Who says I never have anything positive to say about Jason and the Callers? Sometimes Bryan’s obsession with logic has advantages.
Take the case of the Baylys and their Rousers. Craig French seems to believe he has scored a decisive put down of 2k by showing that the church’s spiritual power is temporal and will not exist in the world to come (an interesting case for the pro-continuity, post-millenial neo-Cals to consider since the place where Christ’s every-square-inch rule is most evident will not have its marks in the new heavens and new earth). On the way to making his point, French still fails to answer a logical conundrum for critics of 2k: if you want the magistrate to enforce the sixth and seventh commandments, why not the third and fourth? Craig answers the question by going after the spirituality of the church. I’m sure Bryan could find a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I’d call this exactly what a husband does when his wife learns he just wasted 45 minutes blogging — change the question.
At the same time, French shows that he doesn’t understand the spirituality of the church. Spirituality, as Presbyterians have understood it, should be contrasted not with temporal but civil, as in the OPC’s description of church power:
All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.
Conversely, civil power (the magistrate) is not spiritual. This accords with the Confession of Faith:
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. (31.4)
So the reason the spirituality of the church is such a threat to the Baylys and the Rousers is that they conflate the spiritual and civil. They want the magistrate to do something that only the church can do.
And the uniqueness of the church is well articulated by Calvin (yes, the same minister who believed the magistrate should enforce both tables).
That the strength and utility of the kingdom of Christ cannot, as we have said, be fully perceived without recognising it as spiritual, is sufficiently apparent, even from this, that having during the whole course of our lives to war under the cross, our condition here is bitter and wretched. What then would it avail us to be ranged under the government of a heavenly King, if its benefits were not realised beyond the present earthly life? We must, therefore, know that the happiness which is promised to us in Christ does not consist in external advantages—such as leading a joyful and tranquil life, abounding in wealth, being secure against all injury, and having an affluence of delights, such as the flesh is wont to long for—but properly belongs to the heavenly life. As in the world the prosperous and desirable condition of a people consists partly in the abundance of temporal good and domestic peace, and partly in the strong protection which gives security against external violence; so Christ also enriches his people with all things necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls and fortifies them with courage to stand unassailable by all the attacks of spiritual foes. Whence we infer, that he reigns more for us than for himself, and that both within us and without us; that being replenished, in so far as God knows to be expedient, with the gifts of the Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may feel from their first fruits, that we are truly united to God for perfect blessedness; and then trusting to the power of the same Spirit, may not doubt that we shall always be victorious against the devil, the world, and every thing that can do us harm. To this effect was our Saviour’s reply to the Pharisees, “The kingdom of God is within you.” “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation,” (Luke 17:21, 22). It is probable that on his declaring himself to be that King under whom the highest blessing of God was to be expected, they had in derision asked him to produce his insignia. But to prevent those who were already more than enough inclined to the earth from dwelling on its pomp, he bids them enter into their consciences, for “the kingdom of God” is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” (Rom. 14:17). These words briefly teach what the kingdom of Christ bestows upon us. Not being earthly or carnal, and so subject to corruption, but spiritual, it raises us even to eternal life, so that we can patiently live at present under toil, hunger, cold, contempt, disgrace, and other annoyances; contented with this, that our King will never abandon us, but will supply our necessities until our warfare is ended, and we are called to triumph: such being the nature of his kingdom, that he communicates to us whatever he received of his Father. Since then he arms and equips us by his power, adorns us with splendour and magnificence, enriches us with wealth, we here find most abundant cause of glorying, and also are inspired with boldness, so that we can contend intrepidly with the devil, sin, and death. In fine, clothed with his righteousness, we can bravely surmount all the insults of the world: and as he replenishes us liberally with his gifts, so we can in our turn bring forth fruit unto his glory.(Institutes, II.15.iv)
As Calvin would surely teach French, the contrast involved in the spirituality of the church not only concerns the church’s relationship to the civil magistrate, but also the believer’s relationship to earthly well being. When the Baylys can say that eternal life doesn’t require law and order in this life (though it is clearly desirable, but is it required?), the Rousers may have finally grasped the spirituality of the church.
Old Life 
“We must, therefore, know that the happiness which is promised to us in Christ does not consist in external advantages—such as leading a joyful and tranquil life, abounding in wealth, being secure against all injury, and having an affluence of delights, such as the flesh is wont to long for—but properly belongs to the heavenly life.”
Do the Baylys even begin to grasp the concept of “the heavenly life”? Can they see beyond their own anger and self-righteousness?
LikeLike
Those who wish to accentuate the law in the Christian life (for others — including those who are not even Christians) so seldom seem to wish to apply it themselves in the manner that Jesus did.
LikeLike
“Not being earthly or carnal, and so subject to corruption, but spiritual, it raises us even to eternal life, so that we can patiently live at present under toil, hunger, cold, contempt, disgrace, and other annoyances; contented with this, that our King will never abandon us, but will supply our necessities until our warfare is ended, and we are called to triumph: such being the nature of his kingdom, that he communicates to us whatever he received of his Father.”
Yeppers!
LikeLike
So the reason the spirituality of the church is such a threat to the Baylys and the Rousers is that they conflate the spiritual and civil. They want the magistrate to do something that only the church can do.
The commandments forbid murder and theft. Unless you want the church to start punishing them, there’s going to be some division of labor in enforcing the commandments.
Should the state or the church punish adultery? By what principle do you decide?
LikeLike
TVD, the principle is called the law-gospel distinction, which means that while the state is governed by law, the church is governed by gospel. That means the state bodily punishes lawbreakers, but the church spiritually disciplines them.
LikeLike
Tom – Should the state or the church punish adultery? By what principle do you decide?
Erik – Perhaps the degree to which the public at large is harmed is relevant? Adultery does harm the public at large, but perhaps not as much as theft or murder. Certainly adultery takes place that harms no one except the adulterers, and perhaps even then only in a spiritual or ultimate sense (after this life). For instance, consider two married people, without children, who are simultaneously carrying on affairs. Who is harmed except for them?
And then we have Jesus’ definition of adultery (looking at a woman lustfully), which would be highly impractical for the magistrate (or even the church) to punish, except for more extreme circumstances (viewing pornography being punished by church discipline, for example).
LikeLike
Erik – Perhaps the degree to which the public at large is harmed is relevant? Adultery does harm the public at large, but perhaps not as much as theft or murder. Certainly adultery takes place that harms no one except the adulterers, and perhaps even then only in a spiritual or ultimate sense (after this life). For instance, consider two married people, without children, who are simultaneously carrying on affairs. Who is harmed except for them?
Where is this modern notion of libertarianism in the Bible? You see the problem.
LikeLike
Tom – Where is this modern notion of libertarianism in the Bible? You see the problem.
Erik – That’s a good point. We are living as aliens & strangers in a society where we on one hand have freedom of religion and conscience but on the other hand have to share power with our neighbors, many of whom have no regard for the Bible. So how do we coexist with them? I think the answer is that we try to find common ground with them. I think we can do this because even though they may have no regard for the Bible, we do believe that in some way God has put Natural law within them. Natural law and the Ten Commandments have much in common. The degree to which Natural Law (and the Commandments) have been suppressed and obscured by sin vary from person to person.
Take abortion as an example. People who favor abortion normally do not say that abortion is murder but that it is not murder. They in a sense affirm that murder is wrong, but deny that abortion is an example of it. Usually people do not outright deny the Commandments, but instead try to wiggle around them. Even people who are not Christians do not flaunt their disdain for God, adultery, thievery, murder, coveting, etc. No one says “Murder is wrong, abortion is murder, but I favor it anyway because I value sexual freedom more highly than not murdering”, even though that is exactly what is taking place.
LikeLike
One of the fascinating things about film is the degree to which you can see natural law at work, even in highly “secular” Hollywood. People just can not escape Natural Law being implanted in them.Take, for instance, the recent film “Magic Mike”. This is a movie made by a homosexual (Steven Soderbergh) about male strippers. The moral core of the film, however, even in the midst of the stripping scenes and fornication, is the older sister of one of the strippers who works a 9-5 office job and eventually challenges Channing Tatum to create a batter life for himself. Similarly, Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece, “Boogie Nights” is not so much about pornography but about how messed up everyone in the industry is. As Anderson himself said, people in the industry either find Jesus or eventually die off, still a part of it. Pagans attest to Natural Law again and again and when they do not (as in the case of pornography), everyone recognizes that what is being created is transgressive and is not art with a redemptive purpose. For a brief time (1972’s “Deep Throat”) pornography was experimented with by the upper and middle classes as art, but that time quickly passed and it was seen for what it is.
LikeLike
Erik – except for one thing (which I myself have difficulty understanding). As everyone knows from national news broadcasts, Chicago has a very high murder rate. Most of these murders supposedly come from gang related conflicts. And most of the shooters seem to have little regard for anyone else who happens to be in the way of their intended rival gang targets.
In fact, when they actually tracked down and apprehended one of these shooters (Steshawn Brisco) a few years ago and the media challenged him about his indiscriminate use of his hand gun and the innocent victim he killed (Tanaja Stokes), he replied “We didn’t care, we let the whole .40 clip go.”
OK, now what is that? Some evangelical types I discussed this matter with described the shooter as having a “seared conscience.” What’s a “seared conscience?” And do they think that murder is OK as long as you don’t get caught? This is a troubling issue for our times.
LikeLike
Another example is Philip Kaufman’s screen adaptation of Milan Kundera’s “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” (maybe the most European American movie ever made). A profound study of fidelity, infidelity, and adultery. Those who are compelled to be faithful can not be happy being unfaithful even if they are justified. Others can not be faithful, but suffer from guilt because they know they should be. Still others are not faithful, know they can’t be, so know they can not marry out of fairness to someone they love. All of this takes place against the backdrop the Soviet tanks rolling into 1968 Prague.
LikeLike
George,
Consider the degree to which these men are raised in a world without fathers, perhaps one of the primary means that God uses to form the conscience.
You have hit on one of the more interesting aspects of the first season of “The Wire”.
LikeLike
Erik: ‘Take abortion as an example. People who favor abortion normally do not say that abortion is murder but that it is not murder.”
95% of people oppose abortion deep down.
The nutcakes at the far end of both issues make up 10% of the pool.
From experience the most thumping fundies went for abortions for their teenage daughters when it arose… men only support it because they think they can get out of a free love preganancy with no strings attached…
mainly people don’t want to talk about it or think about it…
LikeLike
George,
We also need to consider that in any society there will be a certain number of outliers. One of the primary characteristics of sociopaths is the inability to have empathy for others. In fact, ask an atheist to explain the presence of evil to you and this will likely be their explanation — dysfunctional brain chemistry. That’s part of the story, but certainly not all of it.
LikeLike
George, this kind of thing may not be that new. As Stephen Calt describes in “I’d Rather Be the Devil,” guns and violence were common during parties among blacks in Mississippi in the late 20’s and beyond. The whites would just look the other way unless it directly affected them in some way. Then he descibes the same kind of thing among groups of black laborers. Maybe Skip James was a sociopath, too, but his reaction seemed to be “you gotta do what you gotta do.” I wonder if Aarron Gonzalez was thinking that way when he allegedly killed a man in delberate fashion.
LikeLike
Another interesting case is Woody Allen, an atheist, an intellectual, and a Jew (perhaps in that order) meditating on the reality of good and evil in a world without God in two of his best (serious) films, “Crimes & Misdemeanors” and “Match Point”. Both films basically examine the same issue, albeit 16 years apart and in different surroundings. If there is no God, is guilt over our “bad” deeds really rational or necessary?
Has Allen really convinced himself of the answer, however? That is the open question.
LikeLike
“Consider the degree to which these men are raised in a world without fathers, perhaps one of the primary means that God uses to form the conscience.”
Erik, can you expand on this? I don’t know that I’ve heard this before and would like to hear your thinking on it.
Me and the Missus have somewhat converged over the years. She told me her latest parenting philosophy today: “suck it up and get over it.” She’s come a long way from that 20 year old social work major that I married.
LikeLike
Erik, “Broadway Danny Rose” combines Allen’s existentialism and moral pondering with his early goofy humor. If you let the movie come to you (as in basketball, letting the game come to you) the movie’s a nice little gem.
LikeLike
And coming full circle, is this not the story of the 20th century – The strong-willed superman, lacking in empathy, affirming no God, denying Natural Law, and shaping the world in his own image – Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.
LikeLike
MM,
I’ve seen it.
LikeLike
MM,
How does a single mom use the “wait until your father gets home” line? If a boy doesn’t have the love and discipline of a father are they able to become men in the way that God intended? So much of the bravado of young black men may come back to the lack of loving fathers in their communities. A good father shows sons how to be a man while at the same time being caring for those who are weaker. This is what empathy is all about. Apart from that life is a jungle in which the strongest, cruelest man wins (once again, season one of “The Wire”). Now the Baylys take this notion and through their ham-handedness make a mess of it, but there is a grain of truth there for those mature enough to handle it.
Now I know there are many good men who grow up without fathers. When it becomes an entire way of life in a subculture, however, that’s a huge problem.
LikeLike
Erik, I’m thinking of two things: instruction and absorption. We instruct with, for example, the catechism and practical wisdom in its many forms.
Absorption is something we have less control over. We talk, think, and behave in certain ways. On some sub-cognitive level our children are absorbing those things and it’s almost creating a default for the way they will behave. That doesn’t mean we put on airs with super piety, because they will intuit pretense and whatever is staged. This morning my son told the Missus “I want to dress like Daddy” and then, thinking of his future “what does it take to be an elder?” I’ve never told him to dress like me nor that he should be an elder some day. I have great respect for diligent single Moms who sacrifice for their children, but their children’s absorption of maleness will be limited.
LikeLike
MM,
That’s great. I could make jokes about the potential answers to “what does it take to be an elder?” (the patience of Job…), but I’ll refrain.
Meanwhile at my house my 6-year-old is buying every Iowa Hawkeye item he can get his hands on just to spite me…
LikeLike
Did the Callers weigh in on the death of Andrew Greeley?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-31/news/ct-met-andrew-greeley-obituary-20130531_1_cardinal-albert-meyer-priest-andrew-greeley
LikeLike
“That’s great. I could make jokes about the potential answers to “what does it take to be an elder?” (the patience of Job…), but I’ll refrain.”
I would never recommend that a man become an elder. But if you aspire to it and others agree that you should do it, you’re stuck with it.
“Meanwhile at my house my 6-year-old is buying every Iowa Hawkeye item he can get his hands on just to spite me…”
But maybe his father has a bit of contrarian in him so the son is a chip off the ol’ block after all.
LikeLike
EC: We are living as aliens & strangers in a society…
That’s one theological opinion, but is it the only possible true one?
The American Founders certainly saw us as the New Israel, not the Babylonian captivity, or the Israel conquered by the Romans.
I don’t see who’s authorized to say which of you is correct.
“…a society where we on one hand have freedom of religion and conscience but on the other hand have to share power with our neighbors, many of whom have no regard for the Bible.”
And does the Bible require that we hand the control of our community [communities] over to them? Again, that’s some theologizing that can be argued either way Biblically. Righteousness exalts a nation.
So how do we coexist with them? I think the answer is that we try to find common ground with them. I think we can do this because even though they may have no regard for the Bible, we do believe that in some way God has put Natural law within them. Natural law and the Ten Commandments have much in common. The degree to which Natural Law (and the Commandments) have been suppressed and obscured by sin vary from person to person.
I have no problem with this. Neither do I accept the premise that the Ten Commandments is the alpha & omega of the question. Who said it’s solely about the 10 commandments? If pushed, I’d defer to the Two Great Commandments, which opens up a lot more theological ground.
Take abortion as an example. People who favor abortion normally do not say that abortion is murder but that it is not murder.
Depends on which abortion, early term or post-viability, etc. But just because there’s uncertainty does not mean we abandon the question to relativism and radical libertarianism.
I myself will admit a moral uncertainty about early-term abortion, much less uncertainty as we get to 22 weeks, the point that the earliest baby has been known to survive. As Brother Sean notes, this is the majority view. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/plenty-common-ground-found-abortion-debate.aspx
But the first point here is not to abandon moral reasoning in our society, especially to the moral imbeciles. The Biblical case for that is in no way conclusive; neither do you or I know [except by asking the Holy Spirit] whether America’s Founding was by divine providence or not.
As you know, mileage on that one varies…
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted June 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
And coming full circle, is this not the story of the 20th century – The strong-willed superman, lacking in empathy, affirming no God, denying Natural Law, and shaping the world in his own image – Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.
Now yer cookin’. But who’s to say the 21st must be like that too, and the 22nd. The failures of the 20th century are manifest: we need not repeat them.
LikeLike
EC: We are living as aliens & strangers in a society…
Me: I have pointed out on many occasion, that seeing the church as perpetually in the *aliens and strangers*, class doesn’t pass the smell test. When our nation was founded “Christians” were in the large majority. What about Calvin’s Geneva? Was the church living in the, (aliens and strangers) category, or were they the ones in charge?
To ask the question, is to answer it!
Someone needs to go back to the drawing board, because understanding that single verse as a permanent paradigm for Christ’s body, is so out of context, I think its absurd. Think about Christ’s kingdom parables, it starts out small (like aliens and strangers), and slowly takes over. He shall have dominion. Let all the nations serve him!
LikeLike
Tom,
How do you think we might be repeating the 20th century?
I think we (the west) might be engaged in a long-term suicide attempt (through declining birthrates, if nothing else), but this is not necessarily the same thing that went on in the 20th century. I think the 20th century was the triumph (at least temporarily) of totalitarian ideologies (fascism and communism) over liberal democracy. If anything we are picking up where the 1890’s-1920’s left off after a break for WWII and the Cold War.
LikeLike
Tom,
The problem with the City on a Hill idea is that it only lasted for a few generations, if that. Any type of utopian or semi-utopian social experiment can be sustained for awhile as long as you maintain a certain degree of homogeneity (take the socialist countries of Northern Europe, for example), but once we opened wide the gates for immigration (of Catholics, Jews, Africans, etc.) that homogeneity ceased to exist. “The Melting Pot” by its very nature means that those of Puritan ancestry are only one part of the stew.
So now we have an ongoing conversation of what the good life consists of and what justice is. Christians have a role in that, but we’re not dictators and likely never will be again. And here we argue that this may not be all that bad.
LikeLike
Doug,
Calvin’s Geneva is not a great example because it didn’t remain Calvin’s Geneva for very long. What you need to cite is Christendom, but that came with nasty side effects like Protestants being burned at the stake while being bound with wet ropes. No thanks.
LikeLike
As social conservatives we have to ask ourselves (1) If we are in any sense a majority, why did we lose to Barack Obama two times, (2) Why can we do no better than nominating stiffs like McCain and Obama for President (i.e. we don’t even control the “conservative” party). The only thing almost everyone seems to agree on is that don’t want to have Christian morality forced down their throats. So where does this leave us?
LikeLike
Oops – Romney, not Obama.
LikeLike
Erik,
Although I don’t recall finishing the book, what I read of Greeley’s “The Catholic Revolution” seemed both true-to-life and insightful about the realities of American Catholicism. The slightly incoherent Amazon reviews don’t do it justice.
LikeLike
Mike,
I haven’t read him but he sounded like a really smart and interesting guy. He was certainly wide-ranging in his writing. You don’t see the Callers talking much about Catholics like Greeley. They seem to be to Catholicism what fundamentalists are to Protestantism or what pietists are to Presbyterianism — kind of a bore.
LikeLike
“An ardent fan of the Bulls and Bears and committed to praying for the Cubs to one day improve, Greeley was a “Chicagophile,” Cusick said.”
Admit it, Erik. If you found out Bryan was a cubs fan, you’d be a little thrown.
I saw Darryl’s title as a little bit of “making peace” with our fellow interwebers over at CtoC. Maybe I’m getting too hopeful. Golf may still be the only way.
Boring or not, I’ve found myself posting a few comments. They do seem to know stuff. I’m going to try to stop that, though. I can learn Romish stuff elsewhere, for sure.
And what can I say, I chose accounting for a career. If I ever call someone boring, remind me of that fact. Give me the ol’ pot kettle black thing.
Speaking of cubs, I need to check my fantasy team…the most important sector of the world wide interweb.
Auf Wiedersehen
LikeLike
The problem with the City on a Hill idea is that it only lasted for a few generations, if that.
Not so. Compared to the rest of this God-forsaken world, I’d rather argue we’re still it, as Mr. Lincoln put it,
Y’know, Erik, as more a historian than a theologian, I turn up my nose at “providential history.” But if you catch me in a weak moment, when push comes to shove, well, it always does, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Doug, Calvin’s Geneva is not a great example because it didn’t remain Calvin’s Geneva for very long.
Are we doing theology, history, or political philosophy?
While we’re at it, which is “2K?”
[Clarity over agreement, like the man said. We should always yield the floor to clarity whenever it’s attempted.]
LikeLike
Erik bloviates
” “Doug,
Calvin’s Geneva is not a great example because it didn’t remain Calvin’s Geneva for very long.”
Me: “What’s very *long* too you”?
A year? Two? Or three; or ten thousand?
Or do you have the slightest clue?
I think not!
LikeLike
Tom to Erik, “Not so. Compared to the rest of this God-forsaken world, I’d rather argue we’re still it, as Mr. Lincoln put it,”
Tom to Tom, “Are we doing theology, history, or political philosophy?”
LikeLike
TVD, “city on a hill” is from a speech of William Bradford who was quoting Matthew 5:14. But Matthew 5:14 is not about countries, so if you’re doing “city on a hill” you’re doing errant theology. For more see “In Search of the City on the HIll” by Richard Gamble.
LikeLike
Tom – Are we doing theology, history, or political philosophy?
Erik – Hopefully we’re doing and integrating all three. Attempts to do each separately in a “sterile” environment inevitably miss out on important truths. That’s what Old Life is all about.
2K is primarily about theology and allowing the church to be what Christ intended and nothing more. In trying to be more, gospel essentials are inevitably obscured and confused. The gospel is about being reconciled to God, by God, and this is man’s fundamental need. All other needs pale in comparison.
LikeLike
Erik, how bout doing what we are told? How about accomplishing our marching orders? Christ saved us and amen; but for what purpose? To what end? For what reason?
“We are his workmanship created FOR good works in Christ, that he prepared beforehand for us to walk in.”
And for what purpose did He create us? To conquer the world! To disciple the nations! To teach them to obey ALL of His commandments!
Let’s get on with our mission! In his strength of course.
LikeLike
Erik solemnly states:
“Doug, Calvin’s Geneva is not a great example because it didn’t remain Calvin’s Geneva for very long.
Me: What has the length of time have to do with it? So what if it only lasted a hundred years?
Erik: What you need to cite is Christendom, but that came with nasty side effects like Protestants being burned at the stake while being bound with wet ropes. No thanks.”
Me: Right Erik, so throw the baby out with the bath water? As long as there are sinful human beings on this planet, regardless of the system, there will always be “nasty” side effects, you big boob!
This is precisely why we want God’s law to define good and evil, right and wrong, or how far we should go in punishing evil doers. Who knows better than God what justice requires?
Who knows better than God, when the punishment fits the crime?
LikeLike
“Erik solemnly states…”
“Zrim bloviates…”
These days I’m just reading the salutation on Doug’s comments. They’re good for a quick chortle (sorry for the plagiarism, CW).
LikeLike
That’s cool Daddy-o!, or should I say M&M? I write them to put a smile on your face.
Mission accomplished!
LikeLike
Doug, this made me think of you AND it put a smile on my face. It’s just plain wholesome, simple wisdom
LikeLike
It gave me a smile to get the last word on Doug, though.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted July 1, 2013 at 7:06 am | Permalink
Tom to Erik, “Not so. Compared to the rest of this God-forsaken world, I’d rather argue we’re still it, as Mr. Lincoln put it,”
Tom to Tom, “Are we doing theology, history, or political philosophy?”
One thing at a time, Darryl. Just so we know which hat you have on.
When you have your prophet’s hat on, we must sort that from your “historian’s” hat. Indeed, when you say the Bible says x when so many of your co-religionists think it says y, we need to sort that too.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 1, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink
TVD, “city on a hill” is from a speech of William Bradford who was quoting Matthew 5:14. But Matthew 5:14 is not about countries, so if you’re doing “city on a hill” you’re doing errant theology.
Sez you. They thought they were seeing a historical miracle, a clean slate and a safe and abundant land for the “true religion” [that’s what they called Protestantism].
Now you can decree miracles don’t exist, or that Providence doesn’t exist, or theta the hand of God was not present, but I have know way of knowing whether your theology or theirs is correct.
LikeLike
Here’s what Doug-on-the-march makes me think of:
LikeLike
Or should I say “The Doug Militant”?
LikeLike
TVD, “they” were wrong. Nyah.
LikeLike
TVD, it’s so refreshing to see you doing cross training by going all theological on us. I guess you are on board with Edwards:
“There is perhaps no people now on the face of the earth whose case has been so parallel with that of the Israelites as ours…If we think to escape divine judgments as much as other people, we are much mistaken. No such thing is to be expected. We are a city set on a hill, and the honor of God doth greatly depend on our behavior.”
I’ll side with Gamble:
“Edwards used the metaphor of the city to bind his church members with the cords of a national covenant, obscuring the Augustinian understanding of a sojourning City of God on pilgrimage through the City of Man….like so many of his era, he blurred the sacred and the secular. The things of Caesar looked very much like the things of God from inside the walls of Edwards’s city.”
If we can’t get you to read a book, can we get you to read excerpts?http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/category/city-on-a-hill/
LikeLike
Did somebody say side with Gamble?
Sensing the rumblings of social discontent in the 1870s, as gauged by popular economist Henry George and others, the architects of the social gospel emphasized justice and physical redemption in this present world over spiritual salvation in the life to come. Consequently, they interpreted Christianity in terms of behavior rather than doctrine. They condemned moribund orthodoxy for its impractical talk of binding creeds and standards of faith, while they instead emphasized good deeds and standards of living. In his memoirs, Dean Shailer Mathews of the University of Chicago’s Divinity School contrasted the two competing views of man and redemption. “The older evangelical orthodoxy,” he wrote, “regarded the gospel as the message of forgiveness of sins by virtue of belief in Jesus as the atoning sacrifice. Faith in him was of course to be followed by moral life but the good news of salvation was not primarily moral.” In contrast, the social gospel “was aggressively ethical. It naturally produced moral discontent rather than spiritual complacency.
In order to make the church “aggressively ethical,” the social gospel required that Christianity redefine its theology of man and society. In The Gospel and the Modern Man of 1910, Shailer Mathews argued for the new solidaristic view of man in society. Mathews believed that social consciousness had become an inseparable part of the modern mind, a mind guided by a sense of historical process, the immanence of God in human events, and the empirical basis of truth. He further argued that the condition of the social order itself would determine the agenda of “really vital religious issues” facing the contemporary church. This new solidarity meant that both sin and salvation, historically matters of supreme importance for the individual, were now social concepts. For Mathews, the new perspective—like the growing ideal of “service”—was attributable to historical development; society was moving inexorably from individualism toward collectivism, changing the very definition of sin. “As civilization develops,” he wrote, “”sin grows corporate. We sin socially by violating social rather than individualistic personal relations.
Richard M. Gamble, The War for Righteousness (pgs. 60-61)
LikeLike
I’ll side with Gamble:
I understand your theology just fine. it’s not all that complex, no offense.
The point is that yours is not the only possible valid theology, and if you’re to decree that America’s founding was NOT the work of Providence, I must ask by what authority you do so.
It’s all so magisterial. Pontifical, even. Prophetic.
LikeLike
the architects of the social gospel emphasized justice and physical redemption in this present world over spiritual salvation in the life to come. Consequently, they interpreted Christianity in terms of behavior rather than doctrine.
The social gospellers go way out on a limb with some of their theologizing, and I’m not a fan of reducing Christianity to Beatitudism, but one cannot just ignore them either.
Geez.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 1, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
TVD, “they” were wrong. Nyah.
Heh. OK, I can deal with that.
LikeLike
TVD, who’s ignoring? The whole point is to take them seriously and then take them apart.
LikeLike
Mr. Z, I’m objecting to Gamble
they interpreted Christianity in terms of behavior rather than doctrine.
or at least pointing out that Jesus sure seems to [Mt 25].
I think the social gospel theology goes too far, but think that libertarianism doesn’t go far enough.
LikeLike
Tom, if you say this:
“I understand your theology just fine.”
… you can’t say this:
“The point is that yours is not the only possible valid theology, and if you’re to decree that America’s founding was NOT the work of Providence,”
…because Providence is
“God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”
So, if it happened, it’s providence.
But your personal view of providence is something different. It’s something listing in the direction of the USA as a second Israel. Yet you say *my* view is “magisterial. Pontifical, even. Prophetic”?
Now I see why you don’t do theology.
LikeLike
TVD, if you’re going to theologize, you gotta tighten it up. Matt 25 isn’t a refutation of marginalizing the social gospelers. Behind the idea of liberation/social/doing the gospel is a misappropriation of the redemptive work of Christ to the kingdom of this world, contrary to Christ’s own claim that His kingdom is NOT of this world. Our citizenship is a heavenly one, not one of ushering in a golden age or making the mistake of immanentizing the eschaton. The church isn’t inaugurating the kingdom here on earth. Scripture outside of ancient Israel and a new heavens and new earth(second advent) doesn’t promote the ‘city on a hill’ Whether Vatican city or medieval Geneva or New Haven. Those are all so much misappropriation of religious language for political ends. It doesn’t matter whether Jesse Jackson does it or Cardinal Dolan or Ronald Reagan it’s a cheapening of the redemptive realities of salvation and a misunderstanding of the ‘already-not yet’ tension we abide in this age. Do we do good works? Absolutely. Do those good works save or inaugurate the kingdom of God? Absolutely not. Can you ‘do’ the gospel? no. Even Tim Keller in NYC can’t turn that trick. The gospel is a historic reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, without which we of all men are most to be pitied in this life. The gospel valued for it’s pragmatism is cheap indeed.
1 cor 15;
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
LikeLike
Tom,
I don’t know if you’re familiar with the music of the late Keith Green:
If one is to interpret Scripture in a coherent way they have to come to an understanding of the relationship between faith and works. Clearly works alone don’t save you, so what is the relationship between them? What is empty faith and what is faith that expresses itself in works done from gratitude?
LikeLike
But your personal view of providence is something different. It’s something listing in the direction of the USA as a second Israel.
The Founding era Calvinists such as Samuel Adams certainly believed it*, as did Washington, and most others. I’m open to it. You’re not. For you to say Adams and Washington are wrong is indeed “magisterial. Pontifical, even. Prophetic.”
That is all.
*http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/06/heavens-gift-to-america.html
LikeLike
Matt 25 isn’t a refutation of marginalizing the social gospelers. Behind the idea of liberation/social/doing the gospel is a misappropriation of the redemptive work of Christ to the kingdom of this world, contrary to Christ’s own claim that His kingdom is NOT of this world.
I’m not a polemicist. I already said some SGers stretch Beatitudism to breaking. But I am saying they have a point. Reason and experience dictate that if government is the only way to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick, then if we are to be sheep and not goats, government it must be.
LikeLike
Keith Green:
And my friends, the only difference between the sheep and the goats, according to this scripture,
Is what they did, and didn’t do!!
Yah, Erik. That stuff needs sorting out. Some people’s Bibles seem to have the strangest holes in them.
LikeLike
Tom, if I disagree with Keith Green am I pontific and prophetic?
LikeLike
Mikelmann
Posted July 1, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink
Tom, if I disagree with Keith Green am I pontific and prophetic?
Depends on your level of sincerity. And certainty. Or in this case, superciliousness.
LikeLike
TVD you have the presumption backwards. You need to be a prophet to say the USA is the new Israel, not to deny it
LikeLike
Government, sheep and goats? Well, your breaking points and mine are quite different. Basically my voting record or maybe activism or lack thereof is going to be thrown into the mix of; of Christ or not. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your not arguing for the salvation of Gov(non-imago dei creation). But this still lacks understanding of the scriptural wisdom of not conflating the kingdom of this world with the next, and runs roughshod over the idea of salvation being accomplished in the life and death of Christ. 1 cor. 15.
LikeLike
Mikelmann
Posted July 1, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
TVD you have the presumption backwards. You need to be a prophet to say the USA is the new Israel, not to deny it
Who made you the judge?
You don’t believe in miracles? Fine. They saw God as immanent, not just a set of doctrines. I see it through both sets of eyes, your and theirs. There was a hardly a man alive after the success of the Revolution who didn’t see God’s hand in it. You’re entitled to your 21st century assumptions all the same, but you’re not seeing theirs.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 1, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
Government, sheep and goats? Well, your breaking points and mine are quite different. Basically my voting record or maybe activism or lack thereof is going to be thrown into the mix of; of Christ or not.
Make of the story of the sheep and goats what you will. But you–each of us–needs to address it.
of Christ or not. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your not arguing for the salvation of Gov
Wasn’t it Locke who argued your government can’t save your soul? Helluva good point.
LikeLike
TVD, in what category would you put the constitution or the declaration of independence? Is it sacred or profane? The american war of indepence, is that a piece of redemptive history or just American history?
LikeLike
Tom, you’ve uncovered a good point. No one at Old LIfe wants to take the admonitions to press on, or walking with fear and trembling, seriously. Yet, we are repeatedly warned to walk in the *fear* of the Lord lest we should fall short of the mark.
Will you ever hear talk like that here?
If you start quoting the warning passages found in the new testament, Old Life (men?) will start peeing their pants, and call you legalistic, or worse that you don’t understand the difference between law and gospel.
Tom, you are dealing with a bunch of guys who pretend they’re not there.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
TVD, in what category would you put the constitution or the declaration of independence? Is it sacred or profane?
The D of I is natural law. Is that sacred or profane?
The american war of indepence, is that a piece of redemptive history or just American history?
I don’t know. I see both sides. I don’t “do” providential history, but as a student of history, we must note its prominence in everyone’s mind.
I see Kuyper liked it, but that’s even worse around here than citing Baylys,See, I take everyone’s faith claims seriously–yes, yours too. The American city on the hill may become Gomorrah–there’s a providential lesson in that, too, and Winthrop was quite aware of the possibility.
New Israel, indeed. Oy.
LikeLike
Tom, you don’t do polemics, you don’t do theology, you don’t do providence, and yet here you are, still doing them all. Not even the Phillies are this entertaining.
LikeLike
TVD, these aren’t trick questions. Whether you’re RC or Protestant, D o I or the constitution are profane documents. Neither rises to the level of sacred text. Providentially considered or not, american history is not redemptive history. We aren’t barthian or existentialists. Things don’t become what we imagine them to be, nor when they ‘become’ that for us or anyone else for that matter. The resurrection is historic reality not an enlightened state of being. Paul doesn’t argue for the power of Jesus resurrected in your heart, but an unalterable reality of His resurrection from the dead. Otherwise your faith is in vain. Full stop.
LikeLike
The notion of the U.S. as a “New Israel” is odd on many levels. One of the problems is that the “old Israel” ceased to be Israel and was driven from the land because of their disobedience. As Christians we believe that Christ kept and fulfilled the law that Israel failed to obey. What exactly does it even mean to be a “New Israel”? And why would Christians steeped in Reformed theology even seek this as a goal?
LikeLike
Jesus’ “sheep and goats” passage is certainly law (not gospel) and I agree with Tom that we need to take it seriously. The third section of the Heidelberg is labeled as the “graditude” or “service” section and includes an exposition of the Ten Commandments. Certainly those who are saved will have some measure of lawkeeping (albeit small) but these works are in and of themselves not saving. How could they be if God’s standard is perfection? It seems like the parable hints at the need to be humble and merciful, concerned with the needs of others.
LikeLike
Hopefully we as Christians are looking out first of all for the needs (not infinite wants) of our families first, then our fellow Christians, then our communities, then our fellow Americans, then those around the world. Certainly we all have limited resources and God understands this. We are called to be a wise manager of what we have been entrusted with. If we don’t have a lot of money we can always give our time.
LikeLike
Erik, check yourself.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=gpztPyZ5TH0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DgpztPyZ5TH0
LikeLike
TVD: “The Founding era Calvinists such as Samuel Adams certainly believed it*, as did Washington, and most others. I’m open to it. You’re not. For you to say Adams and Washington are wrong is indeed “magisterial. Pontifical, even. Prophetic.”
I’ve thought about it and reached a conclusion. You, on the basis of neither the scriptures nor the Pope (if that’s your thing) promote that idea that the USA is a New Israel. I think you’re projecting, Tom. You do history in a theologically presumptuous way. But there’s few Republican politicians who agree with you if that’s a comfort. (Sorry, Sarah, it’s just not going to work out between us)
LikeLike
I’ve thought about it and reached a conclusion. You, on the basis of neither the scriptures nor the Pope (if that’s your thing) promote that idea that the USA is a New Israel. >
No, you’ve thought about it and come up with the same sophistic rewording you attempted last time. At least I’d hoped you read the Winthrop, but you ignored it.
D. G. Hart
Posted July 1, 2013 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
Tom, you don’t do polemics, you don’t do theology, you don’t do providence, and yet here you are, still doing them all. Not even the Phillies are this entertaining.
Just dispelling the fog, Darryl. A lot of confused kool-aid drinkers here. Frankly, I expected more coherence, but together we’re clearing things up just fine.
Your avatar looks like Dick Allen. If you’re a fan, I can get you an introduction.
LikeLike
TVD, Narcissus. It’s O.K., L.A. has a long tradition of people who make it up as they go along. Walt, Michael, Manson……..
LikeLike
Sean, where do you see a sacred, profane, concept taught in Scripture?
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 1, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
TVD, Narcissus. It’s O.K., L.A. has a long tradition of people who make it up as they go along. Walt, Michael, Manson……..
Oh, I could do without the jerkful things you say to me and about me, sean. Really. But do what you must.
LikeLike
Doug, the Noahic covenant.
LikeLike
Tom,
How do you know Dick Allen?
My dad made a card for him (and many other players) for our “Superstar Baseball” game growing up. lots of good times.
LikeLike
TVD, I don’t see virtue in passive aggressive and you aren’t clever. You are about you, and because I can relate, I feel free to be frank.
LikeLike
Doug, also the Babylonian exile: simultaneous cultural commonality and spiritual antithesis.
LikeLike
EC: It seems like the parable [of the Sheep and Goats] hints at the need to be humble and merciful, concerned with the needs of others.
Frankly, Erik, I have never grasped the hermeneutic of taking some things literally and others as “hints.” Mt 25 in particular seems really direct. I was going to say that maybe goats get their little corner of heaven or something, but in verse 36 Jesus says the hell with ’em.
I’m not a works guy. As the notorious non-/semi-Christian Benjamin Franklin wrote to Calvinist uberpreacher [and good friend] George Whitefield
So you’re right it’s about gratitude. And along with hypocrites, Jesus reserves his greatest ire for ingrates. [Mt 18:21, etc.] You just hope that at some point in their life they come around [Lk 15:11], eh?
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 1, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink
TVD, I don’t see virtue in passive aggressive and you aren’t clever. You are about you, and because I can relate, I feel free to be frank.
Perhaps you’re right. But mostly you feel “free” because you hide behind a screen name and don’t have to answer to church, family or friends for what you write.
Do what you must. I can only offer you my other cheek to slap as well. A storefront preacher once taught me that “turn the other cheek” doesn’t mean to ignore the slap, a great lesson of my life. It’s to acknowledge it, and invite the guy to do it again, if he wills.
If you want to keep slapping me like this, sean, the shame is yours, not mine, brother.
LikeLike
TVD, you don’t wear victim well. It’s ill-fitting. You disparage trained historians on their accounts of history. You varyingly correct Protestants and RC’s on their respective communions, often errantly, while adhering to neither and you are otherwise passive aggressive when humility and meekness would better suit your capacity. I was raised Irish Catholic, spent six years in RC seminary and converted and took oaths pledging fidelity to confessional Protestantism. I experience no shame in calling you on your pretense. Any number of people here can tell you who I am, where I attend and my sinful proclivities. Finally, I have an Irish catholic mother, you’ll have to work much harder on your martyr complex, I work with a professional.
LikeLike
“Where is this modern notion of libertarianism in the Bible? You see the problem.”
No. The problem is that you still misunderstand what 2k is all about. There are at least three issues you continue to conflate:
1) moral philosophy (how do we know what is or isn’t moral? NLT, divine command, intuition?)
2) political philosophy (how do we determine who will decide what the government should do, what should penalties be, etc..?)
3) ecclesiology: What authority does the church have to speak out on these first two issues? What authority does the church have in requiring that her members adopt a particular moral or political stance? Where does she get this authority? How far does it extend?
I don’t think there is any debate among the posters here about morality, though Doug seems to continue to insist there is. I don’t understand this, and it is really an unfortunate distraction. I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had about how we ground our moral beliefs and the extent to which they are universal. I’m surprised to see so much support for NL here – my understanding is that reformed Christians have traditionally been skeptical of it (as they should be!). It reeks of metaphysics which doesn’t have the best trackrecord for establishing knowledge. I don’t see why morality should get a pass. Indeed I would say that the articulation of NL arguments against homosexuality have been quite effective at convincing people that there are no good secular arguments for the immorality of homosexuality.
I don’t think there is much interest in debating political philosophy (#2). It really hasn’t been the theme of any recent posts. There is a huge amount of interest in debating ecclesiology (#3). So your question about where in the Bible one gets libertarianism is almost relevant. The question is whether we should expect to get much guidance about political philosophy from the Bible. I think the answer is no. The Bible does not tell Christians what kind of government they should advocate for. The 2Ker (and those who follow the regulative principle) would conclude from this that the individual believer has wide latitude to follow one’s conscience (and prudence) in determining the best political order. When it comes to church governance, we don’t believe we have that same latitude. Now lest you think this is an argument with a strawman, keep in mind that very influential evangelicals disagree – they do think support for a democrat or libertarian is sinful.
LikeLike
“And for what purpose did He create us? To conquer the world! To disciple the nations! To teach them to obey ALL of His commandments!”
Funny, I was working on catechism with my youngest. Her answer was a bit different than yours, but then again she is only three. Her answer was “For his own glory”. I don’t think it is our job to get unbelievers to obey all his commandments. It is our job to proclaim the gospel, baptize those who accept Christ, and disciple them. Teaching (or forcing them under penalty of the law) to follow the law is a great way to erect whitewashed tombs.
LikeLike
“them” being unbelievers.
LikeLike
” I think we can do this because even though they may have no regard for the Bible, we do believe that in some way God has put Natural law within them. Natural law and the Ten Commandments have much in common. The degree to which Natural Law (and the Commandments) have been suppressed and obscured by sin vary from person to person.”
Erik,
Are you a proponent of natural law or do you mean it more colloquially (e.g. something like conscience)?
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 1, 2013 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
TVD, you don’t wear victim well. It’s ill-fitting. You disparage trained historians on their accounts of history. You varyingly correct Protestants and RC’s on their respective communions, often errantly, while adhering to neither and you are otherwise passive aggressive when humility and meekness would better suit your capacity. I was raised Irish Catholic, spent six years in RC seminary and converted and took oaths pledging fidelity to confessional Protestantism. I experience no shame in calling you on your pretense. Any number of people here can tell you who I am, where I attend and my sinful proclivities. Finally, I have an Irish catholic mother, you’ll have to work much harder on your martyr complex, I work with a professional.
That’s bigtime ugly, “sean.” My Irish Catholic mom is dead. Slap away at me personally if you must, but start signing your real name if you have the guts.
Stop the ugly, bro. It’s not right.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 1, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
sdb
Posted July 1, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
“Where is this modern notion of libertarianism in the Bible? You see the problem.”
No. The problem is that you still misunderstand what 2k is all about. There are at least three issues you continue to conflate:
1) moral philosophy (how do we know what is or isn’t moral? NLT, divine command, intuition?)
2) political philosophy (how do we determine who will decide what the government should do, what should penalties be, etc..?)
3) ecclesiology: What authority does the church have to speak out on these first two issues? What authority does the church have in requiring that her members adopt a particular moral or political stance? Where does she get this authority? How far does it extend?
Thanks for the clarity, SDB. I am asking precisely those questions. A pity you haven’t read what I think might be the answers, but it’s far more important that we agree on what are the right questions!
Since you haven’t heard my answers, I yield you the floor to you and your answers. I think I know what your 2K answers are, but edify me, bro.
This is going very well, I think. Even better if you signed your own real name, too, of course, SDB—so you’re not d-Bagging me from the safety of your hidden bunker. I don’t “conflate” anything. I understand you just fine.
Exc comment. Floor is yours to answer your own [proper] questions.
LikeLike
TVD, it’s big time true. I know nothing about your family history, I wasn’t taking a shot at your heritage. We’ve all got mothers and i’m as irish cradle RC as they come. You wanted to know who I was, so there you go. I appreciate you don’t like being cornered on your self-aggrandizement, who does? But don’t start selling victim after you’ve been taking pot shots for a month. Don’t be offended that you don’t impress and your ‘cleverness’ gets unmasked. You’ve had a consistent go of it for a while, don’t go wilting and crying when you get some pushback.
Sean Michael Moore (as if it mattered)
LikeLike
You wanted to know who I was, so there you go.
No, I’m uninterested in who you are, Sean Michael Moore, only in what you think, at least here at Darryl’s blog. Small people d-Bag on people, good minds discuss ideas. Let’s “pushback” ideas here on the public floor and leave the rest.
There are several Old Life commenters who email me privately. That you don’t know who they are testifies to my training in keeping confidences. If you know anything about me besides game shows, I keep peoples’ confidences for a living. If you have something to say to me about me, tell it to me. Confidentially.
LikeLike
TVD, really man? You declare you’re no theologian than pontificate on theology. You claim you’re here to learn from a historian and then disparage the history he does. You claim to not do polemics and then seek to correct people on their respective takes. You dare me to state my name and then tell me you have no interest in who I am, only ideas. Brother, you’re either obtuse or NPD or both. And from secret agent to lawyer to counselor, or whatever you’re imagining you do, we’ve got it covered here. That’s great that people talk to you confidentially. But when you sound of on a public forum, you’re gonna get some public response. You’re not up to speed theologically or historically and that’s o.k., just act accordingly. And ‘some people’ is more of your passive-aggressive posturing, and I’ll meet it as I see fit.
LikeLike
“At least I’d hoped you read the Winthrop, but you ignored it.”
Slow down a bit.I’ve already read it.Like I told you,I read a book about it. So I wasn’t exactly derailed. Here, I’ll give some Winthrop to you:
Beloued there is no sett before vs life, and good, death and euill in that wee are Commaunded this day to loue the Lord our God, and to loue one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundments and his Ordinance, & his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may liue and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God, may blesse vs in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worhipp other Gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serue them; it is propounded vnto vs this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it; Therefore let us choose life, that wee, and our Seede, may liue; by obeying his voyce & cleauing to him, for hee is our life, & our prosperity.
As for me, I prefer the letter written to Winthrop by Lord Saye who warned WInthop about ““assuming…that there is the like call from God for your going to that part of America and fixing there, that there was for the Israelites going to the land of promise and fixing there” and urging that the planters of the Bay Colony had to exercise their reason and weigh “possibilities” and “probabilities” rather than such a presumption.
LikeLike
” You’re not up to speed theologically or historically and that’s o.k., just act accordingly.”
True dat. If you get brushbacks it’s only because of the times you have pompously run around the bases after one of your imaginary home runs. If you come as a guy who knows some stuff but admits he doesn’t know a lot of stuff (which is most of us), it will go a lot better.
LikeLike
Great. We have an International (or Regional?) Man of Mystery among us.
LikeLike
TVD, Whitefield a Calvinist preacher? Harry Stout’s assessment makes one wonder (“The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism”):
Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching it was no longer clear what was church and what was theater. More than any of his peers or predecessors, he turned his back on the academy and traditional homiletical manuals and adopted the assumptions of the actor. Passion would be key to his preaching, and his body would be enlisted in raising passions in his audience to embrace traditional Protestant truths.
Contained in this theater-driven preaching was an implicit model of human psychology and homiletics that saw humankind less as rational and intellectual than as emotive and impassioned. In eighteenth century actors’ manuals, the individual psyche was divided into a triad of feelings, intellect, and will in which feelings reigned supreme. An unfeeling person is a nonperson, a mere machine with highly sophisticated mental functions. It is the passions that harmonize and coordinate intellect and will. In fact, they control and direct all the faculties.
LikeLike
sdb, Reformed have only been skeptical of natural law since Barth’s “Nein!” I’m not sure that counts as a traditional skepticism.
LikeLike
Thats interesting Z. I wonder where i picked that up? If only someone would write an intellectual history of Calvinism….
LikeLike
I said:“And for what purpose did He create us? To conquer the world! To disciple the nations! To teach them to obey ALL of His commandments!”
sdb says: “Funny, I was working on catechism with my youngest. Her answer was a bit different than yours, but then again she is only three. Her answer was “For his own glory”. I don’t think it is our job to get unbelievers to obey all his commandments. It is our job to proclaim the gospel, baptize those who accept Christ, and disciple them. Teaching (or forcing them under penalty of the law) to follow the law is a great way to erect whitewashed tombs.”
Me: Who said anything about forcing people to believe? BTW, I was quoting Jesus, who gave *us* our marching orders. It was Jesus who said, disciple EVERY nation in the name of Christ, and teach them to obey ALL of my commandments. Just what does conquering the world in Jesus name mean to you?
So don’t attack me, I’m just repeating the Lord Jesus. And of course we strive to glorify God in all that we do. But Jesus gave us specific things to accomplish, like conquering the world in His name. That precludes the silly notion of a pluralistic society, which for a time is necessary.. Just to let you know, there is only one true and living God. When we pray, “Father in heaven hallowed by thy name” we are praying for the end of pluralism. We are praying that all men would fear and reverence the true and living God, not false gods!
In Him
LikeLike
sdb, let me repeat the question, for what purpose did God create us?
Answer: “We are his workmanship, *created* for good works that he prepared for us to walk in.”
That is straight from Scripture! God has predestined the good works that he wants us to walk in! Notice the word FOR, which goes to God’s intent. Now of course we are to glorify God in all things, even the way we eat and drink, but as for the question, WHY did God created us?
Simply put, to do the good works he has predestined for us to walk in. THEREFORE, lets work out our own salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING knowing it’s God who is working in and through us.
I hope that helps, and make sure you teach that to your three year old daughter.
LikeLike
Erik, I was thinking about the various strengths of commenters here and I thought of your CPA vocation. Then I remembered someone mentioning sabermetrics and viola! the two intersect. To wit: we need some statistics on OL. No, not visitors per day or average number of comments. Those are like wins, losses, and batting average. We need advanced stats:
What percentage of comments are related to the topic of the post?
What is the frequency of theonomic thread hijacks?
How many youtube links per day?
In what percentage of comments does Bryan Cross scold about logic?
Is it more likely for an unrelated sports conversation to begin after 200 comments than in the first 50?
Does snark get introduced at a more or less random distribution, or does it come in bunches?
What kind of topics are most likely to rouse Jeff Cagle from hibernation?
Billy Beane has “moneyball,” OL should have the same kind of thing.
LikeLike
Doug, you put the “umph” in triumphalism.
“But Jesus gave us specific things to accomplish, like conquering the world in His name. That precludes the silly notion of a pluralistic society”
Does Paul agree with you?
“Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.”
I can find a type of conservatism here and a church-centered life for believers. I don’t see anything about conquering the world, the empire, or Thessaloniki.
LikeLike
sdb, couldn’t have been from Grabill (or Van Drunen).
http://www.amazon.com/Rediscovering-Reformed-Theological-University-Religion/dp/0802863132
LikeLike
Doug, I always thought the answer to why did God create us was to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Don’t you even read your own catechism?
LikeLike
Tom – Frankly, Erik, I have never grasped the hermeneutic of taking some things literally and others as “hints.”
Erik – The problem is we have to reconcile Scripture with Scripture. If you take the sheep and the goats completely by itself it would seem to suggest that we are definitely saved by works and damned by the lack thereof. Scripture also teaches that all have sinned and are lost apart from grace. Thus we have a conundrum and have to reconcile what appear to be competing notions. I have a framework by which to do this (Reformed theology, specifically the Three Forms of Unity). No ultimate guarantee that framework is right, but I have a huge stake (in time, money, and opportunity costs) in it being right, though. Plus, if the Cathlolics or Muslims are right I could be in big trouble after I die (depending on which Catholics you talk to, I guess).
LikeLike
sdb – Erik, Are you a proponent of natural law or do you mean it more colloquially (e.g. something like conscience)?
Erik – I’m reading Van Drunen on the topic so am meditating on it. I like the notion of Natural Law and the Decalogue being one and the same. It seems that Paul suggests that God has implanted his law in all people (that’s why they are without excuse). I maybe need to still refine my thinking, though.
LikeLike
Doug: So don’t attack me, I’m just repeating the Lord Jesus.
That catchphrase is a big red flag to the truly Reformed…
LikeLike
Zrim,
Whitefield’s “Calvinism”, like Edwards’, is an interesting question. Coming out of the (big tent?) Church of England he ruffled a lot of Old School Presbyterian feathers during the First Great (I mean, Pretty Good) Awakening (albeit not as much as his followers — e.g., Gilbert Tennent). One can have a Calvinist theology but be lacking in the “churchly” attributes of Calvinism — the regulative principle, things being done decently and in good order, wariness of parachurch ministry, the rule of elders, etc.)
One question for us today is how the itinerant ministry of a Whitefield might be similar to a “celebrity” ministry of a Tim Keller in the PCA. To what degree do such ministries strengthen local churches and to what degree do they breed discontent with the ordinary means of grace?
LikeLike
Chortles, God had already predicted that a stone not made by a human hand would crush Rome in the second chapter of Daniel. It’s got to be in His time, however. It’s not by might, but by my Spirit says the Lord.
We have the victory in Christ when we lay down our lives and trust in him for the increase. And what does God want? To just save a few? He is the Savior of the world after all! What does being the king of kings mean to you? All men are commanded to repent and bend the knee to Christ the Lord. How more blunt could Paul get? The military metaphors are everywhere in the new testament. Our faith is to overcome the world, SLOWLY like leaven until it’s all leavened. That by the way, is a parable of Christ’s kingdom, given to us by the Lord Jesus himself.
Let all the nations serve him….
May his enemies lick the dust……
May his dominion extend from sea to sea….
Those verses are just another way of saying “fulfill the Great Commission”!
How about praying for the increase in Jesus name! Let’s let God do all the heavy lifting. All he asks from us is to believe his promises.
I believe brother, I do believe!
LikeLike
Doug on July 1st: No one at Old LIfe wants to take the admonitions to press on, or walking with fear and trembling, seriously.
And barely a week ago I said the same thing and you praised me and said I was the only one on OL who ever said to work it out with fear and trembling.
Did you hit your head or something between those two statements, or does it just go from brain to mouth (or fingertips) without a processor?
LikeLike
Tom,
I think you have a good mind and some solid ideas. You seem to be a bit of an “equal opportunity” skeptic. Do you maintain any visible church membership? What do you think will happen to you after you die? If you have faith in Christ, are you counting on this apart from any visible church membership? If so, on what Biblical grounds?
At times I have been tempted to “go it alone” due to frustrations with the visible church, but I can’t find a biblical justification to do so (much less a Confessional justification as a Reformed man).
LikeLike
Zrim says: “Doug, I always thought the answer to why did God create us was to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Don’t you even read your own catechism?”
Me: So Holy Scripture takes a back seat to the catechism? Boy, you need more help than I thought. FWIW, I don’t think the Bible contradicts our catechism, but you should always go with clear Scripture over a creed.
Why did God create us?
Ephesians 2:10
“We are his workmanship, created FOR good works that he has prepared for us to walk in.”
Can you read plain English Zrim? Why are fighting Scripture?
LikeLike
Kent, I have praised you for uttering the un-utterable here at Old Life on more than one occasion. Just realize the general force of my comment and don’t take it to a wooden literal degree. Moreover, just because I forced it out of you *once* does not mean you are taking it seriously. Now, I hope you really do work out your salvation with fear and trembling, and I am not kidding.
But something tells me if I hadn’t been pounding you guys with the fear and trembling verses, you wouldn’t have said it in the first place. I hope I’m wrong.
LikeLike
Doug, the only thing you may have forced was a release from my small intestine at the laughter and shock that most of your posts bring.
LikeLike
Zrim says: “Doug, I always thought the answer to why did God create us was to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Don’t you even read your own catechism?”
Me: You know what I really enjoy reading Zrim? The Bible! You should try it sometime. I quote the Bible and you act like the Confession contradicted Scripture. This is what gives you strict subscriptionists a bad name. You’re look at the Confession with more respect than Scripture. According to the men who penned our Confessions it should be the other way around.
LikeLike
Doug to Zrim: “you should always go with clear Scripture over a creed” except when Greg Bahnsen enters the room.
LikeLike
Doug, the anti-creedal spirit of Finney lives on in some Presbyterians. But how Ephesians bolsters your dominionism is very clear at all. How do you you get cultural take over from a verse about personal sanctification? From the theonomic grid. But the Bible doesn’t teach theonomy. It teaches 2k. Why don’t you let the Bible teach you, sir Bible?
LikeLike
Doug: So don’t attack me, I’m just repeating the Lord Jesus.
Kent: That catchphrase is a big red flag to the truly Reformed…
Doug: So quoting the Lord Jesus is a no no? Why is that a big red flag? Aren’t his words rather straight foreword? Isn’t the kingdom’s advance to happen *slowly* throughout time? To listen to Sean *however* were we to take the Lord Jesus seriously regarding the kingdom parables, we would be guilty of emmanatizing the eschaton. Whoever came up with that phrase needs to be slapped silly. Since Jesus said that is exactly how his kingdom will advance.
Houston, we have a problem……….
LikeLike
Doug, you poor thing, you have no clue at all what’s going on in the truly Reformed mind and soul, do you….
Are you honestly trying to be this funny?
Hope so… you can’t possibly be serious…
LikeLike
@Z Thanks for the link. Looks interesting.
LikeLike
Zrim, salvation is both personal and corporate. You have a narrow truncated view of salvation relegating it to personal only in this age. God is both personal and corporate in his very being. And is transforming both before our very eyes. However it takes eyes of faith to comprehend the promises. You really need to read “The One And The Many”, to help you think like a Christian.
Your gird, as you call it is retarded. You need to expand your horizons and see the wonder of what God is, and will accomplish during the church age, through the faithful prayers and good works of his bond slaves.
LikeLike
Kent, I was not joking. Why is it wrong to quote the Lord Jesus giving us our marching orders? And what is this nonsense “truly reformed”? Is that different than half assed reformed? What categories are there, of reformed?
No snark and no guile just a real question.
LikeLike
Doug:”You know what I really enjoy reading Zrim?”
Me: “Weekly Fundamentalist” , “‘Merican Fundamentalist”, “Fundamentalist’s Time”, “Westboro Baptist Newsletter”, “Fundamentalist Advocate”, “Me and My Fundamentalist”, “How to be a Fundamentalist”, “Outside Fundamentalist”, “Fundamentalist Life”, “Fundies Unite”, “Fundamentalist for Dummies”, “Interview with a Fundamentalist”, “The Fundamentalist Ultimatum, Supremacy, etc.”, “Who’s that Fundamentalist”, “This is your Fundamentalist”, “Fundamentalist the Trilogy”, “Hey, I’m your Neighbor the Fundamentalist”, “The Seven Habits of Successful Fundamentalists”, “How to release the Fundamentalist within”, “Me, my big head and it’s Pilla”, “Fundamentalist’s Short Stories-real short, with pictures”.
Doug, you can’t set me up like this, I gotta work.
LikeLike
@DS I believe the WCF and catechisms of my church are reliable summaries of what the scriptures teach. You’re proof-texts…not so much.
Your misquoting of the great commission and unfortunate use of “conquering” leave much to be desired. While Paul tells us that we are “more than conquerers” his reference was sin – not unbelievers or their nations. Jesus tell’s his disciples that they will face many trials, but they should take heart as he has already conquered the world.
You are trying to create an argument where none exists (other than about your sloppy use of language and scripture). We all believe we should do good works, share the gospel, etc… The point of disagreement is over the extent to which the state should coerce moral behavior by use of force and the authority the church has to discipline her members for various political stances.
The Baylys seem to think that the church should discipline believers who don’t protest abortion clinics. Joe Carter seems to think that taking a libertarian approach to sexual politics is tantamount to apostasy. What do you think? Do you fall on the 2K side of things and say these are matters of conscience and prudence or is there a biblical case to be made that a Christian is sinning unless he adopts a particular social conservative political program?
LikeLike
sdb, enjoy.
Doug, I prefer the term mentally challenged, if you don’t mind. But when I say personal I mean both the collective and (for lack of a better term) individual. But I also mean sanctification is only for those with the Spirit within, and that it is more unseen than seen. I know, not very useful for the transformative chattering class.
LikeLike
Kent says: “Doug, the only thing you may have forced was a release from my small intestine at the laughter and shock that most of your posts bring.”
Me: So you poop your pants every time you read something I write? You should probably wear some *depends* or some kind of diaper. It must get real messing at your house, stinky too! Yuck!
LikeLike
(WHISTLE) Doug, you’re penalized for excessive use of the exclamation point. I suggest you eat more carbs.
LikeLike
Hey Doug,
Just so you can keep up, Kent’s reference was to your own snide comment on those of us who you claim “pee their pants”. Small intestine::pee; Large intestine::shit.
LikeLike
Doug:”You know what I really enjoy reading Zrim?”
Zrim: “Weekly Fundamentalist” , “‘Merican Fundamentalist”, “Fundamentalist’s Time”, “Westboro Baptist Newsletter”, “Fundamentalist Advocate”, “Me and My Fundamentalist”, “How to be a Fundamentalist”, “Outside Fundamentalist”, “Fundamentalist Life”, “Fundies Unite”, “Fundamentalist for Dummies”, “Interview with a Fundamentalist”, “The Fundamentalist Ultimatum, Supremacy, etc.”, “Who’s that Fundamentalist”, “This is your Fundamentalist”, “Fundamentalist the Trilogy”, “Hey, I’m your Neighbor the Fundamentalist”, “The Seven Habits of Successful Fundamentalists”, “How to release the Fundamentalist within”, “Me, my big head and it’s Pilla”, “Fundamentalist’s Short Stories-real short, with pictures”.
Don’t forget that EVERYONE who carries on like this has a besetting sin that would singe all the hair off your eyebrows if you found out… so… plainly…. obvious…
LikeLike
Rock it, Doug.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6SNRtTGZTQ
LikeLike
sdb asks: “The Baylys seem to think that the church should discipline believers who don’t protest abortion clinics. Joe Carter seems to think that taking a libertarian approach to sexual politics is tantamount to apostasy. What do you think?”
I don’t believe the way a man votes is a church discipline matter, even though it may very well be sinful. But I do think abortion is a BIG deal. I see only one case where a man was put on church discipline in the new testament, and it was for living with one of his Father’s wives. Paul’s whole point was the sex is unlike all other sins, even murder. The sexually immoral person causes Christ and his body to share in that sin. And so I would tend to say church discipline is for matters of sexual deviancy only. I know I’m in the minority and of course there could be some exceptions. But how one votes, is not a CD matter in my humble opinion.
.,
LikeLike
Thanks Bruce! Kent has a better since of humor than I thought.
LikeLike
Zrim, you’re so PC you big retard!
And I wasn’t calling you mentally retarded. I was challenging your *retarded* narrow truncated view of salvation.
What do you make of a nation being sanctified to Christ? Are you aware that that language was used when the first settlers landed in America? Are you aware the Martin Bucer and John Calvin used that language as well? Are you aware that most of our reformers thought that was what the fulfillment of the Great Commission entailed?
Let all the nations serve him……
Let his enemies lick the dust…….
LikeLike
MM, tell him to stop providing such a big target. I’m trying here.
LikeLike
John Calvin: Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings…and perhaps there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets. So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannize and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.
Paul Helm: Calvin is saying that God in his providence may arrange things so as to bridle the tyranny of kings. The instruments he uses for this may undertake this role consciously, or they may be God’s unwitting partners. And the ‘popular magistrates’ have a responsibility to curb the ‘undue license’ of kings, a responsibility which they may shirk. What then? Are there any other avenues of permissible resistance to the king? Calvin did not go so far as to say that this can ever be an option for Christians.
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2013/07/calvin-on-rebellion.html
LikeLike
Chortles,
My maternal grandparents were Gaither fans. I remember seeing their albums at their house in the 80s. That video perfectly captures the 80s evangelical aesthetic.
LikeLike
Sean, can a leopard change its spots?
LikeLike
Now Chortles and Erik are having a dialogue. Where else but OL?
LikeLike
So, what you’re saying is; Doug wears leopard prints? I see what you did there. You, you’re good you. I’ll be watching you.
LikeLike
MM, you music lover, you. Why does this make me think of Doug too? Oh, the humility! Oh, the humanity!
LikeLike
I know it’s a cliche by now, but…
LikeLike
Chortles, MM is a wannabe. He thinks about the blues life from his Republican suburb and hops on his bike that costs about the same as my ’98 Buick. But that Sean cracks me up.
LikeLike
I believe MM and MG are same (alleged) person. And, Kent — I’ll not be party to any cliche trafficking.
LikeLike
Such a relief that that area is the worst genre of trafficking in my life these days.
LikeLike
@DS It seems to me that your monomaniacal focus on sexual purity has blinded you. Paul does indeed indicate that sexual sins are different, but that does not entail what you claim it does. Consider what is taught by the Westminster Confession on this topic:
Glad to see you otherwise come around to the 2K perspective on church discipline.
Note that while Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is prompted by a notorious sexual scandal, the letters to the Galatians and Hebrews are prompted by heresy and apostasy. Those matter too…
LikeLike
sdb, what so you make of a nation being sanctified to Christ? You are aware that Martin Bucer used that language as well as his student John Calvin.
Does your brand of 2K allow you to think in those terms? Is praying for our nation to be sanctified to Christ a biblical prayer? Does it align itself with the Lord’s prayer?
Honest question with zero snark…….
LikeLike
And by the way, MM and MG — I was listening to Robert Johnson while you boys were still in Pullups.
LikeLike
“sdb, what so you make of a nation being sanctified to Christ? You are aware that Martin Bucer used that language as well as his student John Calvin.”
Off the top of my head I would say that such language was a hangover from the medieval age in which they lived, but I’d have to look at the context – I seem to recall that Calvin’s dedication to the King of France in Institutes had a lot of purple prose about the king that I think most of us republicans would reject today (but I don’t have a copy in front of me, so it is entirely possible that I’ve mixed him up with someone else). They were men of their time after all. That being said, I have a hard time making sense of what it means for a nation state to be sanctified to Christ.
“Does your brand of 2K allow you to think in those terms? Is praying for our nation to be sanctified to Christ a biblical prayer? Does it align itself with the Lord’s prayer?”
I don’t think so. I’ve always been uncomfortable when folks have appropriated 2 Chronicles 7:14 over some political issue. There isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between Israel and the modern nation state. The “nation” of Israel was comprised of the descendants of Abraham, not necessarily those who were located in a particular geographical location. Our nation is a geographical locale – comprised of peoples from many nations. Do the German immigrants bring the blessings and/or curses from their land to ours? What about the Jewish immigrants? The Mexican immigrants? How about the Chinese? Are the blessings bound by our borders so that an expat in Chile doesn’t enjoy the blessings that someone domestic does? Or do the blessings and curses follow states? Is Mississippi more sanctified than Vermont because it has a higher percentage of believers and has state laws that prohibit gay marriage and restrictive abortion laws or is Vermont more blessed because the number of murderers, divorces, and out of wedlock births per capita is so much lower? Can we pray that our whole world be sanctified to Christ? That seems quite strange to me, but I don’t see how else you can draw the boundaries. Can a non-believer be sanctified? I guess the children of a believing parent are sanctified, but I don’t know how to apply that to nations.
I think the connection between the church and israel is much easier to draw in light of what Paul has to say about it in the NT. It is absolutely appropriate to pray that our various denominations be sanctified to Christ (though that isn’t the verbal construction I would use, I think I know what you mean). I would say that for Christians, the problem is not that so many Americans are engaged in and celebrating blatantly sinful behavior. Rather the problem is that the Church is tolerating so much sin among her members – we are flippant about the sabbath, disrespectful in our worship, lazy in passing along the faith to our children, and on and on. These are things we should repent of, but many erstwhile “bible believing” churches celebrate or treat lightly. Remember that two of the only people struck dead for sinning against God were lying about their tithing, not for sexual immorality. Well that isn’t exactly true. Paul points out that people who took the Lord’s Supper incorrectly were sick and some died. It seems that Paul was far more concerned about sin within the church than the sin of the lost.
Having a Saturday night service so that your congregants don’t have to choose between church and their kid’s soccer games should be scandalous, but it barely raises an eyebrow. Canceling Sunday worship because it falls on Christmas day and should be a time for family should cause us to question whether such a congregation is a true church. Freaking out about the depravity of those who have unregenerate hearts while ignoring the way we dishonor God in our worship strikes me as a serious problem with our priorities. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t share the gospel with unbelievers. We should! Praying that “Your kingdom come” isn’t a petition that the US become the new Israel. It is a petition that the kingdom of grace may advance (the church) and that the kingdom of glory may be hastened (return of Christ) as the WSC would put it. Or in the words of the Heidelberg catechism, “Preserve your church and make it grow”. I want all the devil’s works destroyed and everyone to come to Christ. However, I don’t think it is appropriate to use the state to advance this work. Inevitably, it turns into an exercise in whitewashing tombs.
I don’t know how this connects with Calvin or Bucer’s prayer that a nation be sanctified. If I were a historian, I’d have to look into what they say about that. But as their opinions didn’t make it into the catechism/confession, they aren’t seen as binding summaries of what is taught in scripture. Thus I’m not very motivated to spend time looking into it further.
LikeLike
“sdb, what so you make of a nation being sanctified to Christ? You are aware that Martin Bucer used that language as well as his student John Calvin.”
That’s a live question, and reflects the spirit of the City on the Hill sermon.
Some direct quotes would be nice, however–otherwise what may be a key argument can easily be waved away or fogged over.
Off the top of my head I would say that such language was a hangover from the medieval age in which they lived, but I’d have to look at the context – I seem to recall that Calvin’s dedication to the King of France in Institutes had a lot of purple prose
etc.
LikeLike
These videos are confirming my propensity to not listen to “Christian Music” outside of church. My entire Christian music collection consists of one Dordt Concert Choir CD (which is good). If I could find more CD’s like that, I might reconsider. Nothing “contemporary”, though. It seems like it is all either (1) Just plain bad, or (2) Mainly designed just to gin up emotion.
LikeLike
sdb admonishes: “@DS It seems to me that your monomaniacal focus on sexual purity has blinded you. Paul does indeed indicate that sexual sins are different, but that does not entail what you claim it does.”
Me: Huh? How about explaining how I’m miss-reading Paul?
1 Cor. 6:15-
“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two will become one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.”
Me: Here it the key text I had in mind:
“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is *outside* of the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, who you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
Me: I think Paul’s point is very strong. Sexual sins join Christ and his body, *spiritually* to the prostitute in a way that no other sin does. Christ is actually joined with a whore if we engage in sexual immorality. This also effects the body of Christ, and joins them spiritually to the sin, like no other sin. This is Paul’s rational for having the member of his church turned over to Satan to protect the body of Christ.
imho
LikeLike
Erik, I listen to lots of Renaissance era Papist music. I’m shielded from any idolatry and Mariolatry by the fact that I don’t understand much Latin, right? Search YouTube or your music service for “Spem in Alium” by Tallis or Allegri’s “Miserere Mei Deus”…wonderful stuff.
LikeLike
Yes, Doug, you’re right — we’ve lost interest.
LikeLike
sdb says: ” There isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between Israel and the modern nation state. The “nation” of Israel was comprised of the descendants of Abraham, not necessarily those who were located in a particular geographical location.”
Me: Come on brother, of course there is not a one-one connection, no nation today is in the unique situation Israel found herself, *a nation in a redemptive covenant*. However lets not forget, at one time God winked at sin, but now he has now commanded all men (I think that includes nations) to repent and bend the knee to Christ. At Calvary Christ became the king of kings.
So what is wrong with praying for all nations to be sanctified to Christ? He is the king of kings, right? Why is that such a stretch? Why not pray for all nations to collectively honor the true and living God? That is really the prayer of my heart, and I think it captures the heart of what Jesus was getting at when he told us how to pray,
“Our Father in heaven, hallowed by thy name”. Was Christ excluding nations in that prayer? That seems pretty straight forward, that we should pray that all nations would willingly be sanctified by the truth of God’s word. Not by corrosion, but by the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit.
It’s what puts the “great” in the great commission. It looks impossible if we walk by sight and go by recent trends in our nation; however looked upon with eyes of faith, it looks like a certainty. I say God is able, what say you?
LikeLike
Erik, can’t go wrong with Palestrina and Lassus motets.
LikeLike
“Our Father in heaven, hallowed by thy name”. Was Christ excluding nations in that prayer?
You missed the capper for your argument–“on earth as it is in heaven.”
LikeLike
“This is Paul’s rational for having the member of his church turned over to Satan to protect the body of Christ.”
Everything you say in that comment is unequivocably true. I agree, and nothing I wrote was intended to contradict that. My disagreement with you is your conclusion that chuch discipline should only be exercised over sexual sins. While your concern for sexual purity is admirable, you focus has resulted in a blindspot common among evangelicals.
LikeLike
“Some direct quotes would be nice, however–otherwise what may be a key argument can easily beed away or fogged over.”
No they wouldn’t. If I wanted to establish what colonial preachers claimed I might. But I don’t.
LikeLike
“You missed the capper for your argument–”on earth as it is in heaven.””
Last I checked, the church is on earth.
LikeLike
“Was Christ excluding nations in that prayer?”
I wouldn’t say exclude. Rather I would say that the arbitrary geopolitical boundaries of the modern nation state have no significance. I care about the spiritual status of canadians and health of the church in Canada. I could not care less about Canada.
LikeLike
sdb says: “@DS It seems to me that your monomaniacal focus on sexual purity has blinded you.”
Me: That’s a cheap shot. Was God maniacal with sexual purity? You know, strangers and sojourners were also required to keep those sexual laws in Israel. Was that binding their consciences? Was that coercion? How is that any different than expecting unbelievers today to obey the *same* law that strangers and sojourners were required to keep in Israel?
LikeLike
sdb says: ” wouldn’t say exclude. Rather I would say that the arbitrary geopolitical boundaries of the modern nation state have no significance.
Me: Then why does God say he determines the bounderies of the nation? If God cares, why shouldn’t we?
sdb: I care about the spiritual status of canadians and health of the church in Canada. I could not care less about Canada.”
Me: You couldn’t care less? Doesn’t the health and well being of Canada have a direct bearing on the people? Doesn’t Canada’s current laws have a bearing on the church? What about loving your neighbor like Jesus loved them? What about loving your enemies?
Sorry, but that seems disjointed, cold, and not the least bit practical.
LikeLike
sdb, let me quickly add, that I agree with you, that our first concern is for the health of the church amen and amen. We see eye to eye there. But how a nation adjudicates justice is very important to all people, including both Christians and unbelievers. We shouldn’t be indifferent from my perspective. What does justice require? Shouldn’t we as believers want to see justice carried out for both believer and unbeliever?
Just as an aside, I recall J. Gresham Machen saying that he believed that the United States was founded on the Christian Scriptures. I find that very humorous since DGH has repeatedly tried to make the point the Bible doesn’t speak about a democratic Republic.
Yet the man he wrote a biography about, said the exact opposite. I’m betting Darryl didn’t add the factoid in his book on Machen.
How would a man with your brand of 2K respond to that quote?
I tend to agree with Machen, although I confess one would have to be well versed in God’s Word, and the implications it teaches to reach such a conclusion. Machen was a man who knew and understood the Scriptures. He saw our form of government taught in Scripture. LOL!
LikeLike
sdb
Posted July 2, 2013 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
“You missed the capper for your argument–”on earth as it is in heaven.””
Last I checked, the church is on earth.
Non sequitur.
sdb
Posted July 2, 2013 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
“Was Christ excluding nations in that prayer?”
I wouldn’t say exclude. Rather I would say that the arbitrary geopolitical boundaries of the modern nation state have no significance. I care about the spiritual status of canadians and health of the church in Canada. I could not care less about Canada.
That one doesn’t work either. The 1789 revision of the Westminster Confession applies to America. [And the Orthodox Church undid the Presbyterian Church USA revisions of 1903 but that’s no doubt a different theological story.]
http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html
American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith
The Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on August 27, 1647, and (together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms) has served as one of the doctrinal standards, subordinate to the Word of God, for Presbyterian churches since that time. As an American Presbyterian church, the OPC descended from the Presbyterian Church USA and inherited revisions to the Confession made prior to 1900, some of which were ratified by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia as early as 1788. The OPC did not adopt the revisions to the Confession made by the PCUSA in 1903 (notably, new chapters entitled “Of the Holy Spirit” and “Of the Love of God, and Missions”; and a “Declaratory Statement” softening the Confession’s position on election), except for deletions in chapters 22 (about refusing a lawful oath) and 25 (about the Pope being the Antichrist).
LikeLike
Tom, you may be interested even if sdb is not.
Martin Bucer
“But since no one can desire an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in His law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over His people that follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.
Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Dt. 13:6-10, and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lv. 24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15:32-36); who rebelliously despise authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Dt. 21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of supreme tribunal (Dt. 17:8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex. 21:12; Lv. 24:17, Dt. 19:11-13), adultery (Lv. 20:10), rape (Dt. 22:20-25), kidnapping (Dt. 24:17); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Dt. 19:16-21).”
Martin Bucer
16th century Magisterial Reformer
The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties
LikeLike
Doug Sowers asks: “Does your brand of 2K allow you to think in those terms? Is praying for our nation to be sanctified to Christ a biblical prayer? Does it align itself with the Lord’s prayer?”
sdb answers: “I don’t think so. I’ve always been uncomfortable when folks have appropriated 2 Chronicles 7:14 over some political issue. There isn’t a one-to-one correspondence between Israel and the modern nation state.”
Doug Sowers: Does there have to be one on one correspondence to have relevance? The church is the new Israel, but are there one-to-one correspondence? Of course not! All the promises of God find there yea and amen in Christ 2 Cor 7:14 included. The church IS the new Israel, the battle ground is now the world instead of the 7 nations. But those promises can still be appropriated by faith. Not withstanding we will undergo trials and tribulations. God promises that he will never allow us to be tempted more than we can withstand.
LikeLike
Here’s the core of what you’re getting at, I make it.
Martin Bucer: For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.
The Old Covenant is no longer in force, but still the principles hold. This could actually give you a more reasonable theonomy in practice–just because we do not kill gays for committing homosexual acts [as Jesus spares the adulteress in John 8], neither does it mean that performing/committing homosexual acts or committing adultery is now OK under the New Covenant.
And if you’re a Rushdoonian/Reconstructionist, remember that even they’re mellow enough to not insist on theonomy, only hope that the United States will choose it. [If I read my Gary North correctly.]
And you’re going to have to admit that that’s exactly the argument made by reasonable Muslims about making Islamic law, shari’a, the civil law as well.
Darryl was quite on the mark with
https://oldlife.org/2013/06/should-muslims-try-to-legislate-their-morality/
My answer, actually, is yes. I’ve been monitoring and thinking about the country of Turkey for quite awhile. I do not think Kemalism–the Western-style “secularism” instituted by Ataturk in the early 1900s—will hold. Although Turkey is the best and most successful country in the Muslim world, I think for the majority of its people that won’t be good enough. The country is 99% Muslim and for over half of them, I think being Paris or Amsterdam is not what they want.
They reject Constantinople–they are Istanbul.
LikeLike
ds”…church discipline is for matters of sexual deviancy only…”
sdb”…your monomaniacal focus on sexual purity has blinded you.”
ds”That’s a cheap shot. Was God maniacal with sexual purity?”
Nope. He wasn’t monomaniacal either – they aren’t the same thing. The fact that you would restrict church discipline only to matters of sexual deviancy suggests to me that you are too focused on one part of holy living. This is a broader problem within conservative protestant/evangelical-ism.
LikeLike
As much as it is good to think you can do otherwise, if you live in this world you’re feeling the change of the guard.
LikeLike
“…Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God…”
So are you saying that it is sinful to support the 1st amendment of the US constitution? Certainly seems that Bucer wasn’t a fan. Mercifully, his views don’t seem to have gotten very far in our catechism or confession. To the extent that it did, we seem to have written it out after a few decades of debate about the proper role of the state.
This gets me back to the question I had for Joe Carter and have never gotten an answer from anyone. If it is “idolatry” to adopt a libertarian stance as it regards sexual ethics, why isn’t “idolatry” to adopt a libertarian stance as it regards “calling people away from the true worship of God”? Of course I’m not saying that we shouldn’t speak out against those that call be people away from the true worship of God (or those engaged in sexual sin). Rather, the extent that Christians should attempt to use the power of the state to punish false teaching, gay sex, or some other sin is a matter of conscience and prudence. The Church does not have the authority to tell her members what policies to support.
LikeLike
“Just as an aside, I recall J. Gresham Machen saying that he believed that the United States was founded on the Christian Scriptures. I find that very humorous since DGH has repeatedly tried to make the point the Bible doesn’t speak about a democratic Republic.
Yet the man he wrote a biography about, said the exact opposite. I’m betting Darryl didn’t add the factoid in his book on Machen.
How would a man with your brand of 2K respond to that quote?
I tend to agree with Machen, although I confess one would have to be well versed in God’s Word, and the implications it teaches to reach such a conclusion. Machen was a man who knew and understood the Scriptures. He saw our form of government taught in Scripture. LOL!”
LOL indeed. I think you are taking that quote out of context and missing his broader point. However, if we set that aside and allow that Machen was correct that the US was founded on the Christian Scriptures, that does not entail that every characteristic of the US is derivable from scripture. Only that the things scripture speaks on influence those characteristics.
LikeLike
However, if we set that aside and allow that Machen was correct that the US was founded on the Christian Scriptures, that does not entail that every characteristic of the US is derivable from scripture.
“Every” [and “all”] are straw men, of course. “Out of context” is an easy one, too.
LikeLike
sdb, Doug keeps trotting out nonsense about Machen. He hasn’t Machen or anyone on Machen. He only reads Bahnsen, maybe Gentry at bedtime.
LikeLike
Tom, you’re missing something that’s pretty obvious. One of the significant themes throughout the gospels are the tension between what the disciples thought Jesus was doing – bringing a political kingdom – and what he was really doing, which is bringing a spiritual kingdom. So when he tells Peter to put the sword away and that his kingdom not of this world, it’s not an isolated quote but one that plugs into an ongoing theme. Even into Acts 1 the disciples thought he was going to bring a political kingdom. Well, theres where you and Doug are “are you at this time going to establish a political kingdom?” Nope, the pre-Acts 2 disciples, you and Doug all have your aspirations in the wrong place.
LikeLike
sdb, I did give myself a little wiggle room. I said, *unless* there are extreme exceptions. So cut me a little slack, please. The church I attended taught that church discipline was primarily for sexual sins because that was the only example of CD in the new testament. In my experience most people who are living in sin, don’t want to go to church anyway, so it’s a moot point. They fall away proving they really never were of us.
But if someone is clearly living in gross sin without repentance, then yes church discipline would be called for. What cracks me up, are reformed types who say, what if a Christian commits murder? Most murderers are very sorry, and contrite, which would mean the church must allow them back to fellowship, showing the fruit of repentance. But the State may not forgive murder no matter how remorseful the killer is.
Even non-believers are usually remorseful after they get caught, I was a juror in a murder trial, and you could cut the remorse with a knife, it was beyond sad. So when it comes to murder I can’t see how the church would put a true christian on church discipline unless they were the biggest unrepentant knucklehead on planet earth. But yes, there are always exceptions.
LikeLike
Doug writes: ” What cracks me up, are reformed types who say, what if a Christian commits murder? Most murderers are very sorry, and contrite, which would mean the church must allow them back to fellowship, showing the fruit of repentance. But the State may not forgive murder no matter how remorseful the killer is.”
What cracks me up is that Doug opposes 2k.
LikeLike
M&M, it would seem, you’re the one who’s not paying attention to Scripture. There was a *reason* the disciples were anticipating the fall of Rome; Daniel predicted that God would smash Rome in the second chapter of Daniel. Are *you* that ignorant? It was prophesied for crying out loud!
While it’s true the Kingdom of God is sourced from the Jerusalem above, our mother, it also has ramifications on flesh and blood human beings, who when in enough numbers will have ramifications on political nations, eventually. Once again, go back to Jesus parables of his kingdom, it starts out small. Almost insignificant, but slowly grows into a giant tree that takes over. Or better, like a women who puts leaven into the meal, until it’s all leavened.
You need to go back to the basics of understanding the kingdom of God. It’s not sourced in this world, but it will eventually overcome the world, in all facets. Not by our will, not by our strength, not because of our laws, but by His Spirit. We lay down our lives daily, so Christ can live through us. not by our will power, not by our strength, but by His Spirit..
So I would once again repeat, you have a piece of the truth, but you have missed the big picture. Jesus is to be all in all! And that’s why the great commission is so great! Think big picture. Think with eyes of faith. Quit being a naysayer. Christ will established dominion through the preaching of the Word, which when a given nation is sanctified enough it will willingly honor God with its laws, after all the question still needs to be asked. What does justice require?
LikeLike
“it will eventually overcome the world”
Two words that make all the difference in “the world”: Not yet.
LikeLike
M&M Jesus already overcame the world in principle at Calvary. But that victory is worked out through the faith of God’s servants. It has ramifications for real people, culture, and yes even nations.
Haven’t you heard already not yet? Much like your salvation, in one sense you can’t get *more* saved, (justification) but in another sense, you are becoming more sanctified in Christ’s image each and everyday. Well, it’s the same for Christ’s kingdom. He has triumphed victoriously! We walk by faith knowing that in spite of trials and tribulations, he is a rewarder of those who seek him., He will reveal this reality in real time as the leaven of his kingdom covers the earth like the waters cover the seas. Slowly.
LikeLike
MM, where you been? Every day in every way I’m getting better and better- 1Emile Coue 1:1
LikeLike
Doug, the fact that there is any fight for righteousness or love of God in the person in the first place is the victory. The process of sanctification is up and down and sideways and off the cliff some times.
And obedience brings a kind of spiritual peace that can’t be described to another, the absence of it is much more easily transferable.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 3, 2013 at 8:17 am | Permalink
Tom, you’re missing something that’s pretty obvious.?
Not really. you grab a few Bible verses and build a theology around them. But you’re ignoring the parable of the sheep and goats, for one. But this is tiresome. See what you want to see, don’t what you don’t. I just wanted to see if your theology accounts for it, and it does, a little, but not to the point of taking the parable as anything more than a bland commercial for the Beatitudes.
LikeLike
Sean,
You’ve inspired me to play a little Don McLean:
He’s underappreciated (other than for “American Pie”).
“Winterwood” and “Vincent” are nice songs.
LikeLike
Christians will be fully sanctified when Christ’s reign is fully manifested. This age of ours is not intended to flower into widespread theonomic executions of the unsanctified.
And stop with the gobblydeegook about how they didn’t really execute for certain sins in the OT; they were supposed to in order to demonstrate God’s holiness, show man’s sinfulness, and anticipate a future day when men’s behavior and God’s law will be in synch. If they didn’t follow the OT civil law they were obscuring it as a type. And if you are now in favor of OT-style civil law you are in favor of obscuring the revelation of Christ in our current age.
LikeLike
Erik,
Your welcome. I have to limit my dosage of nostalgia. I can’t afford to be old yet.
LikeLike
Speaking of old, we need a backup point guard who can create so we can hide Manu at the 2 for 20 minutes a game. 7 mil a year. I hope they’re bringing in Ferrari as the team doc.
LikeLike
“Not really. you grab a few Bible verses and build a theology around them. But you’re ignoring the parable of the sheep and goats, for one…”
Tom, when you’re beyond your competence you should listen a lot and talk not so much. I’m only this blunt because you say condescending things like “But this is tiresome.”
My point about the errant expectation of the disciples is really not controversial and parables are limited in their elasticity – sorry, it has no application to civil law.
LikeLike
Sean, the Celts need, well, everything now. That is, unless a tank is in the works in which case we’re fine, just fine opening the season without a center and without a pg.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 3, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
My point about the errant expectation of the disciples is really not controversial and parables are limited in their elasticity – sorry, it has no application to civil law.
Sez you. I don’t share your belief in your own political impotence. In this democratic republic, we are rulers as well as the ruled. And so my reply to your theology is
If that makes me a liberal, so be it. I’ve been called worse.
LikeLike
MM, do you all have a coach? Ping Pong balls are a dicey bet. Is Wiggins that good? I haven’t seen him.
LikeLike
OK. TVD. That puts you on the same dance floor with Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen et al. You’re a pragmatist. You value religion exactly for what it’s cash value in the here and now. It makes you an american evangelical.
LikeLike
sean
Posted July 3, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
OK. TVD. That puts you on the same dance floor with Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen et al. You’re a pragmatist. You value religion exactly for what it’s cash value in the here and now. It makes you an american evangelical.
I’ve been called worse.
LikeLike
Sean, tsk, tsk. “American evangelical” is worse than “liberal.”
LikeLike
Tom, you’re dogmatic about your American history, where God has not spoken, and a skeptic over the scriptures, where God has spoken. And your history is pretty religious at that.
LikeLike
M&M: “Christians will be fully sanctified when Christ’s reign is fully manifested.
Me: I say a hearty amen to that! But lets not say we aren’t supposed to grow in the grace of God before the last day.
M&M: This age of ours is not intended to flower into widespread theonomic executions of the unsanctified.
Me: Whoa! You just flew off the rails, and missed the point. What does justice require? Most of the theonomic penal sanctions do not call for the death penalty. So what does that do to your theory? Do you despise the safety regulations found in the Mosaic law? We have hundreds if not thousands of Levitical safety laws on the books in America.
What’s your beef?
M&M: “And stop with the gobblydeegook about how they didn’t really execute for certain sins in the OT;
Me: None of the death penalty sanctions were for thought crimes. God’s law or “theonomy” never coerced men to believe or not believe. “Unbelievers” (the strangers and sojourners) who stayed in Israel, lived in the best environment in the history of the world, for unbelievers, (better than America today) they were treated with kindness. They were only prohibited from usurping the one true religion; (blasphemy and idolatry) and that was a good thing!
They also couldn’t “rape, steal, murder, kidnap, and commit homosexuality or adultery and other sin/crimes that are against the gospel of Christ. Public blasphemy and idolatry were understood as attempting to usurp the one true religion, by getting others to follow after false gods.
What’s you beef?
M&M: they were supposed to in order to demonstrate God’s holiness, show man’s sinfulness, and anticipate a future day when men’s behavior and God’s law will be in synch.
Me: That is regurgitated Kleinian rubbish! And don’t tell me you haven’t read Kline, because VanDrunen and Gordon repeated his same mistakes, by further compounding his folly. Yes, the law shows God’s holiness, just as it does today! In that respect there is no difference. But guess what? We still need laws! We still have crime! Plus, no one wants to re-create another Israel. The issue is, “what does justice require”? Why go any further than what God’s law?
M&M: If they didn’t follow the OT civil law they were obscuring it as a type.
Me: Huh? Who’s they? Israel or the strangers and sojourners, or both? How is forcing a thief to make restitution obscuring a type? I see you don’t understand the concept of a biblical typology. Kline made up a new definition of typology that was NOT embraced by the reformed community. I can see his confusion in your last sentence.
M&M: “And if you are now in favor of OT-style civil law you are in favor of obscuring the revelation of Christ in our current age.
Me: Balderdash! The penal sanctions exhibited an eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth; as in perfect justice in a socio political sense. When does the punishment fit the crime? When is enough, enough? You just assert that outrageous statement as fact, when I have yet to see one shred of Scripture to prove such a provocative charge.
You see M&M, it’s not IF we are going to draw the legal line, it’s merely WHERE? Shall we cut off the hand of a thief? Or shall we put him in adult time out? Or, shall we endeavor to make him pay a just restitution? God’s law favored the latter, as do I.
What your beef with that?
This also means I believe our prisons are immoral, and not a *just* way to punish crime. Do they work? Do the prisoners come out like good little boys? No! Look at the rate that they return! They are forced into gang activity, some are forced into homosexual sex, and it’ costing the tax payer a kings ransom just to house these malcontents. God’s law, “theonomy” has a much better way to punish. That will not cost innocent tax payers a cent.
FWIW, as great as Kline was on many aspects of theology, he fell flat on his face with his intrusion ethic. Moreover his intrusion ethic is a conceptual contradiction. And hearing you parrot this nonsense, that none of our Reformers believed, makes my wonder how you can call yourself reformed in any sense of the word.
Calvin is shaking his head in heaven looking down on this conversation. He’s not nearly as grieved as our Lord Jesus, in my most humble opinion.
LikeLike
Sean, the best rumor I’ve heard involves a Spurs asst coach. I like the Pop pedigree and that he’s from my old stomping grounds Portland, Maine. But if I were him I’d be seeking assurances that this isn’t ML Carr redux. Tanking is foolish but there can be a thin line between tanking and player development.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 3, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
Tom, you’re dogmatic about your American history, where God has not spoken, and a skeptic over the scriptures, where God has spoken.
Where did I say that? Well, I am skeptical about some of the narratives about American history [written by men], but I’m confident the real truth is hiding in plain sight.
You don’t need to believe God gave America as a gift to man, but what is a fact is that almost every American alive at the time believed it was a self-evident miracle.
Further, just re-reading Winthrop’s City on a Hill sermon the other day, it’s clear that he thinks we can blow it. America is neither an anointed or saintly nation, at least in that it can do no wrong. It can and does plenty of wrong. [Like churches, which are also made of men.]
LikeLike
M&M chides: “Tom, you’re dogmatic about your American history, where God has not spoken, and a skeptic over the scriptures, where God has spoken. And your history is pretty religious at that.”
Me: Look who’s talking! You have yet to show ONE Scripture that teaches us to ignore God’s law. All you’ve been able to do, is make obscure arguments from silence, and read Romans 13 in an utterly bazaar manner.
LikeLike
I probably shouldn’t have gotten Doug going like that. Now I feel bad. I don’t even have enough enthusiasm to count the exclamation points or question marks. But that part about Calvin looking down from heaven was kind of fun.
LikeLike
No worries M&M; don’t feel like you MUST reply. I merely tried to un-kink some of your misconceptions.
Blessings
LikeLike
“Further, just re-reading Winthrop’s City on a Hill sermon the other day, it’s clear that he thinks we can blow it. America is neither an anointed or saintly nation, at least in that it can do no wrong. It can and does plenty of wrong. [Like churches, which are also made of men.]”
You are correct, Winthrop did say they could blow it. The “city on a hill” indicative is mostly a gloss by politicians. And you are correct about churches.
I’ll always remember this time we agreed.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke: I apologize for not getting back to your excellent question. You asked if the death penalty for homosexuality went the way of the DP for adultery, since Jesus allowed the women caught in the act, to live.
My short answer is no. First off let’s look at the law in Leviticus 20:10
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
Notice Tom, that BOTH adulterer and adulteress should be put to death. But was that the case with the women *supposedly* caught in adultery? No. This is a classic case of an *unlawful* use of the law. Scripture says, they were trying to trick Jesus. In other words, this was a set up. These men couldn’t really care less about the women, but why not bring the man?
So I think this a gross miss-reading to conclude that Jesus was teaching a new sexual ethic, since he arrived on the scene. Moreover it’s not clear that Jesus had the authority to usurp the Roman magistrate. He was the servant of man.
And that is the exact opinion of Calvin, Bucer, and Bezza, and I could go on and on. None of the reformers thought Jesus was teaching that the law for adultery had changed. Amazingly, men like DGH like to call themselves Reformed. I think Calvin would call R2K “deformed”, but maybe that’s just me.
So what about homosexuality? In a nation is sanctified to Christ, sodomy should still be a DP crime imho. To what end? So we can go peeking in key holes trying to catch men doing the act? No, it’s more to protect society from what’s getting shoved down our throats at this present hour. Those laws keep groups like NAMBLA in check. If these men are going to do this act, do it in the closet.
And if they persist, then they must be executed. My sense, is that only a hand full of homosexuals were executed in New England. One thing New England did not have to deal with is Elementary teachers teaching there students that sodomy is a gender issue.
See how things denigrate downwards, when we remove Godly bounderies?
LikeLike
In a nation is sanctified to Christ, sodomy should still be a DP crime imho.
Count me out. If the penalty for drunk and disobedient children is also death, I say let’s take a step back from this one on the literal level. It seems the Hebrews did [I’m unaware of any Bible story of them killing gays. Is there a hole in my Bible?]. As to the rest
One would think that’s a self-evident theological argument, at least that Jesus didn’t say that under the New Covenant homosexuality was now A-OK. But as we know, modern Barney the Christosaurism says that all “love” is good love, whether it’s the kind that makes babies or the one that goes up the gepoopenshaft
But this is not in scriptural evidence.
LikeLike
Tom, the law for disobedient children, was referring to a young man, in his late teens, or early twenties who was a drunkard and beats his parents. Common sense should teach us that beating ones parents is a grave grave sin. God says it’s DP worthy, who are we to argue with God?
If you read the case law, it defines the parameters on how to apply the commandment, literally. So YES! We want to take the law literally, and by literally, we must read the case law to see what God literally intended. God’s wisdom is beyond dispute, and always correct, never to harsh and never too lenient. It always gives an eye for and eye as in perfect justice in the socio political sense.
Let me give you another quick example; the law says if a man takes the life of another man, he shall be put to death. BUT, the case law gives us the flying ax head example. If the ax head was lose, and the man knew it, he will be held responsible, but if it wasn’t, he must go free. Those who lie in wait to kill, should be executed. See the six things God hates in Proverbs 6
In other words, the case law gives us the rational for first and second degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. So when we read the law, we must look at the case law for application.
So don’t you dare take a step back! Any young man whose a drunkard, and beats his parents should be put to death according to the gospel of Christ. Ironically this is the one law that Jesus scolded the Jews for not keeping. See Matt. 15:1
Also see 1 Tim. 1:8-13 which teaches us that the penal sanctions in the old testament are in accordance to the gospel of Christ!
Let God be true though every man be a liar.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers
Posted July 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Permalink
Tom, the law for disobedient children, was referring to a young man, in his late teens, or early twenties who was a drunkard and beats his parents. Common sense should teach us that beating ones parents is a grave grave sin. God says it’s DP worthy, who are we to argue with God?
Again, where’s the Bible story where they carried out the sentence? Fortunately, there are few absolute literalists in this world, then or now.
You would have your own son killed over this? Really? I’m not feeling this one. Somebody else’s gay son, I guess. But your own drunken one?
BTW, I heard a Jewish explanation of the edict–the father and the mother are to bring the charge. The mother gets an equal status rather unknown in the ancient world, including “civilized” Rome. Cool.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers wrote: “Sean, where do you see a sacred, profane, concept taught in Scripture?”
GW: That’s a good question. I’ll jump in and try to help answer it. In numerous places Scripture makes a distinction between the “holy,” the “common,” and the “profane.” It is from the biblical distinction between the “holy” and the “common” that we may derive a legitimate contrast between the “secular” (properly conceived) and the “sacred.”
For more on this, go here: http://lakeopc.net/2012/the-holy-and-the-common/
LikeLike