam Sanctam
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
I was kind enough not to rub his nose in it on his own blog. I’m not about winning, about scorching your earth. But it’s just us chickens here at your blog.
What’s “hard” is smacking you arrogant know-nothings in the head for your arrogance without destroying our line of communication. That’s what I meant about winning a fight with your wife. You can always win the argument–or she can–if you sink low enough. But in the end, the marriage–the communication–will be destroyed.
If you fight with love, you hit only hard enough to be heard, not to win. And that’s what you’ve been getting from me, my brother.
I haven’t even begun to express myself at Darryl’s blog. At this point, the debate hasn’t even started, let alone discussion as brothers in Christ or whatever you call it. We’re still defining terms, and frankly, you’re throwing a monkey wrench into every click of the gears, as if disrupting the discussion at every turn is the only way that you can be a part of it.
I don’t think that’s so. Give it some air. Re-evaluate the “cliches” you say you understand and rejected. Do it all fresh.
If I’d come to the OldLife blog just to win a debate, frankly I already did, and more frankly, Darryl loses every time he attacks Catholic theology, because he clearly doesn’t understand it. The Catholics like Bryan Cross stop by just to give him the mildest of slaps upside the head for his theological amateurism. Catholic theology may be wrong, but it’s not easy pickings like the Baylys. You gotta bring your A game, your A+ game.
And if I really had an agenda, Erik, I’d have already scorched your earth, wham, bam, thank you ma’am. It’s not about that, never was. I don’t think of you as the Baylys. Hell, I don’t even think of the Baylys as you think of the Baylys.
Frankly, you’re losing to them and the fundie/evangelicals. And to the Roman Catholic Church too. If we’re playing Rock Paper Scissors, you’re playing lukewarm water, and that isn’t even in the game.
I know you have more passion than this. Live out your life as a moral eunuch who never did no wrong, but did no right either, then collect your ticket to heaven? Ever read Dante?
LikeLike
Tom’s biggest mistake is this statement:
“Frankly, you’re losing to them and the fundie/evangelicals. And to the Roman Catholic Church too.”
This shows he uses a different scorecard than us. He doesn’t understand Calvinists very well.
How many drinks did he have before he wrote that gem of a post?
LikeLike
Tom – “I know you have more passion than this. Live out your life as a moral eunuch who never did no wrong, but did no right either, then collect your ticket to heaven? Ever read Dante?”
Erik – Tom has yet do define “doing right” yet. All we know of his position is he thinks he is doing some kind of service to humanity by going on blogs and attacking Reformed theology. How has that fed even one hungry child? (as the liberals would retort).
LikeLike
This blog surely does draw some interesting flies. Take Tom for example. It is rare to bump into a man whose self-appraisal so radically exceeds his “game.” I take it as true that Tom did well on some game show, but maybe that was the worst possible thing that could have happened because it has apparently convinced Tom that he is brilliant. To be sure his writing style is fun enough and he can collect facts, but then he seems incapable of even recognizing – much less executing – a genuine argument. So his “facts” are just so many pearls scattered about in the mud.
I don’t think Tom comes from Reformed circles, and here is the chief reason: men who come from a Reformed background generally know how to make an argument. We differ from our neo-Cal visitors but we recognize a reasonable structure to their thought; not so much with Tom.
If Tom were a bit more humble I wouldn’t be so hard on him, but, alas, that virtue eludes him.
LikeLike
Who is Tom Van Dyke?
http://www.thegameshowtemple.com/interviews/thomas.htm
LikeLike
He may be Old Life’s Quiz Kid Donnie Smith:
Anderson tries so hard in that movie, but it just doesn’t quite all come together. That’s what happens when you try too hard to be deep when you’re still young. See also: Lena Dunham.
LikeLike
MM – I don’t think Tom comes from Reformed circles, and here is the chief reason: men who come from a Reformed background generally know how to make an argument. We differ from our neo-Cal visitors but we recognize a reasonable structure to their thought; not so much with Tom.
Erik – Darrell Todd Maurina is the epitome of a Reformed Tom Van Dyke
LikeLike
You can find lots of Tom’s game show clips on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URnpTyvDGfA
Tom, what have you done for us lately?
LikeLike
Erik, I rate DTM higher. DTM has the culture warrior thing going but knows when his arguments could be stronger. Tom, on the other hand, says “there are 30,000 people in the OPC! Ha, I win!!” And he thinks that he has.
LikeLike
MM,
I didn’t mean to put DTM down, just to note that DTM also has a lot of facts and trivia at his fingertips. I think DTM’s a pretty good guy, our differences notwithstanding.
Watching Tom on “The Joker’s Wild”. That show is a kind of dumbed down version of “Jeopardy”. It reminds me of sitting around with the family on holidays playing “Trivial Pursuit”. It lacks the disciplined structure and middlebrow/highbrowism of “Jeopardy”.
LikeLike
Well, for me, it was only the price is right when I was 19, but funny enough, inside edition was covering college kids on the price is right, making the segment, you guessed it, all about me. I’m lucky, and you can’t find the price or inside edition segment online to view, it remains safely hidden, and so I remain anonymous. Isn’t our point here to tell him to go to church? Other than that, the door to this bar is open to any and all who pass by. I haven’t read all the comments, but thought I had to speak for the former tv star contingent here at old life. Let’s all enjoy a little humor at ourselves. Sometimes life is like a mop, so go easy, maybe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_vncX99c14
LikeLike
MM,
But just wait! Tom hasn’t even begun to make his argument. We should be getting it about the time I start taking Geritol and join a Shuffleboard league. I might not follow it well because I’ll be punchy after multiple middle-of-the-night trips to the bathroom on account of my enlarged prostate.
LikeLike
Andrew,
If it’s not on You Tube it didn’t happen. Sorry.
LikeLike
Erik, I watched game shows during the lowest ebb of my life, so I don’t do game show clips. And I wouldn’t talk about important things with Charlie Weaver, Bob Barker, Gene Gene the Dancing Machine or Tom VD.
OK, this TVD stuff out of my system now. I’m ready to move on.
LikeLike
Not even Chuck Barris?
Or Jimmy Gator?
LikeLike
Mike,
Good point.
I would generally consider myself to be a conservative PCUSA guy. Further, I would generally agree with Machen’s criticisms of the mainline church of his day, and believe that his dismissal was unjust.
So, in a sense, I’m not too far away from the OPC and PCA theologically. But there are some cultural distinctives that have developed within the OPC and PVA that make them unattractive to mainline conservatives.
One such distinctive is the tendency of people to latch upon a guru, venerate the guru to the point that he is viewed as a cult hero, give no consideration to the context of the man’s writings, and then start organizing heresy trials to go after anyone who would dare disagree with the guru. This is exactly what happened to Lee Irons a decade ago at the hands of a bunch of Bahnsenites in the Southern California Presbytery who were, frankly, too ignorant of the broader stream of Reformed theology to recognize that Irons was not teaching anything remarkably unorthodox. It strikes me that what the OPC did to Irons is not substantively different from what Machen suffered 70 years earlier.
I agree that one can’t properly understand Van Til until one understands Vos. Further, neither of these men wrote in an intellectual vacuum. They each borrowed from and were influenced by philosophical movements, particularly in the field of epistemology. The same could be said of the Reformation. After all, you wouldn’t have the Reformation without the Renaissance.
Scholars in the mainline communions probably pay too much attention to the philosophical and intellectual undercurrents, and give too little credence to God’s revelatory acts. But many in the OPC and PCA seem to suffer from the opposite problem. They presume that their favorite theologians arrived at their views simply by reading the Bible and nothing else, and take no account of the variety of other sources that influenced their thought.
In a broad sense, I tend to see 2K as an effort to free the OPC and PCA from the grips of fundamentalist Biblicism. The mainline had completely forgotten about the fundamentalist-modernist controversy by 1960. The rise of Barthian thought in the mainline Presbyterian churches largely mooted the controversy and probably represented something of a concession of error on the part of the mainline. I suspect that Machen and the Barthians would have gotten along fine in the mainline church. They wouldn’t have agreed, but they wouldn’t be defrocking each other either. I know of a large number of evangelicals who attend conservative mainline churches. They’d rather be in the OPC or PCA, but for the presence of a horde of anti-intellectual former dispensationalists who have exchanged one form of theological error for another. In other words, I’d rather have a female assistant pastor than be ruled over by the likes of Doug, Richard, or the Baylys.
LikeLike
Bobby, FYI:
Doug: a member, not an officer in the OPC
Richard: not OPC
Baylys: not OPC
What do you see as paralells between the Machen and Irons cases?
Here you seem to emphasize personal comfort level and fellow pewsitters over preaching and teaching. Have I misread you?
But you say some interesting things here upon which I can’t comment right now.
LikeLike
Just as well, Erik. But if you push me, I’ll send you some print screens. On inside edition, I was right before the segment about deers jumping through people’s home windows. Anyway I met the OPC the same week I shook bob barker’s hand. My life took the reformed faith route, at that critical juncture. Tv spots are now just a funny past thing to bring up at the lunch table at work. And never share the video with anyone but my kids. Maybe…
LikeLike
And in case it matters, I’ve been ordained OPC since around 2008, although inactive since 2011. So, dudes thats how I operate, just suggest people go to church, and then try to read blog posts instead of comboxes. Though, it’s hard to deny the entertainment value of these. Point is, go to church, al yalls.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Good comment, as usual.
Van Til was no fan of Barth, but Van Til was not Machen so you may be correct on Machen & Barth being able to coexist. Bathians seemed to kind of say the right things as long as you didn’t dig too deep into what they were actually saying and why.
LikeLike
AB – Just as well, Erik. But if you push me, I’ll send you some print screens
Erik – That got a chuckle out of me.
LikeLike
If you are looking for a church where you are not embarrassed by at least some of your fellow church members, good luck. I haven’t found that church yet in 30+ years of looking. I’ll take oddball members over women minsters or officers. I agree that oddball Reformed pastors & officers can be a big problem, though. They have authority over your life if you give it to them.
LikeLike
Read on barths view of Scripture. Machen and Barth would have disagreed over that minor detail, but what do I know.
LikeLike
Brian Lee says: “David could commit sins that made him liable to death under the terms of the law. I cannot (at least not since I ceased being a Roman Catholic).”
Me: Brian, Jesus threatened the church in Thyatira that he would KILL some of her children if they didn’t repent of sexual immorality!
What’s the difference?
LikeLike
Erik, where did you get this?
LikeLike
Erik, that is a big bowl of wrong.
LikeLike
I would think Machen would have about as much tolerance for Barth as for female ministers.
LikeLike
David R. and Brian Lee:
Do either of you guys see a distinction between Jesus fulfilling the ceremonial ordinances, (which instantly became obsolete, and vanished by 70AD, and fulfilling the moral law, which is still our rule of life?
It seems to me, that you want to combine the word fulfill to include the moral law, which A. hasn’t vanished, and is still our rule of life.
Do you both affirm that the moral law is our rule of life? And if it is, what do you mean, when you say Jesus fulfilled it?
I’m trying to understand you guys.
Thanks in advance,
LikeLike
Erik, I’ve looked for the perfect church; but every time I show up, it’s not perfect anymore!
LikeLike
AB:
I’m not suggesting that Barth and Machen would have agreed. That being said, there’s a radical difference between Barth and the theology that prevailed in the mainline Presbyterian church in the 1930s. Barth is far closer to Machen than he is to Tillich, Bultmann, Brunner, etc.
I guess my point is that there is no guru. Theologians are products of their times, and what they give us is a mix of good and bad. Machen stayed in the mainline Presbyterian, even at a time when many of its pastors couldn’t say the Apostle’s Creed in good faith. He was a churchman, not a Biblicist. And preserving the church meant something. I see less of that fidelity in many parts of the PCA and OPC today. In that sense, I tend to see 2K as an effort to restore more of a gentlemanly approach to how we handle debates, moving us away from the profane populism that have infected these communions to their detriment.
In that sense, Gordon had it right when he criticized theonomy as the theology of an impatient, microwave-oven generation that is too lazy to take the arduous path of acquiring wisdom. It wants instant answers and clear answers, even if they are wrong answers or incomplete answers. I see nothing of this ungentlemanly impatience in Machen’s writing.
LikeLike
David R.
Maybe this will help us communicate; we know that Jesus never sinned, and amen! But just because Jesus never committed murder, does that mean he fulfilled “thou shall not kill”?
Did Jesus fulfill the law on bestiality? Did Jesus fulfill the law on not coveting? Did Jesus fulfill the law on stealing? This is what I don’t understand. How is the fact, that Jesus never sinned change the moral law? Isn’t it still there?
Please give me your own opinion in your own words, BTW I really appreciate you taking the time to give me a good answer.
LikeLike
Bobby, here’s one for ya; We’re 2k cuz it’s in the bible.
LikeLike
Bobby, are you aware that Machen believed we should punish crime according to the law of God?
FWIW, that is exactly what I believe as well. But I am not impatient Bobby, I know this can’t happen until God has changed enough hearts to make his law the majority view.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Where did I get what? Tom’s blast? He left it on my blog like the cat leaves the occasional hair-filled ball of puke on one’s kitchen floor.
If you’re talking about something else, please expound.
LikeLike
Sean, Dr. Greg Bahnsen was 2K as is RC Sproul right now! But they are not R2K.
Big difference!
LikeLike
When viewing Machen as furthering Warfield type thought about Scripture, they don’t seem like buddy.buddy. I recall Muether leading a Sunday school, I listened, he didn’t hold back regarding Barth. Just read Bavinck instead? I was responding to Erik, also. Nice to meet you, Bobby.
LikeLike
Doug, actually you’re right they are 2k, despite all of Bahnsen’s rhetoric, as are you, as are most american religious. R2K is a caricature. Where’s my Gal. 3 counter exegesis? How’s the installation of female pastors going?
LikeLike
Erik says: “If MM will admit that theology is the “queen of the sciences” (whatever that means), will you agree to dress up as a drag queen and march in a local gay pride parade?”
Me: Come on Erik! Number one, I don’t wish for MM to admit anything. I was curious to see what he thought about Greenbaggns post, that’s all.
Even though I know you kidding, about me dressing up, how about giving me a break? I’m on good behavior, not blasting anyone.
LikeLike
Sean, what makes R2K, “radical” is the notion that you can divorce Special revelation from the civil realm. That’s a no no! It’s why you have 80% of the church against you.
Man shall live by EVERY word that proceeds from God.
LikeLike
Doug, the no no is applying cultic life norms to common nations and people. Cultic status is privileged status not common status.
1 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 the church[b] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Me: How about you living from these words for awhile.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I’d like to hear more from you on this because you are tracking with my thoughts for many years now. I believed reformed churches had a real chance in the early 90’s to prosper until they began to become counter-cultural enclaves. Many conservative Evangelicals were getting tired of the church growth dog and pony show, the every-man-is-an evangelist and life changer pressure, the quiet-time legalism, etc…but still wanted to learn what the Bible actually teaches. The reformed churches could have been the solution, but as the 90’s progressed, the home school only movement, Doug Wilson classical culture warrior educational model, theonomy, patriarchy, etc…began to find a foothold in the reformed churches, which caused many conservative evangelicals to look elsewhere. I thought then the acceptance of all this would mean the eventual downfall of conservative reformed denominations. I also would rather sit under a broad evangelical than a patriarchal or theonomic pastor. It is amazing how often I hear from people who join our church that they didn’t believe a church could exist where the people could look and act normal, be happy, and still be conservative in theology.
LikeLike
Sean, Jesus has inherited the whole world. There is no such thing as a common nation. Jesus owns them all. There is no such thing as a nation, where Christ does not say MINE! That’s what inheriting the world means.
Moreover, we have been commanded to disciple every nation in the name of Christ. What does disciple a nation mean to you? When God sanctifies a nation, like he did in New England in the seventeenth century, the laws start to conform to his will.
As you may know, when Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians, Rome was not yet sanctified. Fifteen hundred years later, Rome’s laws conformed to God’s will in a much greater measure. I want to see God fulfill the great commission, don’t you? Wouldn’t you like to see every nation show deference to Christ? Please say yes!
You need to read the Bible in context Sean, lest you keep reading it out of context. You seem to want to go back and live under the Roman Empire. We’re Way past that now. Let’s pray for more of God’s righteous rules to become law in every nation. Wouldn’t you love to see the Islamic nations repent and start to serve Jesus as Lord? No more circumcising young girls? Please say yes!
I know I do.
LikeLike
Todd, could you please weigh in on the question I asked Brian Lee and Daivd R.?
Thanks in advance!
LikeLike
Todd, I really would like to understand how you understand Christ fulfilling the moral law. And how does that change anything?
LikeLike
Bobby and Todd, I’m tracking as well. Moving out of the egalitarian and evangelical CRC (Dutch Reformed version of the mainline) for the more conservative and confessional URC wasn’t as easy and obvious as many seem to assume it should be. To get the Reformed confessionalism one also has to hold his nose very often at all the soft-to-hard neo-Calvinism and Reformed version of evangelical sub-culture ghetto. There seems little understanding of the difference between a wayward denomination and a false church. The patriarchs deem the CRC the latter without seeming to grasp that if male leadership is a mark of a true church that makes Rome more orthodox than the CRC that hasn’t to my knowledge denied the gospel (though embracing paedo-communionism brings them closer to Baptists). I’m no egalitarian either, but I’ll take a woman who maintains the three marks before a man who stumbles over them.
Todd, I find schooling to be the hinge in all of this where we’re at–even among the 2kers, everybody turn into a neo-Cal when it comes to education.
LikeLike
Doug, I understand what you believe. Now, interact with the Paul’s distinction in 1 cor 5 without diminishing or flat doing away with it per your deconstruction postmillenial triumphant hermenuetic or New England’s.
1 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 the church[b] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
LikeLike
Doug,
Nice to see you have calmed down. Internet discussion makes self-discipline more difficult, but cudos for showing it. Keep pressing on with your self-discipline!
As for the moral law, it is not that you are wrong in what you say, but you are only focusing on one aspect of the picture, which is the third use of the moral law. In that sense the moral law through both testaments reflects God’s will for his people and his character. Of course as a non-theonomist I would disagree with you on what is included in the moral law, but that is another subject.
We are dealing with the first use, or second, depending on your tradition, that the Law drives us to Christ. The Law in Deuteronomy came with a curse, and note that the curse is in not obeying all of it – Deut 28:1,15 “If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth…However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:…”
Jesus needed to fulfill the moral law by obeying God perfectly and thus meriting the blessings of God for us. And he needed to take upon himself the curse of the Law – Gal 3:13 “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…” We needed to be saved from the curse the law pronounced upon lawbreakers. This is what it means that Christ fulfilled the moral law for us. We can say this while still affirming what you want to affirm above concerning the third use of the moral law.
John Calvin: The Moral Law leads believers to Christ. Showing the perfect righteousness required by God, it convinces us of our inability to fulfill it. It thus denies us life, adjudges us to death, and so urges us to seek deliverance in Christ. (Institutes, Chapter 7)
LikeLike
Todd says: “Nice to see you have calmed down. Internet discussion makes self-discipline more difficult, but cudos for showing it. Keep pressing on with your self-discipline!”
Thank you Todd! I have to run now, but I will respond later, God bless you!
LikeLike
Todd – The reformed churches could have been the solution, but as the 90′s progressed, the home school only movement, Doug Wilson classical culture warrior educational model, theonomy, patriarchy, etc…began to find a foothold in the reformed churches, which caused many conservative evangelicals to look elsewhere.
Erik – Pastoral question: How do you deal with these folks when they come to your church? If they haven’t, they will.
LikeLike
Zrim – To get the Reformed confessionalism one also has to hold his nose very often at all the soft-to-hard neo-Calvinism and Reformed version of evangelical sub-culture ghetto.
Erik – Zrim, You need to move away from Geneva, I mean Grand Rapids. Out here in the hinterlands you at least have a fighting chance. I might have a good job for a solid Reformed man who is willing to relocate to Central Iowa. That’s not a requirement for the job, but if I can give it to one of my cronies, all the better.
LikeLike
Erik, yes, that is the one. I cannot find it.
LikeLike
Doug – Even though I know you kidding, about me dressing up, how about giving me a break? I’m on good behavior, not blasting anyone.
Erik – I know, and no man has been prouder of another since Norman Dale admired Shooter for staying on the wagon, but I figure it’s o.k. to throw one out there in anticipation of your next blast.
LikeLike
D.G.,
In light of Tom’s blast, I say we all lobby the civil magistrate to require a breathalyzer to be installed and submitted to on all devices allowing people to access the internet. Tom surely would have failed.
LikeLike
D.G.,
It’s Posted May 16, 2013 at 8:50 am
LikeLike
Erik – Pastoral question: How do you deal with these folks when they come to your church? If they haven’t, they will.
It depends. Sometimes after one sermon, or hearing that my three teenage boys attend public school, or seeing that both Republicans, Democrats and non-politicos are welcomed here, they make a quick exit. But one way to deal with it is never to be desperate for members. If people cannot handle Christian liberty and cannot get along with others, we do not encourage membership, but recommend they consider a church where they will be happier. But often the preaching of the gospel of grace, the practice of Christian liberty, and the teaching of genuine reformed theology change them and they begin to relax, and eventually make wonderful members.
LikeLike
Erik, thanks, but Mrs. Z. would never consider relocation without it involving sun and surf. Plus, anymore I’m more of a sticker than a boomer, even if it means sticking in Little Geneva (to her great chagrin).
LikeLike
Zrim,
Must be that public schooling – Iowa does have sun and surf
http://www.thelostisland.com/attractions/water-attractions/tsunami-bay.aspx
LikeLike
Zrim,
In between the freezing cold & the heat, humidity, and mosquitos this place is paradise. You won’t find a nicer 6 weeks of the year anywhere (spread sporadically over 9 months). The Dutch settlers who stopped here and stayed must have been somehow defective.
Of course $10,000 per acre farmland isn’t bad to own if you bought it for less than $2,000.
LikeLike
Todd,
Good advice, although too many people are stuck and strange ruts and seem to be beyond changing.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’ll have to hold out for Sean.
LikeLike
I’m looking for someone to manage close to 1,000 apartments, mostly occupied by college students. Never a dull moment. Dealing with Doug is good practice. Patience & maturity are a must.
LikeLike
Erik, am I allowed to shoot ’em when they try to recite me tenant laws they heard about from one of their buddies who heard about it from his girlfriend’s friend who heard about it from her sister in her paralegal class at the vocational school? Cuz, if that’s the case and MM can clear out the downstairs and back porch, I’ll freelance. I get scale plus 5% of whatever I recover.
LikeLike
To add my two cents to the discussion in the wake of Bobby’s post: I embraced the Reformed faith maybe ten years ago after roughly 14 years in broad evangelical parachurchism. I entered into the NAPARC church scene with tremendous hope fueled by the notion that I had finally arrived in the true church. My first attempt to join a bona fide Reformed church involved a Kellerite PCA church that would not let me join because apparently the session felt I was not on board with them doctrinally. (I did go through a serious cage phase, and perhaps they viewed me as a potential troublemaker.) It’s a good thing because a few months later, they departed from the PCA and joined the RCA. My second attempt involved an OP church that I soon discovered was shot through with Shepherdism that had been instilled by the pastor over several decades. I couldn’t figure out why I, a novice, was onto this, but almost no one else was aware. I finally joined a third church (OP) but before long I went through kind of a heartbreak period after realizing I still not landed in the kind of church that I was hoping for, and probably wouldn’t. In the years since there has been much reducing of expectations. The OPC has lots of problems it seems to me, but I don’t know that one can do better.
LikeLike
Sean,
No, but you do have to listen with sympathy to the girl who says she needs to keep her unauthorized cat because it is inhabited by the spirit of her dead baby.
You do need to show the apartment on short notice that is occupied by two lesbians who have copies of Penthouse lying open all over their bedroom floor.
And you do have to evict the horder who has a nasty habit of wiping his boogers all over his bedroom wall.
I’m not doing a great job of selling the position, am I?
You do get to play basketball and go out for drinks with me after work, though.
LikeLike
David,
Perhaps the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is a two way street. God causes us to persevere in the faith while we attempt to persevere in the church with our fellow knuckleheads. It truly is like a family.
LikeLike
Doug,
Do you both affirm that the moral law is our rule of life? And if it is, what do you mean, when you say Jesus fulfilled it?
Honestly, I don’t know how I can help you here. I have already quoted the Catechism on this issue, but that’s apparently not enough. You seem to be implying that one cannot affirm the third use of the law while also holding that Jesus fulfilled the moral law, but your problem is with standard Reformed theology. I don’t have anything to add to Todd’s answer. Jesus fulfilled the moral law on our behalf by His active obedience (meriting our entitlement to heaven) and His passive obedience (bearing its curse). Can you agree with this? It seems to me that your theonomy (and perhaps FVism?) is keeping you from seeing some things that are very basic to Reformed theology.
LikeLike
Erik, yeah a big dysfunctional family. With our perfected doctrine and ecclesiology we still manage to screw things up royally for each other. No doubt that’s all somehow part of the sanctification process though….
LikeLike
David,
Setting aside personality-related dustups that are common to people everywhere, the biggest problems I observe are differences of opinion over (1) How people deal with the Law of God, and (2) “Revivalism” vs. “Formalism”. You get the occasional person who is concerned with exclusive Psalmody or other other minority positions, but most other disputes seem to fall into those two categories. There are also ad hoc situations that arise that elders have to deal with that members either agree or disagree with.
One thing that’s interesting to look for: People who bring books (other than the Bible) with them to church on Sunday morning. The books they bring says a lot about them and what their hot buttons will be. If people are bringing Puritan literature with them, they will most likely have an opinion on (1) or (2) above. Likewise if they are bringing family-centered-church stuff, theonomy stuff, etc. If they are bringing Calvin or the Confessions there will not likely be any problems. The more they are focused on the theologians of the Reformation as opposed to theologians of later developments, the smoother things will generally be.
LikeLike
Todd,
I agree that the PCA started going foul in the mid-90s. I joined the PCA in the early 90s, but moved back into the mainline in 2004. I think fundamentalism started to break down in the 90s, and the fundamentalist freak show started making its way into a lot of conservative Reformed churches.
LikeLike
David,
I agree. The OPC is a much better choice than the PCA. I travel to the west suburbs of Chicago occasionally, and have been to the OPC church in Wheaton a few times. It seems like a fine place.
There’s definitely something of a cultural divide between mainline churches and evangelical churches. Twenty years ago, a lot of Reformed churches seemed to tilt toward the mainline cultural ethos. In recent years, they’ve moved in the other direction. But when one is raised on wine and cheese, it’s hard to do grape juice and Velveeta.
LikeLike
Bobby,
I remember, after visiting my first conservative reformed church in the 90’s for a time, saying to my wife; what seems to unite reformed people is not theology or shared history, but hatred for Bill Clinton.
LikeLike
Todd – but hatred for Bill Clinton.
Erik- But P&R people can evolve. Now they hate Barack Obama.
Nothing like emerging from a great Sunday morning service and having someone grouse about what the Democrats are doing during coffee time. Can’t we just at least talk about sports?
LikeLike
Erik,
Setting aside personality-related dustups that are common to people everywhere, the biggest problems I observe are differences of opinion over (1) How people deal with the Law of God, and (2) “Revivalism” vs. “Formalism”. You get the occasional person who is concerned with exclusive Psalmody or other other minority positions, but most other disputes seem to fall into those two categories.
I completely agree. I think I’d feel very much at home in a truly Old Side sort of church. I will admit that I’m in the exclusive psalmody camp, not so much because I’m convinced of the position, but rather because I am not (yet?) convinced of the propriety of singing non-canonical songs in worship, given what we confess regarding the regulative principle. Hence it’s a conscience issue. I may one day be persuaded otherwise, as many of those I most respect think otherwise. I don’t think I need to apologize too much for holding this view though, as it is consistently Old Side.
LikeLike
Todd,
That’s an interesting remark regarding hatred of Bill Clinton. I did not vote for Bill in ’92, but did in ’96. In general, I thought that Bubba was a pretty decent President. I never grasped the hatred of the man. Nor did I grasp the unquestioning adoration of George W. Bush. I went back to the PCUSA in October 2004 when my PCA church held a prayer service to pray for the re-election of GWB. While I preferred Bush to Kerry, it just didn’t strike me as an appropriate cause for a prayer service.
LikeLike
David,
An Old Side church would be quite fine by me. I suspect that it would be a very rich and hearty place, like a fine Cabernet.
LikeLike
And Doug, since I know you’re wondering, I can happily, gleefully, sing any of the Psalms.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Over the last couple decades I’ve seen a lot in the pews of an OPC church: theonomy, patriarchy, educational dogmatism, hyper-Calvinism, and bickering over music from all sides. That’s just a representative sample. To borrow an illustration from DGH, we just want to be vanilla, meaning we just want to provide solid preaching (free from hobby horsing) along with simple & sober worship. The above list is largely pointing toward folks that aren’t content with vanilla and have wanted us to serve something else, not just to them but to everyone. But if we just keep doing what we are supposed to do those folks either drift off to another church or stay and, at least to some degree, conform/mature.
So I see what you are saying, but I question whether the horizontal aspects of the church ought to overide considerations about the preaching and overall theological integrity of a denomination. It seems to me that if the preaching and worship are sound one should put up with lots of stuff from pewsitters rather the contrary of accepting unsound preaching in order to escape the oddballs.
LikeLike
David R.,
I have no problem with that position and would have no problem if my church was exclusively Psalms. I don’t fight about it either way. I’m just thankful we don’t sing “love songs to Jesus” (as if he was my boyfriend) and/or happy-clappy-hokey stuff.
LikeLike
David, re reduced expectations, more reason to be skeptical of even Reformed enthusiasm.
LikeLike
Todd, I’ve always liked Clinton’s thumb nail for determining political preference: “If you think the 60s were mostly a good thing, you’re probably a Democrat. If you think they were mostly a bad thing, probably a Republican.”
The spiritual version (neo-Cal alert): If you think Billy Graham is mostly a good thing, you’re probably a born-again evangelical. If mostly a bad thing, probably a confessional Protestant.
LikeLike
MM- It seems to me that if the preaching and worship are sound one should put up with lots of stuff from pewsitters rather the contrary of accepting unsound preaching in order to escape the oddballs.
Erik – I knew a couple that were evangelists for Doug Wilson & the CREC. They had a role in converting me to Reformed theology (by subscribing to Wilson’s sermons and having them sent to me for a few years). They joined a PCA and weren’t too impressed with the URC I joined. I ran into them a few years ago and asked if they were still attending the PCA. They weren’t — they were attending a liberal Episcopal Church in their hometown. I think they said the same thing as Bobby (although for different reasons — for them the PCA wasn’t right-wing enough), but I have no clue how they could stomach liberal, Episcopalian preaching.
LikeLike
As I’ve told my consistory, I can stomach almost any non-officer weirdness provided they allow me a reasonable quota of eye-rolls.
LikeLike
Erik, I once drove all the way to Chicago with a theonomist. What was I thinking? Well, that trip is 5 or 6 hours so we talked. I mentioned the distinctions between some laws which are positive and some which are inherently moral. I described a situation in which one would truly be doing the right thing by breaking a traffic law (to prevent accident/injury). He never got over that conversation. Years later he talked about my positive law sophistry and indifference to traffic laws.
He left us for a CREC after it became clear that he was not going to have a leadership position in our church. Then, in a move that defies explanation, he left the CREC and joined a Lutheran church near his house.
LikeLike
MM,
I think I might know that guy. The CREC is a long haul for anyone in Central Iowa. You have to go all the way to Pella. I think what is happening in those situations is some folks would rather be the one P&R person in the midst of non-P&R people than an idiosyncratic P&R person in the midst of more “mainstream” P&R people. Kind of like “I’ll maintain my distinctive beliefs in an environment where people won’t challenge them.” They probably keep quiet in those non-P&R churches whereas they feel compelled to push the envelope in a P&R church. The problem I would have is entering in fully time-wise and financially in a church where I knew I didn’t agree with much of what was going on.
LikeLike
I flirted with theonomy as a newly Reformed guy way back when. It seemed to have some plausibility, and I remember kind of confronting Michael Horton after a lecture he gave, I think at an ETS meeting. When I finally read Kline a few years later however, the theonomic fog completely lifted.
LikeLike
I used to debate with the Pella CREC pastor, Brian Nolder, quite a bit on Facebook. I think he said he smoked cigars with Hart at least once. Smart, interesting guy but definitely not 2K. I also used to (try to) debate with the really funny, friendly CRC pastor from Newton. He seemed like a good man. He didn’t really want to argue, though. The two of them were working together to bring Jeffrey Meyers to Central Iowa to lecture on Paedocommunion. Debating theology on Facebook is a wild ride and almost caused my wife to ring my neck. Way too broad an audience. She banned me.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Part of the confusion on education is surely due to real problems facing public education. Non-2kers muddle them as non-2kers are wont to do, but documentaries like “Waiting for Superman” or “Nursery University” highlight critical matters regardless of whether public schools are presumed targets of Psalm 2.
We bought a home in a great district (afaict) just in case, but antipsych drug use, sexual confusion, and horribly inadequate education are only three factors that will likely, God willing, keep our daughter at home for a while.
LikeLike
M&M, I’m shocked your “so called” theonomist friend couldn’t answer your query. Dr. Greg Bahnsen taught it’s not only *okay* to lie, in certain circumstances, but you would be a fool if you didn’t! Remember Rahab the harlot? She is the in the faith hall of fame, because she miss-led (lied) the guards to go the wrong way!
Really Mike, you need to hear Bahnsens’s lectures on ethics, because you have grossly mis-understood Bahnsen and theonomy. Breaking speed laws to get to the hospital on time to save a life, is not a violation of thenomy! One would be a fool not to speed if a life was at stake. Bahnsen has even lectured on this! Why would you misrepresent him?
T
heonomy is not some wooden legalistic approach to law. There is no conflict between theonomy and the fruit of the Spirit, or wisdom and theonomy. Theonomy exposits the very wisdom of God. The penal sanctions seek to exact an eye for and eye, as in perfect retribution for crime in a socio political sense.
Finally, your story reeks of gossip. So one thoenomist you happen to know who couldn’t answer an easy question, represents all theonomists?
Puleeze!.
LikeLike
David R.
Kline had a very unbibilical approach to typology, that no one in the reformed world has been able to pin down his novel view of it. His intrusion ethic was a conceptual contradiction. In my way of counting that’s two very bad mistakes. I would encourage you to re-think Kline’s brand new notion of typology, and his intrusion ethic.
So while you may think Kline solved your problems, I think it’s just an illusion.
That just my humble opinion brother.
LikeLike
Doug, Kline is theonomy’s kryptonite.
LikeLike
Mike, better public school advocates readily admit its problems and even recognize the necessity of other forms in order to keep things real. Can its detractors return the favor? I can’t say that I’ve heard much.
LikeLike
Doug,
I think you misunderstand MM’s point. Most advocates of theonomy, like you, seem to have no grasp of the broader issues at play, and are more concerned with pointing to the shortcomings of others than in considering the weaknesses of their own position. In fact, in many instances, I’ce come to sense that they have no ability to recognize the weaknesses of the position.
In general, people don’t tend to advocate things that they don’t understand well. As an antitrust attorney, I have a particular view of antitrust law that I believe is best. When asked and in appropriate company, I will advocate for my position. On the other hand, I have a deep sense of the philosophical and economic context of my position, and have a pretty fair grasp of the major weaknesses of my position. The same is generally true of other practitioners of antitrust law. And I suspect that the same is true in most academic fields.
So, why is it that theonomy attracts such a horde of advocates who have little understanding of what they are advocating, and yet are ready to defrock or excommunicate everyone who disagrees with them? It strikes me that such persons’ advocacy of theonomy is merely an advocacy of convenience. At heart, many advocates of theonomy are nothing more than your typical dime-store Arminian Culture Warriors, who have latched onto theonomy because they think it gives them more credibility than the drivel one typically hears from groups like the Family Research Council. But when the rubber meets the road, they have no deep understanding of what they advocate because their only interest in theonomy lies with its apparent utility for opposing things like legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. You seem to be in that same category.
As I said above, theonomy would have been an unremarkable blip on the radar screen had its rise not coincided with the heating up of the Culture Wars in the late 80s and early 90s. Bahnsen would have been viewed as an oddity in the same way that Murray is.
LikeLike
No more Tom Van Dyke? May we conclude that he shone dimly for a time here before flaming out gloriously? No Tom? No Richard? At least Doug is still around.
LikeLike
In case you’re still formulating those summer plans…Q
“Clearnote Fellowship is excited to announce that registration is now open for the 2013 Summer Conference, “She is Our Mother,” to be held July 5th and 6th in Bloomington, Indiana. The theme of this year’s conference builds on the 2012 Summer Conference, “I Believe in God the Father Almighty.”
Christians in America today reject the fatherhood of God by gagging His word and those who proclaim it. They also scoff at the truth that any true son of God must have the church as his mother. When elders are diligent in their care for the sheep, we often refuse their care, bleat, and run off—away from our mother!
In the 3rd century AD, Cyprian of Carthage wrote: “You cannot have God as your Father unless you have the church for your Mother.” In his Institutes, Calvin writes: “But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title of ‘mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her.”
Useful and necessary, indeed! Christ’s church is the mother of all those chosen by God for salvation so join us as we sit under preaching focussed on what our relationship should be to this Mother God has given us, and what it means for her to be reformed in our own age.
The Clearnote Summer Conference is like none other! Our habit is to preach the Word of God rather than to give lectures and talks. We welcome children…”
LikeLike
Bobby, I don’t think you understand me at all. Number one, I am on good behavior, but I haven’t insinuated that anybody should be defrocked or excommunicated for disagreeing with theonomy, EVER!
My beef with Gordon and VanDrunen, on this post was in there understanding of the covenant of grace. I never said they should be excommunicated. I don’t think Gordon should be allowed to teach at Westminter West with his view that the Mosaic covenant is a fundamentally different covenant than the Abrahamic.
But I still consider both Gordon and VanDrunen brother’s in Christ, so excommunication would be ridiculous. It beginning to appear to me, that you are making a habit of labeling people you don’t know. Take me for instance, you don’t *really* understand where I’m coming from, but because you have taken issue with other “so called” theonomists in the past, you tar me, with what you perceive were they’re errors.
Bobby, you are painting with too wide a brush, stop it!
M&M, your post was derisive and seemed to do the same thing Bobby is doing, you act like *one* or a few theonomists are representative of all Christians who believe God’s law has something to saw to our generation.
It’s simply not true, nor is it a good argument.
LikeLike
David R. states: “Doug, Kline is theonomy’s kryptonite.”
Hahahah! David, When Theonomy was reviewed in the “Westminster Theological Journal”, the reviewer Meredith Klein) demanded that nobody be allowed to respond to him in print–and the editor yielded!
These were sorry times for Christian scholarship. If Dr. Kline was really theonomy’s kryptonite, then why was he such an apparent coward? Why not take Bahnsen head on and set the reformed world straight? Do you know the answer?
I suspect Kline knew that Bahnsen would clean the floor up with him. A few men did attempt to debate Bahnsen on theonomy, and their faces were beet red when it was over. So David, for you to say Kline is kryptonite, is rather curious, IF Kline really believed that theonomy was so easy to disprove, why run from Bahnsen?
LikeLike
Yes, Doug, because theos never unduly impugn 2kers or paint with broad strokes.
“On those grounds Gordon is exposed as a dupe…Van Drunen is the problem, not the solution. Moreover…I wouldn’t let anyone I love or care for, get near that poor excuse for a theologian…I believe Van Drunen’s living in God’s two kingdom’s is a snare to the body of Christ. The large majority of reformed thinkers agree with me!”
Pot, kettle, black.
LikeLike
Oh, and Bobby, it was Dr. Meredith Kline was questioned Dr. Bahnsen’s Christian credentials, saying “any covenant child can see the error or theonomy”, also calling theonomy of gross perversion of the Bible. So was Kline saying Bahnsen wasn’t a covenant child? That’s quite a charge, for a man not willing to debate his opponent in public.
Back to David R., if Kline really believed that *any* covenant child could see the error of theonomy, why did he run from Bahnsen, who politely asked for a debate? To re-use Bobby’s insulting description of me; it looks like Kline ran like a *little girl*.
BTW Bobby, I’m not running from you or anybody else.
LikeLike
Doug, to the extent that it undermines the faith, theonomy is a function of unbelief. But that’s not to impugn anybody’s piety. We all have unbelief abiding within, as in, “Lord, I believe, help me in my unbelief” or simul justus et peccator. Calvin said we go to our deathbeds with an unbeliever still within. The point is to impugn a false teaching, not a person.
LikeLike
Zrim, I never said Gordon should be excommunicated. But I don’t think he should teach at Westminster West since he believes that the Mosaic covenant is a fundamentally different covenant than the Abrahamic. Something that he acknowledges by the way!
BTW, I apologized for using language like “dupe” and other demeaning terms. Why rub my nose in it now? Where is your christian charity Steve?
LikeLike
Zrim, I do believe that Escondido’s 2K is a snare to the body of Christ. And in that respect I’m in the huge majority. I realize that being in the majority doesn’t make me right pe se. But as you should know by now, most Christians don’t buy the notion, that Scripture is exempt in what you call the common realm.
I am going to refrain from using overly demeaning terms to describe men who hold to R2K.
Blessings,
LikeLike
Doug, I didn’t say you said he should excommunicated. I was pointing out the irony of your accusations of labeling, broad strokes, and popping off when you have done so repeatedly.
ps the point isn’t to rub your nose in anything. It’s to say that apologies are great but repentance is better.
LikeLike
Zrim says: “Doug, to the extent that it undermines the faith, theonomy is a function of unbelief.”
Me: It doesn’t. So end of story, end of your argument.
Zrim try actually reading theonomy, so you know what your talking about, okay?
LikeLike
Doug, you can start by dropping the impugning “R.” And 2kers also don’t believe that Scripture is exempt in the common realm. You’re thinking of legal secularists, not Christian secularists. The former actually believe the Bible has a place in civil society.
LikeLike
And by former I obviously meant latter…
LikeLike
Zrim a true apology can only come from a repentant heart. Once again, you misunderstand
LikeLike
Zrim, since I consider myself 2K as did Dr. Bahnsen and Douglas Wilson, maybe you need to come up with another name for you’all. The whole Christian world understands 2K, but 80 to 90% disagree with R2K.
Even the polite DTM calls a spade a spade, he calls your brand of 2K radical. He thinks it’s very dangerous for the body of Christ. That’s quite different than calling you an idiot, which I will refrain from doing. Deep down, even though you frustrate me, I love you in Christ. I will try not to insult you anymore, please do the same.
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me!
LikeLike
MM: So I see what you are saying, but I question whether the horizontal aspects of the church ought to overide considerations about the preaching and overall theological integrity of a denomination. It seems to me that if the preaching and worship are sound one should put up with lots of stuff from pewsitters rather the contrary of accepting unsound preaching in order to escape the oddballs.
Me: This seems to agree with the idea of God choosing the weak of the world to shame the wise. Not many wise, mighty or noble according to the flesh. If I wanted to hang out with really smart cats, though wrongheaded theologically, there was plenty of that sort in RC.
LikeLike
Due process is kind of an annoyance, especially compared with the pleasure of being arbitrary & capricious. So is fairness in general. Having said that, in fairness I must say I had a couple theonomists (among others) to my back deck for my birthday party last year and we had a good time that was free from nit-picking and annoying conversations.
However I will maintain that there is a disproportionate number of theonomists who are like Finney’s new converts who got off the anxious bench and immediately started preaching. Combine lack of substantial learning with a bit of censoriousness, and it can just get ugly.
LikeLike
M&M was New England ugly to you, in the 1700th century?
Have you asked yourself why the first settlers, real old school reformed types were so theonmic? The theonomists were in an overwhelming majority, was that ugly to you?
Do you have contempt for the laws they passed?
LikeLike
Zrim and M&M: This particular question, Do you have contempt for the laws they passed? (1700th century New England) is germane to why theonomists get upset from time to time (It seems to me anyway),
You make it sound like anyone who thinks the LORD’s penal sanctions are still socio political justice, for things like rape, kidnapping, sodomy, bestiality, is a nut job.
I agree that those sanctions are the ideal, how about we all pray that more respect would be shown for God’s law? I think that would be a good thing for any nation.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Doug, I could just as easily wonder why you have contempt for the 2k revisions on WCF 23 and Belgic 36. And you make it sound like just because we’re opposed to OT sanctions for certain behaviors that we’re antinomian, when what we’re saying is that natural law is also God’s law and is the appropriate way to address certain behaviors. The purpose of OT law wasn’t to give the nations a heavenly blueprint for earthly legislation. It was to show us our sin and need for God to fulfill it on our behalf. If theonomy is right then what is the point of Christ?
LikeLike
But Zrim, natural law does not contradict God’s law. So it’s *you* who has to explain how at one time, it was ethical to execute a rapist, but now? Maybe yes maybe no. That’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth. Can basic morality change? Is that possible?
You are on shaky ground, and not the least bit consistent.
Feel free to jump in Bobby, and impress us all with your higher learning.
LikeLike
Zrim, I could very well be opposed to certain old testament penal sanctions being used today, and I call myself thonomic! And so by the way did Greg Bahnsen! You need to actually read TICE for yourself! Theonomy does not preclude wisdom, the light of nature, or natural law. They all share perfect harmony, when seen through eyes of faith.
Let’s come together!
LikeLike
M&M invite me over to your next birthday party, and I promise you it will be one you will never forget! I assure you we would get along famously. I’m willing to bet, you would learn to love me. In Christ of course 😉
LikeLike
I’m reading Venema’s critique of The Law is not of Faith. In a section devoted to an overview of several historical views, he makes some interesting concessions and acknowledges that he finds Witsius’s view “perplexing” and “more confusing than it is clarifying.” Here’s an excerpt:
LikeLike
Yes, veterans of the blogs can name a few “interesting characters” who have boldly claimed Witsius is confused since they read Venema’s essay.
LikeLike
Doug, have you considered that “then” got it wrong for taking a life for a less than capital crime? I can’t help but sense an assumption on your part that “then” was always right and “now” represents the human condition run amok. Your premil slip is showing, a fundamentalist and cynical view of history that says the world is getting worse as time goes forward so that by time Jesus returns we’re all eating our firstborn (postmil is optimistic and says the world is Christinaized enough for Jesus to be able to put his feet back on earth).
But an amil and Reformed view is that the human condition is always the same as time either retreats or moves forward. And sometimes natural law was done right “then,” sometimes not so much, and sometimes “now” it is done right, sometimes not so much, but in no way is any time to be read as necessarily more righteous or evil than another.
LikeLike
David, I did read Venama’s conclusion about Witsius, and was surprised, but not surprised. this just goes to show how difficult this passage is to exegete. My concern with Gordon is that he has demanded that we must except that Paul is drawing discontinuity between the gospel and Lev 18.5
That’s not logical.
If we’re not careful we can wind up “like Gordon”, who thought Paul was teaching about an internal contradiction within the law itself, which is untenable to basic logic. Or we just contradice ourselves like Witsius seemed to do.
The Mosaic covenant was essentially a covenant of grace. Mankind is already under the curse of the law which was death, but the Mosaic ceremonial ordinances exhibited Christ in type, shadow and promise. so that those Saints who appropriated the law with their faith looking ahead to Christ were all saved from the curse just like we are. They had offerings for sanctification that were efficacious for the time before Christ.
God would never put an impossible standard “Do this and live” to actually mean walk in sinless perfection, which would be impossible. And that’s not what Lev. 18.5 meant in it’s original context.
Sadly, it never occurred to Gordon to expound on what Leviticus 18:5 meant in it’s original context. Why not? Why didn’t Gordon interact with what 18.5 meant in it’s original context? This in my opinion is where Gordon dropped the ball.
LikeLike
Zrim, I believe the world is getting better everyday. God is the author of history, and the story he’s writing doesn’t suck. I am not premil, I am as post mill as it gets. With that being said, God still builds up nations and breaks down others based on his law. A wise nation will esteem God’s law or face the consequences.
But God’s mercies are new every morning and it’s never wise to say that “old” days were better today.
What we can say, is that some nations are more faithful to God’s law than others. Take an Islamic nation that circumcises their girls and punishes Christians.
That is NOT good.
Take America who has allowed legal abortion since 73; that is just begging for God to judge our nation.
LikeLike
Zrim retorts: “Doug, have you considered that “then” got it wrong for taking a life for a less than capital crime?”
Me: Zrim, God said to execute a rapist, not “then”. When God says a homosexual man must be put to death, then that settles it. That makes homosexuality a Capital offense according to the LORD.
It’s not that I relish seeing homosexual men get executed, I don’t! But I fear God, and if God says that’s what they deserve, then that settles it..
Have there been any morally relevant circumstances that have changed since God gave that command? No? Then since God said that settles it.
LikeLike
Zrim, the laws passed in New England were taken straight from the Bible. So when I asked MM if he had contempt for those laws, that’s like asking, do you have contempt for God’s law
You ask me if I have contempt for the revision of the WCF 23 and the Begic 36. I don’t know. In fact, you are asking me if I have contempt for something I am not familiar with. Should I?
The difference is, New England’s laws were taken straight from God’s word, the Confessions are mans attempt at explaining the Bible. Almost certainly imperfectly, since they saw a need to change the Confession.
Zrim, do you have contempt for the original WCF?
LikeLike
David R. says: “And Doug, since I know you’re wondering, I can happily, gleefully, sing any of the Psalms.”
Me: I’m glad David!
LikeLike
Doug,
Please go read Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 18:5. You’ll find that he too “contradicted himself.”
LikeLike
Doug, postmil is the paedocommunionism of eschatology (mirror errors). Its optimistic view of human history is naive to the extent that it seems non-cognizant of abiding human sin even within those humans being redeemed, as in HC 114. The world is not getting better everyday and in every way–it’s the same as it was the day it was sent packing east of Eden.
As far as the revisions, you should be familiar their history if you want to engage 2k:
https://oldlife.org/2010/09/point-of-order-even-for-covenanters-2k-is-confessional/
https://oldlife.org/2009/12/do-kuyperians-ever-listen-to-kuyper/
LikeLike
Doug, postmil is the paedocommunionism of eschatology (mirror errors). Its optimistic view of human history is naive to the extent that it seems non-cognizant of abiding human sin even within those humans being redeemed, as in HC 114. The world is not getting better everyday and in every way–it’s the same as it was the day it was sent packing east of Eden.
As far as the revisions, you should be familiar their history if you want to engage 2k:
https://oldlife.org/2010/09/point-of-order-even-for-covenanters-2k-is-confessional/
LikeLike
And here:
https://oldlife.org/2009/12/do-kuyperians-ever-listen-to-kuyper/
LikeLike
David, says: “Please go read Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 18:5. You’ll find that he too “contradicted himself.”
Me: David, I’m not too sure that’s true. Calvin uses *law* in so many different senses, that he can be very hard to understand at times. I do the same thing! Often times, it sounds as if I’m contradicting myself, when I’m really using *law* in it’s different it’s different usages..
However we understand Galatians, 3 let’s not make Paul out to be saying; that the Mosaic covenant offered two ways of salvation that were in antithesis with each other. That is both illogical and untenable to other Scripture. It is also an assault to common sense and the law of non-contradiction. The, covenant of grace, (all the post fall covenants since Gen. 3:15 were centered in Christs gracious saving work of Christ. Once Christ accomplished redemption we put away shadows, and Israel’s civil polity, but not the moral nucleolus. We still retain the marrow, or the general equity of the law.
But as for salvation?. Any other way than Christ, is false way. So in *that* sense, the Mosaic law was the same of the gospel as today, both were centered in Christ.
LikeLike
Doug,
Calvin’s comments on Leviticus 18:5 are clear as a bell: “Elsewhere also he [Paul] reasons by contrast, where he contends that the Law does not accord with faith as regards the cause of justification, because the Law requires works for the attainment of salvation, whilst faith directs us to Christ, that we may be delivered from the curse of the Law. Foolishly, then, do some reject as an absurdity the statement, that if a man fulfills the Law he attains to righteousness; for the defect does not arise from the doctrine of the Law, but from the infirmity of men, as is plain from another testimony given by Paul (Romans 8:3). We must observe, however, that salvation is not to be expected from the Law unless its precepts be in every respect complied with; for life is not promised to one who shall have done this thing, or that thing, but, by the plural word, full obedience is required of us.”
LikeLike
Doug,
I know you don’t like me quoting stuff, but bear with me. WCF 8:4 says that Christ “was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it.” Now I know you would probably want to say that what this refers to is Christ fulfilling the ceremonial law, not the moral law, right? Well, Shaw’s commentary explains it this way:
Are you sure you want to reject the teaching that Christ fulfilled the moral law on behalf of His people?
LikeLike
Dan Savage reviews Jeff Chu’s “Does Jesus Really Love Me?”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/books/review/does-jesus-really-love-me-by-jeff-chu.html?pagewanted=1&nl=books&emc=edit_bk_20130412
LikeLike
Bobby posted May 15, 2013 at 7:03 pm: “Erik/Darrell, I mean no disrespect to Mr. Keister. It just wasn’t clear why he was being cited as an authority.”
Understood, and clarification appreciated.
I think the point was that Rev. Keister, who has done a lot of “behind the scenes” work in the fight against the Federal Visionists, has recently written on the “queen of the sciences” concept.
I’ve used that language in the past, most recently just a few years ago. I probably wouldn’t do so today, not so much because I don’t think the concept can be defended, but rather because I’ve become less and less happy with the medieval Catholic concepts that typically attach themselves to that language. I think the Federal Visionists, based in part on their appreciation for studying Latin and for their appreciation of both Roman and medieval history, have managed to resurrect a lot of things which the Reformation buried.
LikeLike
David, I am not willing to deny that Jesus fulfilled the law. But I need to pray and study a bit more, to articulate what I see as a distinction between how Jesus changed the ceremonial’s and how he upheld the moral demands of God’s law.
LikeLike
Darrell,
I was able to locate Keister’s write-up on the “queen of the sciences” issue. I would note several points.
First, Keister nowhere asserts that agreement with the “queen of the sciences” is a test of orthodoxy. As you will note above, Doug suggested that certain professors should face dismissal from their teaching positions due to their failure to agree to this point. In that sense, Doug seems to be running a bit further with the concept than Keister.
Second, Keister is probably correct in attributing the downfall of the concept to Kant. Therefore, it’s odd that Doug would join Keister in promoting the concept. After all, theonomy is deeply indebted to Kantian epistemology. Simply put, without Kant, there is no Dooyeweerd, no Rushdoony, and no Bahnsen. Kant’s idealist epistemology lies at the heart of theonomy. In contrast, Old Princeton rejected Kantian epistemological concepts, and adopted a realist epistemology along the lines of Thomas Reid. Doug’s unwitting rejection of Kant again suggests that he doesn’t understand the basic philosophical concepts underlying the theology he espouses.
Third, I’ve not really understood the purpose of the FV guys attempting to position themselves as Presbyterians. I enjoy reading Peter Leithart, and believe that he is a brilliant theologian. That being said, I always suspected that he was Anglo-Catholic. It’s not clear what he gains from trying to shoehorn Anglo-Catholicism into a Presbyterian context. I’m not saying that it can’t be done. But it’s not clear to me what’s accomplished by it. In other words, the Westminster standards may be sufficiently broad so as not to exclude certain Anglo-Catholics. But that doesn’t explain why an Anglo-Catholic wants to dress up and play Presbyterian on Sundays.
LikeLike
Bobby: “, I’ve not really understood the purpose of the FV guys attempting to position themselves as Presbyterians”
I find it best to view it as a very very sick joke.
LikeLike
Darryl Todd Mauina, I complement you for being such an gentlemen and a joy to read, as you interact with other believers. I pray for God’s grace that I would emulate your level headed responses to brothers you disagree with. I also enjoy your usually cogent points. No one is right 100%
But I have Dr. RC Sproul’s short book “What Is Reformed Theology?” (Understanding the basics) right in front of me;, and in his introduction he has a section “Queen of the Sciences.” He wrote the book in 97, but I’ve always thought this was uncontroversial stuff. I was under the impression that all old school reformed types *knew* that theology IS the Queen of science. I thought that’s basic reformed foundational truth.
Are you saying that RC Sproul should have left (theology being the queen of science) out of his book?
LikeLike
Bobby, RC Sproul is a Princeton man, who has rejected theonomy, but I still love him dearly. It was RC Sproul who first taught me that “theology” is the “Queen of science”.
I don’t claim that believing theology being the “Queen of Science” is a test of orthodoxy, but I would be shocked if an officer in the OPC isn’t aware of it.
I was wrong for lashing out at MM and have humbly apologized for insinuating he’s not officer material. So please quit attributing that premise to me, okay?
LikeLike
Bobby says: “Simply put, without Kant, there is no Dooyeweerd, no Rushdoony, and no Bahnsen. Kant’s idealist epistemology lies at the heart of theonomy.”
Me: Huh? Bobby how can that be? As Dr. Meredith Kline conceded, our WCF is primarily a theonomic document, as well as the revision. Calvin believed in the DP for adultry, rape, blasphemy, and sodomy. These were the controversial penal sanctions that Bahnsen confirmed in TICE.
Quick question Bobby; Since the men who penned our Confession in 1646 were theonomic, why say it was sourced on Kaunt?
LikeLike
Read two nice articles this morning in Hart’s P&R Dictionary on Presbyterians and Intellectual Life by George Marsden and the Netherlands Reformed Churches. We have a few people who come out of the latter in our church that I tend to tangle with on some issues.
I need to get the newer edition of that book. I wonder if it has an article on Bahnsen?
LikeLike
Doug – As Dr. Meredith Kline conceded, our WCF is primarily a theonomic document, as well as the revision.
Erik – There goes Doug, belting out his one and only Kline reference again, in spite of repeated warnings not to. What is your source for that, Doug?
I guess he also criticizes Kline’s “Intrusion Ethics”, per Bahnsen:
http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv16n1a1.htm
LikeLike
Another confirmation that Sproul refers to theology as the Queen of the Sciences, have seen it in at least one book…
LikeLike
That Jeong Koo Jeon paper I link to above is fascinating. Kline had an amazing mind.
LikeLike
Doug,
The point you’ve made, even if true, would not undercut my assertion. Certainly one can employ realist epistemology and idealist epistemology and arrive at the same conclusions on certain issues. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I would say that Kline is something of a Kantian as well, but he goes in a different direction than the theonomists have.
Regarding Sproul, I don’t think that he’s actually authored too many of the books that bear his name. To the extent that he approved the use of the term in question, I suspect that Sproul did not appreciate the significance of it. If one were to engage Sproul on the issue, I imagine that he would qualify what he meant by the statement. I suspect that he is using it in a more watered-down sense, i.e., merely commending the importance of theological reflection.
LikeLike
Erik asks: “Erik – There goes Doug, belting out his one and only Kline reference again, in spite of repeated warnings not to. What is your source for that, Doug?”
DGH keeps deleting my quotes from Kline. But Kline did say that enforcing the first four tables is theonomic. And all the men who penned the WCF believed in enforcing the first four tables.
That is theonomy on steroids.
Bobby, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
LikeLike
Bobby back peddles: “The point you’ve made, even if true, would not undercut my assertion,”
Me: It most certainly does! Why do you *think* the men who penned our Confession came to their *theonomic* convictions?
The same reason Dr. Greg Bahnsen did! It’s called being consistent with Scripture Bobby! You should try it some time!
LikeLike
Doug,
Why do you suppose that I even care what Kline said? A number of equally able Reformed theologians have disagreed with Kline’s assessment. Ligon Duncan, for example, wrote a piece criticizing Kline. Besides, I’m not a particular fan of Kline; I’m more of an Old Princeton guy. From my vantage point, I see Bahnsen and Kline as suffering from some of the same philosophical problems.
Your quote of Kline should keep getting deleted because it proves nothing. It especially proves nothing to those of us who view Kline with the same suspicion that we view Bahnsen. I would say that Kline provides a helpful critique of Kline from within a Van Tillian framework. But there are plenty of us who aren’t Van Tillians, and who therefore don’t need to resort to Kline.
Based on your writings, it’s not even clear to me that you know much about American Presbyterianism outside of the narrow issue of the Bahnsen-Kline debates of the 80s and 90s. Stuart Robinson, for example, probably provides a more cogent rebuttal to theonomy, although in a different historical context. Other Southern Presbyterians are helpful as well.
LikeLike
The second sentence of my second paragraph, above, should read:
I would say that Kline provides a helpful critique of Bahnsen from within a Van Tillian framework.
LikeLike
Bobby, it’s amazing to me, that men (such as yourself) with such *higher* leaning, can be so muddled, and off base. Are you inferring, that the men who wrote our Confession, (who had definite theonomic convictions) employed a different epistemology than Greg Bahnsen?
Can you make that assertion with a straight face?
Wouldn’t both *our* reformers; and Greg Bahnsen, go straight to the Bible for their epistemology, as in Sola Scriptura? Please say yes!
To answer your query, RC Sproul has written more than sixty books! I guess your right, that’s not too many, right? Are you really reformed? How could you not know that? OVER SIXTY BOOKS!
Geesh, please apologize Bobby before it’s too late! You’re making me look calm, and analytically objective!
Stop it!!!
LikeLike
Bobby asks: “Why do you suppose that I even care what Kline said?”
Me: Because only Kline came out with a (quote unquote) critique of theonomy that needed Bahnsen to reply. The rest (reformed community) just bellowed and complained. Only Kline came out with his “intrusion” ethic.
This intrusion ehtic is the foundation or platform, for Gordon and VanDrunen, to attack theonomy. Sadly, Kline’s intrusion ethic fell far short and was found to be a conceptual contradiction..
Earth to Bobby! There is no other *cogent* critique of theonomy! If I’m wrong, then spit it out brother! I”m all ears!
LikeLike
Doug – Because only Kline came out with a (quote unquote) critique of theonomy that needed Bahnsen to reply. The rest (reformed community) just bellowed and complained. Only Kline came out with his “intrusion” ethic.
Jeon – “Kline’s ‘intrusion ethics’ is certainly startling and innovative. He published his first landmark article on the subject in 1953. However, there has not been much subsequent discussion on this important issue since then. Greg Bahnsen, a Reformed theonomist, provides a brief but severe criticism of Kline’s intrusion ethics.”
Erik – Kline came out with his intrusion ethic to respond to Bahnsen when Bahnsen was 5-years-old in 1953? Wow, Bahnsen was some kind of prodigy…
LikeLike
Frankly, Doug, this conversation is over. I specifically pointed you to critiques of the theology you espouse besides Kline. I also pointed you to at least one person who’s offered a cogent argument that counters your suggestion that the Westminster divines were all Bahnsen-style theonomists. The fact that you’ve elected not to review these sources says more about you than about me.
Also, I’m discontinuing this discussion because you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. My main reason in coming here is tied to my interest in realist epistemology and its role in ethical reasoning. Realist epistemology has generally prevailed in Christian circles. It certainly prevailed at the time of the writing of the Westminster Confession. But following the fundamentalist-modernist controversies, the fundamentalist side, contra Machen, has generally opted for theories of knowledge that lean in more of an idealist direction. In practical terms, this has led to a devaluing of reasoning from general revelation and a concomitant stretching of special revelation to speak to all kinds of issues that are beyond its purview. The 2K project is interesting because it represents an effort to recover the Reformed natural law tradition from Biblicism.
You have made it clear that you are unwilling to veer from your Biblicism, and are unwilling to concede that one can gain any truth from observation of the created order. So be it. But the rest of us do, and would like to have an intelligent discussion about such matters. We can’t seem to do that, though, because you insist on coming here and instigating food fights, hurling insults, and generally intruding into discussions that are beyond the scope of your study. Your conduct is akin to someone going to a blog about wine-tasting, and posting comment after comment related to the evils of alcohol and the merits of temperance. Again, such conduct says more about you than it does about anyone else here.
I close with a quote by Gordon. Your puerile conduct on this thread only proves him to be right.
“[Theonomy] is the error du jour, the characteristic error of an unwise generation. It is the error of a generation that has abandoned the biblically-mandated quest for wisdom on the assumption that the Bible itself contains all that we need to know about life’s various enterprises. It is the proof-textual, Bible-thumping, literalist, error par excellence. It is not merely the view of the unwise, but the view of the never-to-be-wise, because it is the view of those who wrongly believe that scripture sufficiently governs this arena, and who, for this reason, will never discover in the natural constitution of the human nature or the particular circumstances of given peoples what must be discovered to govern well and wisely.” -T. David Gordon, in The Insufficiency of Scripture
LikeLike
Tornado expected to hit my town in 16 minutes. It’s been a pleasure if it doesn’t turn out well!
LikeLike
Made it. No damage except to my wife’s plantings.
LikeLike
Bobby, what you write about epistemology caught my eye. Are you studying or teaching philosophy? My own sense of the idealist turn in Reformed circles is the devastating consequences of the French Revolution. Just as the papacy went into lock-down mode and eventually made neo-Scholasticism dogma, so Kuyper reacted against the French with Hegelian flourishes of Christian w-w. The French Rev. had little effect on the U.S. by the Civil War (as near as I can tell). But when “the secular” became the bogey of the Religious Right and now the Vatican, idealism and philosophy looks like the best response (I guess).
LikeLike
Erik,
Glad to hear it. One great thing about the East Coast is you have no fires, earthquakes or tornadoes (mainly) — only hurricanes.
LikeLike
Bobby says: “you have made it clear that you are unwilling to veer from your Biblicism, and are unwilling to concede that one can gain any truth from observation of the created order.”
Me: No Bobby, you misunderstand me; I believe man can gain truth from the created order. It’s just that if it really is *truth*, it can’t contradict Special revelation, which we *know* is truth. As, “Your Word is truth”, if we are to be logical.
As for your interest in realist epistemology and its role in ethical reasoning, that is WAY over my head. I’m just a layman, but I always enjoy learning more about these subjects. I find them fascinating, but I will not be able to weigh in with any gravitas.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Bobby, you need to read “Covenantal Theonomy” A Response to T. David Gordon and Klinean Covenantalsim, by Kenneith L. Gentry, Jr. TH.D.
Gentry made Gordon eat his words. In fact, Gordon was humiliated beyond repair in Gentry’s careful devastating response. Everything Gordon sarcastically said about theonomy, came back on him a hundred fold. When a wiseacre like Gordon makes such provocative allegations, and then gets his clock cleaned, it’s rather funny.
Bobby, I assure you after reading Gentry, you will lose respect for David Gordon in general.
LikeLike
Bobby, word to the wise brother, you are in Kline infested waters here at Old Life. I’m thrilled you view Kline with suspicion. I view him with incredulity. But beware, DG, Todd, and David R. and David Gordon, not to mention VanDrunen, all think he was a blue brilliant genius, and they rely heavily on his peculiar slant on typology.
So you will be fighting an uphill battle.
LikeLike
Erik, read Bahnsens response to Kline’s intrusion ethic. He pounds Kline’s intrusion ethic into absurdity.
And Erik, once Kline’s intrusion ethic goes by the wayside, theonomy becomes logically inevitable. Bahnsen was a logician, who proved this in TICE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in my most humble opinion. No one else in the reformed community has attempted a cogent logical argument against theonomy. Only Gordon, who fell WAY short, in his critique of theonomy.
God bless you, and your home. I’m happy things worked out for you!
Rest in his completed work,
LikeLike
Bobby,
And the OldLife Award for Insight for How We Are Where We Are goes to you. Please follow up with a lengthy acceptance speech, as we will gag the guy who queues the “wrap it up” music to give you a word in edgewise.
Second, Keister is probably correct in attributing the downfall of the concept to Kant. Therefore, it’s odd that Doug would join Keister in promoting the concept. After all, theonomy is deeply indebted to Kantian epistemology. Simply put, without Kant, there is no Dooyeweerd, no Rushdoony, and no Bahnsen. Kant’s idealist epistemology lies at the heart of theonomy. In contrast, Old Princeton rejected Kantian epistemological concepts, and adopted a realist epistemology along the lines of Thomas Reid.
I can only give a hearty amen to a guy who traces all that has plagued the Reformed world back to Kant. Sheesh, can’t we let a Prussian’s bad ideas die in modern day Poland? I don’t think there is any way to do justice to Reformed Orthodoxy, or the lingering champions thereof at Princeton without giving serious pause to the incursions of Kantian idealism into erstwhile Reformed Orthodoxy. You get there through the field of ethics, I got there through the OT, and the realization of the abundance of Natural Theology therein – for example, the extensive use of Egyptian wisdom lit (i.e the Wisdom of Amenenope) in proverbs, and then James Barr’s work Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (BTW MM, do you still want me to mail you a copy?). From there stumbled upon the forceful essay by D.R Trethewie (A Critique of Cornelius Van Til), who goes after Van Til’s Kantian program with vicious precision.
IMO, I genuinely hope that there will be an emerging segment amongst Reformed Orthodoxy that sets aside the older Kuyperian and Van Tilian experiments with merging Reformed theology with Kantian idealism, and opts for an older understanding of Reformed Orthodoxy, utilizing both Natural Law and Theology, from a modified Thomistic perspective, as this seems more in line with the catholic impulses of the Reformers all the way through the Orthodox period.
I can’t call myself Klinean, since I haven’t read enough of him to form a solid opinion one way or another, and my OT training owes to other scholars, so I have no particular take on him positively (as many in the 2k camp do) or negatively. When one who wishes to be well read, he makes the switch to Reformed Christianity, there is a tacit commitment to a 10+ year reading list, and I am only 5 years in. So like DGH I am really interested in how and why you have come to your conclusions.
LikeLike
Sorry about the obnoxious HTML error on italics…
Doug,
I wouldn’t take Bobby’s critique of Kline as a compliment to your theomomistic views. In fact, they are probably a rejection of theonomy backed by 200+ years of scholarship during the period of Reformed Orthodoxy. If you read the Trethewie essay, I will read any of your Banshen material. In the very least it will give a solid basis for future discussion. If I don’t reply right away to your inquiries, it is only because I am up to my eyeballs in poopy diapers, and a new job – but I’ll definitely read the comments here.
LikeLike
Bobby – Your conduct is akin to someone going to a blog about wine-tasting, and posting comment after comment related to the evils of alcohol and the merits of temperance.
Erik – You’re confusing Doug for Richard.
O.K. Maybe it applies to both.
LikeLike
Jed, sounds good. Look in your email.
LikeLike
Kline’s point with his intrusion ethic is that we see things in the Old Testament like God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and God telling the Israelites to completely wipe out the Canaanites that don’t seem to make sense in light of what we know of God from the New Testament. Kline’s theory is that these are pictures of more ultimate realities. In Isaac’s case it was a picture of God sacrificing his own Son. In the Canaanites case it was a picture of the judgment at the end in which God will truly judge the non-elect without mercy.
The problem with Theonomy is it takes these pictures and attempts to apply them to what Kline calls the “common grace” era. There is continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament and the world today. Theonomists stress continuity more than is warranted in Kline (and most Reformed people’s) opinion. I think others (like Patriarchal Family Centered Church advocates) make similar errors. We have to determine the things in the Old Testament that are normative and the things that are figurative.
LikeLike
Doug, Gentry? Puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze.
LikeLike
DGH Gentry made mince meat of Gordon. If this were a boxing match, it would have been called in the first round. Gordon was soundly trounced. Gentry’s book made Gordon out to be a sloppy hack. Gordon couldn’t prove even one of his three main points. He lost on all scorecards.
Read it and weep.
LikeLike
Erik, Kline goes even further with his “intrusion ethic”. According to Kline, the penal sanctions in the law, were an intrusion of punishment on the last day.
If you going “huh”? Good for you! What a steaming pile of something we both wouldn’t want to step in! Number one, were all the punishments the death penalty? No? Then what on earth is Kline babbling about? There were only a hand full of DP sanctions found in the law, many sanctions were not DP. So is Kline saying a thief won’t go to hell? So much for his “theory” eh?
But on the last day, all sin/crimes will be DP, even thought crimes. This is where Kline is at his worst. And no one in the reformed community has been able to reconcile Kline’s intrusion ethic to the reality of Scripture. Kline asserts something, that cannot be proven, or even hinted at, in Scripture, therefore it needs to be discarded, imho.
We all have a stark choice men, it’s either theonomy or automomy!
P.S. Read Bahnsen’s reply to Kline. It’s the mother of all slam dunks!
LikeLike
Erik, are you saying when a man like Hitler slaughters over six million Jews, that wasn’t a judgment from God? Was God sitting in heaven, with his hand stuck in his shirt?
I don’t know about you, but I still believe God is in complete control. And everything that transpires can only happen because God has foreordained it to happen, (for his good purposes) just like in the old testament. We may not know why, things happen, but we can rest assured that God still builds up and tears down. Using different means (nations) at his disposal.
Just a cursory overview of history should tell us, that God does not change in that respect. Whole groups of people still get wiped out. When one group kills another group, it’s all done by the hand of God, no?
What about when God says:
Isaiah 10:5
“Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury!”
Me: Are you saying that God doesn’t do that today? Has God changed?
I think not!
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Gentry
Doug,
Gentry sounds smart but rather narrow. Do you have any advocates that you can cite that are not so tied to Bahnsen?
Do you embrace his preterism, postmillennialism, and take on alcohol as well?
LikeLike
Erik, this is the same “Bobby” who *thought* Dr. RC Sproul hadn’t written many books, right? The same “Bobby” who wasn’t aware that theology is the queen of science, right?
Even with his higher learning and all, he seems curiously out of the “reformed” loop a wee bit, no? But then, no ones perfect, just look at me for proof!
I still love you Bobby, especially since you arent’ fond of Kline, but I’m looking at you, with squinty eyes 😉
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Doug,
The death penalty applied to violations of commandments 1-5, didn’t it? Hard to enforce those outside of the context of ancient Israel. That seems to be a picture of the judgment to come at the end, not a prescription for modern society.
We don’t know when something is God’s judgment in this era. How could we? If you get killed today, what conclusion can the rest of us draw as to why that happened?
As Paul Simon so eloquently said, “God only knows. God makes his plan. The information’s unavailable to the mortal man.”
You remain a 21st century Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, getting way more attention than you deserve on slow days around here.
LikeLike
Erik, yes on partial preterism, postmillennialism, and yes on drinking. In fact Erik Gentry’s book “God gave wine” is the best book on alcohol. It’s fantastic!
FWIW, Dr. RC Sproul wrote a book proving partial pretersim called “Last Days According To Jesus”. It’s a must read for anyone who is “reformed” and is still not a partial preterist.
It’s a slam dunk!
LikeLike
Erik, once you become a partial preterist, your eyes will be opened to Revelations in a new and exciting way. It will start to make sense, and be much less confusing.
Oh, and Erik once you get done with TICE, I will gladly send you a copy of Gentry’s “Covenantal Theonomy”. Even you, with your skeptical view of theonomy will have to confess that Gordon dropped the ball in his *attempt* to discredit theonomy.
LikeLike
If I got killed today, your right. (I am just one man) But when six million get slaughtered can we say this was of God?
I say yes. We might not know *why* they were killed, but we can rest assured that it was by the hand of God. So in that sense, God still uses nations, even evil nations, to execute his will on peoples and nations. God doesn’t change Erik. Just because we don’t know why God does what he does, let’s not say it’s not God, when it is in fact God who build up, and tears down.
Let’s be God fearing men, amen?
LikeLike
Erik, let me retract something. If I got killed today, it would be God’s will. But we couldn’t say for sure why I was killed, that’s part of God’s secret will. It’s the same when God uses one nation to slaughter another, we know God foreordained it to happen, but we can’t say for sure, *why*.
We just know that God doesn’t change, and whatever happens winds up happening for our good. Those of us who love the Lord and are called according to his purpose. Just because we can’t say for sure why these things take place, we know that God caused it to happen for very good reasons.
Does that help?
LikeLike
Erik,
You might want to check http://thegentryfiles.blogspot.com/ in addition to the wiki page. I’m not sure why it’s so obscured on the internet. Anecdotally, FVists are militant wiki editors.
LikeLike
Ahem, Doug. What would the penalty be under Theonomy for Dr. Gentry’s crime to which he confessed? Did he self-impose the penalty as a consistent Theonomist?
I am on the verge of that crime today since I played basketball and forgot clean underwear. Really having to check the fly…
Affirming God’s Providence and saying we know what He is doing are two different things. All we can say of the Holocaust is that there has been a lot of virulent anti-Semitism for at least 2,000 years and Hitler was in a position to act on it. Why would you assume God is judging the Jews and raising up the atheistic Soviet Union at the same time? You don’t know that. You do theology like a 12-year-old boy or a 90-year-old woman.
LikeLike
Erik, you listen like a ninety year old woman. I said I don”t know *why* God judged the Jews in Hitler’s Germany,, but he surely did judge them, no?
Or was God taking a cat nap, while Hitler had his way with them? Did that slip by God’s fore-ordination? Was God indifferent to that slaughter, or was he the author of it?
I’ll take the later, although I confess since I’m not God’s counselor, I don’t know the exact reason behind it.
You confuse the fact we don’t know the exact cause and reason for God’s displeasure in a particular horific event, to the fact,that he does cause Storms and Hurricanes, and droughts to fall on mankind as a form of judgment. For his good reasons that only He knows! That’s when we need to fall down on our knees, and worship him! Christ is Lord of the storm! His ways are higher than our ways!
Unless you believe God only used the droughts to punish mankind in the old testament. Or that God only used disease to punish man in the old testament; do you believe that God has changed?
Didn’t Jesus threaten a church that he would put them in a sick bed if they didn’t repent? Isn’t that using disease to punish his own church? Then why wouldn’t God punish evil cultures for the same sins and punishments, he threatens his church with?
Think about what your saying Erik!
LikeLike
Mike K. gossip is never befitting a believer. Moreover, you are using misdirection. Ken’s book demolishes Gordon, and makes him look very unprepared.
LikeLike
Mike K. you sound like (the accuser of the brethren) himself on the last day, trying to bring up all of God’s elects sins, to reverse our verdict founded in Christ Jesus.
If it won’t work then, why try it now on God’s elect?
Truth is truth. And Gentry proved Gordon not only false, but ill prepared and sloppy.
LikeLike
Doug,
“Nimble” and “Your Mind” are an adjective and a noun that never shall meet.
Not sure how what Mike K. produced is “gossip” if they are public documents. Inconvenient to you, yes, gossip, no.
Under Theonomy what would Gentry’s punishment be? Are you sore that he did not get it?
LikeLike
Erik, try to focus on the issue, and not gossip. And yes Erik gossip can be of the pubic record, have you ever heard of National Enquirer?
Back to the subject at hand Erik, do you concede that God still uses disease to punish mankind today?
LikeLike
Doug,
Some days I’m convinced you have to be a put on.
“Public Record” means public documents, as in issued by a governmental body. Anyone can request to see them.
“The National Enquirer” is a magazine, duh.
I’m happy to continue the conversation when you answer my questions about Gentry. I hadn’t even heard of him until you brought him up.
Biblically, am I to trust the theological writings of a man who may not even meet the requirements for a church officer or minister? You need to convince me.
LikeLike
Using Mike K,’s poison pen logic, we should never listen to one word spoken by King David, after all, he not only danced *naked* before God, (and the people saw), he also committed murder.
Can you imagine a smirking, scoffing, Mike K, attempting to poison anything King David said after using public testimony, especially the *naked* part? We would have to do away with the Psalms! I say let’s do away with Michael K lol!
Michael, which of us can say I have no sin. Neither you nor I were there, let’s leave it at that. Pure gossip at its most evil. Stop it!
LikeLike
Erik, even if Ken Gentry did something wrong, that is irrelevant to his critique of Gordon. One has nothing to do with the other. So what is Gentry sinned? Does that change anything? Aren’t you going to sin today? Come on Erik, you really need to grow up, and look at the argument, not side issues.
Don’t get sucked into Mike K’s gossip candy. Don’t you know the best gossip, is true!
Let’s start walking and talking like MEN not a bunch of hens.
LikeLike
Doug,
Was David a king or a priest?
1 Timothy 3:1-13
New International Version (NIV)
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
LikeLike
Erik, I get a laugh when people say, it’s not gossip, it’s true!
So is we find out John Calvin sinned one day, do we throw his writings away? Didn’t Peter sin so bad that Paul had to rebuke him to his face? Something far worse than walking in his house naked! Peter was dividing Christ’s church by the ceremonial law! God forbid! What could be worse than that?
Do we throw out first and second Peter?
LikeLike
Erik, David was both Prophet and King, and a man after God’s own heart.
LikeLike
You shot this one, Tarzan. You eat it.
LikeLike
Erik the irony is, that you seem WAY more legalistic than me, who is a theonomist. I see mans sins and foibles, as a given. You see a brother accused of walking in his own house naked, and throw a hissy fit. Or was that Mike K?
You and I were not there, but the women admitted that Gentry was not trying to come on to her. I see this as a non-issue. There is nothing in the law, that would indict Ken Gentry for what he is alleged to have done.
Grow up guys!
LikeLike
DGH:
I’m not a philosopher, just a lawyer. As a litigator, I think a lot about how to frame a case in terms that try to make it clear why my client’s cause is just (or at least partly just). Such reasoning inevitable relies on a realist epistemology. In other words, it assumes that people, though fallen, have a sufficient appreciation of the natural order to recognize the difference between justice and injustice. And, in my experience, the system seems to work pretty well most of the time. In almost every case, the side with the better arguments wins.
So, all this talk of worldviews and theocracy strikes me as a bit odd. It seems that a significant sector of the conservative Christian world thinks that we live in a lawless state, where all hope of gaining knowledge from the natural order has been lost, and where only some externally imposed idealist system can rescue the culture. And I scratch my head in bewilderment, wondering how these folks manage to leave the house without Xanax.
I became interested in realist epistemology because it is closely tied to the functioning of our Anglo-American legal system, at least for conservatives. I also went to a talk by Nick Wolterstorff while I was in law school, and became further interested in the topic. I’ve read a bit of Van Til. I find him helpful when he’s channeling Machen, but less so when he’s channeling Kuyper. Kline seems to have done a fine job of unifying the Van Tillian system of thought into something useful, although I’m content to stick with Old Princeton. I became interested in the “Old Life” project at the urging of an OPC pastor in the Chicago area who recommended reading Stuart Robinson, DVD, and you. Keep up the good work.
LikeLike
“Bobby, you need to read ‘Covenantal Theonomy’ A Response to T. David Gordon and Klinean Covenantalsim, by Kenneith L. Gentry, Jr. TH.D.” -Doug
Yeah, I’ll do that right after I read “Touched” by Jerry Sandusky.
LikeLike
Jed,
Thanks for the award. When I visit my firm’s San Diego office, I’ll stop by and pick it up. I hope that it comes with beer or some like beverage.
I was also reflecting a bit more on your question. It probably helps that I took several theology and philosophy classes in college, and have had an interest in theological ethics for a while. I was dissatisfied with Barth/Hauerwas approach to ethics, and went off in search of something more satisfying. I made a pitstop at legal pragmatism, and read a lot of Posner, Coase, and North (Douglass, not Gary). They taught me to disdain Kant. And then I ran across Wolterstorff, who taught me to disdain Kant even more. Most folks here seem to have arrived via some experience in fundamentalism. I’ve arrived here by running away from the Barthian ethics of conservative mainliners.
I’ve recently been reading Scruton’s “I Drink Therefore I Am”. So while Kantian’s have their problems, they at least know their wine.
LikeLike
Erik, what an ungodly hit piece! I read it, and still don’t know the circumstances. So how am I supposed to respond? Do I *think* Gentry did something ungodly or unlawful?
I don’t know what to think about this poison pen. But I am more curious about the identity of the troll that put that gossip strewn, web page together. Seems like he has an agenda, an evil agenda. Like someone got their toes stepped on hard! So they feel the need to keep brothers like you, from reading Gentry mopping the floor up with Gordon.
In our State (California) we criminalize things that are not sin/crimes according to God’s law, and turn around and make things legal, that God deems worthy of death. California is bass ackwards, when it comes to our sex laws. Talk about screwed up! So more often than not, we get things mixed up.
Since I don’t know the circumstances I choose to give Gentry a judgment of charity. But this really goes to prove my point. Gentry blistered Gordon! So much so, that *someone* is going through a lot of trouble to divert our attention from Gordon getting his pants pulled down (metaphorically) in front of the reformed community. Talk about embarrassing! Gordon’s book was indecent in a theological way. Far more wrongheaded, than Gentry allegedly walking around nude, in his house.
With that said, I think we should all lift our brother Kenneth Gentry up in prayer. And let’s really lift up Mike K. up for his gossip problem.
BTW, I read Gentry’s response before ever I heard this bazaar story.
LikeLike
Doug,
Your definition of gossip is lacking. Whatever Gentry’s arguments are, he is an office bearer in a Reformed church, making him a public figure. He was convicted of a crime, all Mike did was link to a site that reported the facts of the case. If your pastor was a sex offender wouldn’t you like to know? The PCA gives a lot of latitude to its officers, he fact that they would not allow him to continue in office says a lot.
For all of your arguments about theonomy, and the need for public godliness, you sure seem to ne circling the wagons around one of your own. If he plead guilty to a crime he claims he was falsely accused of then he has violated the ninth commandment, and should be censured for that. This is all matters of public record, to say he is a convict is simply telling the truth, not gossip.
LikeLike
But Jed, no official facts of sexual abuse have come out! Unless you believe one can be a sex offender by walking nude in your own house. How is that a crime according to God’s law? The alleged victim (a house nurse) confessed he didn’t make an advance on her. He never touched her! He wasn’t aroused! She just felt uncomfortable. I think the story is weird, and I don’t make a habit of walking around naked, but I would need to know a lot more about the facts, before I would call Ken a sex offender.
I mean, California found O.J. Simpson not guilty of murder! We are famous for getting things backwards. In our State up is down, and down is up. It’s perfectly legal to do all sorts of depraved acts that God calls death penalty offenses, with the blessing of our State. But walking nude in your own house? Sex offender.! I just don’t think that passes the smell test.
Isn’t Satan always trying to discredit Godly men? Why take California’s verdict as gospel?
Perhaps, under California law, Gentry was guilty, even though he did nothing wrong in God’s eyes. Like I said, I don’t know all the circumstances or the facts.
Gentry pleaded no contest. He didn’t think he did anything wrong.
Finally, the poison bile of the author, said that Ken Gentry should go to the CREC where he belongs. Sounds like the author of that blog needs more prayer than Ken Gentry. Someone has a heart filled with bitterness and hate. And a hatred for the CREC! Let’s pray for this poor tortured soul, who has such anonymous for Ken Gentry and the CREC.
Let’s pray for one and all but the author of that post, the most!
LikeLike
Bobby, thanks.
It is the quest for integration that seems to afflict theonomists, neo-Cals, and Roman Catholics. I happen to believe integrated living is up to God. He didn’t reveal enough for us to make things whole. Sometimes “order” of a partial but worthwhile kind happens simply by people pursuing their limited and piecemeal lives. But that doesn’t yield human “flourishing” or cosmic order so it’s not good enough for the integralists.
LikeLike
Doug, wow, there’s a surprise. Charity for theonomists, scorn for 2kers. Good to see you’re teachable.
LikeLike
Doug,
You know I’ll defend you when I think you are right, but you really have me scratching my head here. Indecent exposure is a crime and a general equity violation of the 7th commandment. As a theonomist, you are aware that priests had to wear special undergarments so that their nudity would not be seen as they traversed temple/tabernacle staircases. Ham was cursed for making light of Noah’s nakedness. The police report on Gentry included some very disturbing details, and according to the nursing service this incident was not isolated. The nurse was forced to look on a naked man without consent, while being in a place where she was vulnerable and couldn’t easily call for help.
In the eyes of the law, whether or not his intentions were of a sexual nature, or if he just practiced poor judgement on what was appropriate is immaterial to the crime of indecent exposure. Heck, college kids get dinged for it for mooning people in public, which is not necessarily sexual, but still a crime.
That said, this has little bearing on his arguments against Gordon, but it is a character issue. All crime is public, and to discuss it publicly, or even offer an opinion on the matter is not gossip. That is why I think you are circling the wagons because he is someone you agree with. You can still agree with the guy, but I don’t there is much defense for his actions.
LikeLike
DGH, believe it or not, were VanDrunen or Gordon caught in a sex scandal, I wouldn’t use their sin to discredit their writing. One doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the other. Now, if it came to light, that Gentry was walking in sexual immorality for years, that would be a different matter. But walking in your own house nude, does not a sexual predator make. Especially since the woman admitted that there were no advances, contact, or lewd behavior.
This could have been a set up, no?
I oppose Gordon and VanDrunen for what they say. If they fell into a sin, I would pray that God would restore them back to his bosom. But to discount their work, because of an unrelated sin, is not good scholarship, and it shouldn’t be a part of our conversation.
Can’t we look at Gentry’s argument in a rational manner? If his argument is good, then it’s good!
And DG were you to fall into a scandal, I would fall on my knees and pray for you.
LikeLike
Jed, how do you know so much about this incident?
Maybe I am behind the eight ball, because I hadn’t heard all you just said.
.
LikeLike
Jed, even King David sinned in a very evil way. But if Ken Gentry hasn’t repented, then that is problematic. But I still haven’t heard enough, or know enough to where I’m willing to throw him under the bus.
This really messes up the book he was ready to come out with on Revelations! It hurts his credibility with a lot of guys like Erik, who I wish would read some of his stuff.
LikeLike
By all rights yesterday should have been a wonderful day for cycling. I should have been able to lose myself in cadence, sweat, and Radiohead. But just when I was on the edge of entering into The Zone, I started thinking about a a middle-aged theonomist in the nude waiting for his nurse. Thanks a lot, guys.
Bobby: I didn’t know anyone read Posner after law school. But I’m wondering if there was a specific work among the authors you mentioned that critiques Kant.
LikeLike
My wife & her identical twin sister used to live next door to each other. Actually, they still live next door to each other, but in a different town. About ten years ago our next door neighbor, a father of four who was raised in fundamentalist churches and Christian schools, took to routinely going upstairs to his room, taking off all his clothes, and looking at the two women in the yard through his window. It became quite predictable. If he came home and they were in the yard we knew he would be naked in the window in a few minutes. Finally we called the cops on him and it stopped.
Similarly in Ames within the past decade an elder & layman who frequently preached in his Baptist church while they were without a pastor was picked up in a local park in the nude. He resigned from his job running an academic bookstore. He is still in town and I have talked to him a few times. He seems to be a nice guy with a wife and grown kids.
In my observation this “getting nude” thing seems to be something that afflicts some Christians, particularly those who have been raised as fundamentalists in an environment where sexuality has been seen as something shameful to be repressed. They begin to have desires that they can not control and they manifest themselves in these strange ways. They are not violent, they are not rapists, but they lose self-control and discretion as their desires overwhelm them.
While I am inclined to deal with these men with compassion it does make me seriously question certain elements of fundamentalism, Theonomy, patriarchalism, and other “oddball” movements within Conservative Christianity that many of them seem to come out of.
LikeLike
MM:
I love cycling too. I can’t wait until I can move back to the Midwest and hit the road. My current environs offer me nothing more than overcrowded paved trails. I usually just ride them on by MTB to give myself more of an aerobic challenge.
I had a large case settle recently, and have had a lot more free time than I expected. So, I went to the pool later than usual this morning. The lane next to me was occupied by a middle-aged man in a thong. I just kept thinking, “He must be a theonomist.” After about 10 minutes, another lane opened up, so I moved away.
Posner seems to critique Kant by way of Rawls. Wolterstorff seems to provide the best critique, given that he converted from neo-Calvinism. I’ve more or less stopped reading Posner; some of his formulations are a bit wooden. I don’t have any specific recommendation because I’m in the process of moving and my books are all packed away. Wolterstorff’s recent book, “Justice”, provides a helpful critique of divine command theory, which is central to all idealist epistemologies, including theonomy and neo-Calvinism.
LikeLike
Bobby,
Thanks for your response, I’ll have more to say about it when I have time to reply in-depth.
I haven’t read any of Posner’s books, but I do enjoy checking in on the Becker-Posner blog. Over the years they have always had interesting commentary on economic and legal issues.
LikeLike
As a subject of the original blog post, I check back in on this conversation every few days.
I never cease to be amazed by what keeps the conversation going.
Nudity?
LikeLike
When I was in high school there was this guy named Zevs Cosmos who would hang out around the Iowa State Campus. He was trying to get an Ames Nudist Christian Church off of the ground. One day he was no more and we heard he had been deported to Canada. I just looked him up and he has a Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zevs_Cosmos
LikeLike
Brian, to understand that turn in the conversation you have to go to the Gentry link.
LikeLike
Bobby I have an open invitation to Old Lifers to join me on Iowa trails. Today I ran over a snake with a rattle that is not a rattle snake. Anyway I’m getting the Wolterstorff book on justice to read at the OPC General Assembly that starts early June.
LikeLike
Great destination for this year’s GA! I went to a work-related retreat i the Diablo Valley a few years ago, and enjoyed the area a lot. There’s some decent hiking close by, and Napa is just 45 minutes away.
LikeLike
Thanks, Mikelmann. I knew where it came from… I just marveled at how we got there.
LikeLike
Might be a bit late for this conversation, but speaking once again of public prayer and 2K, what do we make of Jacob blessing Pharaoh in Genesis 47? Presumably, this must have taken the form of a prayer, “May the Lord bless you…” It’s not clear it was *public* per se — it may have been something like a private audience — yet it was a believer praying on behalf of an unbelieving public official. And it likely would have had an official air to it, whether there were court attendants, or not. While this is OT precedent, it is during the patriarchal period, which is generally thought to parallel the NT status of believers quite closely.
Just curious on your thoughts.
“Then Joseph brought in Jacob his father and stood him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said to Jacob, “How many are the days of the years of your life?” And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my sojourning are 130 years. Few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their sojourning.” And Jacob blessed Pharaoh and went out from the presence of Pharaoh.”
LikeLike
Brian, a believer praying on behalf of an unbelieving public figure seems kosher. It’s indulging an invitation by a public or private figure to take a turn before and after idolaters that seems to lack biblical warrant.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I don’t see why that matters. So what if they invite others to pray who are not believers. Why can’t a true Christian pray for the government at their request? I still don’t see what Brian did as a compromise, as long as he was able to write his own prayer and not hide the truth.
LikeLike
Brothers,
I suppose this is not the best place of put this. But I read very few blogs but was directed here a short time ago. I will express a general reaction to what I believe is a false critique of the Reformed tradition I have been raised in concerning “Civil Religion”.
This is not a theological critique. It is a biographical explanation. I sometimes wonder if the critics of civil religion were raised in a Reformed community. Evidently not. When I hear that my upbringing was permeated with civil religion I wonder what that means when:
1. My Grandmother would challenge me and ask me if I was dating an “American”? For her that described a non-Christian. American culture was in her mind identified with non-Christian. She never confused American with a Christian nation. She sometimes confused American with non-Christian.
2. My Grandfather was born in the Netherlands, a member of the state church after the split of Kuiper, fed a social gospel, participated in social events in the church but never bothered to actually go to church “services” anyway. He immigrated to the U.S. after WW1. Became part of the Dutch community in MT only to find that is was more Christian than Dutch. Was converted under the preaching of the word and became a passionate disciple of Jesus Christ. He taught his children and grandchildren the importance of the word and a godly piety. He sent his son to a Christian High School in Iowa because there wasn’t one in MT. He was instrumental in starting a Christian High School, a local mission work which developed into a local congregation, he served as an elder for many years, he was asked to lead the members of the congregation who did not know English and “read” sermons in Dutch weekly for many years (Although he told me he had to paraphrase these sermons because they were usually over an hour long), and he worked to both establish and became a resident of a Christian retirement and nursing home. He traveled back to the Netherlands to see his family on the Queen Elisabeth on its maiden trans-Atlantic commercial voyage and wept as prayed for the first time in his life with and for his father and mother. They never professed faith in Jesus Christ as far as we know. He was a humble man saved by grace. He knew the antithesis of the Kingdom of light and the Kingdom of darkness. He understood the dangers of civil religion and a state church. He knew the depravity of man and the personal experience of being saved by grace. I am thankful to God for His testimony in my life in words and deeds.
He loved the United States. But he never thought of America or the Netherlands as “Christian Nations”. I have never preached or taught that America is a “Christian Nation”. In general then I sometimes wonder what tradition is being berated as promoting civil religion.
Oh, unless starting a Christian School is somehow civil religion.
Casey Freswick
Pastor, Bethany URCNA
Wyoming, MI
LikeLike
Todd – Zrim,
I don’t see why that matters. So what if they invite others to pray who are not believers. Why can’t a true Christian pray for the government at their request? I still don’t see what Brian did as a compromise, as long as he was able to write his own prayer and not hide the truth.
Erik – Do we want to contribute to the delusion that it is great for people to have religion and it doesn’t particularly matter what that religion is? Why not just pray for the magistrate from church? Why go there?
LikeLike
Casey,
Go to Cosmic Eye, Iron Ink, and Baylyblog and report back to us on whether or not you agree with what you read.
LikeLike
“Do we want to contribute to the delusion that it is great for people to have religion and it doesn’t particularly matter what that religion is? Why not just pray for the magistrate from church? Why go there?”
Erik, yes, I see your point, and it is valid. I guess I saw it as simple courtesy. He was asked to pray for the government at a particular place. It just seems a bit rude to say no because of some leaders’ lack or religious knowledge, or superstition. But on the other hand, if a club in my city had a different religious leader from a different religion open with prayer each month, I probably wouldn’t participate if asked. It does seem to come down to a matter of personal conscience.
LikeLike
Todd, you may have missed the earlier exchange Brian and I had in which I posed the question of whether it would be prudent to take turns praying for a neighbor whose son was ill in between Mormons and Muslims. Brian said no because “… that’s horribly confused. Since it is a neighbor (and not a nation), we could explain this to him: ‘Our gods are incompatible; if any one of them is real, they won’t honor you hedging your bets by seeking prayers be made to all of them, prayers to Christ are honored because of our faith in the merits of Christ.’”
I agree with Brian when the question involves a neighbor. I don’t understand what changes when it becomes a nation. In both cases, it seems to me true religion is reduced to civil pragmatism and suggests that Christianity is one amongst equals. Why can’t praying for nations and neighbors be something done only in Christian homes and houses of worship where the antithesis between true and false is maintained?
LikeLike
Casey, start away. But have you considered that the logic of Christian schooling shares much with the logic of Christian nationing, namely that there is a redemptive version of a creational task (education, nation making). And since Christian nations and schools make room for those who don’t have a particular confession unlike churches, how do they not breed civil religion?
LikeLike
I don’t think I ever linked to this. It’s a collection of excerpts from Congressional prayers, and helps with the context of these issues.
http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/yes-they-really-prayed-for-that/
LikeLike
Todd,
Yes. I don’t have a strong objection. I’ll admit it’s a tough call. I think Rev. Lee said a good prayer.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I have not considered seriously that the logic of Christian schooling shares much with the logic of Christian nation making.
Do you know the historical context of Christian schooling in the Dutch Reformed tradition?
There were actually two schools of thought. But both arose out of a common historical reality related to the relationship between church and state. Do you know what that was? And why when they came to the United States, a “Christian nation” with Christian public schools did they start private Christian schools?
Also, from your perspective do you think that public and private “secular” education does a good job of the creation task of education without blurring the distinction between the creational task and the redemptive task?
Casey Freswick
Pastor, Bethany URCNA
LikeLike
Casey, my own guess is that the Dutch Reformed were more or less trying to maintain a measure of cultural and religious cohesion as an immigrant group in the New World. That actually makes a lot of sense to me–“in our isolation is our strength,” saith CVT. But the kids have inevitably assimilated and so now what might the point be? Instead of something like CVT’s dictum, one usually hears something about worldview, which to old life ears grates.
Re the public and private secular education doing its job without blurring the creational and redemptive lines, it can be a toss up. Sometimes secular education knows that its job is primarily intellectual and leaves the affective to the home, sometimes it doesn’t and behaves like neo-Calvinism and thinks the school is co-extensive with the home. I know neos like to characterize public education as only and ever doing the latter, but my own experience is a little more nuanced.
LikeLike
In my comment above, I should clarify that Cosmic Eye is way better than Iron Ink or Baylyblog. Dr. K is a reasonable fellow, Rabbi Bret & The Baylys not so much.
LikeLike
Public education is such a mixed bag and those of us who went through it or witness our kids going through it know that. You have the great teachers and the buffoons who aren’t fit to work the drive through at Wendy’s teaching and coaching your kids — at the same time. My hope is that my kids at least know how to read (we teach them before they go to school) & do math and learn that some of their peers are cool and some of them are morons. Once they graduate they can experience the world, figure out what they’re interested in, and begin their real education.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I would not doubt that “in isolation is our strength” was a factor in Christian education. But that is like saying the CRC broke off from the RCA because they used English in worship services. True for some but not the heart of the issues.
The common factor of the relationship between church and state to both the ones supporting Christian education rooted in a perspective of “sphere sovereignty” and those with the perspective “in place of parents” was the persecution of the state and the state church of faithful pastors and churches and parents teaching their children. Immigrants did not trust the government to teach their children. They became convinced of a separation of Church and state and family and sate and education and state. They all wanted their schools to be “Free”.
Yes, Christians may learn English but my prayer is that my children and grandchildren would never be assimilated into American Culture, the culture of killing babies in the womb, of 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and of egalitarianism.
LikeLike
Casey,
How do you process my former neighbor who went through Christian schools and, as an adult, liked to amuse himself by standing in front of his bedroom window in the nude while looking at my wife in her yard?
Then there’s the girl I know who got kicked out of Christian school after she got pregnant — at work.
Some people go through Christian school and fail to get a clue.
LikeLike
Casey, so much for the pilgrim theology of being in the world but not of it. That must only apply to adults? Until adulthood, the world of covenant children is Genevan. There’s the Christian nation logic at work.
But, yes, that history tends to play itself out still in the URC where Christian schoolers (“sphere sovereignty”) and home schoolers (“the place of parents”) square off, many of the latter recently coming from the PR where their liberty has been formally trampled. But what they both share just as much as a historical moment is a neo-Cal worldview.
LikeLike
On the topic of education:
Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity:
LikeLike
Zrim,
And then there’s the family I know who comes out of a Heritage Reformed/Netherlands Reformed background who recently went to a homeschooling convention to try to find a husband for their daughter.
LikeLike
Which is their right, but it reveals a lot about how worldview trumps everything for those of a certain cast of mind. The notion being that a marriage can’t work right unless the future son-in-law is in lockstep agreement with the girl’s father on a host of issues that most would say are left to conscience.
LikeLike
Erik – How about this one: I know a couple who bought a new puppy recently, a common breed, though pedigreed, and had it shipped from a breeder on the West Coast (to the Midwest) instead of buying it locally for no other reason than they had found out that particular breeder advertised himself as a Christian.
LikeLike
erik:The notion being that a marriage can’t work right unless the future son-in-law is in lockstep agreement with the girl’s father on a host of issues that most would say are left to conscience.
Yup, even the peasants of a church often think they are royalty and have their moat drawn up and will never allow unrighteous people to ever enter their little home or show their children that a bubble isn’t the best place to live your whole life.
LikeLike
Then again, a lot of kids at my formative church were very fragile and had to be protected from anything remotely alive. They probably at 54 years old are still afraid to take a big city subway by themselves.
LikeLike
Erik, Robinson beats Demar:
LikeLike
George,
In my area of the real estate development world, if a developer claims to be a Christian, prepare to get screwed. We look for honorable pagans to do business deals with. It’s shameful.
Additionally, a few years ago a Christian developer in town sold a building to Planned Parenthood. Nothing like putting a little money ahead of your Christian principles.
We have Christians who go to the same church who sold businesses from one to the other. Then the seller gets mad at the buyer and goes and starts the same, competing business down the street.
Fortunately most of these guys are Baptists.
LikeLike
Zrim,
At least Demar has an optimistic postmillennial eschatology (insert sarcastic emoticon). You wouldn’t know it as he appears to have been weaned on a pickle. You want to ask these folks what their solution is once kids have had this supposed ideal education and they’re still sinners. We really do turn education (whether we’re Christians or not) in this country into an idol.
It’s also worth noting that no one is selling curricula for free.
Here’s my educational plan: Read everything you can, watch everything you can, listen to everything you can, talk to everyone you can, and be a faithful member of a solid Reformed or Presbyterian church.
LikeLike
The counter to “worldview” is confessionalism & Christian liberty. The worldviewists have unwritten confessions and they give the RCC’s catechism a run for its money lengthwise. No thanks.
LikeLike
Erik, a few years ago in an evening CRC service the Headmaster of a Presbyterian day school preached. He was given to dispensing facts and figures. One that he dropped was that only 10% of the families at his school attended weekly services. Whatever else that statistic may indicate, it seemed to imply that baptized academics make up for the neglected means of grace.
But never mind these questions and points, because everybody knows secular education is out to deconstruct Christian faith, so get them to a Christian school of any kind (Eisenhower alert).
LikeLike
“In my area of the real estate development world, if a developer claims to be a Christian, prepare to get screwed. We look for honorable pagans to do business deals with. It’s shameful.”
Experience in both personal and professional negotiation has taught me that anyone who leads with talking about his integrity is about to do something unethical. Similarly, if someone is forward about doing their thing as a Christian, it’s a setup to enter into and accept an arrangement based on something other than quality of performance. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe mediocre performance can be compatible with a wonderful worldview but it happens.
LikeLike
Once there was a guy who went to church with my boss who got after him to meet with me to give us a property & casualty insurance quote. I got him the information and we met so he could give me his bid. After it became apparent that he was way high on price he started by putting down the competing company’s coverage. When that didn’t work he used the “I tithe on all my income” line.
Meanwhile we’ve done business with pagans and nominal Christians on nothing more than a handshake and even when it became apparent that they had left money on the table they followed through and kept their word.
The contrast is one of the most striking things I’ve learned in 20 years of business.
Unbelievers often highly value friendships and relationships because they have come to the rational conclusion that that’s all that really matters in this world. Meanwhile those of us Christians, many of whom have left church “families” several times, sometimes over relatively minor issues, can rationalize throwing each other under the bus without having to come up with much of a reason.
As I said before, it’s shameful.
LikeLike
Bad old-lifers. Bad! You are making me post again. And I quote:
“While doing the paperwork at the dealership for the “new” car, the salesman, noticing my accent, asked me what had brought me to the US. Teaching at a seminary, I responded. Well, well, he said, what a coincidence – the company for which he worked and from whom I was buying the car was a Christian company, owned by a Christian, and reflecting Christian values. At this point, I almost walked out – a Christian company? Give me an honest Jew, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, tree-hugger, or Memphis-based Presleyterian worshipper of “the King,” but, when it comes to service and integrity in business, keep me away from Christians!”
http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/post-44.php
LikeLike
Zrim & Erik,
Well this will be my last post. I now realize why I don’t blog. Trying to carrying on a rational discussion and getting responses that are just a little crazy, over the top, ad homonym, straw men, etc.. Whoever said children who went to Christian schools were perfect or their were not some nut case home schoolers? I am a Pastor that has dealt with the pain of children rejecting the Lord in homeschool homes, Christian school homes and public education homes. These are not examples to trifle with in the discussion we were having nor did I even begin to imply anything different. Therefore, in keeping with not wanting to cast the pearls before the swine I will cease any further discussion.
In His service,
Rev. Casey Freswick
Pastor, Bethany URCNA
LikeLike
“Therefore, in keeping with not wanting to cast the pearls before the swine I will cease any further discussion.”
Rev. Freswick, this was an extremely unpastoral thing to say. Hope you wrote this in a pique and not after due deliberation.
PS When you speak from your high horse people tend to hope you fall off it. It’s human nature.
LikeLike
Remind me not to invite Casey to a bar for conversation. Touchy, touchy…
He comes off as someone who is midway between Bryan Cross & the Baylys. In retrospect he maybe shouldn’t have used his real name if he was going to lose bladder control and flee that quickly. Wow.
LikeLike
Casey, I might have had the same response when you said, “Christians may learn English but my prayer is that my children and grandchildren would never be assimilated into American Culture, the culture of killing babies in the womb, of 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and of egalitarianism.”
Did anybody here even begin to suggest that such an assimilation is what a pilgrim theology is all about? But assimilating might also involve gaining some of the pagan wisdom over which Calvin rightly gushed.
LikeLike
I’ve learned from experience it’s better to just leave than to make something like that your “last post”. It’s reminiscent of scoring a touchdown on the playground and having the guy who was playing cornerback on you take his ball and go home.
LikeLike
The internet is not the best place to express yourself if you think you have to “teach everybody a lesson” whenever you honour the universe with your thoughts on a matter.
There is a time and place for “teaching someone a lesson” especially if they have asked for your counsel and in respect of your office in life. And that is usually a one on one session.
I guess not all URCNA people have a sense of irony, self-deprecating humour, and self control (calling people swine is a loss of self-control, that most underrated fruits of the Spirit).
Sad to see….
[shrug]
LikeLike
If you want to really get to know someone, play basketball with them. There are guys I have literally played hundreds, if not over 1,000 games with and we know each other’s temperments really well. There was a guy I once knew who I only played with a few times. In normal interactions he was mild mannered. One day we were playing and something made him mad. He proceeded to yell something at the top of his lungs, storm off the court, rip (literally, rip) off his shirt, and leave the gym. He never played with us again. I think I saw him at church and socially after that, but we never spoke of that day.
LikeLike
Since the Geneva conventions of 1977, I thought only scorned women were allowed to scorch the earth.
LikeLike
I’m with Kent. When I was new to Reformed churches I thought I had found an oasis from all that bugged me about evangelicalism. The small-mindedness, the self-righteousness, the lack of humor, the lack of nuance, the rigidness. Then I went back for the second Sunday…
Actually my pastor is really cool. Along with him several other cool members of my church, the Westminster West faculty, D.G., and the Old Life regulars, keep my spirits up.
LikeLike
I’ve learned from experience it’s better to just leave than to make something like that your “last post”. It’s reminiscent of scoring a touchdown on the playground and having the guy who was playing cornerback on you take his ball and go home.
Even James Brown knew how many times he could have the cape brought out…
LikeLike
Erik, Reformed is still a much fresher breath than the Dispy upbringing I had. There will always be problems, I know I often have been and often will be the source of many of them.
LikeLike
Since the Geneva conventions of 1977, I thought only scorned women were allowed to scorch the earth.
Russia reserves the right to again scorch their earth if Moscow is invaded in the future.
LikeLike
Erik:Remind me not to invite Casey to a bar for conversation. Touchy, touchy…
But there is no joy in Mudville.
LikeLike
Thanks to Kent I just learned that Dr. K has posted an essay by Elder (and Attorney) Mark Van Der Molen on “Revised Belgic Confession Article 36: The Magistrate is Subject to Both Tables of the Law, The Authority of God’s Word, and Serves to Advance Christ’s Kingdom”. I haven’t read it yet. I stood one foot away from Mark last Sunday. the least he could have done is give me a signed copy (ha, ha).
Click to access BC-36-by-MVDM.pdf
LikeLike
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say they waited until Hart was out of the country to release this.
At least it’s not posed on Baylyblog.
One thing that is interesting at first glance: the essay seems to take the position that the Magistrate is bound to enforce both tables of the law, even under the Revised Belgic 36. One of my (our?) criticisms of Neocalvinists, Theonomists, and assorted culture warriors is their laser-like focus on Commandments 6-10 (especially 7 — sexual sins, i.e. gay marriage, Sodomy, etc.). They never seemed to have an answer for their lack of attention to 1-5. Maybe this is an attempt to address this. I need to read the essay.
LikeLike
Well,
I have never been accused of being weak or touchy. So I will blog again.
I should not have referred to pearls before swine.
But I really do not intend to waste my time on this blog. I just do not have the time go down every rabbit trail without dealing with specific points.
If you ever get to West MI, I will be glad to talk.
Casey Freswick
Pastor, Bethay URCNA
LikeLike
That’s okay, Casey, thanks for returning and agreeing on that one point.
The internet isn’t the best place for serious discussions sometimes, it is hard to control all the parameters.
Something you just have to deal with…
LikeLike
Kent, one of my favorite moments of political theater involved Howard Heflin at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing: “Ms. Heel, are you a woman sconned?”
LikeLike
Casey, before you shake all the dust off your sandals, I have engaged your specific points (without accusing you). What is lacking?
LikeLike
I’m only a few pages into the essay, but I think the rub is going to be, what does it mean for “the kingdom of Jesus Christ” to “make progress”? Is this something we see in the church or in society? It’s a key question. I’m anxious to finish the essay.
LikeLike
Thanks for the flashback mikelmann, several million people got to see in that moment that someone like Heflin did in fact still exist and was a major member of a Senate Committee.
LikeLike
Casey, are you again going to be the URCNA’s fraternal delegate to the OPC’s GA next week? Maybe we’ll meet up over lunch.
LikeLike
Van der Molen:
“We do not confess that God ordains the magistrate so that the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Apocrypha, and humanistic natural law may pluralistically flourish alongside the Word of God.”
What about Catholicism? What about Methodism? What about liberal protestantism? What about those who have no ideology and just wish to be left alone?
Is natural law humanistic?
LikeLike
Van der Molen:
“It would contradict God’s nature as the only true God to suggest that He appoints magistrates to ensure the promotion of anti-God ‘scriptures’ that oppose God and his only true Word.”
Is not the whole notion of the magistrate “promoting” any religion (even Christianity) tricky given the first amendment which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?
Why did the Founders not make the promotion of the Christian religion more explicit if that was their aim? And why did Dutch Reformed people come here seeking to practice their religion if they knew that these were the “ground rules” in the U.S.? Would it not be odd to subscribe to a Belgic Confession that, on its face, requires the Magistrate to do things that the Bill of Rights explicitly tells him he can not do? As Reformed officebearers are we required to be poor Americans?
LikeLike
Van der Molen:
“Second, we note God has a divine redemptive purpose in ordaining the magistate that ‘they must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as he commands in his Word.’ Here we confess that the magistrate has a duty to recognize the proclamation of the Word of God with the divine goal that all men may worship he one true God in accord with the Word of God.”
O.K., Wait a minute. How did we go from “countenance”, which means to “admit as acceptable or possible”, to “recognize” which means “to identify”. The magistrate doesn’t have to in any way assent to the truth of the gospel in order to countenance it. The same goes for any other religion. That’s the beauty of the first amendment — it creates a free market for any and all religions to exist on their own merits without official sanction or disapproval.
LikeLike
Erik – first of all, something about that hyperlink is broken. It takes you to the web page, but the only way I found his essay was to scroll down the list of contributors until I saw Dr. K’s name and then I saw the essay.
Secondly, the essay is signed by MVDM as belonging to a congregation over in DeMotte, IN. How were “a foot away from him” last week?
Finally, regarding the essay itself, given everything he wrote I’m struggling to understand how you can get from the first three declarations near the introduction to the revised and re-worded three at the end, based on everything he says in between (or, as he says himself about B. 36, what he “doesn’t say”). Confused. Sounds kind of like the way the Callers operate with their syllogisms.
LikeLike
In expounding upon the section of Belgic 36 that says:
“Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted.”
Van der Molen says:
“The Belgic goes on to describe what kind of society the magistrate is called to cultivate”:
‘…being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God,…’
“The Nature of the society the magistrate should contribute towards is one pleasing to God, i.e. at least outwardly conforming to His will as revealed in His Word.”
This is where things get interesting. My version of the Belgic, published by the Oceanside & Pasadena congregations of the URC does not even have the second phrase that Van der Molen refers to:
‘…being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God,…’
In the preface of my book it says “The translation presented here is that of the 1959 and 1976 Psalter Hymnal.” R. Scott Clark (one of the opponents that Van der Molen identifies early on) was at Oceanside URC.
Look at the CRC website and witness the hash that they make out of Article 36:
http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession
How can we have an intelligent discussion about the Article if we can’t even agree on what it literally consists of?
Set that aside for a moment. When Van der Molen says:
“The Nature of the society the magistrate should contribute towards is one pleasing to God, i.e. at least outwardly conforming to His will as revealed in His Word.”
Where in the world does he get that? Since when is God pleased with things “outwardly conforming”? If anything, I seem to remember Jesus saying how displeased God was with things that were “outwardly conforming” while being inwardly full of sin. The Pharisees? If we have white picket fences in front of our houses, eat apple pie, drive Chevrolets, and don’t overeat, drink, chew, or go with girls who do God is somehow pleased with that? Outwardly conforming?
LikeLike
Erik,
Keyword: Congress
We the people may do what we wish. The US Congress may not per our binding in the 1st Amendment which all US presidents/representatives/judges swear to uphold.
LikeLike
Eric,
I guess that could have used some direction in my response. It was touching on you question:
Why did the Founders not make the promotion of the Christian religion more explicit if that was their aim?
LikeLike
Erik, can you please contact me off list? I want to discuss something with you directly.
pastor at ChristReformedDC.org
Thx.
And please don’t tell me you lost your wallet in Thailand.
LikeLike
Congress shall make no laws…
LikeLike
Erik,
You:If anything, I seem to remember Jesus saying how displeased God was with things that were “outwardly conforming” while being inwardly full of sin. The Pharisees?
Did not Christ address both?
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
LikeLike
They are bummed out that references to anti-Christ (and the power of government to kill anyone who disagrees with lone ranger Presbyterians) have been removed from confessions.
LikeLike
…cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
LikeLike
Erik, “Koran”? That’s like calling an Asian-American a Chinaman.
LikeLike
DGH – a reply may take a while. Erik has been called to the woodshed.
LikeLike
George,
LOL
LikeLike
Say I want to run a shoe store and I make the case that the magistrate has a duty to support my endeavor. Does this mean the Magistrate has a duty to provide a climate where I can operate my business as I see fit in an environment with the rule of law, reasonable taxes, sound infrastructure, etc. or does it mean the Magistrate needs to do whatever he can to facilitate people shopping at my shoe store and not at the stores down the street selling cowboy boots, moccasins, and shoes with spiked heels? After all, my shoe store sells really good shoes that people need (whether they acknowledge it or not) and the shoes that the other stores sell are of dubious value and are probably even bad for people. Maybe once the Magistrate steers people to my store I can even rest on my laurels a bit and take it easy since there is not much competition.
If this scenario is not valid for shoe stores, why is it valid for churches? Historically what has happened to churches that have been favored by the Government?
LikeLike
Guys,
Sorry, I had to go deal with the Magistrate on a property tax matter. He was gracious and sends his good wishes.
Here’s a link to Mark’s essay on Dr. K’s blog: http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/guest-essay-revised-bc-36-both-tables-and-christs-kingdom/
George – Mark’s son goes to my church and Mark was in town.
Brian – I’ll e-mail you. You have me concerned with those guys in “The Hangover”.
Michael – Yeah, David Barton agrees with you. So I guess the Supreme Court, The President, and the vast federal bureaucracy can do all kinds of things respecting the establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Expound on that for me. You already have your hands full here without trying to be a Pentecostal Catholic Neocalvinist.
LikeLike
Erik,
Not sure if you are addressing my thoughts.
But yes, Churches being favored by the Government has been normally bad. The thing is we people run states that have uniformly formed a binding oath swearing order by which the US Congress can not make laws establishing a Church by which we must submit. We have not let the US Constution bind us from proclaiming a Church as the Church beloved of God.
“..or the free exercise there of.”
Congress
LikeLike
I could be mistaken, but I think the main authority over our states we have given to the US Gov in the Constitution is guaranteeing we are representative governments. About everything else is limiting the US government, not us as state. Not this isn’t exactly how things are functioning, so there may be some oath breaking going on…
LikeLike
I think Mark’s written a good piece that gets several good questions on the table. As I said before, I appreciate that he’s posted it on Kloosterman’s site and not on Baylyblog. He’s keeping the debate “in house” where it belongs.
LikeLike
A Catholic entering into an argument on Belgic 36…on the side of a Neocalvinist making his case for his interpretation of Belgic 36. Now I’ve seen it all. Donnie – you’re out of your depth. Hint: Catholics wouldn’t have fared well in Reformed lands under Belgic 36 at the time it was written.
LikeLike
I forgot currency stuff and the greatly expanded commerce clause.
LikeLike
MichaelTX, you aren’t getting Erik’s point.
See my earlier comment, I wasn’t being snide or joking at all, they want those things (and anti-Christ means “you know who”…) added back and enforced.
LikeLike
Erik,
Sorry I miss your post question to me earlier.
So I guess the Supreme Court, The President, and the vast federal bureaucracy can do all kinds of things respecting the establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
So you are aware I not arguing to or for any confession, but just dropping some thoughts and joining the fun. Can a poor Catholic just hang out a little? 🙂
The lines get dealt with very poorly in my opinion, but the President is a man who also as the “free exercise of religion,” the men of the Supreme Court don’t give up those rights nor do the members of Congress, but nether can they make others give them up by establishing a Church for us to submitt to by law. The 1st amendment is not binding states or any other governments in the world is all I am trying to point out.
LikeLike
MTX, one website that is Reformed attacked me bitterly and viciously for suggesting one could go to a relative’s RCC function.
There are folks out there who want the Gov’t of the USA to execute everybody who doesn’t agree exactly with their views; usually they pretend this isn’t their view, but we know them very well.
They want the 10 Commandments carried out in ruthless force…
FYI…
LikeLike
Kent, Which post are you talking about. I wouldn’t doubt if I missed it. I’ve been in a out.
LikeLike
Kent, how are these folks planning to get around the fact that the US gov doesn’t enforce state or local laws where thing like that could be dealt with? I’m trying to understand where ya’ll are at. We aren’t talking about treason, counterfeiting, or interstate commerce, right.
LikeLike
FYI, the Supreme Court is going to take up the matter of legislative opening prayers, which have previously been treated distinctively from other religion cases. Interesting write up in tomorrow’s WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323728204578513362640616552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
LikeLike
Thanks for the heads up Brian.
Just lightly perused the CRCDC site. Read some of your past sermon. Good stuff.
The life of the church as a new society founded in Word and Sacrament and Public Prayer is not some late adaptation to the Spirit’s fading power, it is the manifestation of this power at its root, its core. It is the essence of it. What is the Church? It is the Spirit dwelling with his people.
Blessings and God’s guidence to you and your flock,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael. I appreciate the spirit of your interactions here.
Brian
LikeLike
Thanks Brian,
I read over the article. I find it interesting that, “The [lower]court also noted that the town did not publicly advertise that anyone who wished to open a session could ask to be added to the list of potential prayers.” It seems if anything that action would be a greater “entanglement” with religion rather than allowing the natural flow of prayer and request to occur. At least that is my thought on it. If you have the gov actively spending taxpayer dollars “publicly advertising” that we need prayers of “all types” to open sessions seems to jump the line to me. Allow congress to deal with their house as they wish, but you start using our dollars to be PC I see a problem.
LikeLike
If Mark Van der Molen is Right, Consistories Had Better Buy Some Stamps
Van der Molen – “The Nature of the society the magistrate should contribute towards is one pleasing to God, i.e. at least outwardly conforming to His will as revealed in His Word.”
If this is true and United Reformed Churches in North America officebearers are required to believe it, does there not need to be some teeth to that belief? Should not every Consistory & Classis be monitoring the actions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at the local, county, state, and federal level and offering negative and positive comment on the actions of those bodies? What good does it do to just “believe” Van der Molen’s interpretation of Belgic Article 36 but do nothing as churches? At Synod should we not be issuing declarations like the Christian Reformed Church does?
Click to access 2013_agenda.pdf
The agenda for CRC Synod 2013 is entitled “Transforming Lives and Communities Worldwide – Agenda for Synod 2013”.
The only difference is while their transformation is likely coming from the left, ours would be coming from the right.
LikeLike
Brian, in a counter-intuitive irony, supporters of public creches argue for the constitutionality of the creche by pointing out that it merely refers to the history of American beliefs or that it is next to Santa Claus and the Spaghetti Monster. Likewise supporters of a city council tradition of prayer will likely emphasize the non-Christian prayers to help legitimize the practice. So, in a sense, the argument is that such practices are not inherently religious, or, more commonly, that the practice isn’t supporting any particular religion when seen as a whole.
LikeLike
Erik, you need your own blog. Oh, wait.
But on the right/left point, that’s what some days makes the URC seem like the CRC-that-doesn’t-ordain-women.
LikeLike
Kent,
To tell you the truth, I really understand a “website that is Reformed attacking… bitterly and viciously for suggesting one could go to a relative’s RCC function.”
If there will be idol “bread” worship and submission to the “anti-Christ” pope, I would say don’t go, too.
“what fellowship does light have with darkness”
If someone believes Catholics are idol worshipers, how can there be fellowship.
Just my thoughts on it over here,
MichaelTX
LikeLike
From the Christian Reformed website on Belgic 36:
* “The Reformed Church in America retains the original full text, choosing to recognize that the confession was written within a historical context which may not accurately describe the situation that pertains today.”
http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession
That’s hilarious. How Mainline of them. Do they have a nice museum case to display the Belgic in?
LikeLike
Erik: grateful I never got exposure to “original intent” or rabid non-instrument Psalms only worship. I would never have gone back for a second Sunday.
MichaelTX: all part of the mix of having a civil discussion on this board. I take a wide view of who qualifies as a believer. That pesky Lutheran who dominates or is assistant captain on most of the podcasts of a show run by URC folk infects me a bit too much…
LikeLike
Michael: Kent, how are these folks planning to get around the fact that the US gov doesn’t enforce state or local laws where thing like that could be dealt with? I’m trying to understand where ya’ll are at. We aren’t talking about treason, counterfeiting, or interstate commerce, right.
Sir, these folk dominate their own blogs, they sometimes show up here (it is nice and peaceful presently). On their days off they must pray for the day they can take over and start piling the bodies up.
LikeLike
I’m wondering how the idea of “animus imponentis” affects MVDM’s thesis. Was it the intent of the URCNA to go the MVDM route when they adopted the BC?
LikeLike
Good thing there aren’t more footnotes on the BC. Could lead to a year’s supply of blogs…
LikeLike
Zrim,
Yeah, I’ve been thinking of starting a blog chronicling my personal battle with toenail fungus.
LikeLike
Erik, like the world needs yet another one of those blogs.
LikeLike
He needs an earnest chat with a kindly URC elder who asks him directly… “Isn’t it high time you face up to the fact that you really honestly truly don’t belong in the URC? I know it’s hard and you’ve done so much with and for us, but hello….”
LikeLike
Richard Gamble on the uses of history
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=515&cur_iss=Y
LikeLike