Critics of 2K May Not Sing "A Mighty Fortress"

Published on by D. G. Hart

Most Protestants older than 35 are familiar with the text of Luther’s hymn. Since Luther himself was a two-kingdom advocate, the notion that “A Mighty Fortress” has 2k connotations is hardly surprising. What comes as a surprise is that anti-2kers have not removed the hymn from our hymnals. The fourth stanza sings:

That word above all earthly powers,
no thanks to them, abideth;
the Spirit and the gifts are ours,
thru him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill;
God’s truth abideth still;
his kingdom is forever.

Obviously, reading cultural transformation into those words is a feat possibly only John Henry Newman could perform. But finding an eternal dimension in the work of civil magistrates is well-nigh impossible. How exactly can the temporal affairs of the civil government be eternal?

This observation disproves once again the common notion that Christians learn far more theology from hymns than from doctrinal teaching.

100 thoughts on “Critics of 2K May Not Sing "A Mighty Fortress"”

  3. Perhaps not, but Mozart, Bach, Einstein, even Hart,…–after the Refiner’s fire endure as eschatologized parts of God’s very good creation.

    Like

  6. God doesn’t abandon the work of his hands.

    Of course, ultimately it’s an empirical question. If some choir is singing the perfected Hallelujah Chorus on the New Earth, we’ll know that I was right and you were wrong. With perfected humility I will not even be tempted to say “I told you so” when I bump into you at the 1st Heavenly OPC.

    Like

  8. Erik,

    Well Jesus, then, was something of a radical… perhaps?

    Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

    Did Jesus learn theology at WSCAL?

    Like

  9. You fellas may really get a kick out of this. A Mighty Fortress is Our God is in Catholic hymnals in the pew, too. Saw it two weeks ago. Glad to see disagreements and such don’t make the hymn books hollow of a good song of praise to our God.

    Like

  10. Jesus’ response to Pilate seems to prove too much. Even DVD says that the common “kingdom” is God’s. I’m guessing Jesus is not talking the two kingdom’s of 2K theology (which are both God’s but different spheres with different norms–no denial of that among neo-Calvinists), but the anti-God world powers. To Pilate those are the only powers. Jesus is rebuking Pilate for his idolatry of human power. I don’t think he’s proof-texting Hart and Van Drunen.

    I suspect there is some 2K eisegesis going on here.

    Like

  11. Darryl, this is slick maketing. So now ‘2K’ means not-(cultural transformation)? So now ‘critic of 2K’ means pro-(cultural transformation)? My, Grandma, what a big tent you have.

    Like

  12. Terry,

    Yes, except that the point might be taken, perhaps from Jesus’ words to Pilate that, though both kingdoms are belonging to the God of all, Jesus, as a man born under the law, does not claim his right as the very Son of God to insist upon the eschatological take… i.e. God’s heavenly kingdom is to be implemented now in the here and now. He submits to the earthly ruling authority under God’s authority.

    Where is the biblical mandate that the church should pull it off in the here and now?

    Like

  13. Michael TX, I guess that explains why I heard it in a bakery/lunch venue operated by monks in Bangor, Maine. I feel so ecumenical right now; maybe I shouldn’t have had that last beer.

    Like

  14. Terry, but if neo-Calvinism is right then wouldn’t Jesus have been more explicit about Pilate needing to kiss him? And if he had then no redemption for us. Who’s eisegeting now?

    Like

  15. It is a good thing my fellow Covenanters do not sing man-made hymns.

    We need not worry when we can sing of our great King and the Nation’s duty to submit themselves to Him.

    Like

  16. Terry – I’m guessing Jesus is not talking the two kingdom’s of 2K theology (which are both God’s but different spheres with different norms–no denial of that among neo-Calvinists), but the anti-God world powers.

    Erik – So you’re suggesting that Neocalvinists might be o.k. with the notion that Natural Law is sufficient in the civil/common kingdom?

    Like

  18. George,

    What do you make of the notion of the U.S. being a “Christian nation” in light of the founding?

    Are you satisfied with the founding documents to the extent that they recognize the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ?

    Like

  19. “… You fellas may really get a kick out of this. A Mighty Fortress is Our God is in Catholic hymnals in the pew, too. Saw it two weeks ago …”

    But are the lyrics the same, word for word, as those translated from Luther’s original by modern English-speaking Lutherans? The most recent LCMS hymnal includes “Amazing Grace,” too, but some of the stanzas have either been eliminated or re-worded, such as, “… the hour I first believed…”

    Like

  21. Terry,

    I understand Confessionalism but am not quite sure about “Christian Worldview”. Do Reformed Christians in Grand Rapids and Foot-Washing Baptists in Bug Tussle, Tennessee share the identical “Worldview”. They’re both Christians, after all.

    Like

  22. It always seems like a lot of extra-biblical, extra-confessional notions tend to creep into the “worldview”. It’s kind of confessionalism for those who aren’t into confessions.

    Like

  23. Terry,

    You’re a scientist, but you also happen to have been marinating in the Dutch Calvinist broth for decades. I wish you would devote some of your scientific skepticism to some of these notions that you are touting. Where is your defense of Neocalvinism from Scripture? You just seem to kind of accept it like most Neocalvinists who were born and raised in that milieu. Its no coincidence that Neocalvinism’s staunchest defenders have Dutch surnames. This is why Van Drunen is seen as a betrayal. Baptist-raised Hart is more understandable.

    Like

  24. 2K proponents seem to be making Scriptural arguments while Neocalvinists seem to be appealing to Kuyper, Van Til, and Dooyeward. That’s not the way Protestants are supposed to do things. If we don’t let Catholics get away with tradition why do we let the Dutch get away with it?

    Like

  25. Erik, tell me about the extra-confessional pieces. As far as I know the Christian worldview flows out of the confession: who is God? What is man? How does God interact with the world? Much in common with Baptists, but the worldview derives from the confession. If the confession is distinct then so is the worldview. Of course, as you do science, philosophy, politics, history, etc within any framework there are always intellectual traditions (baggage) that arise.

    Like

  29. The latter features seminars & conferences on:

    Basic Seminar

    Advanced Seminar

    Anger Resolution

    Financial Freedom

    Business Leaders

    Stress Resolution

    Whatever it Takes! (Marriage)

    Do I need to go to seminars to learn what it means to be a Christian? Are the regular means of Word & Sacrament insufficient?

    Like

  30. Terry – As far as I know the Christian worldview flows out of the confession: who is God? What is man? How does God interact with the world?

    Erik – Prove it with concrete examples, like a scientist. I want evidence.

    Like

  31. Where the rubber meets the road on this is that I contend that individuals and families can live productive, Christian lives without having contact with all of the various “Christian” subcultures, listening to “Christian” rock, buying Jesus junk, only being friends with Christians, going to Christian schools, etc. If anything all of this ephemera often leads to a false sense of well-being and self-righteousness that blinds people to their own abiding sin. Join a church, worship there, attend Sunday school, go to the potlucks, maybe socialize with fellow church members, but otherwise live your life alongside your non-Christian neighbors and co-workers. You don’t join them in their sin, but you also don’t try to “Christianize” everything so that you have nothing in common with them.

    Like

  32. Erik, what did you do–Google “worldview” to come up with this list. Much of evangelicalism confuses Kuyperianism and Reformed worldview with social actionism. The Confessionally Reformed development of the worldview idea is much more mature and developed.

    I’m curious what you think of Jay Adams and the nouthetic counseling movement. He’s was a fine OPC and Westminster Seminary fellow. I wonder if the Escondido Theology has rejected Adams along with Van Til.

    Like

  33. Terry,

    I didn’t Google them — they were off the top of my head. DeMar is Reformed.

    Consider yourself blessed I didn’t delve into the agenda for the 2013 CRC Synod.

    Adams predates me so I don’t know much about him. Only what I have read in Frame’s “Machen’s Warrior Children”.

    I do sincerely appreciate your contributions here.

    Like

  34. Speaking of Synod 2013–there is a study report on the office of deacon that makes deacons responsible for church members executing their calling in all areas of life. It appears to me to be a comprehensive disregard of the notion of the institutional church with sphere bounded limits. Synod 2012 demonstrated some sensitivity to these sorts of concerns. That could all be swept away by adopting this report and incorporating its ideas into the Church Order. The report ignores the distinction between special office and general office. It brings everything the Bible has to say about diakonia into the ecclesiastical office of deacon. Yet another departure. And, I know Darryl will delight in saying that’s the way it must go. I say only when undiscerning and careless men (and women) make the decisions.

    Like

  35. Terry – there is a study report on the office of deacon that makes deacons responsible for church members executing their calling in all areas of life.

    Erik – Good grief. I can only imagine how I would react when she showed up at my office…

    Like

  36. Zrim, seems to me that Jesus already taught us in Psalm 2 that Pilate did need to kiss the Son. The fact that he didn’t was to his own peril. That God accomplished our salvation through his allowing the execution of our Lord does not excuse his rebellion and idolatry. All are commanded even in this age of the free offer of the gospel to be in right relationship with God through Christ. Not doing so results in eternal death. I’m not advocating that the state enforce this.

    Like

  38. Terry, this rebellion and idolatry jazz fits nicely with a neo-Cal notion that the two ages need to be reconciled. But maybe Pilate was faithfully carrying out his office, in which case provisional justice is shown to be wholly inadequate for eternal purposes, as in law and gospel are not friends.

    Like

  40. “This observation disproves once again the common notion that Christians learn far more theology from hymns than from doctrinal teaching.”

    DGH, but how about my notion that congregants audiences learn lots of bad theology from the songs that the garage bands throw at them?

    Like

  43. Zrim, what do you make of 2nd Cor 5:17

    “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

    Me: It seems to me that all believers have this ministry, no? Isn’t that trans-formative?

    Like

  44. Zrim wrote: “Terry, this rebellion and idolatry jazz fits nicely with a neo-Cal notion that the two ages need to be reconciled. But maybe Pilate was faithfully carrying out his office, in which case provisional justice is shown to be wholly inadequate for eternal purposes, as in law and gospel are not friends.”

    GW: Zrim, c’mon brother, you can’t be serious. One doesn’t have to be a neo-Cal (or even a Christian) to see from the Gospel records that Pilate’s sentencing of Jesus to death was a clear abuse of his office. It was a cowardly concession to his Jewish constituents for the purpose of appeasing their wrath and preserving himself from the negative political consequences that would have ensued had he released a controversial figure like Jesus. Pilate’s sentencing of Jesus to death by means of torturous crucifixion simply to appease the crowd involved the execution of one whom he himself recognized to be a legally-innocent man, and in his place the unjust release of a legally-guilty man (Barabbas). Pilate is the perfect picture of a crass, cowardly, self-serving politician who is willing to do anything (including committing a grave injustice against a legally-innocent man) for the purposes of preserving and promoting his political career and maintaining his political power. In no way was he a dutiful magistrate who was simply carrying out his civil office as a public servant for the common good (at least not with respect to his decision in the trial of Jesus).

    Like

  46. It seems to me that there is a middle ground between “kissing the Son” and putting the Son to death. That middle ground is pretty much where we are at in the U.S. today.

    Like

  47. GW, my point isn’t that Pilate wasn’t compromised. But I fail to see how he was the sort of civic failure Terry suggests. He was trying to maintain order. My other point is that provisional justice has its severe limitations, and neo-Cals who want to use it for eternal ends should think more about that.

    And if Pilate had kissed the Son the ways neos say he should and kept him from the cross, where does that leave sinners? After all, remember what Jesus said to Peter when the latter tried to keep him from going up to Jerusalem.

    Like

  48. Terry,

    WSC has NOT rejected Van Til. He has been, if I may, a foundational influence on WSC and continues to be formative. We teach Van Tillian apologetics to our students. Our faculty and board are committed to it. It’s one of the questions we ask in faculty interviews. We’re building on his legacy, trying to faithful to the Scriptures as confessed by the Reformed/Presbyterian Churches and facing the theological and philosophical challenges to the Christian faith as they exist today. I take it that you haven’t actually read much of what has been written by our faculty or you wouldn’t have written what you did.

    As to Jay Adams, he was one of the early faculty members and he has remained a friend of the seminary. He continued to speak at conferences and teach Jan term courses he as long as he was able. He hasn’t been rejected at all. I’m not in the PT dept but I’ve read a fair bit of Jay’s work on counseling and preaching and have benefitted from it considerably. I promoted Jay’s blog when it first appeared in 2008. I stand by what I wrote then.

    Doesn’t a Christian “worldview” entail obedience to the 9th commandment?

    Like

  50. Vermonster, I’m not sure how much theology anyone learns from song unless you’re actually singing the catechism (a project the CRC started but never came close to finishing back in the 1980s). Think about it. How many Americans hear the National Anthem, even sing it, before an MLB game and how many know to which war it refers?

    Like

  51. Zrim,

    I don’t mean to interrupt the flow of conversation, but for clarification in your comments, it initially came across that you might be saying that Pilate’s duty was not to do “justice” (protect the innocent) but instead his duty was to put Jesus to death so as to save sinners through that death? Was God incompetent to accomplish redemption in spite of Pilate’s sin?

    It seems to me at the heart of this issue are God’s eternal decrees. Before the foundation of the world, God determined that Pilate would forsake his duty to judge the accused justly and would instead give in to the desires of the accusers and his own fears regarding his power. In Pilate’s sin the Son of God and Son of Man would be led as the sheep to the slaughter, pay the penalty for all the sins of all the elect, unite the elect to Himself, and in so doing satisfy the divine justice of God the Father and reconcile the elect to Him. (This statement does not do justice to the work of Christ but is obviously only a small summary)

    This eternal decree of the Godhead, however, does not excuse Pilate from the sin of ordering the death of an innocent man. Throughout Scripture God works His will in spite of sin (i.e. Joseph being sold into slavery, Christ coming through the line of Solomon and Bathsheba), but those examples obviously never justify sin or call it “right” or “good” in any moral sense. (Hence why David is severely punished by God for adultery and murder.)

    In the immediate context, both the Jews and Pilate were the guilty parties in the sin of the crucifixion of Christ. Ultimately and more significantly, you and I are the guilty parties in putting Christ to death as it was our sins that put him there. Without our sin, the Son of Man would not have suffered.

    To accomplish our redemption Jesus Christ humbled himself and submitted to the sinful actions of sinful men.

    I think we are probably in agreement here, but it seemed to me clarification might be helpful for the sake of the conversation.

    Thank you,

    B

    Like

  53. DGH asks: “Doug, re: 2 Cor 5:17. You really think that believers have the “ministry” that the Holy Spirit does?”

    Yes I do. Consider verse 20:

    “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

    We have the ministry of reconciliation, and it’s the Holy Spirit who works in and through us to accomplish the mission. We *should* be on the same page with God, no?

    Like

  54. B, it seems to me Pilate serves both a provisional purpose (protect the innocent) and a redemptive purpose (sacrifice the innocent). Talk about tension.

    Like

  55. Doug, Paul’s ministry is not what the Holy Spirit does. Paul does not have divine agency. He only waters. It’s the H.S. who transforms. Duh!

    Plus, do you really think you’re an apostle? Not duh. Holy Smokes!

    Like

  57. DGH, I would suggest you re-read the text. Paul is saying all believers have the ministry of reconciliation, not just Apostles.

    And no, I don’t consider myself an Apostle.

    Like

  58. I’m sure Doug would argue he’s a SuperApostle if it could continue his unending and pointless rants on this forum.

    Like

  61. Doug, so every member ministry? More neo-Calvinism. But, no, only pastors and elders have the ministry of reconciliation.

    Like

  64. Doug, are the prayers of ordinary believers devoid of spiritual power unless they get designated a ministry? Why if I deny that I have a ministry it means I concede to spiritual defeat? You understand the egalitarian logic you’re using is that which is used to ordain women, right? But why do I get the sense you’re also from the “sit down and shut up” school when it comes to that?

    Like

  65. Zrim, to be *true* Christian places you in the body of Christ. Everyone in the body of Christ has the ministry of reconciliation. To be a member of Christ’s body means you contribute to the life of the church because you are “in Christ”. We all need to share the good news, if you’re really of Christ. This doesn’t contradict qualifications for being an overseer or a deacon, which are for men, only.

    Like

  67. Doug, qualifications for office are for fit men only. Elitism beats complementarianism (which all about sex). And, no, not having a ministry does not at all preclude sharing the gospel with anybody.

    Like

  68. Zrim says: “Doug, qualifications for office are for fit men only.”

    Thanks for the correction Zrim, you’re 100% right.

    You know Zrim, I think we might be talking past each other on our understanding of the word ministry. Because if you share the good news, and someone is reconciled to Christ, you played a part in the ministry of reconciliation, to my way of thinking.

    Like

  69. Doug, it’s not talking past, it’s an institutional ecclesiology versus a low one. But I’m not sure with what your line of questions has to do with the larger topic.

    Like

  70. Doug,

    How much Catechetical or Confessional preaching have you had over the years? You seem way more evangelical than Reformed.

    Maybe I’ve just been spoiled. My pastor has generally done Catechetical preaching on Sunday evenings for the last seven years.

    You seem to lack a solid Reformed “framework”. Theonomy doesn’t count, because even if you argue it is confessional that is only a part of what it would mean to be confessional.

    Like

  71. Erik, or Zrim; maybe you could explain what you mean by evangelical. I have RC Sproul’s book, “What Is Reformed Theology?”, right in front of me. In the first chapter Dr. Sproul writes:

    Reformed theology is evangelical.

    “The term evangelical came into prominence during the Reformation.”

    “The twin slogans of sloa Scriptural and sloa fie became the battle cries of the Reformation.”

    “The Reformers called themselves evangelicals because they believed the doctrine of justification by faith alone is central and essential to the gospel. Since the biblical word for gospel is “evangel”, they used the term evangelical to assert their conviction that sola fide is the gospel.”

    “We note them now in passing to say that the term evangelical was the broad term applied to many groups that, despite their separation into different denominations, agreed on these two basic issues over against the Roman Catholic church.”

    All quotes are from page 31

    Me: Dr. Sproul calls himself evangelical, and it was the reformers who coined the term evangelical, why wouldn’t you call yourself evangelical? Who more “reformed” the Dr. Sproul?

    Like

  73. Doug,

    Preaching on a Biblical text in order to demonstrate the truth of the Confession. By doing this systematically hearers are better able to develop a Reformed framework for understanding the Bible.

    Like

  76. If one entered the doors of a true Reformed church they wouldn’t have to ask about the meaning of a sermon based on the Confessions.

    Like

  77. Doug, I think there are two ways of understanding the e-word. The first is the way Sproul offers, which is sound and I see no good reason for which any Reformed confessionalist could reject it. It’s as biblical, historical, and thus descriptive as the c-word (catholic).

    But another way is how it aligns with a low-church, anti-creedal, and born-again revivalism, and as such ought to be rejected by Reformed confessionalists.

    That all said, it’s as misleading to describe one’s Reformed self as evangelical as it is catholic. Sure, to be Reformed is to be both evangelical and catholic, but when was the last time you described yourself as catholic? Why not say Reformed since it such an all-inclusive term? Why does evangelical work as short had but not catholic? I would suggest that this idea that the former works in ways the latter doesn’t signals the way in which many Reformed seem to think the Reformation is half way over and we’ve made friends with the Radical Reformation. We’ve compromised and want a piece of that eeeevangelical pie. To boot, we end up agreeing with Catholics that there is Catholicism and then there is everybody else. Butt here is more to being Protestant than not being Catholic.

    Like

  78. Erik, I hope you realize that Jerry Falwell rejected theonomy because he was a dispensationalist. Falwell understood Galatians 3 shockingly similar to Sean. Falwell saw the old covenant as a completely different covenant than the new covenant. He saw the law as legalistic, and the new covenant as gracious. Falwell saw grace and law as polar opposites. Sounds like an echo from Sean, eh?

    You might note, that Sean has claimed I have been conflating the covenant. Sean indicts himself everytime he says that; because it’s an oxymoron. At least Jerry Falwell didn’t mince his words, he believed they were two covenants, one by faith, and the other by works. Sean attempts to have it both ways saying they are the same, (so he can claim he’s Confessional) BUT he also sees a working principle within the law itself, fighting against grace. If you’re scratching your head, good for you! In other words Sean wants to call what he believes reformed, even though it’s not.

    This is one of the main reasons I became reformed! I rejected dispensationalism. Imagine my chagrin when I discovered the same defective teaching within our camp (David Gordon comes to mind) basically agreeing with the dispensationalist! Sean and McMark, are far closer to being dispensational, than reformed. Sean literally talks out of both sides of his mouth on the covenant of grace. I hold to the reformers original understanding, that all the post fall covenants are ONE covenant of grace, the same in substance only separated by different administrations. Both administrations taught one way of salvation, by grace through faith in Christ Jesus.

    Sean calls that conflating the covenant. Huh? Erik you should throw a penalty flag for being incoherent! At the very least, Sean should take an exception like David Gordon.

    Like

  80. Doug – BUT he also sees a working principle within the law itself, fighting against grace. If you’re scratching your head, good for you!

    Erik – I’m not scratching anything you need to know about. The Mosaic Covenant wasn’t exclusively gracious, Doug. If it was, Israel would still be in the land. I have no problem with what Sean is saying.

    Like

  83. Erik – I’m not scratching anything you need to know about. The Mosaic Covenant wasn’t exclusively gracious.

    I feel I’m being kind by shoehorning any grace at all into the Mosaic Covenant.

    Like

  84. Erik – I’m not scratching anything you need to know about. The Mosaic Covenant wasn’t exclusively gracious, Doug. If it was, Israel would still be in the land. I have no problem with what Sean is saying.

    Me: Erik now every step we take is promised land. We are co-heirs with Christ!

    Question: When a local church gets judged by Jesus, and they lose their lampstand, or Christ kills some of them, or puts them in a sick bed, does that mean the new covenant is not “exclusively gracious?

    Please flush that out for me.

    Like

  85. Erik, the promise to inhabit the 7 nations was typological. It has been greatly expanded since Christ inherited the world. Let me illustrate:

    Genesis 17:8

    “And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

    Yet Paul sees the promise in it’s antitypical fulfillment:

    Romans 4:13

    “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the *world* did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.”

    Me: The 7 nations were a foreshadow of what God promised Abraham. Since we are co-heirs with God, now the whole world is promised land. Since Jesus is Lord of all. He is the king of kings. Let all the nations serve him!

    Like

  86. Doug, but do you call yourself a-little-e-evangelical? But better to use the noun Reformed and the adjectives catholic and evangelical. When those become nouns, which Reformed do all the time with the e-word, it signals compromised Protestantism.

    PS, theonomy is the mirror error of Dispensationalism–the former is an extreme misunderstanding of OT/NT continuity, the latter an extreme misunderstanding of discontinuity. Little wonder theonomists are often paedo-communionists.

    Like

  88. Erik, instead of saying Israel was booted out of the land, and leaving it there; look at it like Paul. True Israel received there big promotion. Now the promised land has expanded to encompass the whole world! In times past God winked at their idolatry, but now God commands all men to repent and bend the knee to the king of kings.

    All those who are in Christ are co-heirs with him. We now have the duty to proclaim this truth, and disciple all the nations in the name of Christ, instructing them in all his commandments. Jesus said he will be with us until all is accomplished.

    Keep pressing on!

    Like

  89. Doug – Question: When a local church gets judged by Jesus, and they lose their lampstand, or Christ kills some of them, or puts them in a sick bed, does that mean the new covenant is not “exclusively gracious?

    Please flush that out for me.

    Erik – Oh, I’ll flush it out for you. There’s a problem when you are trying to do covenant theology with a passage in the book of Revelation as your proof text. We don’t know how God’s providence works today to the extent you think you do. Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people. The 24-year-old fiancé of a former church member was killed on Sunday driving the wrong way on the Interstate. Did God ordain this? Yes. Do we have any idea exactly why? No.

    Like

  90. Doug, how do you know what I’ve never read? But I play DICE all the time. Don’t tell Richard.

    Like

  91. Doug combines all views, except Confessional Reformed, in his attempts to shake us from our faith.

    From wing-ding Dispy to full Pelagian, to crypto-Catholic…

    Like

  92. Erik – Oh, I’ll flush it out for you. There’s a problem when you are trying to do covenant theology with a passage in the book of Revelation as your proof text. We don’t know how God’s providence works today to the extent you think you do. Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people. The 24-year-old fiancé of a former church member was killed on Sunday driving the wrong way on the Interstate. Did God ordain this? Yes. Do we have any idea exactly why? No.

    Thanks Erik! Of course bad things happen to good people. The Apostle Paul was beheaded, Peter was hung upside down, and I could go on. But the same was true back in Israel’s day, with very few exceptions. We have the advantage of the Prophets who enlightened us at to why God did what he did at certain times. But not all the time!. But this doesn’t mean God has changed, from using floods, storms, famines, tornadoes, hurricanes, to display his anger.

    We are NOT supposed to judge someone every time they get sick, and say aha!. We can’t be certain that its a judgment from God for sin, or a time of testing like Job. But this in no way negates the fact that God still judges his people with sickness and even death for disobedience. If its in the Bible, especially the new testament, and Jesus says he will bring these judgements, who are you to say, “that’s just in the book of Revelations?”

    That is why we walk in the fear of the Lord. We don’t know why a given event happens, but since Jesus gave us an insight that he still brings curses for disobedience, sexual sins, and losing ones first love, let’s just admit that in that sense, things haven’t changed one iota from the older testament.

    Okay?

    Like

  93. Zrim, Greg Bahnsen already won! Westminster East waited 17(!) years before they presented “Theonomy a reformed critique”. Seventeen years! And as Bahnsen pointed out 3/4 of the book was in large agreement with Theonomy! One critic said, “if someone hadn’t already coined the term theonomy, we would have to re-invent it”. LOL!

    Then David Gordon made an abject fool of himself in his lame attempt, which was so embarrassing I hate to even bring it to your attention. Read Gentry’s devastating response! Even Mark Mccully who is no friend of theonomic thought agreed that the couple few reformed responses were beyond pathetic. In other word Zrim, you are behind the curve. You haven’t a reformed argument you can hang your hat on. Moreover, you have never read “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”. So your words carry no force. Until you read Bahnsen book, quit throwing logs in the fire.

    But I’ll forgive you bro, for you know not what you do.

    Like

  94. Doug,

    That’s got to be the least comforting, least pastoral, exposition of a theology of suffering that I’ve ever read.

    Bad things may be a punishment, but they may not. Since we all sin how do we know? It all comes down to you thinking you have some kind of sin-o-meter with inside knowledge of the serious sins that God is punishing (the ones that are engaged in at truck stops). No thanks.

    Like

  96. Erik, God does not have a covenantal hair trigger for punishing sin. Do you ask God to forgive your sins? Then he is faithful and just to forgive you! It’s when we *walk* in sin by not being faithful or repenting that we put ourselves in the cross hairs. Jesus warned one church that he had given them time to repent, but they would not. If you are walking by faith, having a relationship with God you will have peace in your heart.

    I think you’re fine! But if you want me to lie, and tell you God doesn’t judge his people like he did in the older testament, I won’t do it. Scripture says the exact opposite!

    Since we are told repeatedly in the new testament to walk circumspectly, and to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, let’s not give our brethren a false security. Let’s be faithful to the Scriptural record. If we refuse to repent, and refuse to walk by faith, God will oppose us to our face!

    Plus, you know I’m a Cretan, I come off with a rough edge sometimes, posting before I think. But I’m really not a mean person. Heck! You’re my favorite at Old LIfe. I KNOW you’re a christian, because I come down on DG harder than anyone, and you are normally civil and kind to me. I know what I say about Darryl hurts you more, than if I were talking about you.

    I see God working in your life, imho.

    p.s. Please keep me in your prayers brother, I will keep you in mine.

    Like

  99. Sorry Doug, I don’t buy saved by grace, stay saved by 100% obedience (or at the very least stay saved by harping on everyone on the internet who dares to lay claim to grace)

    Like

  100. Kent says: “Sorry Doug, I don’t buy saved by grace, stay saved by 100% obedience (or at the very least stay saved by harping on everyone on the internet who dares to lay claim to grace)”

    Me: That’s a low blow Kent. Even our obedience is grace, my friend. Because good works are done with a broken and contrite heart. (In his strength) And please don’t put words in my mouth, I never said anything about 100% obedience. I merely said we need to repent when we sin; (as we all do every day.) However, if we *walk* in unrepentant sin, and refuse to have relationship with him, we will slowly dry up. God is not mocked. Jesus must be our first love, or he will confront us to our face! Jesus solemnly warned new covenant churches what happens if Christ isn’t the center of our lives. Jesus knows how to judge his own. And judgment starts at the house of the Lord.

    BTW, I still believe in TUIP very strongly. I do also believe that baptized men in the church can fall away, proving they never were of us. I believe that the elect will persevere to the end.

    I suggest instead of attacking me, you deal with Jesus warnings and show me how I am reading these future *temporal* “blessings” or “curses” based on churches faithfulness or lack thereof. I know it bugs you Kent, but it’s in the Bible. What do those warnings to new covenant churches mean to you?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.