The Court Gives, the Court Taketh Away

Published on by D. G. Hart

From today’s majority opinion on same-sex marriage (thanks to our Michigan correspondent):

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing samesex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. (Justice Kennedy)

Two steps forward (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage), one step backwards (Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriages).

1,544 thoughts on “The Court Gives, the Court Taketh Away”

  1. After today, I now see things the same as the left. America is now the enemy. It’s me and mine against the rest of you; the war of all against all, as Hobbes said. Darryl, you were of course right: The Two Kingdoms stuff and all that–although it was those who stayed silent, those who sneered at the Falwells and Palins, who spinelessly handed America over to the forces of moral chaos.

    Religious liberty is now the last battlefield, me against my government. The US government has never before so explicitly set itself against the Bible. If America wasn’t a Christian nation, it lived in deliberate accommodation with it, and only a very few found themselves ever having to choose their nation or their religion.

    Today ended that accommodation. The war is on. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. Back to the catacombs.

    Like

  2. TVD – If America wasn’t a Christian nation, it lived in deliberate accommodation with it…

    That is very well put. Seriously.

    Like

  3. Darryl – Two steps forward (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage), one step backwards (Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriages).

    Erik – Isn’t the notion of “Christian norms governing same-sex marriage” nonsensical?

    How can Christian norms govern something that Christian norms do not allow?

    How is this different from you giving the Lord’s Supper (a Christian norm) to your cats?

    Like

  4. And is the forward/backward calculation from the perspective of the gay activist or the Christian?

    Like

  5. I remember thinking this was a done issue over 20 years ago, how did it take this long to get to today?

    I would posit that believers have been able to ride the coattails of non-believers acceptance of “niceness” and propriety for a few generations now on marriage and matters not as important as today’s headlines.

    Ruined by the millions, saved one by one….

    Like

  6. Maybe I take a long view of history, but it seems like every era and society has it’s chosen “sin” it chooses to turn a blind eye towards. For some it’s violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre), for others it’s racism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States), and for our current place and time it is sex. Frankly of all sins for our society to turn a blind eye towards, I think sex might be the most preferential.

    While the church may lose some leaders to the sin of the day (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/tullian.tchividjian.billy.grahams.grandson.tweets.im.so.so.sorry.after.affair/57194.htm) we don’t have to worry about being killed for our beliefs, have our property seized without due process, or being enslaved due to the melanin content of our skin. Obviously, the church should remain resolutely against ALL sin, but Christians flying into hysteria every time non-Christians do something non-Christian is just silly.

    Like

  7. Erik,

    One of the things that has occurred to me is the fact that God, for the hardness of His people’s hearts, in the OT laws gave ordinance by his norms would govern marriages which were contrary to his norms.

    One thing this decision does is to give official legal protection to vulnerable children and . . . “spouses”.

    So some minor degree of order and justice to the lawlessness.

    Like

  8. d,

    It’s very confusing – was the struggle for gay liberation about rebellion, freedom, and sticking it to the man or about wanting to emulate middle class American values with a person of the same sex?Maybe it depends on which gay person you ask.

    Several years ago we were in Chicago on a multi-generational family vacation and stumbled upon an International Men of Leather convention. Guys wearing butt-less pants, guys leading each other around on leashes with dog collars, etc. What in the world does this have to do with settling down in the suburbs and adopting two kids? I have absolutely no idea how to make sense of all this.

    Did gay people adopt these strange lifestyles because the mainstream was not an option for them, or did they adopt these lifestyles because they were consciously rebelling against the mainstream?

    Like

  9. Call me crazy, but as a fairly high-earning middle aged-man, I’m not exactly sure how many benefits the government recognizing my marriage confers upon me. I suspect it is mostly conferring burdens. If I decide to split and take up with a 22 year old minor-league basketball team dancer, I suspect that marriage is going to cost me once the wife finds an attorney.

    Once again, two men or two women willingly sign up for that because?

    I can blame my biology as a young man. God has a knack for making those young, fertile women seem appealing to us and the Christian ones are usually sticklers for demanding that government-recognized piece of paper.

    Like

  10. Erik – Did gay people adopt these strange lifestyles because the mainstream was not an option for them, or did they adopt these lifestyles because they were consciously rebelling against the mainstream?

    EC – People adopt these “lifestyles” because sexual perversion knows no bounds. Once sex is simply about personal gratification then everything is in bounds and perverse desires multiply. They are seeking satisfaction where none can exist and so the quest becomes consuming – and ever more twisted.

    As an aside, the idea that this should be forced upon the country by judicial fiat is, in and of itself, offensive. I think it should not happen at all, but a supposedly free people should have decided this through the legislative process. And in our system it should have happened at the state level.

    But now that guys “marrying” each other is a constitutional right we will have decades of litigation over people’s conflicting rights. In case your wondering how that turns out, I wouldn’t bet any money on religious freedom carrying the day. I honestly can’t see the state allowing churches to enforce their own beliefs even in hiring and firing ministers within 20 years.

    Like

  12. TVD
    Posted June 26, 2015 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
    After today, I now see things the same as the left. America is now the enemy. It’s me and mine against the rest of you; the war of all against all, as Hobbes said. Darryl, you were of course right: The Two Kingdoms stuff and all that–although it was those who stayed silent, those who sneered at the Falwells and Palins, who spinelessly handed America over to the forces of moral chaos.

    Religious liberty is now the last battlefield, me against my government. The US government has never before so explicitly set itself against the Bible. If America wasn’t a Christian nation, it lived in deliberate accommodation with it, and only a very few found themselves ever having to choose their nation or their religion.

    Today ended that accommodation. The war is on. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. Back to the catacombs.>>>>>

    Tom, is it correct to see this decision as a victory for the “freedom from religion” crowd? That is, we are “allowed” by the government to have our own sincerely held religious beliefs, but just keep them out of government and maybe even the marketplace.

    So, why does the good Justice Kennedy think that it is the government who get to give permission to the people about what we can and cannot agree or disagree on?

    What in the world does he mean by this? “..may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.”

    Golly gee, Justice Kennedy. Thank you so very much for allowing this debate.

    Is it okay to start by telling you that you have no right to even make a statement like that unless you have somehow also redefined our 1st Amendment?

    Tom, am I reading this correctly? …and D.G. Hart is still worried that the papists are going to do something terrible to him. Maybe the Pope is not the antichrist that should be feared in our day.

    Like

  14. erik, isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into. I’m sure they will follow heteros in recognizing the weaknesses of fidelity to marital vows.

    Like

  16. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 26, 2015 at 8:34 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, and what did you do to help the Falwells and Palins? Hold a Cookies re-united concert?

    I did not do enough, Dr. Hart. By the time I’d studied enough about America’s religious foundations, it was too late. You, however, worked against them.

    http://www.amazon.com/From-Billy-Graham-Sarah-Palin/dp/080286628X

    Congratulations, Butch. You won. Many good men did nothing, but you did so much more.

    Like

  18. Darryl,

    I would have loved to be in the inner circles of the gay rights movement to know exactly what the motivations behind all this have been. Is it truly to build up gay people or to tear down the perceived enemies of gay people — primarily political conservatives and Christians?

    I’m still not convinced that this is nothing more than an effective vehicle of the left to take on the things they hate.

    Once again, the next 20 years will be telling.

    You, Zrim, etc. need to be careful that you’re not serving as the left’s apologists in conservative Christian circles every step along the way. Future OPC histories may not judge you kindly. It’s a rubber meets the road issue for 2K people.

    Like

  21. Mrs W – So, why does the good Justice Kennedy think that it is the government who get to give permission to the people about what we can and cannot agree or disagree on?

    Because they have the guns.

    Erik – I’m still not convinced that this is nothing more than an effective vehicle of the left to take on the things they hate.

    It is. The thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy.

    Like

  22. Darryl,

    erik, isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into.

    I have to comment on this. Gays haven’t “lurched into” monogamy, particularly gay men. Even homosexual advocates of gay marriage admit this. Dan Savage advocates for “monogamish” marriages that allow for a little extra on the side when you get bored.

    If monogamy is really what they wanted, they wouldn’t need marriage to give it to them.

    Like

  23. There is definately a desire it have what is done homosexually recognized as just as moral as heterosexuality. There is a you all must say what we all do is right stream in the mix.

    Like

  24. The simplest explanation is that gays want to be treated equally. Equality would include the option of marriage. I think Occam agrees with me.

    Publius, Kennedy wrote his opinion “because they have the guns?” Uh, no. He believes the constitution changes with time according to our moral awareness and we are now aware of a fundamental right that we did not see before.

    There may indeed be tough times ahead for Christians in the United States but I hope we will gain at least one thing: the de-politicization of our thought life. The percentage of Reformed Christians who use political rhetoric, divide the world between bad liberals and good conservatives, and just follow the party line is quite high. Is there a way of thinking and acting that is not political? I think it is alien to us.

    Like

  25. Let me change the apologist list to D.G., Zrim, and Muddy…

    Maybe we can forget about politics when the Supreme Court starts imposing things like abortion on demand & gay marriage upon the whole country by fiat. Is this what the Founders intended? Are we bringing politics to the left or is the left bringing politics to us?

    You guys will be looking like Kevin “All is Well” Bacon at the end of Animal House before this is done, mark my words.

    Like

  27. Let’s turn it around. Can D.G., Zrim, and Muddy conceive of any Court decision or political event that would be a cause for concern?

    Or is it all just scare-mongering on the part of the right?

    Anything?

    Like

  28. The question, EC, is whether we are capable of having thoughts that are not derived from and intended for politics. Can you misrepresent a liberal because he is a liberal? Can you take a position that is not pre-approved by Fox News? Can you be a human being to another human being?

    For example, I pointed out that things may go badly for Christians. *Right after that* you say ask if I can “conceive of any Court decision or political event that would be a cause for concern?”

    So you blew off what I said for the sake of your agenda. But thank you for being an illustration.

    Like

  29. Erik, how about one without the kind of caveat Kennedy articulates here? But, alas, there it is. 1000 points for American jurisprudence, -2000 for culture warriors. But that won’t stop you and Tom from sounding the alarm, will it?

    Like

  30. Zrim
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 12:18 am | Permalink
    Erik, how about one without the kind of caveat Kennedy articulates here? But, alas, there it is. 1000 points for American jurisprudence, -2000 for culture warriors. But that won’t stop you and Tom from sounding the alarm, will it?

    Are you really going to make this big a joke of it all, Mr. Z? The alarm was sounded decades ago; Darryl and all those who sneered at it won, saying it was a false alarm, or if it was a real alarm, let it all burn.

    The Presbyterian “religion” is already a joke.

    The Jointly Ordained Lesbian Couple Making History For Presbyterians

    Today is yours. The Reformation has made history, all right. Revel in it, wallow in it. You led the way: Victory is yours, Mr. Z. God help us.

    Like

  31. Muddy – When I said, “because they have the guns…” I was referring to this part of Mrs. W’s quote: …who get(s) to give permission to the people about what we can and cannot agree or disagree on?

    The government – in this case SCOTUS – gets to give people permission because they have a monopoly on legal force.

    And as far as depoliticizing our thought life goes, good luck with that. To hold a position and believe it is right is to be political. It is fundamental to the human condition. We ought not wish to depoliticize anything – we are moral creatures with moral obligations. And to take those obligations seriously is fundamentally political.

    Zrim – …how about one without the kind of caveat Kennedy articulates here? That caveat is not binding on anyone. It’s window dressing. There will be litigation for the next several decades that will define how the country resolves the conflicts between the heretofore unknown inalienable right of dudes to “marry” each other and of religious groups to act on their beliefs. It is almost impossible to see any group that believes homosexuality is immoral winning. And the apologists – the wolves in sheeps clothing – will be quick to tell us it doesn’t matter or that Christianity demands acceptance of sodomy. #LoveWins

    Like

  32. Publius – […] sexual perversion knows no bounds… the quest becomes consuming.”

    EC – I’m still not convinced that this is nothing more than an effective vehicle of the left to take on the things they hate.

    Lewis – Frankly of all sins for our society to turn a blind eye towards, I think sex might be the most preferential.

    It is unfortunate that x% of the population is afflicted with same-sex attraction (i.e., a non-voluntary state), but horrific that y% adopt a lifestyle in imitation of it out of lust – which homosexuality caters to most efficiently.

    Lust is sin and sin is slavery.

    What enables them to cast aside morality for sexual slavery (aside from that reliable old companion Original Sin)? Media portrayals. Sensitivity training. Sex ed. The modesty of the young (due to unruly passions) is intentionally broken down by these diverse organizations and practices.

    But why do the media, corporate leadership, and government afflict this on us? (Aren’t they acting in our best interests, or trying to, or…?) Because they see themselves as “thought leaders” or “influencers” and have a set of goals of mind (some individual, some pertaining to a specific group, some to a specific industry).

    Basically, I think they want Christians to not interfere with business-as-usual, whatever that may require (quantitative easing resulting in corporate inversions, foreign wars, declining real value of wages relative to expenses). To achieve this, a sexually permissive culture is necessary.

    What better tool for achieving this is than pornography? Has it not had a significant impact in forming our culture (comedy, cinematic standards, popular music) since the Roth decision in 1957 declared it ‘free speech’?

    If we use pornography, passion will rule our lives, and we are distracted from our real responsibilities (to family, local communities and other associations, state, God). We even think we are achieving some sort of “freedom” as we engage in it – freedom from morality, or from prudery. We serve our passions and celebrate it as an act of will overthrowing authority.

    Those who know how to use pornography as a weapon successfully control the minds of others.

    Once our morality is under control, political control follows. We internalize the commands of our oppressors. We grow to espouse the false principles ourselves- we come to believe nonsense like Larry Flint’s- position of ‘if I’m not free, you’re not free.’

    So to me, the real questions are:
    a) Who determines the acceptable parameters of our cultural products?
    b) How do we change their behaviour or replace them in order to improve the moral fabric of the nation?
    c) (Do we really have a genuine ‘nation’ – we’re pluralists incapable of recognizing even to ourselves the passive-aggressive ethnic warfare we’re engaged in.)
    d) So what’s the solution then?

    Not a favorite of mine, but even John Courtney Murray writes (last page or so of We Hold These Truths) that we are permitted to withdraw allegiance from the U.S. system should it change too drastically for the worse. I doubt he imagined it would ever happen.

    But withdrawing allegiance from a political system or particular government is by no means to lose responsibility to others in what remains of our society.

    In any case, I do not think we are at that point. But this decision (long in the making) is another step in a long series of steps which do not bode well for the future. I suspect we’re not through the worst of it- just a few more decades to go.

    Like

  33. Apologies, I omitted crucial paragraphs between Larry Flint and the list of questions-

    […Larry Flint’s- position of ‘if I’m not free, you’re not free.’

    Other tools have become available as a result of pornography’s great success, most notably homosexual activity and ‘lifestyle’ (pseudo-culture). The activity in ways is alike and in ways differs from pornography, but being grounded in lust has a similarly corrosive effect, blinding our moral intuitions, disordering our emotions, and instilling alternately furtive and flagrant habits of character.

    Acceptance of the existence of the ‘lifestyle’ calls into question the received wisdom of our Western culture, turns us from stating Christian morality with confidence, and ultimately leaves us prey to whatever opinions are forced upon us, or clinging unquestionably to the best of what we’ve located within the context familiar to us.

    This context has been shaped, of course, by the very forces we are coming to understand are the problem. Except that the problem may be still deeper, or simply too much for us to understand. These tools, then, may be good in and of themselves, or they may be fatally flawed. Those we believed we could count on to uphold traditional morality may no longer be worthy of that trust (especially if we have put excessive trust in the state).

    The entire process of passing down traditional morality has been interfered with to such an extent that homosexuality has entered the panoply of pluralist options in America- an identity to be embraced and which others are bound (increasingly with legal backing) to respect without serious question.

    So to me, the real questions are…]

    Like

  34. An almost overlooked and not entirely positive aspect of the SCOTUS decision is that they also delcared nagging, inevitable money squabbles, heartbreaking kids, and decreasing quality/quantity of sex to be constitutional, too.

    Like

  35. I’m working on a theory that several of the regulars here are closet liberals but don’t have the stones to just come out and say it. Zrim is exhibit 1. Note how he talks about abortion and people who work on behalf of the unborn. Pretty much complete disdain. It’s easy to hide behind Confessional subscription, but at some point you would think that a person would take a position on a “social issue” that is actually in accord with what the Bible teaches as opposed to trying to continually appear to be above it all.

    Contrast the statement of Michael’s bishop to Darryl’s. Whose church is more likely to last another 1,000 years and whose is more likely to look like the PCUSA in 50?

    Like

  37. Robert, if that is true, then why get married? I don’t favor gay marriage. But I don’t think this is merely a win for gays. They may have bitten off more than they can chew. That’s the way politics works.

    But Christians shouldn’t act like this is the end of the world, as if they are the Israelites who have gone into exile. We have always been in exile. Don’t act like this is our home.

    Like

  38. Chortles,

    Your point goes back to my theory that this is less about gay people actually wanting to marry than it is sticking it to the man, the right, and the church, especially when it comes to the leftists who are not gay who have climbed on board.

    Kevin,

    Good points on pornography. Ironically, Kennedy’s rationale for gay marriage being rooted in the dignity of gay people might be able to be used against pornography. As violent and gross as it’s becoming, it’s certainly not promoting the dignity of women.

    Like

  39. vd, t see Muddy’s comment. This is how From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin “wins.” But I don’t claim Muddy as a success story. His views may be entirely his own.

    Like

  40. ec, I’m concerned every day — about the world, the flesh and the devil. Now you’re telling me I only needed to worry about the courts?

    Who knew?

    Like

  41. Back to the issues I was raising two weeks ago: Church officers who call themselves 2k need to think through how much ground they can give on this issue without being derelict in their office and unfaithful to their vows. Prepare for some tough decisions.

    Like

  42. vd, t, come on, blame the ones who were really in charge — the popes. If they had reformed the church the Reformers wouldn’t have been necessary.

    Like

  44. ec, I have the stones to say you are clueless. A biblical position on a social issue. What is that? A moral precept is one thing. How to regulate it is another. That’s politics 101. But because someone doesn’t agree with you on the politics you conclude they don’t agree with you about the morality. Say hello to liberalism yourself, the kind that considered Machen immoral and libertine for not supporting Prohibition.

    And how long have you been hanging around here? I get it. More comments, less comprehension.

    Like

  45. Darryl,

    The Courts are relevant in that their decisions impact your work as an OPC officer. Think about the impact on the OPC and OPC church planting & missions if in 20 years no contributions are tax deductible and all OPC churches are paying commercial property taxes, Both Westminsters are paying commercial property taxes, all your ministers are taxed on their housing allowances, etc.

    In addition many of your members have less to give because they’ve been professionally marginalized.

    We’re not many court decisions away from all that happening. Gay marriage is now a federally protected civil right. People who oppose civil rights do not receive favorable governmental treatment for long.

    You’re a smart guy and a historian. I would think that you should be the guy pointing these things out, not me.

    Like

  46. Erik, so it’s all about the money and the perks? I believe Xianity spread under conditions where it was outlawed, beyond marginalized, and officially, violently opposed by an empire.

    Like

  47. vd, t, hey! George Weigel says it’s your fault (and you don’t even go to church):

    The Catholic Church in the United States bears its share of responsibility for this incoherence. It was clear sixty years ago that the old mainline Protestant cultural hegemony was fading, that an alternative cultural foundation for American democracy was necessary, and that a new cadre of citizen-leaders, capable of articulating the moral truths on which the American democratic experiment rests, had to be raised up – and the prime candidate for doing all that was the Catholic Church. It might have happened. But too much of the Church’s clerical and lay leadership lost its nerve after Humanae Vitae; the window of opportunity closed amidst the maelstrom of the Sixties and the decadence of the Seventies; and the forces of incoherence won the day .

    Like

  48. Darryl,

    Prohibition is not a great example because consumption of alcohol is not forbidden in Scripture. It was a bad law from a Christian perspective and liberals missed it (no surprise).

    Contrast abortion and gay marriage. The Bible clearly teaches that we should not murder or marry people of the same sex. Christians should have no problem in a representative republic taking a position against both.

    Not every political issue is prohibition. Move beyond the 1920’s.

    Like

  49. “a new cadre of citizen-leaders, capable of articulating the moral truths on which the American democratic experiment rests, had to be raised up” — hello, what about nearly all-Catholic Fox News?

    Like

  50. Chortles,

    No, it’s about the lives and livelihoods of people we care about. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

    Like

  52. Chortles,

    As to your point about the church growing under persecution all I can say is, “well then you agree with me that persecution is coming.”

    Does Darryl? Does Zrim? Does Muddy?

    Help me wake them up.

    Like

  53. If yer 2K and you know it
    This don’t hurt
    (clap clap)

    I hope the damage done to the church by this decision doesn’t even begin to tally up to .00001% that plain old lust and greed and pride and ingratitude have done to this point in the big picture

    Like

  54. Darryl,

    I agree politics is not morality (there’s an often corrupt network of intermediaries in between), but that doesn’t mean that I have to just accept what appears to be the growing 2k default of mocking, disdain, and cynicism of those who do get involved in politics to try to take a stand as Christians.

    Think Zrim on pro-life.

    Like

  55. ec, who said you have to agree with Zrim?

    And where have you been involved in politics? Oh, please wake us up to how it is done.

    Or take a pill and chill lest you become a Bayly Brother.

    Like

  56. If I was a liberal Democrat and couldn’t admit it publicly I would probably get pretty bitter and passive-aggressive if I was surrounded in the church by conservative Republicans who constantly talked about their politics.

    Just admit being a liberal Democrat, though.

    Come out of the closet.

    Like

  57. Darryl,

    Just voting, following the news, and thinking about the impact of political developments on the church.

    That’s all I’m asking of anyone here.

    Like

  58. Darryl,

    Why get married? Indeed. This has never been about marriage except for maybe a few conservatives in the gay movement. Even conservative Andrew Sullivan who was among the first to make the case for gay marriage gives away the real fight in his response to the ruling. He notes that the best thing about the ruling is the affirmation that homosexuality doesn’t make a person any less normal, any more deviant than others. Of course there is a certain truth in that, but the point has been to erase all societal stigma. Eric is right to be concerned. As soon as the ruling was announced, you had scores of writers on the pro-gay marriage side talking about how this is not enough.

    Accreditation agencies have gone after Gordon College, Eich was drummed out of Mozilla, etc. The same people who hold the power there hold the power in government. If we think they’ll be content to live and let live, we’re hopelessly naive.

    Like

  59. ec, brilliant. If I don’t agree with you, I’m a liberal Democrat.

    Have you ever heard of a conservative Democrat? Think Confederacy.

    You follow the news? Maybe that’s the problem.

    Like

  60. One thing the core group here should think about is how this decision will continue to marginalize 2k. If you have someone going off the reservation you might want to police your own better. Break up the small group so everyone can speak freely to each other and not act like anything is owed. Why do I have to be the one to point out Zrim on pro-life? Because no insider feels like they can disagree with him publicly. That’s lame.

    Like

  65. Darryl,

    If OPC ministers are actually fined (either through the administrative machinery under the attorney general or via courts) for violating ‘gay rights’ in their sermons, books, or blog statements – would this cultural shift be worthy of concern then? How about being charged with facilitating the spread of ‘hate speech’ via the creation of an online platform?

    All you need is someone over at So Po (for example) to decide you are a significant enough threat (e.g., recognize you as a “hate group”). A targeted press strategy would follow to de-humanize you in the eyes of the mass culture- “small group of Christian extremists promoting a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible” – “human rights violators, clearly not in line with mainstream Presbyterian and Christian standards” – “Advocating secession, they even seem to sympathize with the Confederate sympathizers.”

    Would your colleagues in the larger Presbyterian Churches come to your defense? Would they do everything in their power?

    Professing 2k theology will not get the attention off of you, unless you can lodge it in their minds as a form of Americanism/pluralism.

    Like

  66. Kevin, and what if I became a victim? Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Victimization wins these days. Being oppressed is what gives you leverage. Since when do Americans overnight turn into rooters for the big guy?

    Being in the minority could be the best thing that happens to Christians. Acting like we’re the majority sure hasn’t worked.
    we

    Like

  67. Lewis:”every time non-Christians do something non-Christian is just silly.”

    White House lit in rainbow colors in celebration and President Barack Obama : “the court ruling has “made our union a little more perfect.” http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-lit-rainbow-colors-supreme-court-ruling-011752467–politics.html

    But today this salvation from sinful sexual acts was not embraced. Instead there was massive institutionalization of sin.The Bible is not silent about such decisions. Alongside its clearest explanation of the sin of homosexual intercourse (Romans 1:24–27) stands the indictment of the approval and institutionalization of it. Though people know intuitively that homosexual acts (along with gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness) are sin, “they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:29–32). “I tell you even with tears, that many glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:18–19).This is what the highest court in our land did today — knowing these deeds are wrong, “yet approving those who practice them.”My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us. The new thing — new for America, and new for history — is not homosexuality. That brokenness has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man. (And there is a great distinction between the orientation and the act — just like there is a great difference between my orientation to pride and the act of boasting.)What’s new is not even the celebration and approval of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia.
    What’s new is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity. John Piper

    Like

  69. Perhaps this was discussed back in April, but:

    “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed” so women can get access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”
    —Hillary Clinton to the Women in the World Summit, April 2015

    How long before the change in structural bias requires a change in the structure – the human resources – promoting it?

    You will not be left in peace unless you – and your blog participants – retreat from all public profession of Christian morality.

    Like

  70. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/so-called-same-sex-marriage

    My main reason for writing is not to mount a political counter-assault. I don’t think that is the calling of the church as such. My reason for writing is to help the church feel the sorrow of these days. And the magnitude of the assault on God and his image in man.
    Christians, more clearly than others, can see the tidal wave of pain that is on the way. Sin carries in it its own misery: “Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).
    And on top of sin’s self-destructive power comes, eventually, the final wrath of God: “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:5–6).
    Christians know what is coming, not only because we see it in the Bible, but because we have tasted the sorrowful fruit of our own sins. We do not escape the truth that we reap what we sow. Our marriages, our children, our churches, our institutions — they are all troubled because of our sins.
    The difference is: We weep over our sins. We don’t celebrate them. We don’t institutionalize them. We turn to Jesus for forgiveness and help. We cry to Jesus, “who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).
    And in our best moments, we weep for the world, and for our own nation. In the days of Ezekiel, God put a mark of hope “on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 9:4).
    This is what I am writing for. Not political action, but love for the name of God and compassion for the city of destruction.
    “My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.” (Psalm 119:136)

    Like

  73. Not sure about your Bible there a. But mine has another dozen or so sins in equality with that type of sin. Keep reading Romans 1 to soak in verses 28-32. Anything in there that you need to repent kf?

    Many times its a huge shopping list in the Epistles.

    While the sin of great current discussion is not in my wheelhouse of temptation or interest, I sure qualify in many of the others listed sins

    Have to clean up my own house first, might then have a good influence on others and who knows how far righteousness can flourish

    Like

  74. at least you haven’t told me to stop quoting the Bible, DG……yet….

    interesting, of all the crazy things posted and linked here, you are silent in rebuke, except for me on this one, interesting

    Like

  75. I see this as an opportunity for the church in that a more honest discussion and admitting of what is truly in our hearts will lead to more people eventually coming to their senses and repenting and joining the “and so were some of you” crowd

    It’s been too whitewashed and pietistic. Jesus came to save sinners, too many in the church think they are above that because they have had lucky breaks in life and the wits not to ruin them.

    Like

  76. …and…‘course, though you haven’t outright told me not to quote the Bible… yet…., you essentially have discouraged it – mocking it as ‘pietist’; saying no one will read the verses anyway, etc. Had never really heard of ‘OPC’ before, but given the witness here…. no thanks

    Like

  78. “But I don’t claim Muddy as a success story.”

    Dang.

    Anyway, I just love the way the politically entrenched denounce whoever does not (with zeal!) say amen to their agenda, and yet they have not done a single thing in real life that exceeds the efforts of those they are berating. That was wordy. Let me try again: commenting and tweeting don’t count. None of you are writing the next Supreme Court opinion and none of you are doing anything to keep the barbarians back from the walls of the city. You’re posers, and I’ll bet $100 OL Bucks that I’ll do more to help real-life Christians deal with being cultural outsiders than the bloviators here.

    With some here I get the sense that describing a political mind is like describing water to a fish, but I’ll try an illustration. Here was a tweet: “There are pictures of almost every Democrat Senator over the age of 50 hugging Klansman Bob Byrd. Make them own it.” Cool, huh? Democrats are wrong so let’s use images that will hurt them without any regard to what they currently believe or what their record represents. This kind of thinking and this kind of tactic is yours when your mind has been politicized. Here’s your agenda, that’s their agenda, you are right, they are wrong, and “they” are not entitled to fair treatment.

    Whatever happened to “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?”

    Like

  79. DG –

    so what did Christ and the apostles do? Should we not follow their example?

    You’re taking for granted I know your assumptions (I should read your books). Please cite the very clear example you see in the NT as to how we are to respond so I can consider it.

    The Apostles built Christian communities to permit the flourishing of the Faith. They worked to convert every man and all nations, i.e., to transform all of society in Christ. If we believe society has a structure to it (i.e., is not formless) then there are distinct roles and corresponding responsibilities for each of us.

    Threats to that mission were identified as enemies and dealt with by real individuals with real roles in society (not one among them born to political influence) – usually through self-sacrificial martyrdom which demonstrated the amazing and real novelty (in a good use of the word for a change) of the Christian religion. St. Paul had, of course, a role of some influence prior to his conversion, and to my mind applied the relevant organizational gifts and talents to effective evangelization of society.

    If they had converted (e.g.) advisers to Emperor Claudius, surely these advisers would be obligated to influence him to revise the Roman ceremonial/civil law requiring paganism (unseat the state religion)- over dinner conversations, in letters, while traveling on the sea for a few days, etc. More generally, I believe anyone with political or social influence at the time (whether “shadow elite” or “media personalities”) would have a moral obligation to guide society (addressing both the pre-political moral foundations and the political system) from promoting evil to tolerating both evil and good.

    But I don’t believe either Christ or the Apostles want us (present tense is more accurate and relevant than past) to stop at egalitarian toleration of evil and good both. The basis of the structure of society is a recognition of the proper role of every created thing in God’s plan, and the creation (or more usually, the adaptation) and efficient management of institutions with missions addressing specific areas of activity – including the State. Each has a proper domain which defines it, and operates in the world but oriented to Christ. In a phrase, Jesus Christ is King and Lord of the Universe. We are his vassals.

    This seems evidently the Christian position to me.

    Philosophizing aside, the Apostles embraced their martyrdoms for Christ and brought others to the Faith. We can do so similarly by not backing down – at all – from stating both the Christian position on specific moral issues and using various techniques to bring non-Christians to us – reason, history, story telling, doing our jobs well, displaying virtue in oppression (patriotism, wit, courage, foresight for the well-being of society).

    We should beware ‘borrowed armor’ – over-emphasizing secondary principles like ‘free speech’, ‘freedom of conscience,’ and ‘separation of Church and State.’ Charity and God’s justice (the rights of God) call us to it.

    Like

  80. “Pecca fortiter. Christy and Dean Parave, a Florida bodybuilding couple, evangelize by swapping partners with other couples.

    ‘If I can go to the next swinger’s event and get 10 people to believe in Christ… my job is done.'”

    (via Culture Wars June 2015).

    Like

  82. Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants. William Penn

    The penalty good men pay for indifference to political affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato

    Like

  83. (All about me)When I got up this morning, I found that my local paper had devoted the entire front page, two inside pages and a big part of another page to coverage of the SCOTUS decision. There was only a small amount of coverage given to the terrorist murders in France, Tunisia and Kuwait. I had to go online to find any coverage at all of Greece giving the finger to its creditors by calling a referendum. I stopped even trying to predict the future long ago, but I have a feeling that 10 years out the SCOTUS decision will be a nothing burger compared with how we have dealt with what may be the collapse of globalization.

    As for 2K, I have never understood it to preclude activism in the public square by individual church members, officers or not. I have voted for one Democrat, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and bought one Chrysler product, a 1979 Dodge Omni, in my life. I will never repeat either mistake, but I am very happy in going to church with Democrats, even though I have been active in political campaigns on the GOP side for decades. Sing hymns with them on Sunday, vote against them on Tuesday. When I took the intro course in political science in 1968, the textbook was Pluralist Democracy in the United States by Robert Dahl. His view was already under attack from the New Left, and critiques of what Theodore Lowi termed interest group liberalism were not without merit, but still pluralism as a concept that would enable us to live together without ripping each others throats out has merit. It certainly has its opponents on the left and on the right (it seems that about every third column Dreher runs has a quote by someone labeling pluralism as a positive evil), but since every one of these critics seems to me to want to repristinate the past in order to further their utopian agenda for the future, they can be safely ignored. I suspect, though, that events happening in the rest of the world as we speak may subsume this interesting conversation.

    Like

  84. CW, we just got the f-bomb (“flourishing” bomb) from Newark. The King’s College has a Center for Human Flourishing. Seems like there’d be a lot of pressure being the Director of the Center for Human Flourishing. What if you wake up and you don’t feel all flourishy that day? I wonder if Mondays flourish there.
    ________

    We’d be better off in a monarchy, where we’d let the king do his thing and pay more attention to our families, churches, and neighborhoods. We might become 3-D people rather than agendas living in a land of agendas.

    Like

  86. “If America wasn’t a Christian nation, it lived in deliberate accommodation with it…”
    That’s a great turn of phrase…kudos.

    “although it was those who stayed silent, those who sneered at the Falwells and Palins, who spinelessly handed America over to the forces of moral chaos.”
    I don’t think that’s quite right. If you look at where support for ssm came from, it was RC adherents who led the way. Why did they fold so quickly? After all, it is hard to see RCs to the “left” of mainline prots on sex issues, even in the 1980’s! I think the sex abuse scandal completely undermined the credibility of the RCC on sexual ethics. Your typical low information C&E catholic hears “Natural law…blah, blah, blah” all the while thinking “Dude, you shipped a pedophile to South America to run an orphanage so that he couldn’t testify against the diocese, and you want to tell me how my nephew is a threat to America’s moral order for wanting to commit to his boyfriend? Whatever…” Given the cultural zeitgeist, no way getting the 2-ker’s to all cheerlead Falwell is turning this thing around. Gay rights is the natural, logical extension of the sexual revolution that 95% of our country has totally bought into – barring marriage to some couples and not others strikes them as mere bigotry, and if you are going to allow divorcee’s the benefit of marriage it is hard to see what the principled difference is. One may be able to make one, but it is complicated and the ones making it are associated with bishops who have done things like threaten couples with excommunication for pressing charges against their child’s rapist.

    Like

  87. “As for 2K, I have never understood it to preclude activism in the public square by individual church members, officers or not. I have voted for one Democrat, Jimmy Carter in 1976, and bought one Chrysler product, a 1979 Dodge Omni, in my life. I will never repeat either mistake, but I am very happy in going to church with Democrats, even though I have been active in political campaigns on the GOP side for decades. Sing hymns with them on Sunday, vote against them on Tuesday. ”

    This is my understanding as well.

    Like

  88. “If monogamy is really what they wanted, they wouldn’t need marriage to give it to them.”
    My reading of folks like Althouse, Andrew Sullivan, etc… is that the case for gay marriage evolved out of the AIDS crisis in the 1980’s. Gay folks came out of the closet and found quite a bit of resistance from their families in many cases. The stories of guys being denied visitation rights by family members of their partners, not being able to inherit, etc… are pretty rough going even if you think relationships were sinful. Then there is the practical side (mostly coming from lesbians I think) of couples wanting to adopt, get the tax break, and inherit without major taxes (this is what Windsor was all about). Finally, I think they want to see stigma removed from their relationships and this is a big step in that direction.

    Another way to think about is we allow straight people to marry and divorce for more or less any reason. Then they can re-“marry” and have all the benefits of marriage. Why is it OK to recognize John McCain’s re-“marriage” and know that he doesn’t have to hide his relationship, he gets all the benefits, and his relationship will be accepted where ever he goes. But if this sham so-called “marriage” were between him and a guy none of this would be true. Why? I don’t think anyone has given a compelling reason to treat these different other than appealing to the “ick” factor. For younger folks raised on Howard Stern, that isn’t so compelling, so it just looks like bigotry. There is a small minority that thinks the sham marriages like that of McCain’s shouldn’t recognized as such, but this is a minuscule minority. There is no way you are going to convince the broader culture that serial monogamy should be stigmatized.

    Like

  89. SDB – ‘RCs to blame for ssm’
    May your words spread far and wide. Hear, hear. Two essential edits, though- not “RC adherants” but “Catholics-in-name-only (CiNOs)”, and not “it is complicated” but “it seems complicated to the CiNO mind.”

    Like

  90. SDB- ‘no way to convince the broader culture’

    I can think of one, but it is going to take a little time (a century at best) and a lot of work. Work God demands of us fortunately.

    Like

  91. Kevin, “The Apostles built Christian communities to permit the flourishing of the Faith. They worked to convert every man and all nations, i.e., to transform all of society in Christ.”

    ” the Apostles embraced their martyrdoms for Christ and brought others to the Faith.”

    Which is it? They couldn’t have been martyrs AND transformed societies so they could flourish prosper.

    Not until the emperors converted did Christianity flourish succeed. And how did that work out for us? Crusades, inquisition, execution of Servetus.

    You can’t run the world and not expect some push back from people who don’t agree with the way you run the world.

    Like

  92. Wow, I woke up to FB pronouncements of the end of the world and threats of defriending everyone and then come to OL and ec has gone gadfly on all the ‘insiders’. Does anybody actually know how this all turns out? I can barely get out of my own way at work but somehow I’m supposed to anticipate the effects of a SCOTUS decision on the church, state and nation? How the heck does anybody know? And if that’s the situation(that I don’t know for sure what’s gonna happen) what ever happened to the maturity to not overreact? I honestly can’t think of a scenario, so far, in life where I wasn’t well served by stepping back and just observing the fallout and then adjusting accordingly. What if the norming of homosexual lifestyle has the effect of minimizing their numbers even while strengthening their rhetorical political clout(which we can have a lot of say in if we handle it properly), isn’t that a win, even in a cultural influence kind of way? If alternative is no longer edgy, cool and fashionable but mundane and saddled with social norms and responsibilities that may just be the splash of cold water needed to curb it’s pop culture appeal. And if this further defines the distinction between church and state and demands of us all to more accurately define the powers and roles intrinsic to both(sphere sovereignty) isn’t that a boon as well? I appreciate a CPA’s viewpoint, a historian’s viewpoint, a lawyer’s viewpoint and everyone in between, if I take them together I get a bigger picture of how it’s shaping up. I’m not sure why this should be a polarizing event. I understand that’s what people(left and right) want it to be, but I’m not convinced it should be. And even if you’re on the ‘right’ and are appalled, sometimes ignoring someone’s provocative jabs and actions has the effect of undermining their power, zeal and most importantly, activity.

    Like

  95. Guess I’ll just be a quote dropper today.

    “All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope St. Pius X ( 1835-1914)

    Like

  96. @Erik

    I don’t think the biggest problem you are going to have is pastors being fined or churches being closed down by the state for being “bigoted”. Even the Creator church and Westboro Baptist maintained their tax exempt status. The bigger threat is coming from within.

    We just saw that Gushee (a regular contributor to CT) has endorsed gay marriage. Tony Campolo and the other members of the evangelical left have as well. More significantly David Neff (the previous senior editor of CT) has. There is going to be huge social pressure to “evolve” on this issue. If you look at CT one of the things they note is that evangelical churches do not have a denominational history to turn to to help guide them through the challenges they face,

    This certainly means thinking afresh about what we will and will not do when, for example, a gay married couple, seeking to draw closer to God, shows up in church and wants to get involved. It nearly goes without saying that we will welcome them unconditionally as we would anyone who walks in the door. But what does love look like in this particular instance? How much participation do we encourage before we ask them to adopt the Christian sexual ethic? Much of this depends on a church’s tradition and its beliefs about baptism, church membership, eldership, and so forth. But many evangelical churches do not have a denominatonal tradition to lean on and will need to think through these matters with fresh urgency.

    One issue that demands special attention is divorce and remarriage. The Bible has a fair amount to say about marriage (as much or more than it does on homosexuality), and yet the evangelical church has become lax about honoring the marriage vow.

    Evangelical churches have “evolved” on divorce and remarriage despite clear biblical teaching on this topic. I suspect that we will see the same thing happen on gay marriage. Now here’s the $64,000 dollar question – wither the churches that don’t “evolve”? I suspect that we will be seen like the KJV-only places. Quaint at best, hotbeds of racism and homophobia at worst. The evangelical para-church organizations will go soft on ssm I’m sure in order to retain their tax exempt status. Where does that leave us? Creating the subculture necessary to support the retention of our kids is going to be tough and I think this is where the benedict option comes into play. I’m not sure what that looks like exactly, but I do think we will need to be intentional about creating supportive structures that encourage us in the faith while the broader culture is working against us.

    The quest for intellectual and cultural legitimacy and the investment in politics (and attendant compromises) have undermined conservative protestantism. Largely this happened as we neglected the working and underclass. In my mid-sized PCA church (we run about 700 on Sunday), I know of exactly one adult man in our church who is not college educated. Our session is comprised of professors, lawyers, doctors, and engineers – certainly no working class professions. If you look at the demographics, adherence has collapsed among the working class. So much of our energy as conservative protestants has gone into higher-ed (Christian colleges, campus ministry, etc…) and being intellectually respectable (hello Francis Schaeffer) that we have forgotten that the gospel is for the guy pushing a broom or driving a school bus. Our churches have spent the last forty years gutting ourselves while we pat ourselves on the back for fighting a culture war that we were never going to win (the weapons of our warfare are not carnal after all). If we spent more time building our church by faithfully preaching the gospel, catechizing our people, and evangelizing our communities and less time on voter guides, etc… the church would be in a much better place today.

    Like

  97. “And even if you’re on the ‘right’ and are appalled, sometimes ignoring someone’s provocative jabs and actions has the effect of undermining their power, zeal and most importantly, activity.”
    That’s a really good point.

    Like

  98. Hart,
    The Jewish authorities also called for the greatest act of cursing and blessing of us all, the Cross. They did the infallible work of the Father. The Church does the same. It only calls you to be like unto Christ and be ready for your own cross. Sometimes it happens too. Sometimes the state does it. Sometimes officials of the Church. St. Joan of Arc among others. Sometimes those called the heretic by Church or State are actually the Saint.

    Like

  99. Some thoughts rumbling about in my head:
    The cultural environment is becoming more anti for the Christian church in America. Not a pleasant thing for Christians and possibly even more, pastors. But I wondering if this development, this increase in antithesis between Christ’s kingdom and the kingdom of this world, may be something that ends up helping to clarify the gospel call to believe in Christ. Just as when the antithesis of Law and Gospel is diminished things get dangerously fuzzy concerning the role of faith and works, maybe the lack of antithesis between church and state in America muddies the churches identification with the kingdom that is not of this world. As a result, too many in the world end up just seeing the church as a “clean club” and hearing her message as just one of many voices vying to establish its own particular beatific vision of how life should be lived in America. And the offense of the cross in the gospel, though not intended, takes a back seat. Just wondering…

    The Constitution, fairly read, should protect the free exercise of religious belief. But maybe the time is here when the world in the person of the State isn’t inclined to read the 1st Amendment fairly. The words of Jesus are helpful to me:
    “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

    Like

  100. Amen, Jack. The visibility of a congregation becomes more visible when that congregation is not identified by the family or the nation or the race in which we were born, but by the effectual calling of the elect to justification through hearing and believing the gospel. Instead of being satisfied that our kind of (the right) people are in charge of everything (including history), we can more eagerly hope for the coming of the Heavenly King to His kingdom on earth.

    We didn’t decide to be born black or white, or male or female. And we didn’t decide to be born rebels (against God, not against abolitionism). When God causes a person to be born from above, God does not change our skin color or gender. But when God causes a person to be born from above, there is visible evidence of that effectual calling. They do not continue to love the false gospel in continued rebellion against God’s revelation of His justice and sovereignty. White people cannot decide to be black, but born from above people decide to submit to the righteousness revealed in the gospel. God does not save rebels without changing their wills so that old rebels decide to obey the gospel and trust in Christ’s death as that which satisfies the law for all the elect.

    http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/the-myth-of-influence

    Theodore D. Bozeman, “Inductive and Deductive Polities”, Journal of American History, December 1977, p722–Materially comfortable and conspicuously toward the leading groups in society, the old school carried forward traditional Calvinist support for business and professional vocations….Having supported from the beginning a version of Protestantism supportive of property consciousness, the Old School leadership had incentive enough for worry about social instability…
    Old School contributions to social analysis may be viewed as a sustained attempt to defend the inherited social structure…The General Assembly found it necessary to lament the practice of those who ‘question and unsettle practice which have received the enlightened sanction of centuries’…
    Social naturalists assumed that the laws of society were not merely true, that is, given in the scheme of nature. They bore too the humbling force of prescription; they demanded compliance. The desire was to draw the ought out of the is…to make facts serve a normative purpose.”

    Like

  101. Chortles,

    You just fear speaking your mind with your buddies. You usually clam up when the heat gets turned up unless it involves picking on girls and girly men behind a fake name.

    Like

  102. Muddy,

    Just come out as a liberal democrat. It will be cleansing.

    You can wear your bike shorts in public with pride.

    Like

  103. Note the irony of being berated as a right-winger by OPC elders. Last I heard Theonomists were still in good standing in the OPC. Where’s Sowers when I need him?!

    Like

  106. Kevin raises a great point. Why is Fox News assumed to be what motivates us as opposed to love of neighbor?

    I don’t watch Fox News and all of my subscriptions with the exception of the WSJ editorial page are center to far left so the Fox News accusations don’t hold water with me

    Like

  107. Sean,

    If Darryl had written what you wrote I would have no beef.

    His continued stance seems to be “Nothing to see here, move along.”

    That’s what I’m pushing back against.

    Sdb,

    The problem with equating divorce & remarriage and SSM is that one violates natural law and one does not. Moses made provision for one and not the other.

    Like

  108. @Erik
    I don’t buy natural law arguments – there is no natural law or laws of nature – these are patterns we impute to nature. The fact that we have basic knowledge of right and wrong (albeit one corrupted by sin) is true, but I don’t think you can do much with that for the purposes of forming public policy.

    That being said, I agree with you that SSM and adultery aren’t exactly analogous and the fact that social support for divorce and ssm came about by different paths make the consequences for society very different.

    Like

  109. “b, sd, the OPC hasn’t evolved and we are holding steady at 30k. Woot!”
    But isn’t that a problem? If the kids in our denominations (I’m PCA) stuck around, we should be doubling or more every 20yrs even without conversions. But most of the growth in the OPC and PCA is shifting from other denoms right? That means our covenant children aren’t sticking around. It is going to get a lot harder when the broader culture tells them that opposing ssm is equivalent to opposing interracial marriage. Who wants to be known as a bigot?

    One thing the early Christians did was form a robust counter (sub?) culture for her members. I don’t see us doing a very good job of that.

    Like

  110. Darryl,

    Robert, are you content to live and let live? If not, then why should they be?

    Well I’m not interested in criminalizing homosexuality, if that’s what you mean. Nor am I interested in getting companies to fire homosexuals who are competent in their jobs simply for being homosexual.

    On the other hand, other Western countries who are further along this road than we are have criminalized preaching as hate speech in many cases and have made it all but impossible to enter certain professions. If we think that can’t happen here, we’re foolish.

    I’m actually less concerned about government persecution than I am about making it so that confessional Christians need not apply to be psychologists, lawyers, etc. I’m also concerned about a coworker asking somebody in a secular work place what he thinks about homosexuality and then the answer leading to harassment and firing. I’m see very little of these concerns even being entertained here. And isn’t 2K supposed to advocate running society by natural law. Is gay marriage natural law?

    Like

  111. I love how eloquently our president can call us with traditional values undeveloped Neanderthals.

    “Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he added. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.” Pres. Obama’s speach on the Sepreme Court ruling.

    Like

  113. Erik, I don’t understand. Maybe because a lot of things have been said, but you seemed to have jumped from criticizing what you see as a general 2k indifference to calling out Zrim and I think Muddy as liberals(maybe Darryl too). So, you’ve gone general criticism to specific criticism tied to abortion politics and then running a fairly direct line from a pretty nuanced abortion stand(Zrim) to a broad stroke labeling as ‘liberal’. And for a while now you’ve seemed to want to ‘out’ a lot of folks as one thing or another in the name of honesty and full disclosure, I guess. I know you some, and these other guys some and we all seem, apart from what others may easily categorize as white privileged, middle-upper class, middle aged american white guys, to avoid that sort of easy-breezy classification. I don’t think anybody has told you, you can’t be more politically, rhetorically vocal than the rest of ‘us’ and NOT be 2k, so, I don’t understand why the need for, nor am I convinced of the accuracy of, labeling others in order to define yourself. It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed something here but that’s my drive by version of what it looks like. I’m fine with you disagreeing but I can’t quite tie your disagreement with the level of your ‘gadflyness’.

    Like

  115. Erik Charter
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
    Sean,

    If Darryl had written what you wrote I would have no beef.

    His continued stance seems to be “Nothing to see here, move along.”

    What did you expect? To admit being a useful idiot for the left all these years? 😉

    Like

  117. ……… can’t be more politically, rhetorically vocal than the rest of ‘us’ and NOT be 2k,”

    I’m struggling, I think I did the double negative, poor explaining thing here. What I mean is you can be 2k and be different in political activism overall or simply distinct from other 2kers in which issues animate you without diminishing others, potentially sophisticated, stances that differ either in substance or merely in degree from yours.

    Like

  118. Sdb,

    I’m working on a theory that some of these guys are politically liberal and use 2k as cover.

    It’s not personal. If I was getting personal I could use real names, but I don’t. They’re big boys and can withstand some scrutiny.

    Parr of my motivation is that many of the guys who oppose 2k are buffoons and are bad at it. It doesn’t kill these guys to have to mount a defense against someone who knows where the soft spots are. Everyone could end up sharper.

    And what does Zrim’s disdain for the pro-life movement have to do with nuance?

    Like

  119. Sorry – Sean, not sdb.

    Would never accuse Sean of being a liberal. He lives in Texas, owns big dogs, and shoots guns.

    Be nice to Sean…

    Like

  120. Sdb,

    If you want to confirm that adultery and ssm are not analogous, try both and report back to me

    On 2nd thought, don’t.

    Like

  121. Hmmm. Purposeful, intentional, conspiratorial use of 2k to give cover to being liberal. That would seem a bit of a reach to me, heading toward Bobby’s Freudian social construct theory. But, so what if they were? Why stoke the fire for ‘internet polemical’ purposes or any other purposes? Boredom? I feel like I’m missing part of the plot here. But, I don’t have to understand.

    Like

  122. Erik,
    I hate to say it but something like 42% if voting Texans wanted Obama in office. Sad sad thing to say.

    Like

  123. sean
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
    Hmmm. Purposeful, intentional, conspiratorial use of 2k to give cover to being liberal.

    It certainly could be cover for not having the guts to speak out on difficult issues and risk the wrath of the left.

    Like

  124. Minus one activist Kagen we would not be on this topic today it at least we would be looking at it from a different side.

    Like

  125. reporting but not agreeing with BB at Reformation 21—-But, however terrible this error is, it’s preferable to another championed by many of my more libertarian students and friends: that “the state should get out of the marriage business.” I suspect this view will seduce even more Reformed folks going forward, but it turns on an even more fundamental misunderstanding of marriage. Marriage is not just a religious rite or custom, but a really existing estate established by God among all people and thus something every state needs to recognize and respect, provide for and protect.

    The error settled into federal law today is grave and the practice it warrants confused and defiant. That the state still recognizes the reality of marriage and legally provides for true marriages (as well as false ones) may be little comfort, but it is a very big deal. As we lament this decision for our nation and grapple with its effects over the weeks and years to come, the libertarian line will no doubt look very attractive at times. But to adopt it would be like trying to put out a chimney fire by burning down the house. If the chimney fire isn’t put out, the house may burn down anyway. But it’s better to have a house with a cracked chimney than no house at all.
    – See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/06/marriage-and-the-church-in-ame.php#sthash.32dUImqD.dpuf

    Like

  126. Michael,

    Who knew Austin was so big?

    There’s also a reason Dallas is the sprints capital of the U.S. and it’s not because it’s full of people of Norwegian descent.

    Like

  130. Mark,

    No government recognition of marriage leaves vulnerable women & children at the mercy of male cads, and there is some of that guy in all of us.

    Like

  133. Tom, risk the wrath of the left? None of it is really hitting home IMO. We get marginalized by the left and the right, best that I can tell. And the right gives it to us up close and personal in our own churches. Why can’t it just be complex?

    Like

  137. Chortles – I believe we’re witnessing the slow-motion formation of an outliers affinity presbytery

    Erik – I can just see all the kenneled cats at GA.

    You guys are like The Shakers, though. You’ll be history in a generation.

    Like

  138. Muddy- we just got the f-bomb… from Newark.

    You wouldn’t be the first. Clever pun, though, a lovely rhetorical… flourish.

    We’d be better off in a monarchy, where we’d let the king do his thing and pay more attention to our families, churches, and neighborhoods. We might become 3-D people rather than agendas living in a land of agendas.

    Are you familiar with Charles Coulombe ‘s thoughts on monarchy (e.g., on Youtube)?

    Like

  139. sean
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
    Tom, risk the wrath of the left? None of it is really hitting home IMO. We get marginalized by the left and the right, best that I can tell. And the right gives it to us up close and personal in our own churches. Why can’t it just be complex?

    The left loves you. I “personally” object but I’m not going to say or do anything about it.

    How brave. He has strong beliefs but he keeps them to himself. Now THERE’S the sort of Christian we can do business with!

    Complex. Uh huh. See, you got me all wrong–if you think the Gospel means you have to fight for the welfare state, I’m all for that. Just have some balls. When Jesus said some men make eunuchs of themselves for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, I don’t think this is what he had in mind.

    Like

  140. DGH, I’m just a redneck who has always liked to read and was fortunate to go to college at a time when it was possible to get a very good education at a State University located in fly over country.

    Speaking of reading, there is a book I would love to read. It wouldn’t need to be more than a work of synthesis, though the author would, ideally, be able to draw a few reasonably fresh insights as he tells the story. The book would trace how American Evangelical Christianity went from a position of dominance in the 19th century, to a fracture between its modernist and fundamentalist impulses, retreat into a ghetto of their own making by the self described fundamentalists, and the building of strong, though by worldly standards second rate, institutions of learning, media engagement, etc. From that base, after another world war, a movement would emerge that would appropriate the Evangelical label to itself, and achieve a degree of cultural and political influence that no one would have dreamed of, say, in the 1930’s. In fact, a diligent author could probably dig up a 1930’s quote by the likes of Reinhold Neihbur to the effect that traditional Evangelical Protestantism was soon to be a museum piece, best observed in an out of the way rural location before it disappeared completely. I could even suggest the beginnings of a title, some sort of play on that Old Time Religion. The author could leave open whether this re-emergence was a good thing.

    Oh, wait….

    But enough about you.

    Like

  141. Did a prolife march… once. The rally before the walk was almost a worship service. Was not comfortable with Catholics and Prots praying together as a catholic priest led the prayer. Women who were clearly mentally unstable giving speeches on how they could not forgive themselves for aborting a child, telling the audience that she made her own personal flag to carry with her during the march. Charismatics speaking in tongues during the march holding up signs with unspeakable images. There is just no way to civilly protest this without blaspheming God in the process. Haven’t been to one since. 2K could certainly help with this movement.

    As far as being afraid of calling out Zrim… afraid of what? As far as I can tell, he thinks that 2K opponents use the abortion argument as cudgel; is against abortion but isn’t thrilled with the political solutions to the problem.

    Glad to see old Eric back making the rounds and lashing out blindly at whatever and whomever.

    Like

  142. What in the world does rhetorical red meat have to do with courage? What courage does it take to be outraged in accord with MSNBC or Fox news? And how is the association of politics with religious life not an outright capitulation to the left that they’re right. Talk about rolling over and taking it. You lost before you opened your mouth on that score.

    Like

  143. SDB said:

    “In my mid-sized PCA church (we run about 700 on Sunday), I know of exactly one adult man in our church who is not college educated. Our session is comprised of professors, lawyers, doctors, and engineers – certainly no working class professions. If you look at the demographics, adherence has collapsed among the working class. So much of our energy as conservative protestants has gone into higher-ed (Christian colleges, campus ministry, etc…) and being intellectually respectable (hello Francis Schaeffer) that we have forgotten that the gospel is for the guy pushing a broom or driving a school bus. Our churches have spent the last forty years gutting ourselves while we pat ourselves on the back for fighting a culture war that we were never going to win (the weapons of our warfare are not carnal after all). If we spent more time building our church by faithfully preaching the gospel, catechizing our people, and evangelizing our communities and less time on voter guides, etc… the church would be in a much better place today.”

    And knocked it, if not out of the park, at least off the center field wall

    Like

  144. Amish,

    You were always right there to run for cover with Chortles whenever things heated up. “Let me out of this group! Let me out of this group!”

    By all means leave pro-life to the marginal, though. Hate to have you get anything on you that might hinder your Sunday routines.

    Like

  145. Amish – As far as being afraid of calling out Zrim… afraid of what? As far as I can tell, he thinks that 2K opponents use the abortion argument as cudgel; is against abortion but isn’t thrilled with the political solutions to the problem.

    Erik – And exactly what are the political solutions to the problem that (1) he isn’t thrilled about, and (2) he suggests?

    Does he favor any solutions that actually leave the baby alive?

    Like

  146. Dan,

    Those folks are still in evangelical churches, but they are largely Baptist and Pentecostal churches.

    Presbyterians have been from the higher classes of society from the earliest days in the U.S. Think about the demands for learned clergy slowing growth compared to the Baptists and Methodists.

    This is nothing new.

    Like

  147. And when Presbyterians did circumvent learned clergy through developments like The Log College, it led to the very things that guys here rightly decry regularly. You really can’t have a thoughtful, theologically rigorous church AND a church for the masses. Choose one.

    Like

  149. Erik Charter
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
    Dan,

    Those folks are still in evangelical churches, but they are largely Baptist and Pentecostal churches.

    Presbyterians have been from the higher classes of society from the earliest days in the U.S. Think about the demands for learned clergy slowing growth compared to the Baptists and Methodists.

    This is nothing new.

    Heh heh. From my upcoming book Calvinism: The REAL History:

    The enemies of Jonathan Edwards called themselves the “Old Lights.” They hated the First Great Awakening, they hated revivalism and “enthusiasm,” as they called it. They were theologians of the dry toast. My favorite quote is this

    “…babes in age as well as understanding. They are chiefly, indeed, young persons, sometimes lads, or rather boys; nay, women and girls, yea, Negroes, have taken upon them to do the business of preachers.”

    Yea, Negroes!

    Like

  150. “I’m actually less concerned about government persecution than I am about making it so that confessional Christians need not apply to be psychologists, lawyers, etc. I’m also concerned about a coworker asking somebody in a secular work place what he thinks about homosexuality and then the answer leading to harassment and firing. I’m see very little of these concerns even being entertained here. And isn’t 2K supposed to advocate running society by natural law? Is gay marriage natural law?”

    Exactly. These are going to be real issues more and more. But they are secondary issues in the eyes of the supreme court. The first question( your last sentence) wasn’t even asked by the members of the supreme court. They(not all) seem believe that if something exists in nature, it therefore is a law of nature. That’s not what’s meant by natural law. But hey, if we can change the definitions of things in nature then maybe we can change its nature. But shouldn’t we ,as natural creatures, have a unified vision( evolutionary speaking) of how this is a good towards which we should be progressing, so that we can vote for that same vision? Otherwise how do we know whether we are bigots or ideologues’?
    Since we can’t get people to recognize what the bible and the church teaches, do we also give up on natural law to help right us from sinking( and I’m speaking of any polis).
    I believe that we are going to have to be gotten rid of so that natural selection can do her job. Will to power anyone? wow, very bad news.

    And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sine and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

    http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/search/label/Fideism

    Like

  151. Eric, There isn’t political solutions. Just winning hearts and minds. You are not going to do that driving around in a van sporting graphic pictures of slaughtered children and idolatrist pictures of a bloody Jesus. And this from someone whom is more prolife than thou.

    You been talking all day about people being afraid to speak out about Zrim’s views that turn out to be not all that objectional. Hyperbole much?

    Like

  152. By the way you were talking, you would have thought Zrim ran a clinic in his backyard. Oh, he’s against abortion but thinks prolifers are doing a terrible job making their case? Yawn.

    Like

  153. Erik, growing up I knew lots of Presby’s who were like my parents, who had one year of college between them. The Baptist Church I grew up in had seminary educated Pastors. The one I joined in college had a pastor with a PhD in New Testament from the University of Edinburgh. What you say may be consistent what the history books say, but at least in my experience it simply is less than the full story.

    I certainly can relate to the issue that SDB raises, whether or not his reasons for why the problem exists or what to do about it persuade you or not. My own church has become more white bread than many of us are comfortable with.

    Like

  154. Amish – By the way you were talking, you would have thought Zrim ran a clinic in his backyard. Oh, he’s against abortion but thinks prolifers are doing a terrible job making their case? Yawn.

    Erik – Good to see that you started out at a nice guy but you’ve learned from these guys how to be a pompous ass.

    Well done.

    Like

  155. Well, to quote that old anti-weed commercial. “I learned it from watching you… okay?”

    Like

  156. Amish,

    The only way to do anything about abortion is by “changing hearts and minds”?

    Was that the logic that The Supreme Court applied yesterday?

    “Well, since all of America has changed their hearts and minds about gay marriage, we had might as well make it legal.”

    We on the right are the only ones dumb enough to think that’s how the law works. That’s why we’re losing badly.

    Babies lives only deserve protection if everyone agrees to it?

    Like

  157. sean
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
    What in the world does rhetorical red meat have to do with courage? What courage does it take to be outraged in accord with MSNBC or Fox news? And how is the association of politics with religious life not an outright capitulation to the left that they’re right. Talk about rolling over and taking it. You lost before you opened your mouth on that score.

    You lost when you didn’t open your mouth. That’s the point, tough guy.

    Like

  158. Dan,

    The history books Darryl has written. Ha, ha.

    Presbyterianism in the South may be an exception.

    Like

  159. “The book would trace how American Evangelical Christianity went from a position of dominance in the 19th century, to a fracture between its modernist and fundamentalist impulses, retreat into a ghetto of their own making by the self described fundamentalists.”

    So are you talking about “Less Than Conquerers”, by Doug Franks? It’s a good book, with lots of Ellul, and the contrast with DGH will remind you that DGH still believes in the wrath of God, and in Christ’s satisfaction of that wrath for the elect.

    The fundamentalists for which there is so much nostalgia? Not so much. Sure, they agreed that Jesus died, but they had no hope only in that death alone.

    Urisinus–“Even the omission of doing good works is sin”

    When all the sins of a sinner are propitiated by God for God, the omission of doing good is also satisfied for…

    Like

  160. Amish,

    And the ghoulish examples you cite are the only way to be pro-life?

    Why do you think that’s what he’s talking about?

    Last I knew he lived in Grand Rapids and was surrounded by Reformed people.

    I think his criticism is different than yours.

    He lives with the fear that Christian people somewhere might be doing good things in society and actually feeling good about themselves because of it. It keeps him up at night.

    Like

  161. L.A., you keep missing the biggest point, thus why you never darken a church door, there are more important opportunities than the cultural horizons.

    Like

  162. Matt t asks— Did the change in racial attitudes take place because Presbyterians suddenly started preaching faithfully (changing hearts, in the Bible hearts are minds) , or was it the result of the cultural, economic, political, and legal shifts brought about by the civil rights movement?

    Matt T—Does the racial repentance of the PCA, the SBC, and other southern churches testify to an escape from cultural captivity, or to its ongoing power? After all, these acts of repentance simply followed the broader political repentance of the culture in which they took place.

    Matt t–Southern evangelicalism has never been as individualistic as scholars sometimes claim. Traditional arguments in defense of slavery and segregation generally made use of communitarian arguments, while it was their abolitionist critics who appealed to the individualistic ethic of liberty
    Indeed, southern evangelicals often implied that because sin takes social form – even to the extent of becoming embedded in whole races of people – major institutional and cultural systems are necessary to maintain social order.

    https://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/presbyterians-and-the-political-theology-of-race-part-1-cultural-captivity/

    mcmark—So we need the state powers to control marriage because that’s the only way females are going to be free, because the collective state is always less evil than evil than the individual male….

    Like

  166. DG – Which is it? They couldn’t have been martyrs AND transformed societies so they could flourish / prosper

    Am I not correct that the work of Peter, Paul and John in the region from Asia Minor to the nearer Syriac lands was rapidly effective, transforming thousands of existing towns and villages into Christian communities? I am willing to be corrected.

    We can question what constituted a “society” – I think that cultures were more locally rooted (even if trade and travel was quite widespread) and that linguistic regions of a smaller size than countries today would qualify as a “society.”

    But if so, I am comfortable calling that a transformation of society; especially since it initiated a process which resulted in as thorough a conversion of various peoples as we’re ever likely to see.

    Plus, the martyrdoms themselves were extremely effective at demonstrating the seriousness with which Christianity can and should be taken – leading to the creation of Christian societies from Ethiopia to Kerala (or elsewhere in India, but with the impact extending to Goa, Kerala and elsewhere).

    DG – so what did Christ and the apostles do? Should we not follow their example?
    me – You’re taking for granted I know your assumptions […] Please cite the very clear example you see in the NT as to how we are to respond so I can consider it.

    My question regarding what specific scriptural support prompted your question was a sincere one – what do you think Jesus and the Apostles would be doing? I don’t know what you’re thinking.

    I suspect Roman/Byzantine courts were not redefining essential aspects of peoples’ lives the way our courts do, and so we need to look to their commitment to relaying the Christian message which could be silenced (literally if not figuratively) only by martyrdom.

    Like

  167. c, e, “Presbyterians have been from the higher classes of society”

    Say that about the OPC the next time you’r in a room with PCAer’s. You’ll think you’re a comedian.

    Like

  170. EC: Re Zrim Does he favor any solutions that actually leave the baby alive?

    Nah, too nuanced for that.

    Like

  171. I’m about 100 comments behind, but on page 2 it ought to have been noted (if it has been, kindly ignore me) that Erik may be revealing himself as a closet transformationalist.

    Like

  172. Darryl, it’s past 10 a.m., it may be a combo. Drunk in public, I’m all for a witty retort but what about grossly misrepresenting someone’s position and conviction? Or is nuance and complexity just more than you signed up for today?

    Like

  173. Erik, I suspect regional differences are less important than the time I grew up in. The 1950’s looked a lot different than the 1850’s, or the 1920’s for that matter. Post WWII, the older demographic lines were nowhere near as descriptive of reality on the ground.

    Mark, I was referencing our host’s own That Old Time Religion in Modern America, hoping to get a rise from him. A few commenters here have accused him of taking a “Nothing to see here, move on ” attitude. I was reminded of this book, which seems an obvious comeback. Perhaps too obvious. It may be the same s** t, but the future will most assuredly be a different day. Slippery slopes can turn into roads not taken. I have no idea what the future holds. But where evangelicals find themselves now has, as far as I can tell, eery similarities to the 1920’s. Whether their response will, can or should be similar to that of the fundamentalists back then is beyond me.

    Like

  174. Erik Charter
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
    And when Presbyterians did circumvent learned clergy through developments like The Log College, it led to the very things that guys here rightly decry regularly. You really can’t have a thoughtful, theologically rigorous church AND a church for the masses. Choose one.>>>>

    Seriously, Erik? I know of one. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You know what won me to the Catholic Church as much as anything? A woman named Elizabeth Anscombe. Convert from Protestantism, mother of 8 children, and professor of philosophy at Cambridge. Protestantism has no woman that even comes close to her. Check out her pro life record as well.

    Here is the quote that got me. Catholicism in a nutshell.

    “For everyone is to have faith and few can be learned, and their learning doesn’t give them a superior kind of faith. Everyone is to run: and few are road sweepers. ”
    – G.E.M. Anscombe

    Anyway, guys, this is going to be a rough ride for all of us. The sooner we realize we are all in this together the better, IMO.

    Like

  175. But don’t the martyrs need to know that it will be all good when Constantine is converted and a conservative papist like Clarence Thomas becomes President of the United States. When we ask how Constantine will save the world, Leithart asks us to stop being so impatient. Thus Leithart defends the good old days of the middle ages. The Jews were merely not allowed to proselytize, and besides, he is pro-Jewish because he’s Reformed and thinks that the OT is good enough for politics.

    Leithart very much opposes the “John Locke” Protestantism in which separatists (isolationists) “hold opinions that divide them from the general public”. If we want to avoid being martyrs, what we are going to really need is not a combination of church and state but one “the church (with bishops) which can stand up to the state. No denominations, Leithart quotes Rushdoony (p181) about Trinitarians resisting imperialism. If you won’t support killing heretics, then you are left with “invisible churches” and then you can’t have assurance of salvation (no water) and then there will be martyrs.

    Which church? Which bishops? Whose ordination? Leithart cautions us to be patient about all such details. All we need to know for now is that cultural resistance is being done in the name of Trinitarianism. It’s happening, no matter what kind of “nominalist” 2 kingdom objections are being suggested. If the PCA were to become a sect and disqualify him, then Leithart would simply move on to the one true church.

    If you won’t defend Augustine for killing Donatists , then you simply show that you are an American evangelical at heart. We cannot say that Constantine had no mission, because his mission was the empire, and in order to become a citizen in that empire, you also need to have your infants done (along with your wife and slaves) and if you object to that, you show yourself to be modernist plain and simple. And maybe that kind of individual needs to be a martyr.

    Indeed, argues Leithart, Constantine really subverted the empire (you see) because he used his great power in the empire to change the empire! How could he have ended the gladiatorial shows, if he had retreated from cultural engagement for the sake of the spirituality of churches? If you can vote, you must, and if you can kill for a more civilized culture, then the killing itself becomes civilization!

    And shame on Constantine for refusing to wear the purple when he thought he was near death, as if being emperor and being Christian were in competition. Leithart knows that anti-Constantinianism is a cover for liberalism, or even worse, two kingdom theory.

    And so Leithart argues simply, for those of us who are too dumb to get it. Augustine was a Christian. Augustine was the original two kingdom thinker, and that did not keep Augustine from killing bad people. Therefore Christians need only to reject “the wrong wars” and do whatever it is they need to do “but not as a church” When Clarence Thomas becomes President, then we will speak in code about “natural law”, but we know that our wars then will become Christian .

    Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom , Peter Leithart, IVP, 2010

    Like

  176. “Anyway, guys, this is going to be a rough ride for all of us. The sooner we realize we are all in this together the better, IMO.”

    Yep, you said it sister:) Glad you are here Mrs. Webfoot.

    Like

  177. I am very surprised how many posters seem unconcerned by the facilitation of a sinful practice in our society. Do we want to live in a safe, peaceful, well-ordered society or not? Is patriotism a virtue or not?

    The promotion of non-Christian practices undermines society, and when coming from the Supreme Court, undermines the one element of our USA most responsible for coordinating the others.

    The solution is neither to form an Amish community (even an electronic one) nor seek salvation in this world (is that what you are terming transformationalist, d4v34x?).

    Like

  178. d4v34x I’m about 100 comments behind, but on page 2 it ought to have been noted (if it has been, kindly ignore me) that Erik may be revealing himself as a closet transformationalist.

    Seriously. The next we know he’s going to be advocating enshrining the 6th commandment into law! And he once intimated that he thought there should be laws against theft too!

    Like

  179. Kevin, you need to define what you mean by non-Christian practices undermining society. ‘We’ generally regard Christian practices in solely ecclesiastical ways around here, preaching, sacraments, officers, Lord’s day. It’s the whole 2k distinction between church and state and what properly belongs to each institution. Something like 1 cor. 5, what have I to do with judging those outside the church, God will judge those outside. So, I sup with the immoral who don’t take the name of christian. I have solidarity with those outside the church in terms of place(patriotism and mutual self-interest) and calling. My unity with those in the church is spiritual and religious first and then, maybe, culturally.

    Like

  180. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
    #seevd,tshowbigballs

    What would have had balls would have been if you said all this stuff years ago, Butch. Court-imposed gay marriage is inevitable, it’s no big deal, so just shut up and leave God and natural law out of it. If they cram homonormativity down our kids’ throats, no big deal.

    Now here comes the religious freedom war. No big deal. Shut up about that too, everybody.

    Like

  181. sean – I agree with what you wrote to Kevin as far as it goes. But some advocates of 2K conflate the institutional church and the individual Christian. The institutional church ought not be directly involved in politics, but the individual Christian not only may be involved in politics but has an obligation to perform his duties as a secular citizen in a manner that honors our Lord. It is within the individual’s liberty to define the degree of participation – whether to run for office, support others who run for office, or simply to vote.

    A right view of 2K would take into account the Christian’s legitimate obligations in the secular kingdom as well. And to the extent that a Christian makes political choices he should endeavor to make sure that his actions – like all of his actions – honor the name of Christ. This seems to be where the arguments erupt because there is a fatalist streak running through part of the 2K world that appears strangely detached as if inaction and apathy were part and parcel of 2K theology and any political activity undertaken by a Christian that is in sync with God’s moral law – the law that is binding on all mankind – is a sign of incipient theonomy.

    Like

  182. Publius
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    This seems to be where the arguments erupt because there is a fatalist streak running through part of the 2K world that appears strangely detached as if inaction and apathy were part and parcel of 2K theology and any political activity undertaken by a Christian that is in sync with God’s moral law – the law that is binding on all mankind – is a sign of incipient theonomy.

    And even worse, attacking those who aren’t lame as theonomists. Even worse than doing nothing is refusing to lead, follow OR get out of the way.

    Like

  183. Mark – Electing a sincerely Christian president wouldn’t make a society more sincerely Christian anymore than electing a Kenyan, Irish & German President means we take on aspects of those cultures. We do need virtuous leaders, though, and ones which uphold right values- or at least eliminate the government-enabled subversion of traditional morality.

    Constantine may have been well-intentioned with regard to Christianity, but he was no saint. Does your source address whether in an Arian environment like that he received an orthodox education in the faith?

    As for today’s politicians in the USA, it’s not clear to me religion corresponds with ability to govern or an interest in serving the American people rather than a subset, usually the one which provided the funding. Kennedy, for all his flaws, was probably the last one with a genuine concern to serve the American people.

    Like

  184. Pub, anything’s possible, I suppose, the only disinterest and or disillusionment I’ve noted with 2kers is when the do gooder transformationalists are beating the drum and the right or the left illegitimately appropriate ‘christian’ to buttress their political power plays. It sours me, personally, on the popular political debate while also diminishing my faith by reducing it to a bumper sticker in favor of this or that temporal cause. I’m all for legitimate obligations and good neighbors.

    Like

  185. sean – It is certainly true that Christian churches and formerly Christian churches have not hesitated to dress up their political positions with Christian rhetoric. The Christian Right learned their lessons well from the social gospelers, to everyone’s detriment. It’s not even to say that many of the things they fought for weren’t worthy – but they conflated the Church and politics. And that is a real problem.

    Like

  186. Darryl,

    Here’s what I’ll settle for:

    (1) Not calling 8 steps back 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

    (2) Not giving crap to people who are concerned or who do get involved politically or socially (the Zrim criticism).

    Unlike Tom, I don’t require activism. Just don’t get in the way of good people who feel called to it.

    Like

  187. Try getting the OPC to issue pious advice that this was two steps forward, one step back.

    Watch the elders over 70 keel over.

    Like

  188. Let’s discuss the notion that the Christian right is responsible for the success of the left. Offer evidence.

    When you go into the public square with natural law or the law of God you just expect everyone to agree? You guys are so soft that you just immediately surrender when they don’t?

    Like

  189. Publius – I could not agree with you more that to the extent that a Christian makes political choices he should endeavor to make sure that his actions – like all of his actions – honor the name of Christ , and thank you for clarifying that 2K has those who recognize “the Christian’s legitimate obligations in the secular kingdom vs. the apathetic.

    Sean – you need to define what you mean by non-Christian practices undermining society

    Practices which are contrary to the teachings of Christianity; sinful practices.

    Apparently some posters here believe at least one of the following:

    1) Decriminalizing sinful behaviour will not facilitate its more frequent practice – so there is nothing to worry about ;
    2) It doesn’t matter whether the world is filled with more frequent occurrences of sin;
    3) There will be good which will outweigh the bad;
    4) Our actions are necessarily ineffectual;
    5) It is contrary to the will of God to work toward making anything legal or illegal;
    6) It is contrary to the will of God to even have a preference;
    7) Why should we care what the future will bring, it makes no difference;
    8) It is wild speculation to think things could get worse;
    7) On second thought, what’s so wrong with homosexuality after all?

    I would not have imagined any of these positions would be credible here a week ago.

    Like

  191. D,

    Not a transformationalist, but this gay marriage issue has been a wake up call for me.

    It’s not about transformation or even success. It’s about faithfulness to Christ, the Law of God, and the gospel.

    Presbyterian & Reformed officers standing by with the wry detachment of Donald Fagen & Walter Becker may not be the way to go (as cool as I think those guys are).

    One question: Does a 2k posture make the gospel any more appealing to the world?

    Like

  193. Kevin, let me ask it this way, should scripture norm common culture? Or, even better, was scripture given to norm common culture? And if it was, how do you understand Paul in 1 cor. 5

    Like

  194. Erik Charter
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Unlike Tom, I don’t require activism. Just don’t get in the way of good people who feel called to it.

    I said that on the other thread as well. Accusing people of theonomy in the name of “neutrality” or of befouling the Church’s mission by defending natural law isn’t neutral either. Being a useful idiot for the machinations of the anti-/post-Christians is a positive act as well. There is no virtue in it; it does not serve God and the truth.

    As for “requiring activism,” it’s a sliding scale. No one should not be silent on abortion if they believe it’s the taking of a human life. And how any orthodox Christian parent is OK with “homonormativity” being shoved down their child’s throat is beyond me, that sin isn’t just not a sin, it’s a positive good!

    [“Love.”]

    Or how anyone who’s childless isn’t upset for other people and their children. How can you not get their backs?

    And from the left, neither do I think it’s out of line for Christians to demand their government feed the starving and try to heal the sick if that’s the only way it’ll get done. [Private charity is often overrated.] Jesus is quite explicit about our duty to those in need in the story of the Sheep and the Goats.

    Would you let someone go hungry–starve?–die?–so as not to compromise the “mission” of the Church? That’s the Gospel according to St. Bastard.

    Like

  195. Later I’ll link to an article in the local paper. Gay married couple, been together for years. Two of their grown kids are also gay. I thought this wasn’t learned behavior? Awfully big statistical coincidence, no?

    Like

  196. Anyway, guys, this is going to be a rough ride for all of us. The sooner we realize we are all in this together the better, IMO.

    In your dreams, Ms. Sweetness because it generally goes like this: Spiritual perversion/apostasy > sexual promiscuity > sexual perversion.

    IOW a look-say commentary on Rom. 1 which is not all about justification by faith and works, unless that means justification by faith alone in Christ’s work upon the cross, which saving faith is the work of Christ’s Spirit through Christ’s Word in our hearts. (Nope, no mention of ex opere sacramentalogy.)

    True, true believers go on to live lives of obedience, but let’s not conflate/confuse/combine the respective theses and thrust of Romans and James with your usual drive by quote of Gal. 5:6.

    Rome or at least some Romanists may be social conservatives, but that is not to say Romanism is theologically conservative or that its spiritual idolatry doesn’t contribute to a secular idolatry. At bottom, both believe in man as sovereign. IOW Romanism is religious humanism.

    Like

  197. How can anyone be fine with sin in common culture( and act like it won’t harm everyone) and not with the same sin in Christian culture? They know the ordinances of God yet they still give hearty approval to those who practice them( Rom 1)

    Like

  198. The simplest explanation is that gays want to be treated equally. Equality would include the option of marriage. I think Occam agrees with me.

    The simplest explanation is Murray’s Gay Marriage Is Not About Gay Marriage. Rather it is all about silencing the consciences of homosexuals, while also silencing everybody else.

    Given that so few homosexuals and lesbians actually marry when given legal opportunity, their vigorous and often vicious campaign for gay marriage has always puzzled me. After reading Brendan O’Neill’s The Trouble With Gay Marriage, I’m puzzled no more. Although O’Neill doesn’t approach this from a Christian perspective, his post-referendum article on the Republic of Ireland’s move to legalize gay marriage shines a bright light on the ultimate aim of most gay marriage campaigners – and it’s not gay marriage. . . .

    Why is this state-sanctioned validation, empathy, acceptance, acknowledgment and approval so important to gay marriage campaigners? Why is it far more important than actually being allowed to marry?

    The answer lies in Romans 1v18-32, where the Apostle Paul explains what desperate measures that homosexuals (and other unrepentant sinners) take to silence the voice of their conscience. They hear God’s prohibition and condemnation in their consciences, hate it, and do everything they can to shut it up – including, in our own day, getting gay marriage legalized everywhere, even if relatively few ever make use of it. Because, in most cases, it’s not about the right to marry; it’s mainly a vain attempt to muffle the inner voice of conscience by multiplying and amplifying external voices of approval.

    And I think Paul agrees with that.

    Like

  199. So, is the move to answer 1 cor 5 to pit Paul vs. Paul? That’s rough. Paul says what has he to do with outsiders(Is Paul guilty of political apathy and standing by while people kill babies and the culture approves inappropriate sexual activity?) So, Paul is St. Bastard? There is a really simple theological distinction of sacred/secular, common/holy, SR/GR. If we’re gonna be effective at life and not screw up the church, we’ve got to get this down. 1 Cor. 5 is a really helpful test case, because it brings apostolic authority, so, legitimate Christian conscience binding, to bear on our relationship to those inside the church and those outside the church as it pertains to sexual immorality.

    Like

  200. Bob S.,

    Ding.

    And that’s why Churches and Christians still being against it is an obstacle that can not stand.

    Has no one yet learned that when a judicial decision says, “we don’t mean that our decision means this”, that’s the very thing that the winners will set out to litigate next?

    I’m sure when they do it will be another two steps forward, one step back, though.

    Who knew Darryl was such an optimist?

    Like

  202. Look at the thrust of most of the gay reaction. Most of it centers around “this validates me”, or “this makes me feel fully human”. It’s all about affirmation. The thrill of being affirmed by judges only lasts so long, though.

    Like

  203. Sean,

    Did Paul have an opportunity to influence public policy? Did he get to vote to elect politicians who appoint judges who are apparently now the boss of all of us? Did the Founders fight the revolution to be able to say. “Whatever”.

    Like

  204. Babies lives only deserve protection if everyone agrees to it?

    I’m a page behind in this post folks. Sorry

    Erik,
    You hit it in the head there. Maybe we just shouldn’t have any of the golden rule enshrined in law? Murder? Theft? Rape? Infanticide? I should not expect society to hold anyone accountable for mistreating me or the generations of my kids in the future. Hmm. I just don’t think that is God’s intent for society. I’ll vote for people willing to expect “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” laws in place. Just me though. Others can vote their own conscience. I just can’t vote in a way that leads to a lawless, morally bankrupt adolescent society. I’m just funny like that. I wish we still had blue laws in Texas. Wow, how quickly our nation is changing. Blue laws…antiabortion laws…40 years later… Can’t even vote against homosexual unions in my state. At least out Texas constitution and our Gov says no one with a conscience problem with it has to do it or mess with any of the paperwork of it, even employees of the state. Sorry I haven’t been able to back up today, Erik. Tiling away.

    Back to tiling.

    Like

  205. sean, 1 Cor 5 tells me that there are some things even the heathen know/don’t condone/can be expected not to condone.
    Two, lots goes without saying. What the heathen do is their business. When the heathen ask me to co-operate in their idolatry or immorality, I am not called to roll over and go along because of 2k.
    There’s meat offered to idols that is sold in the market and there is the actual offering in the pagan temple itself.
    IOW distinguish.

    Like

  206. Erik, who’s opposing activism? I’m ok with being a person of your place and time and being committed to your place and time. The gospel transcends those concerns. Paul doesn’t make appeal to his temporal limitations in defining his posture but rather an scriptural distinction between how God governs the church and how He governs the world. And, just as importantly, how I’m to conduct myself in the midst of those tensions. Shun the brother-intolerance, associate with the immoral outside the church-tolerance. Somehow, Jesus hung out with the sinners without affirming them in their sin. The church has a mission of mercy, the state is saddled with justice. I have a heirarchy of allegiances, it’s not flat. Church, family, state(roughly). And my christian allegiance gets to trump all else, including family. Nobody said this was easy.

    Like

  207. Darryl,

    What does Fox News have to do with it? You need to deal with the ramifications this could potentially have. Maybe nothing will happen. But maybe just maybe the more politically engaged Christians are right on this.

    What happens when Christian psychologists can’t be licensed by the state and can’t practice because they will counsel those homosexuals who want to change?

    What happens when Brandon Eich is no longer the outlier but the norm?

    Do you really thing this CAN’T happen?

    Maybe it won’t. Maybe the Constitution really is strong enough to preserve religious liberty. But as the minority opinion said, if the court couldn’t let a social institution practiced by all peoples from all times stand in the way, what will it?

    I don’t want to be an alarmist, but c’mon.

    Like

  208. sean
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
    So, is the move to answer 1 cor 5 to pit Paul vs. Paul? That’s rough. Paul says what has he to do with outsiders(Is Paul guilty of political apathy and standing by while people kill babies and the culture approves inappropriate sexual activity?) So, Paul is St. Bastard?

    This isn’t about judging the private conduct of others “outside the church.” It’s about its effect on innocent children, it’s about the state forcing us to give tacit approval if not outright cooperation to sin. It’s about our children being taught in schools that sexual sin is groovy, and just as good and normal as Christian marriage.

    That

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

    is dated, and no longer true. God may have made you male or female, but that’s only a starting point.

    http://www.knoxnews.com/knoxville/life/exploding-numbers-of-transgender-children-parents-seek-clinical-help_17315542

    The madness spreads. No one is safe.

    Like

  209. Bob, Justice Kennedy is gay? The other 4 members of the SCOTUS are gay? Justice Cady in Iowa is gay? But maybe your description is more “our side good / their side demonic” than it is biblical.

    The idea of the Living Constitution is also a liberal thing, right? But it’s more likely a Christian thing:
    ____________
    Compton contends that the “living Constitution” idea arose much earlier in our history, an outgrowth the moral reform movement that swept across the United States from the 1820s until the early decades of the 20th century.

    Zealous champions of moral reform, then as today, thought that a proper function of the law was to eradicate vice and immorality. They were stymied, however, by the Constitution’s limits on governmental power. Compton explains, “For while the designers of the American constitutional order did not set out with the aim of inhibiting the moral development of future generations, they did envision a republic whose fundamental law would hinder efforts to interfere with settled property rights or restrict the flow of goods in interstate markets.” But that was exactly what the anti-liquor and anti-lottery forces wanted – for the law to declare that there could be no legitimate property rights in alcoholic beverages or lottery tickets and to block their flow in markets altogether.

    Compton’s history is compelling. The tension between moral reformers who insisted on a virtually unlimited view of the “police powers” of government (i.e., to regulate in ways intended to protect the health and morals of the citizenry) and the Constitution’s framers, who feared the results of allowing factions to use government power for their ends, was crucial in shaping constitutional law during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    The book shows that by the time the New Deal’s aggressive expansions of federal power came before the Supreme Court, its earlier decisions in favor of approving legislation against liquor and lotteries had so undermined the defenses of property rights, contract, and federalism that it was nearly inevitable that the Court would cave in. Progressives argued that if the Court could interpret Constitution to allow federal legislation when it came to the alleged harms of alcohol and gambling, it should do the same with regard to child labor laws, unionization, wage and price controls, and similar issues. Eventually, they prevailed.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/07/15/how-the-ruinous-living-constitution-idea-took-root/

    Like

  210. Newark, I haven’t seen that youtube. My remark about being under a king was in jest. I guess.

    A few other thoughts on what is going on upstream:

    Fascinating to see the perplexity of those who demand being on the agenda and expressing the agenda in the politically correct – right wing politically correct – fashion. So, lacking the requisite spittle flying out of my mouth, I’m suspect? But back in my blogging days I did a post featuring the natural law argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals. And I analyzed a marriage case (https://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/when-defense-of-marriage-isnt/) in which I said the Defense of Marriage Act wasn’t so hot and spoke in favor of states deciding on marriage. If that rationale had been followed, the SCOTUS wouldn’t have made this week’s decision. But everyone’s asleep now, so let me apologize for not giving a satisfactory sound bite to show my bona fides.

    It used to be thought that one mark of a liberal was a narrow ideology that subscribes to the ultimacy of political solutions. But now that’s also characteristic of those who (falsely) call themselves conservatives.

    Like

  211. Robert, there’s a chance that religious liberties will be crumble given that gay marriage is now a right. But help me out, is there some kind of virtue in prophesying – right now! – that it will happen? Is the message here that we should all emote on cue?

    Like

  212. Susan
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
    How can anyone be fine with sin in common culture( and act like it won’t harm everyone) and not with the same sin in Christian culture? They know the ordinances of God yet they still give hearty approval to those who practice them( Rom 1)

    Susan, I don’t participate in most of these threads, and the regular posters here who fall into the 2K camp (as do I) are able to speak for themselves, but I must protest that you really aren’t being fair. I don’t read any of the regulars here as being ” fine” with the moral rot we are faced with. I know I’m not. I drew my first check for professional services rendered to a political campaign back in 1980. I stopped rendering advice on campaign finance disclosure compliance after the 2000 election as the law was getting too complicated to deal with unless you devoted full time. But my personal contributions to candidates and political causes easily exceeds every dime I made over that 20 year period. I am still as active in politics as my health permits. I just don’t expect my church to support me or oppose me. If it did either, I would find another church. How hard is that to understand? I do not like standing in the open sewer that is our culture, and I don’t like the fact that the whole armor of God looks a lot like a haz mat suit these days, but there it is. But I don’t want my preacher or your Pope telling me what to do about the obvious.

    I’ll step off my soapbox now.

    BTW, if you want to know how all this turns out, look at the last page of the Bible– the Lamb wins!! Worthy is the Lamb.

    Like

  213. Tell me again what I’m supposed to be doing that I’m not doing to “save the culture”. What does the mythical activity look like? Is it just spouting off and venting outrage in certain predictable cultural and social directions? Is it contributing my voice to the ineffectual echo chamber of Fox News themes, sharing flag-wrapped Facebook memes, supporting all the right interest group teams? I can’t vote more conservative than I already vote. I can’t find a more biblical church than I attend. My two sons are far more conservative at their ages than I was at the same ages – why is that?. Short of Bayly-inspired vigilantism, what do you want? Do I have to support the next Falwell and the next Falwell water slide? Do we dig up D. James Kennedy? Can I just try to act ethically, treat people (all kinds) well through the week, speak well of my church and the reason for its existence, and go to that church twice on Sunday — participating in her odd rites and supporting her as I am able? I work five and half days a week, have a grandson and a bad back. If there’s more I can do please try to slot it for Saturday afternoon and no heavy lifting, please.

    Like

  214. Sean – The church has a mission of mercy, the state is saddled with justice.

    Erik – Can telling people that what they are doing is sinful and will land them in hell short of repentance merciful or not merciful, if done in a respectful way?

    Like

  215. As Calvinists can we really say we believe that sharing the Law AND the Gospel with unbelievers may repel them and thus keep them out of the Kingdom? Do we not affirm unconditional election? How are we called to be anything but faithful messengers?

    Reconcile unconditional election and fear of men.

    Like

  216. Muddy Gravel:
    The idea of the Living Constitution is also a liberal thing, right? But it’s more likely a Christian thing:>>>>

    Muddy, read Justice Roberts carefully, and see if you see what I do. Does what he believes the living Constitution to be breathing right at this moment in history sound like the old 1st Amendment to you?

    Now, I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like our government just put limits on religious speech and expression that have never been there before in the US. I hope I am wrong, but whenever someone in government tells us what we are allowed to keep on belivin’, I sit up and take notice.

    Liberals should as well, it seems to me.

    Besides, TVD is the only one who has shown concern for what our children will be taught from this point forward. …and I won’t scare you with news about pedophilia advocacy groups… You wouldn’t believe it anyway…

    For now, just focus on the Roberts quote. What do you see, there? Should we thank him for allowing us to keep believing the Bible?

    Like

  217. Here’s that piece from the local paper.

    http://amestrib.com/news/ames-residents-react-historic-same-sex-marriage-ruling

    “Terry Lowman, 68, the former co-owner of Lucullan’s Italian Grill in downtown Ames, married his longtime partner Mark Kassis, 59, in 2007 after District Court Judge Robert Hanson sided with six same-sex couples arguing that the Iowa law violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution in an August 2007 ruling.

    ‘I don’t really have much of a reaction (to Friday’s ruling),’ Lowman said. ‘I really thought it would happen. At this point, it’s counterproductive for those who are opposed to it to dig in the sand so deeply that they’re just going to look foolish as time goes on.’

    Although Brian Eslinger officiated the wedding of Lowman and Kassis at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ames after Hanson issued a stay on his ruling, the couple’s marriage remained intact. In April 2009, the state became the fourth in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage after the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v. Brien.

    ‘Because I have gay children, it’s really important to me that I do everything I can to create a just world for them,” Lowman said of his son Erik, 46, and daughter Marci, 43, who both live out of state.”

    Wow – I thought this wasn’t a learned behavior?!

    I’m going a throw a wrinkle at you all soon, but you should be able to roll with it.

    Like

  218. To Kevin in Newark from mcmark— i was reporting Leithart’s Christendom project, not endorsing it. If a Christian thinks their high calling is to save and or reform the common culture, they would be consistent to go with Leithart. To say, as an individual, there is a citizen me, but also a church member me, I think is inconsistent (and ultimately not true).

    I Corinthians 5: 12 For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders? Don’t you judge those who are inside? 13 But God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves.[

    Kierkegaard—A single true Christian is enough to justify the assertion that Christianity exists. Although the strength of a state is proportional to numbers, Christianity lives with an inverse relation to numbers.

    John Fea–“Fifield’s Christian libertarian vision would find an ally in Billy Graham. Kruse downplays Graham’s staunch anti-communist sermons, focusing instead on his pro-business and anti-labor rhetoric. Such an emphasis is part of Kruse’s larger thesis about the roots of the religious revival sweeping the United States in the immediate wake of World War II. Conventional wisdom suggests that this revival, and especially the various manifestations of civil religion that accompanied it, can be explained by Americans’ desire to distinguish themselves from the godless communism of the Soviet Union. For Kruse, the attempt to make America “one nation under God” had its roots not in the Cold War, but in attempts by Christian libertarians like Fifield and Graham to defeat a more imposing danger than the Soviets—the state power brought about by the New Deal.

    Fea–The Christian libertarianism of the 1930s was co-opted in the 1950s by Dwight D. Eisenhower. A deeply religious man with roots in River Brethren Anabaptism, Ike believed that the United States government was based on Christian principles, but he was no libertarian. In fact, he believed that religion was needed to strengthen the state rather than tear it down. It was under his administration that the Cold War replaced the New Deal as the primary enemy of Christian nationalists. Though Christian businessmen and those Protestants aligned with the Goldwater wing of the Republican Party wished that Eisenhower would talk more about the relationship between Christianity and free markets, and perhaps even roll back the welfare state, they were happy that the President was willing to bring religion into the halls of American power.

    http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2015/julaug/one-nation-under-god.html

    Like

  219. Muddy,

    Interesting point on a living constitution.

    Note that many who pushed for Prohibition were (theological) liberals, though. Think Machen’s opponents.

    Like

  220. MwF, do you mean Roberts or Kennedy? I’m having a hard time coñecting your concern with anything Roberts is reported to have said, though I have not read all of the opinions.

    Like

  221. O.K. Have your laugh and we can move on.

    Let’s just say I have some people in my life who share my name who are not activists and are very private. I’m surprised the leash has been as long as it has been.

    Now back to the discussion.

    Like

  222. Muddy,

    Here’s an offer for you: Stop shouting “Fox News” whenever someone says something you disagree with and I’ll stop shouting “liberal”.

    Like

  223. cw l’unificateur
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
    Tell me again what I’m supposed to be doing that I’m not doing to “save the culture”. What does the mythical activity look like?

    Keep not doing whatever it is you’re not doing, Chortles. It seems to be working. And pray for your grandson. This is the world you made, but he’s the one who’s going to have to live in it.

    Rod Dreher: http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/

    It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

    Like

  224. Muddy – Robert, there’s a chance that religious liberties will be crumble given that gay marriage is now a right. But help me out, is there some kind of virtue in prophesying – right now! – that it will happen? Is the message here that we should all emote on cue?

    Erik – Put this conversation in context.

    Darryl started it with his “Two steps forward, one step back” take.

    That’s provocative (big surprise)

    So everything after that is in response.

    Darryl doesn’t provoke, maybe no one comments.

    There was other big news in the Presbyterian world last week. Darryl refrained from comment, so did everyone else.

    The choir REALLY needs to quit brown nosing and break from the party line from time to time. Darryl is not paying you.

    Like

  225. Chortles – Tell me again what I’m supposed to be doing that I’m not doing to “save the culture”. What does the mythical activity look like?

    Erik – See above. Do nothing if you want to. Just don’t mock those who do or aid and abet those who mock those who do. Think for yourself.

    Like

  226. Mrs. – Besides, TVD is the only one who has shown concern for what our children will be taught from this point forward. …and I won’t scare you with news about pedophilia advocacy groups… You wouldn’t believe it anyway…

    Erik – I share his concern.

    Like

  227. Tom,

    If fairness to Chortles, he’s a good guy (as are all these guys when they’re on their meds). He’s not at fault. I do think he needs to speak up more, though, and not aid and abet guys by his silence when they go off the 2K reservation by:

    * Considering admitting married gay people as members in the OPC

    * Speculating that the sin of credobaptists is on par with murder

    * Beating up on Pro life people

    * Saying that nationwide legalized gay marriage is two steps forward, one step back

    He values these “friendships” and defers more than he should at times, given his age, wisdom, personal convictions, and life experience.

    Like

  228. Nightfly, Billy Sunday and his followers were theological liberals?

    Webster, give me a few minutes to look at the decision.

    Like

  229. Erik, is the law merciful? No. But, it’s true and is a setup for the preaching of the gospel. And we still make distinction between sins and crimes. Erik, and this doesn’t just apply to you, but you’re here,so, I’ll ask you the question, is martyrdom a legitimate opportunity for american christians at the hand of the state? Or because I’m an american, is my final stand always going to ultimately be armed and or belligerent resistance cuz I’m an american? I like being an american and it’s pugnacity toward those in authority appeals to my natural inclinations, but, does that mean I’m supposed to die an american at the expense of my christian fealty? IOW, does my being an american mean I’m above the legitimate christian possibility of an unjust but acquiesced to, on my part, martyrdom? I mean that sincerely(Greg alert), don’t my patriotic allegiances have to yield to my christian ones?

    Like

  230. (A different) Dan
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
    MwF, do you mean Roberts or Kennedy? I’m having a hard time coñecting your concern with anything Roberts is reported to have said, though I have not read all of the opinions.

    Yes, I believe she means Anthony Kennedy, author of the majority opinion.

    The Supreme Court Ratifies a New Civic Religion That Is Incompatible with Christianity
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love

    Roberts wrote–and hold onto your hats, “neutrals.” The culture war didn’t end. It went nuclear.

    Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1. …

    The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

    Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

    For those Christians who voted for Obama–or just sat it all out–I hope this is what you wanted, because this is what you just got.

    Like

  233. (A different) Dan
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
    MwF, do you mean Roberts or Kennedy? I’m having a hard time coñecting your concern with anything Roberts is reported to have said, though I have not read all of the opinions.>>>

    Oh, Dan, thanks! I am talking about the quote that D.G. Hart provided from Justice Kennedy.

    It’s the Roberts’ court, but I didn’t mean to drag him into this particular thread. Thank you for the correction. My bad.

    Like

  235. For the court, Kennedy:
    it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.

    Roberts’ dissent:
    Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing samesex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.
    The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their
    views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

    Muddy: Kennedy didn’t have the power to create religious liberties in this decision – his words are “dicta” – hinting at how the court might view a future decision but not binding. So there is a limited cause for optimism there. Roberts is pretty self-explanatory – he is skeptical of how much accommodation will be made for religious rights.

    FYI, this court has been quite favorable to religious rights https://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/a-time-to-clap-for-the-united-states-supreme-court/ But my crystal ball is a bit foggy right now.

    Like

  236. E,

    Still haven’t read everything between here and there, but…

    The wry detachment, it seems to me, might be for this particular water cooler, to provoke thought, perhaps?. Probably not the pose I expect might be struck from the pulpit or in session, if I had to venture a guess.

    I think a 2k approach just might more properly adorn the gospel better than culture warpaint.

    My take, if you want it, is preach the truth to the flock and, as opportunity presents, neighbors and co-workers; vote; engage in such personal apologetic efforts as one’s talents permit (maybe a letter or two to the editor?); and hope in the Lord during the few and evil days of one’s sojourn here.

    Like

  237. CW, just do as he says.But become our dictator first. While being head of the church.

    Can I head up the Department of Alcohol and Tobacco? It sounds fun.

    Like

  238. The Nightfly
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    If fairness to Chortles, he’s a good guy (as are all these guys when they’re on their meds). He’s not at fault. I do think he needs to speak up more, though, and not aid and abet guys by his silence

    Sure, they’re all nice people. That’s somewhat the point.

    “Don’t blame me” doesn’t cut it. Those who stood by silently–and worse, left the dirty work to the Falwells and Palins, all the time mocking them–helped bring these things about.

    Now is the time for Two Kingdoms types to wake up. If they refused to influence the government, well, the government has just put the church into its sights. It’s the one thing that’s been missing from their calculations: “Society” is the real world, the sphere between church and state.

    The state has just taken over society. “The “culture,” you will. Nature abhors a vacuum, and 2K creates the vacuum. And now, you’re next.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html?_r=0

    And it’s not just “2K,” it’s everyone who lacked the guts to speak up and voice their beliefs. Look, if something thinks Jesus wants gay marriage, what can I say? But it’s those who say “Don’t blame me,” who were too afraid to look uncool, or worse, even mocked the clumsy and stupid evangelicals who stood up for Biblical morality–they’re the ones I can’t give a pass to.

    Things are gonna get a lot hotter, me 2K buckos. If you were for the separation of the state and the church, fine. But now it’s the state against the church. Time to 2K up.

    Like

  239. Erik, I’ve re-read your aforementioned pious advice and it seems my culture-saving marching orders are to argue with or correct friends whom I agree with on the most important things (church) about any and all secondary things about which I may disagree with them. Not sure I would have made 30 years of marriage if I had adopted your strategy at home.

    Like

  242. Again, Tom — what the hades do you want us to do? Vote twice? Please tell me what you’re doing to fix California and we’ll compare it to our activities. I have friends or fellow church members (or I myself) who have done all of the following: visited prisons, helped poor people (locally and internationally), helped the victims of disasters, started a local Tea Party chapter, contributed to political campaigns, worked on political campaigns, run for office, marched in pro-life rallies, supported crisis pregnancy centers. Somehow my great personal influence was unable to prevent all of these things. What does Tom do? Oh, I forgot, Tom blogs. And the big question — is Tom affiliated with any church? I understand there’s a pretty big one that’s now pushing enviro-salvation. Buy a Nissan Leaf and start a litter drive, why don’t you?

    Like

  243. Kevin, we’ve been living with Roman Catholics for how long now? Confessional Protestants consider the mass a form of idolatry. So we tolerate a sinful practice. Same goes for tolerating Mormons.

    So why be shocked that people tolerate sinful practices?

    Like

  248. Robert, I don’t know who Brandon E is.

    How can 2 percent of the population become the norm?

    They can take up 6 minutes of a 22 minute news show.

    Like

  249. Muddy, my apologies, but thank you for the summary of what each justice said! I was talking about the Justice Kennedy quote that D.G. Hart provided.

    Muddy:
    Kennedy didn’t have the power to create religious liberties in this decision – his words are “dicta” – hinting at how the court might view a future decision but not binding. So there is a limited cause for optimism there. Roberts is pretty self-explanatory – he is skeptical of how much accommodation will be made for religious rights.>>>>>

    Well, my point was that he really should not be saying anything at all about what religious people are allowed to teach. Do you see what I mean? He is not speaking as a private citizen, after all.

    At least he tried to give a little protection to those who, as a matter of conscience, object to same sex marriage. I’ll give him that. Does it worry you even a little that he felt a need to put a kind of band aid on the future wound?

    It’s worrisome. At the very least, our courts will be tied up with more and more lawsuits for a long time to come. Is that a good way to spend the people’s money?

    I think it is much worse than just that. You start messing with people’s kids and jobs, and things could get very ugly.

    I think TVD is correct in his assessment. Our government is now the enemy of anyone who will not submit to the new definitions of what religion needs to look like in our society.

    They have just made a law respecting religious practice. If it were just a simple law allowing same sex couples to get married, well, that would be one thing. However, Justice Kennedy’s words seem to show the he thinks it is much more than that.

    Now, will congress try to make a law about the new law, limiting its religious implications and thus making a law about the free exercise of religion?

    What’s the 1st Amendment there for, anyway? Chaos ensues.

    Well, thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

    Like

  251. CwL, add in opposing the state lottery, lobbying like crazy to stop no fault divorce and supporting every pro life candidate that ran for local, state and national office in the last 35 years, and you have described me and the vast majority of folks I go to church with. Today, i have blogged so much my tablet is out of juice, so I am done, but I am sick of being lectured by dilletantes. And BTW, even though I have been on the losing side more often than not in the future!fire wars, I would fight every fight again if I had to.

    I am through for the day.

    Like

  252. “Well, my point was that he really should not be saying anything at all about what religious people are allowed to teach. Do you see what I mean? He is not speaking as a private citizen, after all.”

    There’s a certain way legal decisions are written. Draft opinions are circulated and the justices comment on them. Concerns are expressed, and opinions address those concerns while countering, for example, any dissents. It’s reasonable to say something about the impact of religious rights even if it’s not binding. Such words may be directed to future decisions or they may be directed to the public. So there’s nothing remarkable or concerning about speaking to religious rights per se.

    Like

  253. “Careful, Muddy, or I’ll have to reveal how much I secretly loathe everything you stand for.”

    CW, if I’m correctly understanding our counsel upstream, you can’t save our country unless you do.

    Like

  254. Irene good night Irene good night
    Good night Irene Good night Irene
    I’ll see you in my dreams

    (The Leadbelly version)

    Like

  255. Chortles,

    So they would stop being your friends if you disagreed with them on secondary things and said so?

    Sounds like bad friends.

    Like

  256. Chortles,

    You’re so beaten up by TKNY & The PCA I fear you’ll embrace anything that doesn’t wear skinny jeans or sound like Mumford & Sons on Sunday morning.

    Maybe it’s your current perspective on what the essentials consist of that is off?

    Like

  257. Chortles,

    I just noticed that you compared your relationship with these guys to your marriage. These are dudes.

    Now we’re getting somewhere…

    The regulars have reverted to their default 13 year old mindset (with the exception of Muddy’s good legal analysis) so I’ll call it a night.

    Like

  258. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
    Kevin, we’ve been living with Roman Catholics for how long now? Confessional Protestants consider the mass a form of idolatry. So we tolerate a sinful practice. Same goes for tolerating Mormons.

    So why be shocked that people tolerate sinful practices?>>>>

    The point is not what religious people are willing to tolerate in other religions, or even what we are willing to tolerate in our gay friends, neighbors, and loved ones. We get along okay.

    It is what our government may be unwilling to tolerate in us as religious people that is the problem.

    You know, that, though, so why do you act as though Catholics or Mormons are trying to limit your freedom? That makes no sense.

    Government is always trying to limit people’s freedom. It’s the nature of the beast. Will it be significantly harder to get a job in certain professions, or educate your children as you see fit after this court decision? It is a pretty big deal.

    The “Papists” are really not out to get you, Brother Hart.

    Like

  259. One more.

    Sean,

    The founders reckoned with the questions of allegiance to God vs. King and they were mostly just bitching about taxes.

    You disagree with their conclusions?

    Like

  260. A Different Dan,

    It sounds like you’ve been acting politically responsible( for the right side) for a long time. I don’t doubt your commitment to battle. How could I, you just said that you speak-up for life, were and are against no-fault divorce etc. You must have believed that you could hold back the tide of evil or why else would you do anything? You are more politically active than I have been these last ten years. Before that, I used to get the conservative voters guide from the evangelical fellowship that I was a part of. I thought we as Christians had a stake in this country, and since I couldn’t possibly be knowledgeable of all the candidates, and props, I needed help. When I became Reformed the language from the man in the pulpit was something along the lines of,” Here we are in this congregation knowing the difference between law and gospel( good for us, we covenant people we), and that’s all that matters, so if anyone in here is a Democrat and votes according to “that” mostly liberal conscience then we don’t judge or bring it up because all that matters is The Gospel”. Political involvement in my former denomination was seen as unnecessary for the most part. Why we can’t vote according to the gospel of loving our neighbor(at least)makes no sense to me.
    Keep heaven and earth separate at all costs; we don’t want the secularist confused.
    Anyways, I’m happy to hear that your church is politically involved whether or not they get encouragement from your pastor, consistory, or fellow parishioner.
    Please, keep up the good work.

    Like

  261. DG – Confessional Protestants consider the mass a form of idolatry. So we tolerate a sinful practice. […] So why be shocked that people tolerate sinful practices?

    So ‘Sexual Liberation’ (particularly in its cutting-edge form, homosexual marriage) and the Mass are threats to the moral order, both of which Confessional Protestants tolerate. Fair enough.

    As a general note, one can only “tolerate” what is within one’s power to permit or deny; I’d be interested to hear how your 2K philosophy addresses the toleration of the Mass.

    I see a few problems with the toleration you refer to:

    1. The damage wrought by sexual liberation (with the legitimization of homosexual practice the cutting-edge) is visible to a keen observer, and cries out to be combated:

    a) The family is a good;

    b) sexual indoctrination of children by the state, not so good;

    c) resultant non-practice of Christianity by children and subsequent failure to enjoy the blessedness of Christian family life (with its joy in the present combined with an orientation toward the final end of each) and, ideally, community (be it parish, church, neighborhood, city, intellectual/scholarly community, etc.) – a tragedy, since avoidable and actually plotted against;

    d) subsequent adoption and evangelization of ‘the Americanist Creed’ – a danger for all men of good faith in this country, and indeed for humanity worldwide (e.g., the Syriac Christians, wage slaves worldwide from Haiti to Nepal, the Mexican people, the ability of an American man to support a family on his income alone);

    e) in light of what could well have been a faithless, hopeless, confused, empty life, the unlikelihood in old age of this unfortunate child radiating the quiet Christian joy which even today is a bit less common than even a single generation ago.

    -> Has the Mass been obviously responsible for an attack on family life or whole societies? Is it currently undermining society in every town in the country? (If so, how exactly?) Do fewer children come into existence because of it, fewer elderly feel that the society they leave behind them is one that gives them hope for those who come after them?

    a) The question isn’t whether you can find examples of priests, laymen, or popes over 2000 years who have done wrong, unless you can demonstrate this flowed from the Mass;

    b) You can assert that it does spiritual harm, but I would ask you give an argument based on historical facts rather than theology (which might be better discussed over in the ‘white smoke/hot air containment’ thread, don’t want Erik to go into apoplexy).

    c) Regardless of the fact this blasphemy, idolatry, etc. seem so clear to you – is this perceived harm a danger to you and your children? Is the modesty of your children at risk, and a calculated strategy not only in place but of proven efficacy, and spreading rapidly? Is it being promoted by the government in public schools? Exported via US embassies to schoolchildren worldwide? Does it affect your ability to attend (or at least enjoy attending) parties or to dine with neighbors or coworkers?

    d) Is the media pushing the Mass in a relentless fashion, in sitcoms and film? Going My Way, Bells of St. Mary’s, The Quiet Man, On the Waterfront, Marty, Fulton Sheen, etc. were quite popular of course, causing many Protestants to ‘change their faith practice’ (as some put it)- but granted that, what media influence today which solicits Protestants to participate in the fruits of the Mass is comparable in reach to the influence of sexual liberation?

    e) Do you really think the 16th century religious wars are coming back immanently and secular Catholic (so-called, at least) powers and cooperating churchmen will criminalize your ability to practice your religion and pass on to others what is most dear to you? Nancy Pelosi & Joe Biden & co. are going to get the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause repealed, a state religion declared, and somehow Wall Street and Hollywood brought in line?

    2. The gospels and examples of the Apostles cannot be reconciled with tolerating evil when it is in our power to combat it.

    We have power in conversation (improving the pre-political), voting (political), in our jobs etc. (being willing to be an ‘outsider’ of sorts, even in a corporation or town meeting). Shouldn’t we use this power, even if limited, to promote the traditional family and seek to limit the sexual practices menacing it?

    Cw – it looks to me like your role is maintaining a number of fundamental components of social life. Future generations will be indebted to your work, whether they know it or not. Your progeny may make great contributions in future decades. As you suggest, you may not need do more.

    In my opinion, the Apostles aren’t crying out to everyone who proclaims himself a Christian to martial every resource possible (in a prudent manner) to bring to an end the celebration of the Mass in the U.S. A. (but hey, I’m biased). I believe they are so crying out regarding the destruction of our society- and we each have a role proper to our own station to play, perhaps small, but nevertheless an obligation.

    Like

  262. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, I did say it years ago. I learned how to say it from Machen.

    Never before has someone spent so much energy doing so little.

    cw l’unificateur
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
    Again, Tom — what the hades do you want us to do? Vote twice? Please tell me what you’re doing to fix California and we’ll compare it to our activities.

    I thought you were proud of your non-activity. Which is it?

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
    Kevin, we’ve been living with Roman Catholics for how long now? Confessional Protestants consider the mass a form of idolatry. So we tolerate a sinful practice. Same goes for tolerating Mormons.

    The Mass isn’t a government institution. Gay marriage is, now. Can you see the difference?

    No, I didn’t think so.

    Like

  263. Note:

    By ‘the Americanist Creed’ I mean, more or less, a relativistic/pluralistic approach to life which denies God’s command over all of life, with the added meaning of government sponsorship of special interests such as the financial industry, Hollywood (chiefly by loosing content morality restrictions), the ‘war industry’, etc. I combine them because I think they are essential companions- a deviant married, if you like.

    All of this has an impact worldwide – whether through a War in Iraq, exporting American jobs to other countries, or interfering with the economies of those countries to ensure cheap labor- e.g., the Obama administration’s fight to decrease the minimum wage for garment workers in Haiti from $.61 per hour to $.31 per hour.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

    (FWIW, Not just everyone, DG, is in a position to get me to spend 2.5 hours on a Saturday night carefully composing a reply to a handful of sentences – a testimony to the interesting blog you’ve permitted to… flourish).

    Like

  265. c,e “Can telling people that what they are doing is sinful and will land them in hell short of repentance merciful or not merciful, if done in a respectful way?”

    Is that what vd, t wants?

    Like

  268. c, e you want more posts about Roman Catholicism?

    “The choir REALLY needs to quit brown nosing and break from the party line from time to time. Darryl is not paying you.”

    vd, t could not have said it any better.

    Like

  269. c, e, “do nothing if you want to. . .”

    c, e what are you doing? Sounds like you have some money. Do you at least give some of it to the activists? Do you buy beach chairs for the public square?

    Like

  271. Kevin, families are good. Gay marriage is bad. So is idolatry.

    Governments used to abolish idolatry. They saw it as a threat to social order. Think Nicene Creed.

    Times change.

    God’s word abides.

    Like

  273. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 7:36 am | Permalink
    vd, t, if only I had been a roadie for the Cookies.

    That doesn’t make any sense, Butch.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 7:13 am | Permalink
    c,e “Can telling people that what they are doing is sinful and will land them in hell short of repentance merciful or not merciful, if done in a respectful way?”

    Is that what vd, t wants?

    We can count on you keeping your skirts clean and leave the dirty work to others. Me, I’m more concerned about what they’re going to shove down the throats of America’s children. You will be of no help there, either, I expect.

    It’s no big deal.

    Like

  274. Chortles,

    Tennessee was one of the states that did not have gay marriage before the Supreme Court’s ruling. Now they do.

    Would you say that is two steps forward, one step back for churches and Christians in Tennessee or would you assess it differently.

    Answer for yourself. Pretend it’s just you and me talking.

    Like

  275. Darryl,

    You now say “gay marriage is bad”.

    In your original post you said the fact that “Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage” is “two steps forward”.

    You also said that the fact that “Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriage” is “one step backwards”.

    If you really believe that Christian norms can govern same-sex marriage, why is it bad?

    How is Christians still being able to object a step backwards?

    Whose perspective is the forward/backward calculation from? Yours or gay people who want to marry?

    I’m honestly trying to understand and help you clarify. If you said what it initially looks like you said, that could get you in trouble on several fronts.

    Like

  276. Rev. Bordow used some of the same logic that I think you are using when he was thinking about admitting celibate, married gay people to membership in OPC churches. Out of compassion for minor children we perhaps ought not break up those families, he reasoned.

    This concedes the argument that it is better to be raised in an intact household led by same-sex people who are married to each other than a broken household with one still gay parent and one formerly gay, now repentant, parent.

    Yesterday I shared an article about two married gay men whose two adult children, one male, one female – also identify as gay.

    Are we sure leaving gay parent led families intact is the right thing? Are you sure having Christian norms govern gay marriages is a positive? Christian norms say that divorce is bad. Is gay married spouses divorcing bad or is it a sign of repentance?

    Like

  277. Living in the same time and space with papists for a long time now is not the same as ECT—the idea of a “common mere Christian” cultural resistance done with papists because we also are catholic and trinitarian and not biblicist or pietist or sectarian….

    Back in the 50s there was resistance to any idea of Billy Graham doing “Christian stuff” with papists, but now after ECT, the evangelical hope is Clarence Thomas, or somebody religious about natural law be they Mormon or papist

    Sean—is the law merciful? No. But, it’s true and is a setup for the preaching of the gospel… is martyrdom a legitimate opportunity for christians at the hand of the state? Or because I’m an american, is my final stand always going to ultimately be armed and or belligerent resistance cuz I’m an american?

    mcmark—not to get my pacifist kooties on Sean, but amen.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

    Trent—by original sin, the servants of sin and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated therefrom, BUT FREE WILL, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent, WAS BY NO MEANS EXTINGUISHED IN THEM

    Like

  278. The biggest bombs going off will be officers of the church finally admitting that they are gay, many of them with the greatest fake lives before your own eyes, and then some of them claiming they have the right to continue in their church capacities. The more entrenched they are by large donations and the old boys network the more painful this will be. Stay tuned…

    I once asked a few men what the big deal was with long hair on the male populace starting in the mid 1960s. One underlying theme was that you would see someone attractive from the back and then feel especially dirty about it when you found out it was a man. And that as a Christian it is wrong to lust after a man. It didn’t bother their conscience as a Christian that lust after a woman in this sense should make them feel dirty as well, I guess.

    Like

  279. This recent outcome does not show that the Manhattan Declaration did not work. It shows we need more self-appointed “Christian statesmen” joining together with other famous persons in order to write more declarations.

    But I was not healed.
    That was because you did not believe enough. Double down on the faith.

    But we still got no fault divorce and abortion and (maybe next) polygamy.
    That was not because of Charles Colson and Packer and Neuhaus, but only because we need more people like that.

    Was polygamy protected or merely tolerated by the moral law of the Mosaic covenant? Please discuss the difference…

    Like

  280. Mark Mcculley
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 11:49 am | Permalink
    This recent outcome does not show that the Manhattan Declaration did not work. It shows we need more self-appointed “Christian statesmen” joining together with other famous persons in order to write more declarations.

    But I was not healed.
    That was because you did not believe enough. Double down on the faith.

    But we still got no fault divorce and abortion and (maybe next) polygamy.
    That was not because of Charles Colson and Packer and Neuhaus, but only because we need more people like that

    Hear hear. The Manhattan Declaration came too late: Too many kept silent too long, and let Falwell and Robertson become the face of Biblical morality.

    But the solution wasn’t to attack them, it was for better men to stand up and take their place.

    Like

  281. DG –
    Two steps forward (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage), one step backwards (Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriages).

    I visited the OPC church in Westfield NJ this morning – kind and grounded people, admirably sober and straightforward liturgy. Had to mind the baby, couldn’t stay for all of it unfortunately, but I’d like to visit again.

    I believe you are saying that the ssm instigators who profess to be Christian see this as two steps forward and one step back. If so, you don’t indicate your own position or suggest to readership the right position.

    It could be read to suggest an approval that the behaviour (sinful or not?) now gets the stamp of government approval – although I’m not clear how ‘Christian norms’ enters into it.

    It seems to assume the government’s ability in principle to define the word and concept of marriage.

    It also seems to assume that marriage as currently defined by the government is under Christian norms (are Christian marital norms more compatible with today’s easy-divorce policy or lifelong fidelity?).

    Your quote could easily be used to discredit the OPC (“see? they’re just like all the rest of those Christian groups”), or maybe at some point even in a courtroom to indicate a diversity of opinions within the OPC which disqualifies them from being permitted xyz freedoms from gov regulations.

    With the right set of attorneys lined up (So Po), retractions and demonstrations of position elsewhere will be of limited value. These people are ruthless and know how to maniplate the system.

    It could also easily be used to scandalize your own OPC faithful.

    On issues like this, I think it is best that our yeas be yeas, and nays nays.

    Like

  282. Erik, your project to expose sounds a bit paranoid. But I’m here to help. Human life begins at conception and I’m both morally and politically opposed to one segment of the human population taking said life at will or whim simply because the former bodily house the latter. I also don’t think homosexuality should enjoy the sanction of marriage. My libs hate those views, but I can’t recall any going on a quest to expose my “rabid fundamentalism.” The pro-life movement has problems. Since when was it an act of treason and betrayal to agree with some of the essentials of a political lobby but not walk lock step in its ethos and methods? What’s unfortunate (righteous indignation alert) about decisions like RvW and Friday’s is how how it strips local governments from being able to govern the way they see fit, not that my particular outlook hasn’t found embodiment in the long arm of federal jurisprudence and outlawed the other guy’s view in every nook and cranny of the Union. IOW, I’d be perfectly satisfied with elective abortion and gay marriage outlawed over here but not over there. That’s how America should actually look.

    You want nuance but I’m not sure you’d know it if it fell from the falling sky and cracked your squawking beak.

    Like

  283. If only DGH was more like this guy. Sigh.

    Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer)
    6/27/15, 4:22 PM
    The swastika was a Rainbow Swastika. Most of Hitler’s Storm Troop officers were homosexuals.

    Like

  284. Z, according to milk monitor Erik I (as the rightmost 2k OL regular) am supposed to disagree with you (the alleged leftmost 2k OL regular), but danged if I can find anything that you just wrote that I can disagree with. I must be disingenuous.

    Like

  285. For all the proponents of declarations from Christian statesmen and “famous” people, what exactly do these statements accomplish? Some denominations have issued statements for years (even apologizing for past sins of racism). How many declarations do you need before moral outrage grows long in the tooth ? Do declarations from Muslim statesmen or Stoic statesmen count?

    Like

  286. Susan: You must have believed that you could hold back the tide of evil or why else would you do anything?

    Dan: It is more complicated than that. A lot depends on who asks you to get involved. Sometimes that is a factor involving personal relationships, sometimes it is a business decision, sometimes both. And the thrill you get when an underdog wins helps make up for the despair you feel when a good candidate gets beat. I don’t think I have ever believed I could turn back the tide of evil. Maybe make the community a little better place to live, but even that sometimes seems a reach.

    Like

  287. Muddy Gravel
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
    If only DGH was more like this guy. Sigh.

    Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer)
    6/27/15, 4:22 PM
    The swastika was a Rainbow Swastika. Most of Hitler’s Storm Troop officers were homosexuals.

    That’s precisely the type of smugness that abandoned the public face of Christianity and Biblical morality to the yahoos. Well done.

    You might not want to become more like Bryan Fischer, just less like Barack Obama.

    Like

  288. Zrim,

    So you’re personally against abortion but not troubled when it’s legal in other places where those who are not personally against it are in the majority?

    Like

  289. Zrim,

    So what is your beef with pro-life people where you live?

    Any specific groups that especially irritate you?

    Like

  290. Sean – 1 cor 5: a scriptural distinction between how God governs the church and how He governs the world…Shun the brother-intolerance, associate with the immoral outside the church-tolerance… The church has a mission of mercy, the state is saddled with justice. I have a hierarchy of allegiances, it’s not flat.”

    If I am reading you correctly, I agree with everything you say here, although I would add to it.

    We must hold fellow Christians to the demands of Christianity (with various caveats of wisdom, prudence, patience, charity), which can in extreme cases involve excommunication/shunning;

    You shouldn’t (can’t?) excommunicate (shun) someone who isn’t a Christian for immorality (they may not know any better, and need you to evangelize them);

    We must (at times) tolerate evil outside the Christian community.

    I would add:

    Working to implement laws which reflect Christian norms isn’t to ‘judge non-Christians.’ – primarily it is for the purpose of protecting and ordering the Christian community, and facilitating evangelization;

    When the Christian community is threatened by immorality outside, we absolutely must not tolerate it- this would be suicide and treachery to future Christian generations.

    I can’t accept that we are to always tolerate evil outside the Christian community- there are things which are potentially in our power to change, and if nothing else we are commanded by “love thy neighbor.” The command isn’t “don’t annoy thy neighbor.” (I take all those living in the US to be neighbors).

    Agreed, it isn’t always easy to tell what to do (requiring prudence); but sometimes it is! We shouldn’t fall into apathy.

    In this light, I don’t see how we can justify the NIMBY approach (ok in Washington DC, not ok in Virginia) – to hell with thy neighbor?

    Like

  291. Muddy,

    Why would you want Darryl to be like that guy?

    Back to Muddy the flaming liberal again…

    Like

  292. The thing that the choir can’t admit is that when the hand they are holding is shite, the more they bob, duck, weave, and mouth off on Darryl’s behalf, the more obvious it becomes to an impartial reader that their hand is shite. The choir is small, aging, and not growing much. The choir might want to grow up and think for themselves. Or maybe suggest to Darryl occasionally to not deal you shite hands that you have to spend days defending.

    Like

  293. Chortles,

    Can’t answer my question on whether or not it was a positive development for Tennessee churches & Christians that they now have gay marriage?

    Like

  294. (I need to pick a name and stick with it…)

    Is there any take you guys won’t stand behind Darryl 110% on?

    To date I can recall no dissent from your great herd of independent minds.

    Like

  295. Muddy, cw-

    The Nazis were democratically elected because the Weimar Republic was permissive of immorality and people got fed up with it (e.g., homosexuality in films). Why could that not happen here?

    And I think a number of senior Nazis were homosexuals. Their unjust persecution of homosexuals (murder) provided cover for this and their more infamous murderous policies.

    And I think my last comment is worth reading, apologies for the html error.

    Like

  296. The Nightfly
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
    (I need to pick a name and stick with it…)

    Is there any take you guys won’t stand behind Darryl 110% on?

    To date I can recall no dissent from your great herd of independent minds.

    How do you think the polls swung so much in a handful of years? The herd mentality. For traditional marriage, the best people stood silent; on the other side, their most charismatic got out front on it. Eventually, cowards and opportunists like Hillary Clinton and Jim Wallis eventually drifted over to what they saw was becoming the winning corner.

    [Just like Don King during the Frazier-Foreman fight. He arrived with Joe and left with George.]

    The only question now is what a lot of self-fancying Christians who believe “blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” will do. It was an easy ride, but the now the fun starts.

    Like

  297. To be clear, I am saying the best way we can avoid a secularist fascist government from manipulating Christian dissent is to work within our current system for public moral order.

    If we give up on society, we invite chaos and disorder, and every family and community is imperilled. We risk the ability of Christians to serve God in community.

    Like

  298. Can’t, never, 110%, I can recall no dissent, Is there any. Erik, you’re sliding into Greg-scorned woman tactics of argument. If you’re going to disregard and discredit the nuance offered, you’re not likely to ever, ever, never get anybody willing to spend the time.

    Like

  299. Stan the H—In his essay “Church and Liberal Democracy” Hauerwas— “Christians must again understand that their first task is not to make the world better or more just, but to recognize what the world is The first social task of churches to provide the space and time necessary for developing skills of discrimination sufficient to help us recognize the limitations of our society and to have churches built on truth rather than fear. ”

    While the modern Western state makes space for Christian identity, its acceptance of Christian identity relies on Christianity’s identification with the mainstream institutions (the military, democratic elections, peer-reviewed science teachers, etc) of the modern nation-state. To get tax exemption, you need to make some accommodations to the needs and goals of the nation-state. The tax exempt church is never an independent church.

    But of course if there is already only one “the church”, no problem…

    Like

  300. Erik – Zrim writes: What’s unfortunate (righteous indignation alert) about decisions like RvW and Friday’s is how how it strips local governments from being able to govern the way they see fit, not that my particular outlook hasn’t found embodiment in the long arm of federal jurisprudence and outlawed the other guy’s view in every nook and cranny of the Union. IOW, I’d be perfectly satisfied with elective abortion and gay marriage outlawed over here but not over there. That’s how America should actually look.

    He makes a good point. Do you object to this?

    These decisions are so divisive not just because of the underlying subject matter, but because the Court removes the decision from the hands of the people. And yes, I too would be satisfied – happy even – if our system worked the way it should and these decisions were left to the people at the state and local level. New York would get gay “marriage” but not Mississippi. Fine. And we’d probably get the added bonus of more reasonable laws through the legislative process. But today every argument is framed in terms of inalienable civil rights and therefore the Court jumps in to save us from ourselves. The practical issue we have to face is that the system we want – the Federal system set up in the Constitution – is the not the system we actually have. Legislating by judicial fiat provokes fear and resentment.

    Like

  301. The Nightfly
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
    The thing that the choir can’t admit is that when the hand they are holding is shite, the more they bob, duck, weave, and mouth off on Darryl’s behalf, the more obvious it becomes to an impartial reader that their hand is shite. The choir is small, aging, and not growing much. The choir might want to grow up and think for themselves. Or maybe suggest to Darryl occasionally to not deal you shite hands that you have to spend days defending.

    Erik, what is behind all this? DGH reminds me of several of my old college and law school profs. Participation here is voluntary. He may be an officer in his church, but I am pretty clear that this isn’t an OPC approved site. I think you know all of that. .

    He has written some good books (A Secular Faith is a classic), but he has written at least one clunker, to me (From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin, though my reasons for my opinion are distinct from TVD’s disdain). His perspective is different from most historians that take American Religious History seriously, but not so different as to not be in contact with the Marsdens and Nolls of his world.

    I mean, can it really be just SSM that has you this upset? Were you asleep when the Supreme Court decided Lawrence? If you weren’t prepared for it, whose fault is that? Can there only be one response- yours? Is the slippery slope you envision the only way the future can unfold?

    I have been following this blog off and on roughly since Hart’s Calvinism: A History came out. Up until recently, I thought you made some reasonable comments on threads that had any interest for me. I really don’t know what has happened.

    Like

  302. Mark Mcculley
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
    But of course if there is already only one “the church”, no problem…

    There’s not even one Presbyterianism.

    Like

  304. Dan,

    “It is more complicated than that. A lot depends on who asks you to get involved. Sometimes that is a factor involving personal relationships, sometimes it is a business decision, sometimes both. And the thrill you get when an underdog wins helps make up for the despair you feel when a good candidate gets beat. I don’t think I have ever believed I could turn back the tide of evil. Maybe make the community a little better place to live, but even that sometimes seems a reach.”

    Well, my point was that being politically active in the first place is because you believe that whatever it is that you oppose is a wrong and whatever it is that you promote or seek to protect is a right. Amazingly this is what everyone does, so how is it that people can be on opposite sides of an issue?
    My first comment was speaking to the 2K crowd who thinks that Christians are either not supposed to oppose evil( yes evil) or at least not spend too much time doing it, and to certainly never see it as being done for God. There is no cultural mandate except it be mandated by God.
    We are on this site right this very minute debating something that the actually rightness or wrongness of stands at it stands whether we legalize it or not, so why can’t we say it is always and at all times bad, and if bad, bad for the family and the nation. If it can be admitted as a bad then why cannot we also say that to battle bad is the godly thing to do and our Christian responsibility. This wishy-washiness is giving me a headache.

    We can all do our own little part but we wouldn’t do any thing is we didn’t believe there was truly something worth doing.

    “Man lives always according to a culture which is properly his, and which in turn creates among persons a bond which is properly theirs, one which determines the inter-human and social character of human existence”. from Verbum Domini

    If you have never read it, I recommend it to you. It’s beautiful thought and writing.

    Like

  305. @ Kevin in Newark

    I’m really enjoying your comments. They are well laid out and kindly spoken. You are a breath of fresh air. Thank you. Do you blog? If not, you should.

    Susan

    Like

  306. Muddy Gravel
    Posted June 27, 2015 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
    Me, Mrs. Webfoot:
    “Well, my point was that he really should not be saying anything at all about what religious people are allowed to teach. Do you see what I mean? He is not speaking as a private citizen, after all.”

    Muddy Gravel:
    There’s a certain way legal decisions are written. Draft opinions are circulated and the justices comment on them. Concerns are expressed, and opinions address those concerns while countering, for example, any dissents. It’s reasonable to say something about the impact of religious rights even if it’s not binding. Such words may be directed to future decisions or they may be directed to the public. So there’s nothing remarkable or concerning about speaking to religious rights per se.>>>>

    Okay. So we don’t know how this will play out as far as religious liberty is concerned. It looks like it will be a battle, though.

    Well, maybe you’re done with this, and as Yogi Berra said, it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. I think it looks pretty dark myself. Time will tell.

    What is especially troubling is what our kids are being taught by our government. What they will be taught in the future as far as marriage, family, and even our sexual identity is concerned is pretty scary, I have to admit. Do they think kids are their lab rats and that government is free to run whatever crazy social experiment they wish on them?

    Of course, our daughter will probably home school our grandchild. She is not willing to send their child into the public school. So, is that a cop out? Anyway…

    Good comments, Muddy. Thank you for your time.

    Like

  307. (A different) Dan
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
    His perspective is different from most historians that take American Religious History seriously, but not so different as to not be in contact with the Marsdens and Nolls of his world.

    I mean, can it really be just SSM that has you this upset? Were you asleep when the Supreme Court decided Lawrence? If you weren’t prepared for it, whose fault is that?

    Lawrence was precisely the difference between tolerating sin in society [lifting sodomy bans], and institutionalizing it [forcing gay marriage on society and the states].

    The court abolished not only theology but philosophy in this opinion, man.

    Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.

    The “Naked Public Square” Richard John Neuhaus warned us about is now here. You can no longer speak of “ordering society” when any principles of liberty except libertinism have been made illegal. Your children will be propagandized to believe that men and women are interchangable, that sex is love, and the Bible is hate.

    Like

  308. Publius, Zrim, CW, Muddy-

    What would this NIMBY approach mean for your fellow Christians at Grace OPC in Westfield NJ? They should simply accept unlimited abortion, church taxation, freedom-of-speech limitation, etc if the NJ legislature so declares? Limitation on freedom of association- the dissolution of the congregation for advocating ‘hate speech’ against homosexuals?

    For NIMBY OPCers, is there no obligation to their well-being? Communion is more than just shared theology, isn’t it?

    God’s word abides- the Gates of Hell will not prevail against Christian evangelism- in a worldwide sense. But Hell can triumph in specific areas (e.g., the elimination of Christianity from Augustine’s North Africa) if we let it.

    Like

  309. It would be a sad day if this decision led to America electing the Nazis to power, especially the the gayest ones.

    Like

  310. Susan, to the extent I have ever had a political hero, it was the recently deceased Senator Howard Baker, Jr. His motto was “Listen to the other fellow- he might be right “.

    Like

  311. Erik, no, should I be troubled by distant majority’s that think differently than me for some reason? But the group that wants a petition signed in the all-purpose room (aka fellowship hall) right after the morning service tends to irritate.

    Like

  312. Sean,

    Are you volunteering yourself as a member of the choir?

    You have actually been making some substantive contributions to this conversation. I wasn’t including you.

    You can man up even more and take on Darryl, though, if you choose to.

    You’ve always been pretty good at being your own man. Speedy Mart has served you well.

    Like

  313. Sean – If you’re going to disregard and discredit the nuance offered, you’re not likely to ever, ever, never get anybody willing to spend the time.

    TN – O.K. Have at explaining the nuance that Darryl has offered.

    Is it possible that, on occasion, nuance can just be sucky thinking?

    Like

  314. Newark: “If we give up on society, we invite chaos and disorder, and every family and community is imperilled. We risk the ability of Christians to serve God in community.”

    What’s this “we” of which you talk? If you want to get involved in that way, you are perfectly free to do that as a citizen and as a Christian. If you are talking about conscription – all Christians must do as you do in the political realm, that’s another thing altogether.

    And I wonder if it is “giving up” to lead exemplary, peaceful lives in which we aren’t agitating about the latest front-burner issue and engaging in standard political idiocy and slander of those whom we oppose. I’m convinced that at this point the Christian right is not just “in the world” but in their politico-centric thinking they are “of the world.” Who’s right? Who’s left? Who shall we praise denounce vilify alienate so we win? When everything becomes political we are less Christian.
    ______________

    Paul wrote epistles while unjustly under arrest. If he took counsel from the screamers, he would have used that wonderful opportunity to get Christians to DO SOMETHING! But, what a shame, he spoke of politically inert things like humility. And, man, he really blew it here:

    12 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters,[b] that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard[c] and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.

    Like

  315. Susan-

    It’s good to know I’m not on at least one person’s do-not-read list! Thanks.

    Nah, I don’t blog. I direct my energies to conversation, choral music, my tenants, my job (Caribbean media), and my baby. More than enough.

    Like

  316. Sean – If you’re going to disregard and discredit the nuance offered, you’re not likely to ever, ever, never get anybody willing to spend the time.

    TN – Here’s the problem with the “Tom and TN are jerks, so we’re just going to make fart jokes and hope they go away” strategy.

    (1) Tom and The Nightfly are so persistent that they make the Hounds of Hell look lazy, so you’re in for a long ride.

    (2) There might actually be people who come hear to read the arguments and don’t really care about the personalities. When you tell fart jokes as opposed to taking us on, that impresses no one except for other 45 year old men who act like 13 year old boys (and maybe actual 13 year old boys).

    (3) If Tom and The Nightfly are jerks, presumably their ideas suck too, so they should be easily refuted. So refute.

    Pretty much everybody but me blew Greg off because they took him for an unwashed, unlettered blowhard. I engaged him and actually learned quite a bit. He had a lot of good things to say (on movies, not so much on Van Til).

    So engage or don’t, but there are downsides to not engaging.

    Like

  318. Kevin – It’s not a NIMBY approach – it’s a political solution for a political problem. And it allows for the will of the people to be expressed through the elected legislators. Compromises and accommodations can be made during the legislative process – and most of all, laws can changed and repealed in a way that Supreme Court decisions really can’t. So would I say to my fellow OPCers in NJ to sit back and accept the laws the NJ legislature passes? Well, in one sense, yes. They would need to follow those laws with the usual caveats. But they would also have the ability to work through the political process to change the laws they found objectionable.

    However, this is all a counterfactual. That’s not what happened. The situation we have is one in which we are ruled by a judicial monarchy that has taken for itself the powers rightly reserved for the people. And the assault on Christians will likely increase. Our pastor and elders today affirmed that they are prepared to be persecuted but that our session will stand on God’s word. Period.

    It’s not hard to envision a time when churches lose their tax exempt status and seminarians lose eligibility for student loans. I told Scott Clark last year that the Westminsters should prepare for that eventuality. Today they are so dependent on that source of funds that they are extremely vulnerable. And yes, there will be other assaults on our liberties. But Christ’s Church will endure.

    Like

  319. Erik, thanks for your concern for my sanctification. Your thoughtful prodding has led me to consider Tennessee law relative to biblical law.

    Commandment 1: violation is legal and widespread in TN
    Commandment 2: violation is legal and widespread in TN
    Commandment 3: violation is legal and widespread in TN
    Commandment 4: violation is legal and widespread in TN and actually encouraged by the state
    Commandment 5: violation is legal and widespread in TN
    Commandment 6: illegal unless the victim is a fetus — score 1/2 point for the good guys
    Commandment 7: violation is legal and widespread in TN
    Commandment 8: illegal unless you’re a politician or the federal government — score 3/4 point for the good guys
    Commandment 9: sorta illegal (bur rarely punished) — permissible for lawyers, politicians, and advertisers — score 1/4 point for good guys
    Commandment 10: violation is legal and widespread in TN

    So on the moral law scale my state already fails with a 1.5 out of 10 score. Marriage is said to be a creation ordinance (and thus a biggie) but evolution is taught in TN schools so I don’t guess I can appeal to the c-word. I do despise the gay marriage laws, but am I supposed to be more worried about them than the minor laws listed above? I have no plans to make use of this new “freedom” in my state. You aren’t proposing, are you?

    Like

  320. Hi Dan,

    “Listen to the other fellow- he might be right “. Yep, completely agree. He might be, but when he’s wrong and the public( minority or majority) stand to lose because he is, then he deservers to be opposed. And it’s okay, no it’s obligatory, for Christians to do the opposing.
    That’s all I meant.

    Enjoy the rest of your Lord’s Day:)

    Like

  321. Publius – He makes a good point. Do you object to this?

    These decisions are so divisive not just because of the underlying subject matter, but because the Court removes the decision from the hands of the people. And yes, I too would be satisfied – happy even – if our system worked the way it should and these decisions were left to the people at the state and local level.

    TN – I do.

    Why should State and Local governments allow the killing of babies just because the majority wants it? I thought our Constitution guarantees the right to life?

    If the Supreme Court is going to get involved it should be to outlaw abortion in all 50 states, not to allow it.

    What are you guys, France? Why surrender immediately by granting the other side’s premises?

    Like

  322. Dan – Erik, what is behind all this?

    Erik – Nothing other than the fact that I think he’s making a losing and incorrect argument and other guys are too afraid to point it out.

    It’s not personal.

    As I’ve moved to the middle here I just seek out winning arguments. I couldn’t care less who is making them. Can we not have one space in our lives that is devoted to that without people getting all weepy and soft?

    Like

  324. c, e, if you weren’t such in a froth you might be able to see that same-sex marriage follows the Christian pattern of one plus one equals one. That’s not polygamy. And it is fidelity.

    I don’t approve. But if you told a gay person that Jerry Falwell actually won on Friday, they might not celebrate so much

    As if marriage is bliss.

    Like

  325. Kent – It would be a sad day if this decision led to America electing the Nazis to power, especially the gayest ones.

    TN – Kent makes me chuckle (as always), but there is a grain of truth to what he is saying. Extreme left wing actions beget extreme right wing actions (less so the other way around). In a sense, when liberals sow the wind, they need to be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

    Look, for example, at the radical Muslim world’s response to depravity in the West.

    Look at Dylann Roof.

    This is why there always needs to be room left for reasonable levels of dissent. If it’s all squelched, some people will turn to desperate measures.

    Like

  326. Kevin, I am saying: why would homosexuals, who were historically transgressive, now want to emulate bourgeois norms? You can spin this a lot of ways.

    Still, it’s not the church that did this.

    Like

  327. Zrim – Erik, no, should I be troubled by distant majority’s that think differently than me for some reason? But the group that wants a petition signed in the all-purpose room (aka fellowship hall) right after the morning service tends to irritate.

    TN – You’re not troubled at all when babies are killed as a result of people thinking differently from you?

    Are you somehow required to sign the petition?

    Like

  330. Muddy – What’s this “we” of which you talk? If you want to get involved in that way, you are perfectly free to do that as a citizen and as a Christian.

    TN – Does his involvement then entail you deriding him as a “Culture Warrior”?

    It’s your right to do so, but include that caveat when giving him permission.

    Has anyone here (other than maybe Tom) said that churches and ministers have to do anything about gay marriage other than be prepared to face persecution?

    Can you cite any examples of “engaging in standard political idiocy and slander of those whom we oppose” in this discussion or is that mere handwaving?

    Any thoughts on Darryl’s “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back”?

    Like

  333. Chortles – So on the moral law scale my state already fails with a 1.5 out of 10 score. Marriage is said to be a creation ordinance (and thus a biggie) but evolution is taught in TN schools so I don’t guess I can appeal to the c-word. I do despise the gay marriage laws, but am I supposed to be more worried about them than the minor laws listed above? I have no plans to make use of this new “freedom” in my state. You aren’t proposing, are you?

    Erik – That’s a response, and not a bad one.

    You say “it’s a biggie”. Does that mean that you disagree with Darryl that’s it’s not a net positive development for the Church (“two steps forward, one step back”).

    Do you see any potential for this development causing more problems for churches than the other commandment violations that you cite? (I’m thinking about loss of tax exemptions, scrutiny of teachings, persecution of members, etc.)

    If so, why? If not, why not?

    Like

  335. Again Eric – You go on about people being “afraid” to call other people out. Who is afraid? Do you confront every person whom says something disagreeable in your presence or do you inwardly roll your eyes at them and decide it’s not worth the effort? I do this often with friends in real life and on the Internet. Is DGH’s post above an eye roller? Yup. But taken in context with his previous posts on the subject, it’s quite funny. To spell out the joke; the moral majority has been beating the left over the head with their family values club. Well, the left has now embraced family values. Win! See, isn’t that funny? No? Ah well.

    The problem Eric is that you are never an honest broker of other people’s positions. Zrim’s aborting babies in his backyard. DGH is advocating gay marriage. Chortles hates all women and hipsters and Sean, well man-crush so it’s all good. You see what I did there?

    Finally. You sure can dish it out, but you can’t take it. When you are dolling out the low blows, other people need to lighten up and be more entertaining. When someone call you out on your bull shite.. Well, you thought they were a nice guy but now they are A-holes. That is why no one wants to engage you. That and you go from 0 to nuclear in no seconds.

    No thanks man. See you around. Like Three 6 Mafia says just “Keep my name out yo mouth.”

    Like

  336. Darryl – c, e, if you weren’t such in a froth you might be able to see that same-sex marriage follows the Christian pattern of one plus one equals one. That’s not polygamy. And it is fidelity.

    TN – Wow.

    Double wow.

    If the OPC had any balls at all and could stand up to an eccentric (and well published) academic, that statement would cause problems for you.

    Likely they don’t and it won’t, though.

    Like

  338. Darryl – c, e couldn’t take it when I started blogging at Patheos. Another Yoko.

    TN – No idea what that means. I think I’ve maybe read 1-2 pieces there so it’s hard to attribute anything to you blogging at Patheos.

    Like

  340. Amish, and watch c, e melt down if you suggest his comments aren’t very interesting and should be limited.

    But heck, at least he’s not bored by Old Life this week. There’s that.

    Like

  341. Darryl – Zrim, I thought for sure you’d say that Charter and his millions irritates.

    TN – I wish. If I had millions would I be at the office (and at Old Life) so much? Ha, ha.

    Try lots of kids kids and a stay at home wife for two decades. Good recipe for not having millions.

    Like

  342. c, e, you’re not that young.

    Yoko broke up the Beatles.

    You used to be the lead singer in the Old Life choir.

    I started to blog at Patheos (read Yoko).

    You turned on the choir (read John leaves the Beatles).

    Are you wearing a mullet too?

    Like

  343. Erik, as I told you before, you’re unfairly summarizing and or criticizing others contributions. Your stance of taking up for the mistreated kids is overwrought. In fact, Greg asked you and others not to do it for him, he was good. And he needed to be considering he gave more than he got. Likewise, I’m under no delusion that Tom is a wounded bird. And if he’s convinced you that he is, than you’ve been suckered. So, if that makes me part of the choir, I’m good with it. Your gadfly routine is misplaced here and badly played.

    Like

  344. While Darryl has moved to desperately lighting farts as opposed to merely telling fart jokes, I’ll explain why I think what he is advocating is damaging.

    There’s a school of thought that says that “normalizing” homosexual relationships is a positive and compassionate development. By taking gay relationships out of the bathhouse, the gay bar, and the truck stop (if Sowers is to be believed) we make it healthier and safer for the participants and provide a more stable environment for both gay people and their children.

    The problem is, the more normalized it becomes, the more it is seen as an “option” for young people, confused people, people who have had difficult relationships with the opposite sex, physically unattractive people, people who suffer from trauma due to sexual abuse, etc. It’s suddenly just a lifestyle choice that is equally valid to what God has intended — men and women marrying, coming together as one flesh, and having children together.

    In a sense I am drawing on the argument “what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul”. This is a behavior that Scripture says will not allow those who practice it to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. We need to either explain that away (I wish I could) or take it seriously.

    Darryl’s not taking it seriously.

    Like

  345. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
    diff Dan, why do you think Graham/Palin clunked? Just curious.

    And you helped, tough guy. Sneering and smirking at the people doing the dirty work while you hid in your Presbyterian garden.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
    “The “Naked Public Square” Richard John Neuhaus warned us about is now here.”

    The title of the Cookies reunion tour.

    More nonsense from the eunuch. And the Naked Public Square is indeed here, not that you did anything to stop it. Now they’ll come for the rest of you. Smirk away.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html

    Like

  346. Darryl,

    You’re not exactly on a hot streak with explaining and analyzing things this week, so if you want to blame you blogging at Patheos for something, go for it.

    No idea what you’re talking about.

    If I figured anything out, it’s that an unquestioning cult of personality is not a great thing, regardless of whether the personality is a pope or a clever academic.

    I still like you. I have no intention of going all anti-Darryl all the time, because that’s equally lame to going agree-with-Darryl all the time.

    You’re just a guy. You have good ideas and bad ideas.

    Like

  347. TVD: “Now is the time for Two Kingdoms types to wake up. If they refused to influence the government, ”

    Two observations:

    1) I consider myself a 2-K type. At the risk of redundancy, I ask “what more could I have done?” I voted last time out. I blogged regularly on the issues of the day. In the past, I’ve “rescued” at abortion mills and passed out flyers supporting George Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004. I created videos for commercials for 3rd Party candidate, Howard Phillips. Now, how exactly is this SCOTUS ruling my fault?

    Like

  348. c, e I was merely trying to find some good news in disappointing developments so that people wouldn’t go hysterical. I obviously didn’t succeed with you.

    But if you’re going to fault me for not taking sex seriously, why do you fault me for going on so much about Roman Catholicism (which I believe is a form of idolatry)?

    You’re utterly inconsistent and simply trying to get a rise out of people since Literate Comments won’t do it.

    Like

  349. Amish,

    If the other guys are 13-year-olds, you’re the red faced 6 year old having a tantrum.

    Come back in 6 months acting older for your next comment.

    I’ll gladly respond to any logical argument you wish to make.

    Like

  351. Publius – It’s not a NIMBY approach – […] it allows for the will of the people to be expressed through the elected legislators.

    I agree with your criticism of the court. Further, I would like to see Nullification (right of US states to nullify federal legislation, perhaps also SC rulings) a topic of talk show discussion.

    Under our current system, Texans and Louisianans can help protect New Yorkers from unjust laws (whether enacted by a democratic majority within the state or not). While this is so, they ought to – by voting, but more importantly by contributing to the development of a positive political consensus through conversation in all areas of their lives, including blogs.

    The requirement is relatively small for the vast majority of people, but the pre-political matters.

    What’s bothering me here is watching those who are in a position to relay the attractiveness of a Christian life in an ordered society basically cop out – on a blog – of affirming right from wrong.

    If the country fractures, our obligation to one another will be of a different nature (like our much more limited obligation to Nigerians – basically, to stop our government and corporations from harming them – or to Canadians).

    Like

  352. Sean,

    I’m not talking about sticking up for underdogs.

    I’m talking about hearing people’s arguments in spite of their personalities.

    Greg had good points about holiness and sanctification that I frankly needed to hear. I went from watching maybe 4 movies a day on a weekend (half-way watching while I’m working, anyway) to watching city meetings, resuming my interest in track and field, etc. More neutral to edifying things. I feel like I am better able to lead and guide my wife and kids because of that. He had a valid point that I didn’t want to hear, but once I considered it, he helped me.

    Will I never watch an R rated movie again? No, I will, but I won’t make a habit out of it.

    Like

  353. Sean – Erik, as I told you before, you’re unfairly summarizing and or criticizing others contributions

    TN – Tell me how.

    If I could get anyone to tell me what they think of Darryl’s analysis we can actually start the discussion.

    Chortles has gone half-way, but no one else has. That’s why I use phrases like “The Choir”.

    Tell me why Darryl is right or wrong.

    Like

  354. Tom,

    As some background, David is legit in what he says.

    Probably the best-known anti-abortion activist of his era in Des Moines.

    I don’t know that I could do what he used to do, but I don’t judge him for it.

    Like

  355. Darryl – c, e I was merely trying to find some good news in disappointing developments so that people wouldn’t go hysterical. I obviously didn’t succeed with you.

    TN – O.K. Now we’re getting somewhere. Do you ever feel like your should use your brain and your position to just play it straight and be a leader?

    Darryl – But if you’re going to fault me for not taking sex seriously, why do you fault me for going on so much about Roman Catholicism (which I believe is a form of idolatry)?

    Erik – I fault you less for taking Catholicism seriously than providing an open forum for Catholics who have no clue how to be concise and engaging to drone on ENDLESSLY. It’s just bad blogging.

    Darryl – You’re utterly inconsistent and simply trying to get a rise out of people since Literate Comments won’t do it.

    Erik – I just have no motivation to blog myself right now. Maybe again in the future. Ask Muddy why he doesn’t blog any more.

    Like

  356. Darryl,

    If you honestly ever want me to leave, just ask.

    The other thing that will make me leave is if there ceases to be any serious people here. There are some, but it depends a lot on their mood on a particular day. I think the Christian maturity level of 2K folks (at least in the blogosphere) is honestly subpar. That’s included me too, at least in the past.

    I would like to see if I can have a hand in raising the level of everyone’s game. If not, at least I tried.

    Like

  357. TVD wrote, “How do you think the polls swung so much in a handful of years? The herd mentality. For traditional marriage, the best people stood silent”

    Who stood silent? Who are these “best people”, anyway?

    Like

  358. Muddy – “We” – Those living in the USA who profess to be Christian, above all those who take it seriously (e.g., those present).

    Every Christian has a duty to defend the faith, which includes coming to understand it and determining what action should follow from it, including its application to civil society. This is particularly true for laymen. We can disagree on courses of action, of course.

    We both profess Christianity and so are linked by a common concern. I would hope this would include Charity toward all with particular reference to the USA, and the desire for a stable country.

    As I see it so far, the purpose of a blog is to engage with issues of interest to the moderator (and the volume of comments here reveals they are important indeed). But a part of engaging with them is, in a phrase that often recurs to me, to “lend ardour to virtue” – to enable one another to engage with our separate challenges on a daily basis, with attention to the future.

    St. Paul: “it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ.”

    Paul made it plain “to everyone” his beliefs. Are those present doing so in the various areas of life they are active in? If so (and until yesterday or so I would have assumed they are), why the hesitancy to say so here? Is homosexual “marriage” a problem for society for numerous reasons? Ought we not to say so, and try to influence others to vote properly?

    Like

  359. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
    diff Dan, why do you think Graham/Palin clunked? Just curious.

    You aren’t the first historian to fail to convince me that there is an American Conservatism that could be betrayed. Hard to fault people for slipping moorings that don’ t exist. Wish they did.

    Like

  360. DGH,

    On further reflection, if you revised the book a little and titled it Why American Protestantism has Made American Conservatism Impossible– From Jonathan Edwards to Tim Keller, you might have a best seller.

    Like

  361. <i.David Shedlock
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
    TVD: “Now is the time for Two Kingdoms types to wake up. If they refused to influence the government, ”

    Two observations:

    1) I consider myself a 2-K type. At the risk of redundancy, I ask “what more could I have done?” I voted last time out. I blogged regularly on the issues of the day. In the past, I’ve “rescued” at abortion mills and passed out flyers supporting George Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004. I created videos for commercials for 3rd Party candidate, Howard Phillips. Now, how exactly is this SCOTUS ruling my fault?

    By “2k” in this milieu, we’re speaking of the “radical” Two Kingdoms types, who save most of their fire for their own side. Sarah Palin didn’t “betray” conservatism, they did, with friendly fire.

    As for you personally, Erik vouches for you. what you describe above is not the “Two Kingdoms” stuff I’m speaking of. Would that they were all like you.

    As for the Howard Phillips thing, I dunno. Funny that someone here was just singing the praises of mugwump Howard Baker and Phillips saw through his squishiness.

    OTOH, I’m not big on those who take their ball and start a new game down the street in the name of doctrinal purity. [And that goes for Mr. JG Machen as well.] Howard Phillips made himself irrelevant, there’s no other way to spin it. Seems like a helluva guy,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Phillips_(politician)

    even a visionary, but it’s just that sort of thing I’m railing against at the moment. Self-immolation is no better than self-castration.

    And if you read to the end of my argument on 2k-ers, the “culture” is lost–the US government is going to come after religious freedom now. Gird them 2k loins, drop your sword and pick up a shield. Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. And the hell with those who run and hide.

    Like

  362. (A different) Dan
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
    DGH,

    On further reflection, if you revised the book a little and titled it Why American Protestantism has Made American Conservatism Impossible– From Jonathan Edwards to Tim Keller, you might have a best seller.

    The irony is that after all the crowing that Darryl did about “Catholic” Ireland going gay–America was always more a Protestant nation than a “Christian” one. Now that the Episcopalian Church and Presbyterian Church USA have officially gone gay, it’s hardly a surprise the Supreme Court was emboldened to follow suit.

    These were not unrelated developments. The evangelicals were marginalized, the Protestant mainstream establishment did what it always does, follow rather than lead.

    Like

  363. For the uninitiated, Howard Phillips is/was Doug Phillips dad. Not sure if he’s still living.

    Like

  364. Tom,

    How did the PCUSA & The Episcopalians influence the Supreme Court? Aren’t they all Catholics & Jews?

    Like

  365. DGH: a period. interesting that you keep coming back to a site with all sorts of crazy things said and linked. interesting.

    yeah I know; hafta figure out why or maybe never will; anyway the no thanks was to ‘OPC’

    Like

  367. Chortles,

    Which outliers club is that?

    Not sure I’d want to be in a club with you. Getting kind of crotchety.

    You guys are still in the junior high clique, not me.

    Like

  368. Chortles,

    You never told me how Beffany is doing.

    Has she lifted that restraining order against you?

    Picking on single women is a bad sign at your age.

    Like

  369. Nightgnat, your habit of making scandalous and unfounded accusations continues. I was blocked on Twitter (not exactly a restraining order — I thought you were sensitive to slander) by her not because of any interaction I had with her but because others glommed on to a thread I started. Keeping flinging it against the wall.

    Like

  370. Chortles,

    Oh, so others were at fault.

    Sounds like Tom’s explanation for his bans.

    Maybe he needs more sympathy from you guys?

    Like

  371. Chortles,

    How is a reference to a fictitious name doing something to another fictitious name “scandalous”?

    Do you yell at the TV to tell the cartoon characters to be nicer to each other?

    Meanwhile I get wrongly accused of doing something in real life under my real name and you & your buddies offer no help whatsoever…

    Like

  373. Chortles,

    O.K. Truce. I won’t bring that line of questioning up again.

    You need to not poke me, though. Frankly you’re too nice of a guy. That’s a compliment. Darryl, Muddy, Zrim, and Tom are more in my league.

    Plus it gets Amish all riled up.

    Like

  374. that reminds me ‘nightfly’… still waiting for an apology …and not on hearsay but for reals

    Like

  375. I’m thinking the basic 12 step program could be used for compulsive commenters. But, like drunks, they’re the last to know they have a problem. Everyone around them – embarrassed. The drunk: “hey, I’m fine.”

    Like

  377. a.,

    I apologize if I insulted you. I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about, though. Point it out if you’re serious.

    Like

  378. The Nightfly
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
    Tom,
    How did the PCUSA & The Episcopalians influence the Supreme Court? Aren’t they all Catholics & Jews?

    The SC doesn’t make moves–even radical ones like this–without knowing they can get away with it. They like being at the forefront of “progress,” but think of it as finding a parade and standing in front of it. This was a perfect storm–indeed, if we didn’t have the First Black President as a spearhead, Black America wouldn’t have gone along. Add in two major Protestant denominations not just tolerating gay sex but institutionalizing it, and the coast was clear.

    [BTW, reform Judaism has already gone gay, the Catholic vote is split, and the Catholic Church itself can be safely ignored politically, as we know.

    Like

  380. It was interesting that at church today, there was almost no mention and even less concern for the SCOTUS decision. I took that as a good sign. People are busy living their lives and while this may have some domino effect as regards future religious liberty, most people aren’t willing to say that this is that moment. Nothing, in fact, changed for most of us and it has yet to be proven or borne out that anything will. It’s always good to check virtual spin ups with local, particular spin ups. My RC parents were more engaged than my prot brethren but their conclusion was that they weren’t gay, the archdiocese’s policies were predictable and appropriate to the news, and they were more concerned about the grocery shopping list. At which point, I looked at my wife, as is my custom, to make sure she got the message that that was her sign. I got my usual response. So, basically the reaction seemed to be, I hope the gays had a good celebration, bless their hearts and welcome to marriage and all it’s wonderment. Now, about monday and you meeting my needs.

    Like

  381. Erik, “babies killed”? The 70s anti-war protesters are on line two asking for their breathless sloganeering back.

    No requirement to sign, which doesn’t make the intrusion of politics into religion any less annoying though. Say something about killing babies again, though, that’s the flip side of crying “misogyny!” for opposing elective abortion or “homophobe!” for dissenting on SSM.

    Like

  382. Anyone on board with Zrim, pro or con? I like babies.

    Sean,

    Interesting. Catholic church making a statement good or bad?

    Like

  383. It’s too much of a leap to demand that American Conservatives are automatically so set against abortion or same set marriage that they’ll lock people up for committing either

    Let’s see.. Professor Plum, in the Conservatory,with the lead pipe…oh…. wrong on all counts…
    .

    Like

  384. Erik, it was basically that they won’t be solemnizing any same sex marriages so don’t ask and no you can’t use our buildings either but we love you and let’s talk.

    Like

  385. sean
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
    It was interesting that at church today, there was almost no mention and even less concern for the SCOTUS decision. I took that as a good sign. People are busy living their lives and while this may have some domino effect as regards future religious liberty, most people aren’t willing to say that this is that moment. Nothing, in fact, changed for most of us and it has yet to be proven or borne out that anything will. It’s always good to check virtual spin ups with local, particular spin ups. My RC parents were more engaged than my prot brethren but their conclusion was that they weren’t gay, the archdiocese’s policies were predictable and appropriate to the news, and they were more concerned about the grocery shopping list. At which point, I looked at my wife, as is my custom, to make sure she got the message that that was her sign. I got my usual response. So, basically the reaction seemed to be, I hope the gays had a good celebration, bless their hearts and welcome to marriage and all it’s wonderment. Now, about monday and you meeting my needs.

    This is how it went down in the first place. Rust never sleeps.

    Like

  386. Erik, liking babies is insufficient. What are you doing to stop the mass execution of heaven’s most innocent creatures who deserve the utmost effort of every able bodied person? Don’t you know western civilization depends on this? Don’t you know heaven will judge you and the nation for not doing enough? Don’t you know every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great?

    Like

  387. TVD, maybe but maybe not. I’m leaning not. And if it does, wait for it, God is still sovereign and ordaining all things. In the meantime I’ll have more immediate legitimate obligations and acts of good citizenry and even Christian charity to get done tomorrow but probably not toward you cuz that’s not how you and I love each other.

    Like

  388. sean
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
    TVD, maybe but maybe not. I’m leaning not. And if it does, wait for it, God is still sovereign and ordaining all things. In the meantime I’ll have more immediate legitimate obligations and acts of good citizenry and even Christian charity to get done tomorrow but probably not toward you cuz that’s not how you and I love each other.

    Yes, God is still sovereign and ordaining all things. But he punished Israel not capriciously but because she had it coming.

    I’m not a “providential history” type, that God made a covenant with America, but I do think it’s true that on some level America made a covenant with God–as Mr. Lincoln put it, not that God is on our side but that we are on his.

    Even if that covenant was not divinely reciprocated, I do believe America just abandoned its end. The Bible is now an enemy of the state.

    Like

  389. Newark:
    “Every Christian has a duty to defend the faith, which includes coming to understand it and determining what action should follow from it, including its application to civil society.”

    Every Christian has a duty to be ready “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” There is no duty to be reading Supreme Court opinions or to agitate for social change.

    Newark: “Paul made it plain “to everyone” his beliefs. Are those present doing so in the various areas of life they are active in? If so (and until yesterday or so I would have assumed they are), why the hesitancy to say so here? Is homosexual “marriage” a problem for society for numerous reasons? Ought we not to say so, and try to influence others to vote properly?”

    Paul was explicitly addressing the gospel. You are addressing law, and civil law at that. You have created some kind of hybrid that you can not attribute to Paul

    Like

  390. David Shedlock – good to hear from you. Do you folks know David Shedlock? He’s being admirable in not detailing his resume but there’s only the slimmest of chances that anyone here has done as much in the realm of pro-life activity as David. For a while in the Des Moines area, every morning was about pouring a cup of coffee, chomping on a bowl of cereal, and reading about David Shedlock’s latest arrest for the pro-life cause. So, yeah, tell him he’s a whimp for being 2k, ya posers.

    Like

  391. diff Dan, I hear you.

    But in my defense I would also say that a world of conservatism exists out there that the Schaeffers and even some of the neo-Calvinists don’t know about. When you enter the stage, stage right, and claim to be conservative, I think you should be aware of what the conservative conversation is before you speak on the right’s behalf.

    thanks.

    Like

  394. Muddy Gravel
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
    Newark:
    “Every Christian has a duty to defend the faith, which includes coming to understand it and determining what action should follow from it, including its application to civil society.”

    Every Christian has a duty to be ready “to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” There is no duty to be reading Supreme Court opinions or to agitate for social change.

    To a Catholic–and many Protestants, “the faith” includes both general and special revelation, both the Bible and “natural law.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law

    If the Bible is short on explications of the natural law, it’s because back before modernity turned philosophy into gibberish, even the merest pagan had some idea of right and wrong

    14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

    Not so easy these days, though. Men and women are interchangable in the sex act, or on the cover of Vanity Fair. All things are created equal, or can be made to be.

    Like

  396. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, the culture was lost when Cookies started to perform.

    When you’re going to slime The Cookies, Dr. Front Porch Quisling, give the link, always give the link! Let the people decide!

    http://squelchers.net/Cookies/Cookies.html

    Wining and dining, the party that’s Washington
    Rome in its glory all belly and thigh
    Gross is the word for the national product
    The Nine make decree and
    The sheep just comply    —“Such Brave Men”

    Baa for us, Butch. Baa-aaaa. 😉

    Like

  398. D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
    “Solid analysis.”

    Code for solid waste.

    Ah, that deadly Darryl Hart pith. Horthpith.
    __________________

    D. G. Hart
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
    Vd, t, how can the state be an enemy of the bible when the chief executive just led a congregation in singing Amazing Grace?

    Your call, Dr. Calvinism: A History. I was appalled, by the singing alone. I wish you wouldn’t wank off on this one, though.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/obama-ditch-religious-convictions-about-same-sex-marriage-already/

    You have been right all along–if not true in the past, the fact now is that the Bible is the enemy of the state and vice-versa. It’s actually your turn to shine.

    Like

  399. D. G. Hart :Vd, t, how can the state be an enemy of the bible when the chief executive (don’t know his Christian faith denomination profession) just led a congregation in singing Amazing Grace?

    and Newark:“Every Christian has a duty to defend the faith,”

    …first within the ‘church’ … Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jude 1:3-4

    and.. immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
    For this reason it says ,“Awake, sleeper, and arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you.” Ephesians 5:3-14

    Like

  400. Zrim,

    THE strategy on debating any social issue with you is to just wind you up, watch you go, and imagine the look on your allies faces.

    You’re the crazy uncle who everyone talks about how they are going to distract him for two days over Thanksgiving so he doesn’t get rolling.

    Now carry on.

    Like

  401. DGH, point taken. You do deal with an impressive amount of material in the book. I do think A Secular Faith is exemplary- rigorous and tightly argued. Ordered the Kindle edition of Lost Soul a few days ago, in fact, so you didn’t lose me with Billy & Sarah– just thought you tried to anchor a valid critique in a non- existent harbor. And maybe it made a difference that I read it while recuperating from a heart attack last December.

    Like

  403. No offense but “A Secular Faith” is “Penthouse Letters” to Van Drunen’s “The Kama Sutra”. Hart’s Machen bio is his best by far.

    Like

  405. Erik, sure. I actually think the gay ‘threat’ is an opportunity to further highlight the distinction between church and state, force us all to better define ourselves along 2k lines, and even provide an opportunity to distinguish the gospel and being a christian from being an american. Good things.

    Like

  406. Erik,

    After reading the love-fest here between you, DGH, and his hind-quarters smooching sycophants, I am left heartbroken at the escalation of this dreadful conflict. It seems as if what we have here is a failure to communicate.

    Seriously, can’t we all just get along?

    Sheesh, it’s not as if Darryl just ran off with Zrim to the Grand Rapids courthouse here… of course I wouldn’t be shocked with Darryl’s love for cats and Zrim’s love for tennis.

    Like

  407. Pound sand, Jedlyn. Don’t talk about my friends that way, you singlet wearing not fooling anyone twink. Can I say twink? I think I can. Urban dictionary: A twink is the gay answer to the blonde bimbo cheerleader. Yes!

    Like

  408. sean
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
    Erik, sure. I actually think the gay ‘threat’ is an opportunity to further highlight the distinction between church and state, force us all to better define ourselves along 2k lines, and even provide an opportunity to distinguish the gospel and being a christian from being an american. Good things.

    Exactly. Let’s see if we can tell the difference with you and Darryl and the rest before and after this. 2K-ers, cowboy up, balls out! Here comes Obama!

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/obama-ditch-religious-convictions-about-same-sex-marriage-already/

    Like

  409. Muddy –

    I. There is no duty to be reading Supreme Court opinions or to agitate for social change.

    I agree with you. Do you agree with me that:

    1) God wants the U.S. government to provide for the public good;
    2) The U.S. government is made up of people (e.g. my father-in-law, sr. government economist in DC);
    3) These people should do good, not evil (individually and collectively);
    4) When the government does evil, we should say something about it to friends and neighbors so that they know they aren’t the only ones with objections (pre-political);
    5) Then we should vote, if the position is elective, for different people (the political);
    6) If we are feeling particularly motivated, we might send government officials’ offices an email;
    7) We could even post our thoughts in a comment box on a blog (pre-political).

    ?

    That is all I’m talking about, particularly with regard to the case of SSM. Surely this is uncontroversial common sense.

    II. Paul was explicitly addressing the gospel. You are addressing law, and civil law at that. You have created some kind of hybrid that you can not attribute to Paul.

    This one’s yours – I agree that’s the purpose of the passage and that I made a misstatement. Too tired to come up with a ‘post-hoc justification.”

    Is this obviously applicable to our current government?:
    For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. […]
    Do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
    for he is God’s servant for your good.

    Like

  412. BTW, as to the substance of the debate, I am with Ron Paul on this one – the state, especially the Federal gov’t should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let each community of faith (or lack thereof) deal with and define their understanding of marriage. It would get each side off of each others throats. If the gays want to get married let them go to the PCUSA or a liberal Episcopal church – or a Bahai temple, and let our conservative ministers and communities continue to operate with our traditional categories of marriage.

    I get the complications with children, and when divorce comes into play, but these hurdles can be overcome. One thing is for certain, gay marriage is here to stay whether we agree with it or not. In many ways the anti-gay marriage activists ended up forcing the issue (e.g. Prop 8), and pretty much ensured that this matter would be solved in the courts, anyone who didn’t see this backfire coming years ago was either willfully ignorant, or dull, or both.

    Like

  414. This was inevitable It’ll be the best thing that ever happened to the whorehouse American church. His winnowing fork in His hand. When it REALLY costs people to play Christian, we’ll see who’s who.

    I can’t wait. When the fires of genuine persecution have purged Christ’s church of the numberless multitude of world loving plastic pretenders, I wanna be in THOSE worship meetings. I WANT that kind of pressure. It will only make me and mine stronger. Always does. All throughout history. I do not want to be on this planet one minute longer than my usefulness to the King of glory.

    Erik. Reading you in this thread is why I can’t give up on you.

    Like

  415. Zrim –

    ~[…] the mass execution of heaven’s most innocent creatures […] Don’t you know heaven will judge you and the nation for not doing enough? Don’t you know every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great?~

    a) Does the scale of abortion not qualify as ‘mass’ (in NYC, more black babies are killed than are born)?

    b) Are they not innocent creatures?

    c) Is human life not created by God and endowed with a soul?

    d) A human soul is equivalent to sperm?

    e) How would God’s judgment be out of line with his judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah?

    f) ‘Enough’ can be simply making your opinion known at work, in casual conversation with strangers should the subject come up, etc. – should you be a relatively normal person, this will have a positive impact.

    Like

  416. Rushdoony did all he could. Van Till and the antithesis. But that’s not enough anymore. It never was.

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/a-real-theocrat

    “There is one other book that can teach you everything you need to know about life… it’s The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, but that’s not enough anymore.”

    ― Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

    Like

  417. Newark, that was the first time in the history of blog comments that anyone has admitted a misstep. Kudos to you. But I’m spent so I’ll reply to your list tomorrow.
    ———
    Hey, why does Jed always get to step in late and be the voice of reason & reconciliation? Opportunist.

    Like

  418. Mark Mcculley
    Posted June 29, 2015 at 12:35 am | Permalink
    Rushdoony did all he could. Van Till and the antithesis. But that’s not enough anymore. It never was.

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/a-real-theocrat

    “There is one other book that can teach you everything you need to know about life… it’s The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, but that’s not enough anymore.”

    ― Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

    Not even a Darryl Hart decoder ring–if one existed–could sort out Rushdoony, Van Til, First Things, Dostoyevsky and Vonnegut.

    Yet somehow you did. Once you realize the Old Life Theological Society is a granfalloon, everything falls into place.

    Like

  420. When the outsiders look like insiders, and inside the insiders there is this one most inside dude who really abides…

    A granfalloon, in the fictional religion of Bokononism is defined as a “false karass” which is a group of people who affect a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless.

    “are you a Hoosier?”
    I admitted I was.
    “I’m a Hoosier, too,” she crowed. “Nobody has to be ashamed of being a Hoosier.”
    “I’m not,” I said. “I never knew anybody who was.”
    – Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle

    Like

  421. sean
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
    Erik, sure. I actually think the gay ‘threat’ is an opportunity to further highlight the distinction between church and state, force us all to better define ourselves along 2k lines, and even provide an opportunity to distinguish the gospel and being a christian from being an american. Good things.>>>>>

    Sean, I wish I could think of this as a “when life hands you lemons, make lemonade” situation. We have not been handed lemons, but something much worse, I fear. The US is not Canada. However, you might be interested in reading about the impact of same sex marriage on our sister country to the north.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

    Like

  422. TVD:
    Exactly. Let’s see if we can tell the difference with you and Darryl and the rest before and after this. 2K-ers, cowboy up, balls out! Here comes Obama!>>>>>

    Indeed! Obama is now theologian in chief.

    BTW, I love The Cookies music, Tom. You guys were excellent.

    http://squelchers.net/Cookies/Cookies.htm

    Obama:
    “Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”

    Like

  424. Susan
    Posted June 29, 2015 at 2:52 am | Permalink
    Tom,

    I will let anyone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the 2K theology/anthropology is the outgrowth of its philosophy of Monocausalism. That’s why they will speak of our inability to change anything.

    Oh my, thank you, Susan. I’ll read this. I was actually making a joke, quoting one of my [non-Cookies] tunes,”In Another 1000 Years.”

    Don’t tell me
    You’re waiting for a better age

    Oh yeah…

    In another 1000 years
    maybe something will change
    In Another 1000 years

    Maybe nothing will change

    In a prayer but the words will change you
    In a prayer
    But the words will break you

    Don’t tell me you
    Think you’ve heard this all before

    Oh yeah…

    Something like that, Susan. In this modern information age, there are so few who have not heard the Word. The rest simply need to be reminded, eh?

    Fantastic link. That these people have the temerity to mock him.

    http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/06/monocausalism-salvation-and.html

    Oh well, that’s the way of the world.

    Like

  426. Jed,

    Didn’t Jason & his brother become Bahai and hit the road to play the hits of England Dan & John Ford Coley?

    No word if they saw Zrim on the Cambodia tour stop…

    Like

  427. Jed,

    It’s my ministry to help some of these guys suck less.

    As I watched several anti-2k ers come here over the years swinging wildly before quickly departing in a huff I often said to myself, “now why didn’t he just say x”.

    I know the regulars here so well that I can make a comment, know their response before they make it, and have my next comment ready.

    Occasionally when they go off script things get worthwhile — and interesting. A few are completely hardwired and probably beyond hope, though.

    Like

  428. Greg, good job bringing the macho bluster. Quiet determination might serve you better if the worst comes, but maybe that ‘help wanted – OT prophet’ sign you’ve been looking for will appear. And that last line to Nightgnat is right out of ‘Brokeback Mountain’. Through with this unficator business — Jed is taking that over.

    Like

  429. Sean,

    Thanks.

    Do you think the OPC should issue similar “pious advice”, as Darryl calls it or just ignore the matter?

    Will Darryl & Muddy oppose the issuance of said pious advice?

    Like

  430. Chortles,

    What’s wrong with “Brokeback Mountain”?

    I thought the point of all this was to show that 2k people were enlightened non-homophobes?

    There’s that poor breeding again…

    Like

  431. I’m mostly just giddy with gladness having a reprieve from nothing but Catholics droning on endlessly. This is like the good old days. May we fight over gay marriage until the day they lock us up and throw away the key!

    Like

  432. Thread has been over since the comment below (from page 5) by cw[th]lu. You all just don’t know it.

    Tell me again what I’m supposed to be doing that I’m not doing to “save the culture”. What does the mythical activity look like? Is it just spouting off and venting outrage in certain predictable cultural and social directions? Is it contributing my voice to the ineffectual echo chamber of Fox News themes, sharing flag-wrapped Facebook memes, supporting all the right interest group teams? I can’t vote more conservative than I already vote. I can’t find a more biblical church than I attend. My two sons are far more conservative at their ages than I was at the same ages – why is that?. Short of Bayly-inspired vigilantism, what do you want? Do I have to support the next Falwell and the next Falwell water slide? Do we dig up D. James Kennedy? Can I just try to act ethically, treat people (all kinds) well through the week, speak well of my church and the reason for its existence, and go to that church twice on Sunday — participating in her odd rites and supporting her as I am able? I work five and half days a week, have a grandson and a bad back. If there’s more I can do please try to slot it for Saturday afternoon and no heavy lifting, please.

    Like

  433. Newark: 1) God wants the U.S. government to provide for the public good;
    MG: God *does* use the government to provide for the public good.

    Newark: 4) When the government does evil, we should say something about it to friends and neighbors so that they know they aren’t the only ones with objections (pre-political);
    MG: This is what some may decide to do. I note that you say “does” evil rather than “fails to proscribe an evil.” There is a wide gulf between the two.

    Newark:
    Is this obviously applicable to our current government?:
    For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. […]
    Do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
    for he is God’s servant for your good.

    MG: I see description, not prescription. I live in a land of substantial order and extensive freedom. I can go to work, raise a family, engage in recreation and practice my religion with minimal interference. Roads are good. My house is not burned to the ground when I leave in the morning. If my house catches on fire a fire truck will soon be there. Criminals of various types are tried, usually by a fair process. If I rob a bank or murder someone at lunch time the rulers will become a terror to you. The government is God’s deacon.

    Like

  436. Going to be an interesting day today in the rest of the world. I’ll check back later to see if you all have finished up your biopsy of the pimple you discovered on the elephants ass.

    Like

  437. CW, I found your mythical activity, FB has a celebratepride color scheme one can fly. You could not do that but instead fly the confederate flag color scheme and that’d mean you’re on god’s side and not the devil’s like you have been.

    Like

  438. I’m going to be busy today and will not have time to defend this, but here’s my statement:

    The main effect of Xian political and social involvement since the late Finney period (the father of the religious right and left in this country) has been the destruction of proper worship and serious doctrine, as in Cane Ridge cooperation to redeem the godless frontier, Fox News papist-evangelical mongrelization, elevation of social-moral issues above the local church, etc.

    Bone thrown.

    Like

  440. Diffident Dan, you can insult me any time if your insult is as good as that one. But, yeah, for the most part I’m going to let everyone else look at the elephant’s ass today.

    Like

  442. Erik, ah, the crazy uncle analogy. So this is what it feels like to be Doug Sowers. But don’t flatter yourself, you’re only a sounding board.

    Like

  443. Kevin, I was being facetious. But the unborn are not innocent, unless by that term you loosely mean weak and defenseless. Sorry to be pedantic on this point, but as a logocentrist I think it’s worth making the distinction. Conservative Calvinists should be more wary in adopting the confusing language of pro-lifers.

    You ask “how would God’s judgment be out of line with his judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah?” It’s out of line because that’s a type of God’s wrath against the sins of the world, which was satisfactorily poured out on Christ at the cross and will come once more on the final day. Anything that suggests God’s judgment comes before that is suggesting contrary to Christ that his judgement is incomplete and/or tied to any particular phenomenon (political, social, etc.) is dangerous because it obscures the gospel under the traditions and interests of men.

    Re enough, that’s all some of us do. But for many pro-lifers, this isn’t nearly sufficient. And that’s because it isn’t about simply being a participant in the conversation. It’s a moralistic cause that reveals who’s faith is genuine and whose isn’t. Robert Bork would come in for severe judgment for sounding so lax:

    “I oppose abortion. But an amazing number of people thought that I would outlaw abortion. They didn’t understand that not only did I have no desire to do that, but I had no power to do it. If you overrule Roe v. Wade, abortion does not become illegal. State legislatures take on the subject. The abortion issue has produced divisions and bitterness in our politics that countries don’t have where abortion is decided by legislatures. And both sides go home, after a compromise, and attempt to try again next year. And as a result, it’s not nearly the explosive issue as it is here where the court has grabbed it and taken it away from the voters.”

    Like

  444. I’ll say before evening Mass was over yesterday, the priest presiding said, President Obama called the SC decision a “win for America”. He went on to say this was not a win for America but a win for evil and that the Churches marriage will not change.

    Next weekend at all Masses after the Scripture reading there is to be a statement read from the local Bishop addressing this issue. I applaud them both. Some here may have the idea that this will have a easy and peaceful transition… I do not have that idea. We already have county clerks being called hypocrites and bigoted here in Texas who refuse to be a part of the paperwork. What happens now to the justice of the peace who refuses. This just became part of the voting platform for JPs. Do they object or not. This is local stuff that just got thrown in our laps. This is not organized rule of law. This is chaos. 2k or not…we should all be able to say that.

    Like

  445. Great quote from Bork, Zrim. Seems like somebody just keeps forgetting the tenth amendment.

    Like

  446. Lester the Nightfly:

    DGH is earning his honorary Canadian credentials on this one. We haven’t had an abortion law on the books since a Jury Nullification 20 or so years ago. And SSM is a “whatever, Dude” issue.

    And the world didn’t fall apart. Except for a few Canadians who published newsletters that made Westboro Baptist seem meek.

    I’m not sure the Usual Suspect/Likely Lad reaction of gleefulness on here over this SCOTUS ruling being the greatest thing in his life for the misery it will cause is a proper stance either. Just adds another abascus bead to the side where I think a woodchipper will be taking in human flesh when he finally goes “TOING….” in his head….

    Like

  448. Here is a nice quote from someone who disagrees that a county clerk or any state employee has the religious right to refuse licenses or to perform them:

    Legally they cannot refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and if they do so, that couple can seek legal remedy: criminal and civil damages against the Clerk who refused as well as the Department officials and the Governor. You want to give it a shot, then go for it. We’d love to see you behind bars and your financial life destroyed because of your bigotry.

    Anybody think there is not a voice for pursecution in the air?

    Like

  449. MTX: It’s hard to legislate on rights for which there is no more of a test than to simply declare that someone possesses certain behavioural preferences.

    Like

  450. Darryl,

    Brandon Eich is the inventor of Javascript (perhaps you heard of it) and a founder of Mozilla. He was promoted to CEO of Mozilla briefly, but when it came to light that he have a $1,000 donation to California’s proposition 8 defining marriage as one man and one woman, he was basically hounded to death to resign:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich

    This despite the fact that he was never known for treating gay coworkers unfairly. He was punished for a political and religious belief.

    My question is what happens when such things become the norm, if they become the norm. Do you think that any Christian currently advocating for a positive biblical view of marriage could get tenure at any secular university, let alone get hired. There are all sorts of stories that Dreher has reported of lawyers not saying anything about their views for fear of getting fired or blacklisted. The California judicial association recently declared that you can’t be a member of it if you are in the Boy Scouts and specifically because of the Boy Scout policy on gay marriage. IOW, you can’t be a judge in California anymore unless you tow the party line.

    This is what I’m talking about. Did you even see the reaction of major corporations on Friday? You’d think they’d all gone gay.

    What happens if such a mentality spreads to more and more institutions. You think the public schools aren’t already enforcing such groupthink? You end up with confessional Christians being shut out from many professions. We already have the arm of the state being used to run little old ladies who run flower shops out of business.

    These aren’t paranoid delusions. I’m no supporter of Fox News and I didn’t vote for Romney. Maybe everybody will go along and get along, but there is a distinct possibility that they won’t.

    Why such a reluctance to even admit the possibility, and what does 2K have to say if that does happen? These are legitimate questions and too many here are sloughing them off. I understand being against the Republican party. I don’t understand thinking that anyone who has a concern is a slave to Fox News or the Christian Right.

    Like

  452. Kent,

    I suspect that Canadian gay activists, being Canadian, won’t bring the fight to the church like American gay activists will.

    We have the best damn gay activists in the world, yo.

    Like

  453. I was trying to figure out DG’s position, so below are most of his comments on this thread.

    Good news – So Po may not be a threat to the OPC after all. I think they’d be surprised and pleased.

    Not sure what the Westfield OPCers would think, though.

    —DG’s position?
    SSM is two steps forward. The only step back is that Christians will
    still object. The government determines what marriage is for US citizens, not the
    Bible. Further, it has the power to determine whether Christian norms
    apply to SSM.

    Live and let live. Let them practice monogamy. SSM follows the
    Christian pattern. It is fidelity.

    Take a pill and chill. The OPC hasn’t evolved. This is a government
    change of policy, and does not touch on morality. Marriage isn’t bliss anyway.

    —DG’s other position
    1 – Kevin, families are good. Gay marriage is bad.

    2 – I don’t favor gay marriage. But I don’t think this is merely a win
    for gays. They may have bitten off more than they can chew. That’s the
    way politics works.

    3 – I don’t approve

    —Is SSM Christian marriage?

    1 – same-sex marriage follows the Christian pattern of one plus one equals
    one. That’s not polygamy. And it is fidelity.

    2 – erik, isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into.

    —Shouldn’t we speak well of (true) marriage?

    1 – I’m sure they will follow heteros in recognizing the weaknesses of
    fidelity to marital vows.

    2 – As if marriage is bliss.

    —Who is really to blame?

    vd, t, come on, blame the ones who were really in charge — the
    popes. If they had reformed the church the Reformers wouldn’t have
    been necessary

    —How are we to react?

    1 – Don’t worry about it – But Christians shouldn’t act like this is
    the end of the world, as if they are the Israelites who have gone into
    exile. We have always been in exile. Don’t act like this is our
    home.

    2 – take a pill and chill lest you become a Bayly Brother

    3 – “Live and let live” – Robert, are you content to live and let live? If not, then why
    should they be?

    —What could we have done to keep this from happening?

    (Radical legal changes are not worth paying attention to):

    ec, I’m concerned every day — about the world, the flesh and the devil. Now you’re
    telling me I only needed to worry about the courts? Who knew?

    —Is the Devil a factor, then?

    (From “Window Shut” – this isn’t an adequately unusual situation, I suppose; let’s not be “exotic”):

    vd, t, I think human depravity is usually sufficient to explain evil in the world. I don’t need it to be exotic to believe in it, or to think that a little Hitler lurks in all of us.

    —Can we find guidance in the Bible?

    1 –ec, I have the stones to say you are clueless. A biblical
    position on a social issue. What is that?

    2 – (no citation provided when asked): kevin, so what did Christ
    and the apostles do? Should we not follow their example?

    —But isn’t the point of having laws to maintain a just moral order?

    ec, read. Politics is not morality

    —Isn’t Homosexuality immoral, and institutionalizing it problematic?

    1 – (from the Dordt containment thread; meant ironically?) – Scripture doesn’t really disapprove of homosexuality any more than it teaches Adam.

    2 – A moral precept is one thing. How to regulate it is another. That’s
    politics 101. But because someone doesn’t agree with you on the
    politics you conclude they don’t agree with you about the morality.

    —But isn’t it possible we’re better off without this unprecedented
    experiment? isn’t homosexuality seriously immoral?

    (As immoral as scotch whiskey, apparently): Say hello to liberalism
    yourself, the kind that considered Machen immoral and libertine for
    not supporting Prohibition.

    —Surely we should act out of love of country, though?
    (from the “2 Paradigms” thread):

    vd, t I hate America because it’s no longer anti-Catholic. We lost our way. And you love the old America. #gofigure

    —This sounds like it might be a change from traditional Christian
    moral teachings, no?

    b, sd, the OPC hasn’t evolved and we are holding steady at 30k. Woot!

    —What should we expect to see in the future?

    1 – Kevin, and what if I became a victim? Wouldn’t that be a good
    thing?

    2 – Being in the minority could be the best thing that happens to
    Christians.

    —So we abandoned a position which protected our families, churches,
    and social institutions – so that we could become victims – in order
    to gain leverage to… win back the same positions we gave up?

    Being oppressed is what gives you leverage

    —What irrelevant issues can we introduce into the conversation to
    get Catholics to drone on endlessly – thereby more easily getting on
    everyone’s do-not-read-list?

    (No response to Q on how alleged idolatry in 2015 (not the 16th
    century) touches on the social order):

    Kevin, we’ve been living with Roman Catholics for how long now? Confessional Protestants
    consider the mass a form of idolatry. So we tolerate a sinful practice. Same goes for tolerating Mormons.

    —And how to discredit the non-Catholics who disagree?

    (Ad hominem):

    1 – ~Why not open a threat at Literate Comments?~

    2 – You’re utterly inconsistent and simply trying to get a rise out of
    people since Literate Comments won’t do it.

    3 – Amish, and watch c, e melt down if you suggest his comments aren’t
    very interesting and should be limited. But heck, at least he’s not bored by Old Life this week. There’s that

    —Might this not give homosexual activists a position to further normalize their sin?

    How can 2 percent of the population become the norm? They can take up 6 minutes of a 22 minute news show.

    — What is the role of religious leaders in interpeting this?

    1 (Everything’s ok after all) – c, e I was merely trying to find some good news in disappointing
    developments so that people wouldn’t go hysterical.

    2 (“You can spin this in lots of ways”) – why would homosexuals, who were historically transgressive, now want to emulate bourgeois norms? You can spin this a lot of ways.

    Like

  454. MTX, what makes someone gay in the eyes of another? Simply saying that you are? Can you pretend you aren’t when it’s convenient? Can you decide some day that you no longer are, or at least won’t “practice” it? Can you pretend you are when you aren’t, just for certain benefits?

    It’s tough to legislate based on such a premise.

    Like

  457. When’s the last time Canadians got excited about anything, save a nice baguette and a Pasolini film festival? They’re too frozen to notice.

    Like

  458. I’m wondering what the conservatives here would have us do. Vote harder? When has voting ever made a positive change? We can’t even totally agree on what the problem is, let alone how to solve it, and so we aren’t even close to a political platform, which bodes very poorly for any concerted action- especially one that has such little effect as voting. I’m not saying we are all doomed, but I’m questioning whether everyone here is sane- if we keep doing the same thing expecting something different.

    Like

  459. When did Canadians get blinkety-blanking angry the last time…. can I get back to you?

    The Pasolini Festival was great. But Greg wouldn’t come up to see Salo, so I also declined to attend that one.

    It’s a good morning, BBC 3 is playing Bruckner’s 8th, a version not quite up to Giulini’s.

    Like

  460. CW says: “The main effect of Xian political and social involvement since the late Finney period (the father of the religious right and left in this country) has been the destruction of proper worship and serious doctrine, as in Cane Ridge cooperation to redeem the godless frontier, Fox News papist-evangelical mongrelization, elevation of social-moral issues above the local church, etc.”
    Much truth but an oversimplification that I don’t have time to defend either.

    Like

  461. Robert, again, what do you want people to do? What show of angst suffices for you?

    Not sure why you feel you have to distance yourself from Romney.

    Do you have no concern that a Christian’s thoughts, attitudes and behavior might be dominated by politics?

    Like

  462. Kent,
    You are right, but in society we do this all the time. Regular marriage would be a prime example. We require a man a nd a woman to jump through all the loops to get the license and a JP or an official minister if some kind to preform the ceremony. We expect the vows to have certain promises for it to be “basic” marriage…death do us part, richer poorer, forsaking all others, etc. Then if they don’t keep those, we in society expect them to start jumping though some other loops at least. In society we can make them act like they are in Holy Matrimony, but we can make it clear we expect it. The same should be regarding homosexual activity. We should have laws that make it clear we do not want it occurring. This makes it easier for those with this weakness to fight the good fight against the desires of the flesh. We all have our own weaknesses. We should not want it easier and more excepable to endulge in sin. We should make virtue encouraged. But who’s virtue is of course the next question. At least let states and local counties settle that instead of the SC.

    Like

  463. Tightie Righties, haven’t you lost virtually every big fight we’ve had in the last 40 years? Not that I blame you for having tried, but does that at all affect your current trumpet call to DO SOMETHING?

    Like

  464. MTX, agreed, but you can’t expect the system to cater to our views under the definition of rights in North America.

    Like

  465. CW –

    Hard to be brief with so many comments to aggregate. Here is the attempt at a faithful summary:

    “—DG’s position?
    SSM is two steps forward. The only step back is that Christians will still object. The government determines what marriage is for US citizens, not the Bible. Further, it has the power to determine whether Christian norms apply to SSM.

    Live and let live. Let them practice monogamy. SSM follows the Christian pattern. It is fidelity.

    Take a pill and chill. The OPC hasn’t evolved. This is a government change of policy, and does not touch on morality. Marriage isn’t bliss anyway. ”

    Accurate or no?

    Like

  466. diff Dan, never take a book about the history of Christianity to bed during recovery.

    I have myself lost some of the mojo of intellectual conservatism that did inform Graham/Palin. But I still like the agnostics like Oakeshott and Mencken who were conservative in their own ways.

    Like

  467. c, e the point of this was to show something different from the BB’s canned response. Now the point is to show something different from the BB’s and c,e.

    Like

  468. Roberto,

    …and what does 2K have to say if…

    Let me relieve your deep angst here – 2k doesn’t say anything, its a quite diverse system for approaching Christ/culture issues. Hart, who has 2k affinities says one thing, Van Drunen says another, as does RS Clark, Horton, Tuininga, etc.,etc. There is no ubiquitous 2k out there haunting theonomist children in their nightmares, just the fundamental distinction between the Kingdom of God and the human kingdom, as well as a distinction in how Christ rules over both… See, didn’t that make everything easier?

    Take two of those and call me in the morning.

    Like

  469. Taking a lunch break. See the biopsy is continuing. Under reported story of the day:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-29/china-stock-futures-jump-in-singapore-after-rate-cut-yuan-drops

    The link’s title is misleading since it was posted based on early morning developments. The headline now reads: China’s Stocks Enter Bear Market as Rate Cut Fails to Stop Rout

    I am not a perma-bear, but there is some truly scary stuff going on out there.

    Like

  470. Robert, we don’t know if they will become the norm. At the same time, contrary to jackass c,e and blowhard vd, t none of knows what to do to prevent them from becoming the norm.

    Until we know what’s going to happen, which we never well, it may be paranoid to worry that this is the new normal.

    Again, what happens if several ministers have to go to jail for not performing a gay marriage, for instance? Will public opinion support that norm? I don’t think so. In fact, I think Christians looking like underdogs would put a different twist on the current situation.

    Like

  471. I’ve been receiving anti-2k hatespeech on the Tweeter lately from culture warriors who blame everything on a tiny sliver (2kers) of a tiny sliver (NAPARC churches minus 98% of the PCA). And that’s just because I link to OL and am known not to hate DGH. I rarely say anything about 2k.

    Like

  473. CW –
    “This is your mind. This is your mind on politics.” Espouse the agenda unequivocally (with passion) or else “whoever is not for us is against us” in a scripture-twisting kind of way.

    Like

  474. Kent,
    you can’t expect the system to cater to our views under the definition of rights in North America.

    I think this is a mistake. I and we can vote for people who have the same view of rights and will put justices in place that view the constitution from an original intent view and who will respect the tenth amendment as relegating anything not enumerated to the federal government as reserved to the states or the people. Deciding who has a right to marry is not in the constitution as a right given to the federal government not who is allowed to be protected from the surgeons knife(abortion).

    How did you like that runon sentence?

    Like

  475. Mud, you must get sufficiently torn up about socio-political issue du jour or you will get torn up by the the torn. But give a rat’s rear about ecclesiology and you’re a divisive basterd (sic).

    Like

  476. MTX, the SCOTUS has been making up its own law based on feelings and emotions since it was founded. It only hurts when it really hurts. It’s horrendous what happened in this decision. Not unpredictable though, and hopefully not a slippery slope to worse perdition.

    The 10th amendment argument goes absolutely nowhere, never has.

    I would hope that Americans would vote for candidates that most represent godly and Bible principles, even if it means 1% better than the next worst of the bunch. But hey, what are you gonna do? The pendulum swings between lawlessness and a return to some form of sanity. You need a Carter to get a Reagan as a response.

    Maybe Canada is just a better and more honest place for getting decent conservative governments in power once in awhile.

    Like

  478. Darryl,

    c, e the point of this was to show something different from the BB’s canned response.

    We have to take it easy on Erik. Nobody, and I mean no-body could stand up to the kind of interrogation that the Bros. Bayly and the Baylybloggers put him through. Whose 2K ideals could stand up to endless days of being duct-taped to a chair in a dark room while contemporary P&W was blaring through the sound system. Between merciless beatings with soap bar filled socks, Bayly would hold him close in a manly embrace as he reassured him that this was all out of love, and that it could all end as soon as he got good and mad enough over gays marrying and Planned Parenthood. Some of us could only last a few hours, Erik was in the bowels of Clearnote for the better part of three weeks before he finally broke.

    While he has clearly become a sleeper agent for the Bros Bayly, we need to have some compassion. It might take months before he is able to enjoy even the most benign PG-13 movie. All this to say, while Erik is so obviously confused, we need to have patience as he slowly nurses back to health.

    Like

  479. DG –

    kevin, thanks for the pretty goodest hits. Brilliantly incoherent. It’s life under the sun.

    Just trying to make sense of your posts. If it truly seemed “brilliantly incoherent” to you, then – how is my summary not what you said?

    I agree with you on Oakeshott, by the way- interesting ideas. I was introduced to his work through a political philosophy class I audited with Roger Scruton at Princeton- I recall Oakeshott’s favorite place to vacation was Avignon.

    Like

  480. Talk about in the closet, P&W music mixed with heavy patriarchy and/or the bio of half the sex offender registry.

    Like

  481. Kent,
    Don’t know where you reside, but here in Texas the tenth amendment is a big deal. We bring suet againt the fed all the time overstuff. I wish more states would join the band wagon. Maybe we could shrink that monstrosity in DC. Only 18 of 254 countys here in TX passed out licenses and both our Gov, Lt Gov and even our A. General said anybody could ignore this ruling if they had a religious objection. We hold freedom of conscience high here.

    Like

  482. MTX, I’m in Toronto, Canada.

    The 10th amendment argument sounds like an attempt to set up the Confederacy again to most people outside of your state… just sayin’

    Like

  483. Kevin in Newark, that was pretty good but your formatting was terrible so I had to re-read to figure out what you were doing there. That would be a pretty good recurring feature if you put together a better format for distinguishing your comments and the quotes from Darryl.

    Like

  485. Darryl,

    Robert, we don’t know if they will become the norm. At the same time, contrary to jackass c,e and blowhard vd, t none of knows what to do to prevent them from becoming the norm.

    I agree.

    Until we know what’s going to happen, which we never well, it may be paranoid to worry that this is the new normal.

    Well, on one level I’m inclined to agree. On another level, have you been paying attention to Canada and other Western countries that are further down the slippery slope?

    “Again, what happens if several ministers have to go to jail for not performing a gay marriage, for instance? Will public opinion support that norm? I don’t think so. In fact, I think Christians looking like underdogs would put a different twist on the current situation.”

    Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it would be wise to at least think about it now. All I’m seeing from some of you is “It can’t happen here.”

    Like

  486. Muddy,

    Robert, again, what do you want people to do? What show of angst suffices for you?

    I’m not actually sure. I’m just trying to find somebody to acknowledge that maybe the discussion is worth having.

    Not sure why you feel you have to distance yourself from Romney.

    Because of Darryl’s crack about Fox News to me a few days ago that I inferred (rightly or wrongly) meant that my concern and the concerns of others are driven by the big bad Political-Religious Right establishment. That’s as bad as others tarring 2-K guys as closet Democrats.

    My concerns have very little to do with what Fox News or the Republicans have to say. That was the point.

    Do you have no concern that a Christian’s thoughts, attitudes and behavior might be dominated by politics?

    Sure I do. Do you have no concern that Christian might be like the proverbial frog in the kettle of water that doesn’t know to jump out before its too late?

    Like

  487. Kent,
    I can see that. To a degree you are right. The difference is that we are intended to be a “confederacy”. States that have voluntarily given certain rights to a united government for the good of us all. The problem is we have people in power that have flipped the constitution on its head and do not see it as a document that has given limited rights to the government and reserved all others to the state and people who allowed it to have its existence and legitimacy. Idiots in the US are voting fir people who do not believe they have the power to set up the US government that we set up in the first place. Many in the beginning were afraid of putting the Bill of Rights in the constitution because they were afraid the federal government would someday get the idea that is was in the business of giving rights. Guess we know they have done that here lately. The problem is they are making those rights and saying they are in the constitution when they aren’t there and “showing/saying” individuals who disagree with those rights are bigoted and backwards. Therefore deserving of poor treatment until changed.

    Like

  488. Muddy Gravel
    Tightie Righties, haven’t you lost virtually every big fight we’ve had in the last 40 years? Not that I blame you for having tried, but does that at all affect your current trumpet call to DO SOMETHING?”
    For the record, this is not me. My call is not to do something. It is, as the scriptures comamnd, to BE something. Saved for instance. That’s the first step. People cannot be what they are not. There ain’t a dimes wortha substantive difference between the average professing American Christan and the average passably happy, middle class American, atheistic pagan. Today’s American church has nothing to offer them that they do not quite legitimately feel that they already have.

    Zero taste for anything vaguely approximating biblical holiness and a torrid slobbering love affair with the world and the things therein. They see no difference between us and them and they’re absolutely right.

    Like

  489. Robert, maybe you find it cavalier but doesn’t there need to be some calibration to off set the Chicken Little routine this has (oh so predictably) caused the larger balance of western Christians to rehearse? What’s your beef with being bandwagon averse?

    Like

  490. Robert, this isn’t a discussion about it? Almost 500 comments. Or is a discussion for you mean to take the Chicken Little party line?

    Like

  491. MTX, I understand, I’m well grounded in Strauss and Voegelin and Jaffa and that bunch….

    I still raise a Spockian eyebrow quite often on Conservative actions…

    Like

  492. johnny – thanks, happy to take advice.

    How does this look to you? (trying underlining)

    Q: Is SSM Christian marriage?
    DG – same-sex marriage follows the Christian pattern of one plus one equals one. That’s not polygamy. And it is fidelity.

    DG – erik, isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into.

    Q: Can we find guidance in the Bible?
    DG –ec, I have the stones to say you are clueless. A biblical position on a social issue. What is that?

    DG – kevin, so what did Christ and the apostles do? Should we not follow their example? – (no citation provided when asked -ckc)

    Formatting suggestions welcome.

    Like

  493. Robert, the flock (and you, and I) needs to know that we obey Caesar unless Caesar compels us to sin. They need to know persecution is par for the course for Christians throughout the ages. They need to know they should not equate spiritual well-being with worldly prosperity. Preaching through the New Testament should have laid down these basics.

    Then maybe churches develop policies on building use and for whom the pastor is willing to marry with an eye on possible litigation which, to me, creates a default that both are restricted to church members. For churches with non-ministerial employees, there should be some thought about liability exposure there. If tax exemptions are threatened, churches with a slim margin for error are going to have to see if it’s possible to be faithful without losing the exemption and/or scrutinize the budget to see what is vital and what is not. It’s still possible that these and similar measures will not have to be taken but it’s probably prudent to get started with such considerations.

    I don’t know what the frog in the kettle illustration is telling me. It sounds like another DO SOMETHING! And I don’t know what jumping out of the kettle means in this context.

    Like

  494. MTX,
    Concerning a confederacy, this is from the ruling in the OP:

    The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

    I think, rather, the Constitution does not permit the State (Federal Gov) to bar states from barring SSM.

    Like

  495. Wait till they get the rights to carry on at old age homes and sanitariums. This won’t be a discourse of reason between Castorp and Settembrini and Naphtha.

    Like

  496. For all the breathless here, did it *just* occur to you this week that this could happen? If so, on what planet have you been for the last several years?

    Like

  497. Walton,
    Think I get you just right.

    Kent,
    Here is the type of thing that should be happening in US state:
    AUSTIN — The Texas Senate Republican Caucus today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s unsound ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

    “The Constitution of the State of Texas preserves the definition of marriage in our great state as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

    This definition directly expresses the sovereign will of the people of Texas, who overwhelmingly ratified its text when exercising the right to vote on this sacred issue.

    The Texas Senate reaffirmed this definition during the 84th Legislative Session by passing Senate Resolution 1028. This resolution includes a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution of our state and the principles that are so dearly held by Texans far and wide.

    Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an affront to the Texas Constitution, the United States Constitution, the founding principles of our nation, and the democratic voting process.

    As the dissenting Justices acknowledged, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.” They continued, “It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question.”

    This extreme judicial overreach from our nation’s highest court is intolerable. The Texas Senate Republican Caucus will support the Texas Attorney General in any legal action he may take to defend the religious liberty of Texans in the wake of this troubling decision.”

    For more information about the Texas Senate Republican Caucus, visit texassenate.gop.

    Lt. Governor Patrick Statement on Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

    AUSTIN – Today, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick makes the following statement regarding the United States Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage:

    “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is not a decision based on any law that Congress has passed legalizing gay marriage in the United States. The Supreme Court, as it has in the past, is making law. I do not believe that is what the Constitution intended or allows. In my view, this is a clear violation of the separation of powers.

    Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

    “Nearly 75 percent of all Texans voted to place in our state Constitution that, in Texas, marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. If Congress wants to pass a law legalizing marriage in the United States, it would never pass. However, the Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves, by the margin on one vote, to create law and override the will of the people of 14 states.

    “In a 5 — 4 vote today supporting gay marriage as the law of the land, the Supreme Court has once again ruled in a manner that I believe is not only unconstitutional but threatens to undermine the First Amendment protections from government interfering with the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment, which reads:

    Amendment I:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    “Now, more than ever, we must ensure that faithful Texans be afforded their religious liberty protections. During this past session the Senate passed SB 2065, which was signed by the Governor, that protects pastors from having to perform a marriage between two people of the same sex if it goes against their religious beliefs.

    “Yesterday, I sent a request to Texas Attorney General Paxton for a legal opinion on the protection of religious liberty rights of Texans guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of same sex marriage, as they did today. My request broadens the scope of SB 2065 to include County Clerks, judges and Justices of the Peace who may be forced to issue a marriage license or preside over a wedding that is against the free exercise of their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    “It has been said that those who oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. I would rather be on the wrong side of history than on the wrong side of my faith and my beliefs. I believe I am not alone in that view in this country.

    “May God continue to bless our country and the great state of Texas.”

    Brady Statement on US Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage

    Washington, DC – Today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned traditional marriage laws and constitutional amendments nationwide. U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), a pro-family conservative, issued the following statement:

    “My strong, sincerely-held belief is that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court should have upheld the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, and left this principled issue to the voters and their elected representatives in each state.”

    BACKGROUND: In a sharply divided 5-4 decision, The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment requires all states issue a marriage license to same sex couples and recognize out of state same sex marriages. Ten years ago, Texas voters overwhelming voted to add an amendment to the Texas Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

    Republican Party of Texas Statement on U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

    “I’m disappointed that the rule of law and respect for the moral fabric of America has been cast aside by U.S. Supreme Court today. It’s a harrowing day in America when unelected judges have the power to upend an institution that has been widely recognized as a virtuous force in society. This decision is just another example of Washington DC elites ruling against the will of the American people and usurping power from the states. In light of today’s ruling, the fight for religious liberty continues, and the Republican Party of Texas will continue to work with our elected Republican leaders to protect the freedom of Texans to exercise their religious beliefs.”

    – Chairman Tom Mechler, Republican Party

    Like

  498. kent – MTX, I understand, I’m well grounded in Strauss and Voegelin and Jaffa and that bunch…

    Hey Kent – Did you know Harry J? He was one my teachers as an undergrad and a grad student and a good friend. A great political thinker (in the Aristotelian sense) and very interesting on Aquinas. He was very influential on my thesis on Aristotle’s idea of statesmanship. We disagreed on some obvious things because of my faith but he was a great guy and an amazing teacher.

    Like

  499. No opinions on whether the summary is Darryl’s position, or is it not interesting?

    CW and Johnny said the formatting was problematic, so I’ll re-post for posterity (e.g., the NSA’s Idaho data center).

    Underlining didn’t work, will try bold.

    Q* – using to indicate the question wasn’t necessarily explicitly asked beforehand (a post-hoc question, if you like).

    Like

  501. (Formatting improved- Q* is a post-hoc question)

    I was trying to figure out DG’s position, so below are most of his comments on this thread.

    Good news – So Po may not be a threat to the OPC after all. I think they’d be surprised and pleased.

    Not sure what the Westfield OPCers would think, though.

    Q*: DG’s position?
    SSM is two steps forward. The only step back is that Christians will still object. The government determines what marriage is for US citizens, not the Bible. Further, it has the power to determine whether Christian norms apply to SSM.

    Live and let live. Let them practice monogamy. SSM follows the Christian pattern. It is fidelity.

    Take a pill and chill. The OPC hasn’t evolved. This is a government change of policy, and does not touch on morality. Marriage isn’t bliss anyway.

    Q*: DG’s other position?
    DG – Kevin, families are good. Gay marriage is bad.

    DG – I don’t favor gay marriage. But I don’t think this is merely a win for gays. They may have bitten off more than they can chew. That’s the way politics works.

    DG – I don’t approve

    Q*: Is SSM Christian marriage?
    DG – same-sex marriage follows the Christian pattern of one plus one equals one. That’s not polygamy. And it is fidelity.

    DG – erik, isn’t monogamy Christian? That’s what gays have lurched into.

    Q*: Shouldn’t we speak well of (true) marriage?
    DG – I’m sure they will follow heteros in recognizing the weaknesses of fidelity to marital vows.

    DG – As if marriage is bliss.

    Q*: Who is really to blame?
    DG – vd, t, come on, blame the ones who were really in charge — the popes. If they had reformed the church the Reformers wouldn’t have been necessary

    Q*: How are we to react?
    DG – But Christians shouldn’t act like this is the end of the world, as if they are the Israelites who have gone into exile. We have always been in exile. Don’t act like this is our home. – (Don’t worry about it? -ckc)

    DG – take a pill and chill lest you become a Bayly Brother

    DG – Robert, are you content to live and let live? If not, then why should they be? – (“Live and let live” -ckc)

    Q*: What could we have done to keep this from happening?
    DG – ec, I’m concerned every day — about the world, the flesh and the devil. Now you’re telling me I only needed to worry about the courts? Who knew? – (So Radical legal changes are not worth paying attention to? -ckc)

    Q*: Is the Devil a factor, then?
    DG – vd, t, I think human depravity is usually sufficient to explain evil in the world. I don’t need it to be exotic to believe in it, or to think that a little Hitler lurks in all of us. – (From “Window Shut” – this isn’t an adequately unusual situation, I suppose; let’s not be “exotic” -ckc).

    Q*: Can we find guidance in the Bible?
    DG –ec, I have the stones to say you are clueless. A biblical position on a social issue. What is that?

    DG – kevin, so what did Christ and the apostles do? Should we not follow their example? – (no citation provided when asked twice -ckc)

    Q*: But isn’t the point of having laws to maintain a just moral order?
    DG – ec, read. Politics is not morality

    Q*: Isn’t Homosexuality immoral, and institutionalizing it problematic?
    DG – Scripture doesn’t really disapprove of homosexuality any more than it teaches Adam. – (from the Dordt containment thread; meant ironically? -ckc)

    DG – A moral precept is one thing. How to regulate it is another. That’s politics 101. But because someone doesn’t agree with you on the politics you conclude they don’t agree with you about the morality.

    Q*: But isn’t it possible we’re better off without this unprecedented experiment? isn’t homosexuality seriously immoral?
    DG – Say hello to liberalism yourself, the kind that considered Machen immoral and libertine for not supporting Prohibition. – (As immoral as scotch whiskey, apparently -ckc).

    Q*: Surely we should act out of love of country, though?
    DG – vd, t I hate America because it’s no longer anti-Catholic. We lost our way. And you love the old America. #gofigure – (from the “2 Paradigms” thread -ckc).

    Q*: This sounds like it might be a change from traditional Christian moral teachings, no?
    DG – b, sd, the OPC hasn’t evolved and we are holding steady at 30k. Woot!

    Q*: What should we expect to see in the future?
    DG – Kevin, and what if I became a victim? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
    DG – Being in the minority could be the best thing that happens to Christians.

    Q*: So we abandoned a position which protected our families, churches, and social institutions – so that we could become victims – in order to gain leverage to… win back the same positions we gave up?
    DG – Being oppressed is what gives you leverage

    Q*: What irrelevant issues can we introduce into the conversation to get Catholics to drone on endlessly – thereby more easily getting on everyone’s do-not-read-list?
    DG – Kevin, we’ve been living with Roman Catholics for how long now? Confessional Protestants consider the mass a form of idolatry. So we tolerate a sinful practice. Same goes for tolerating Mormons. – (No response to Q on how alleged idolatry in 2015 (not the 16th century) touches on the social order -ckc).

    Q*: And how to discredit the non-Catholics who disagree?
    (Ad Hominem -ckc):
    DG – Why not open a threat at Literate Comments?

    DG – You’re utterly inconsistent and simply trying to get a rise out of people since Literate Comments won’t do it.

    DG – Amish, and watch c, e melt down if you suggest his comments aren’t very interesting and should be limited. But heck, at least he’s not bored by Old Life this week. There’s that

    Q*: Might this not give homosexual activists a position to further normalize their sin?
    DG – How can 2 percent of the population become the norm? They can take up 6 minutes of a 22 minute news show.

    Q*: What is the role of religious leaders in interpeting this?
    DG – c, e I was merely trying to find some good news in disappointing developments so that people wouldn’t go hysterical. – (Everything’s ok after all -ckc).

    DG – why would homosexuals, who were historically transgressive, now want to emulate bourgeois norms? You can spin this a lot of ways.

    Like

  502. I’m growing increasingly convinced that Darryl is pulling a Phil Hendrie with EC. It’s 50/50 that EC was a real person before he left, but his return character is 100% Darryl. I was fooled for a while but the character has become too absurd to be a real person. Brilliant stuff.

    Like

  503. MichaelTX – Yes, that is exactly what Texas should be doing – defending their prerogatives under the Constitution and reflecting the will of the people who elected them. I wish more states would do the same.

    Like

  505. How long is Texas going to continue electing GOP and sensible Dems to office? Can’t be more than a decade before it all breaks loose and the worst of the trash becomes the #1 voting bloc, as it has in basically every other major state.

    Like

  508. Kevin in Newark
    Posted June 29, 2015 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
    No opinions on whether the summary is Darryl’s position, or is it not interesting?
    .

    Not really. A combination of Jim Wallis, a Magic 8-Ball, and Pee Wee Herman.

    At least the questions made sense. ;l-)

    http://www.ask8ball.net/

    Like

  509. O.K. So now I’m thoroughly convinced that the over/under on closeted gay men here is AT LEAST 4. Thou dost all protest much too loudly.

    This explains so much. Cats, Subarus, fashion choices a straight man would never make, affinity for “The Carpenters”, yoga, biking shorts. It all makes sense now.

    As far as TV viewing goes, how is MSNBC since Brian Williams came over?

    Now back to planet straight…

    Like

  510. Hmm. This blog is a surprise every minute.

    Pity Machen is impeded from commenting.

    Back-at-it, I guess.

    Like

  512. Chortles – The main effect of Xian political and social involvement since the late Finney period (the father of the religious right and left in this country) has been the destruction of proper worship and serious doctrine, as in Cane Ridge cooperation to redeem the godless frontier, Fox News papist-evangelical mongrelization, elevation of social-moral issues above the local church, etc.

    TN – Correlation is not causation.

    For much of the history of evangelicalism, evangelicals were apolitical.

    Ask Darryl.

    Like

  513. Muddy,

    I hear your case on government providing stability and good things, but one could make the argument that we’ve been bought off.

    “Hey, I’m rich and well fed, so who cares about the moral rot going on all around me.”

    This is why Greg welcomes persecution. I understand what he’s saying, although I don’t hope for it.

    Like

  514. Zrim – Erik, ah, the crazy uncle analogy. So this is what it feels like to be Doug Sowers. But don’t flatter yourself, you’re only a sounding board.

    TN – You practice the crazy on me and then unleash it on others?

    Your poor wife and kids…

    Like

  515. Robert,

    The true believers here could be living with their wife and kids on top of a parking garage with Yeazel as their neighbor and still not admit that they may have been wrong. Their ideology won’t allow it.

    Try talking to reasonable people as opposed to the 5-6 living on 2K Fantasy Island.

    Talk to a 25 year old. These guys run as officers will be over within 20 years (and oddballs like Zrim — and me — when I was a candidate — can’t get elected to office anyway. Most P&R people wisely run the other way).

    Like

  516. Darryl – Again, what happens if several ministers have to go to jail for not performing a gay marriage, for instance? Will public opinion support that norm? I don’t think so. In fact, I think Christians looking like underdogs would put a different twist on the current situation.

    TN – Buzz, wrong answer.

    What’s our ongoing critique here of evangelicalism and the PCA? It’s an inch deep.

    So what happens when even a little persecution comes? Evangelicalism drops from 30% to 10-15% of the population in short order.

    And who cares what happens to a relatively small number of unenlightened bigots who have it coming because they won’t change their retrograde ways?

    We’ll have a lot of “spiritual but not religious”, as in, “man, there’s no way I’m being identified with a church. I like my life, my job, and my things way too much”, but those folks won’t be a danger to anyone.

    The next 20 years are going to be interesting, indeed.

    Like

  517. Zrim –

    I’m with you on linguistic precision (in intention, at least) – “logocentrism” is new to me- do you see a relation of it to Logos in a biblical sense, or is it of interest just within literary (or rhetorical) theory?

    Thank you for your distinction between a judgment of Sodom & Gomorrah and a hypothetical judgment of, say, Las Vegas. I will consider it.

    It’s a moralistic cause that reveals who’s faith is genuine and whose isn’t.
    Likewise with Prohibition or the Civil Rights Movement?

    And you say “for many pro-lifers” – what is the maximum one could do to qualify as a “pro-lifer” but not fall into “a moralistic cause”? Surely something beyond just voting.

    Like

  518. Jed,

    See if I ever defend you from a Darrell Todd Maurina expose’ again.

    Where’s the love?

    Like

  519. EC,

    How far back are you tracking evangelicalism when you say it has been apolitical for most of its history? Religious historians usually track it back to the antebellum period. The general narrative is that evangelicalism has been quite political since the 1840s. Richard Carwardine’s EVANGELICALS AND POLITICS IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICA (1993) is a good place to start on this topic.

    Like

  520. Kent,
    I guess we will see. I’m not attached to the GOP surgically. I am attached to educating my kids in a biblical world view that would vote the way I most likely would vote. I most likely am turning my into six. Not sure how many of my kids will will be blessed to have at least my size family, but if they get close I will have them my voting block into thirty in one generation. Like I said we will have to just see how it goes. Abraham started small too. His descendants have transformed the world.

    Like

  521. Muddy – For all the breathless here, did it *just* occur to you this week that this could happen? If so, on what planet have you been for the last several years?

    TN – Darryl started it.

    I think he’s admitting, though, that he was pretty much just pulling our chains.

    Which raises the question of why he’s being so defensive if he was just pulling our chains.

    Pull chains, get predictable response, get offended at predictable response.

    That doesn’t make sense.

    So maybe he wasn’t actually pulling our chains but telling us what he really thinks.

    Like

  522. Kevin – No opinions on whether the summary is Darryl’s position, or is it not interesting?

    TN – Pretty convinced that DARRYL doesn’t know what his position is. How can anyone else?

    Like

  524. Sorry for so many comments in a row. Lots to cover.

    How about respecting the screen name? I’m honoring a family member’s wish. I know a lot of your names, but refrain from using them.

    The NIghtfly, TN, Fly, or Donald Fagen will all work.

    Like

  525. The Nightfly
    Posted June 29, 2015 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    We’ll have a lot of “spiritual but not religious”, as in, “man, there’s no way I’m being identified with a church. I like my life, my job, and my things way too much”, but those folks won’t be a danger to anyone.

    There it is.

    FREE SPEECH AND DISCRIMINATION DUE TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
    Christian fired for refusing sex therapy to homosexual couples.

    “The next hearing will be this Thursday, when Christian relationship counselor Gary McFarlane will appeal his firing for refusing sex therapy to homosexual couples. Last week, Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin lost her appeal to wear a crucifix around her neck in hospital wards.”
    http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/04/discrimination.html

    Fla. Teacher Suspended for Posting Anti-Gay Marriage Views on Facebook
    “‘It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,’ Buell told Fox.”

    “Chris Patton, a communications officer for the school system, told Fox there was concern about how Buell might treat gay students in his class. He also disputed the notion that the comments were private.

    “He has [more than] 700 friends,” Patton said. “How private is that – really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm – it’s not private.”

    He vowed Buell will not return to the classroom until “a thorough job of looking at everything – past or previous writings” is complete.
    http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=28314aze.com/stories/fla-teacher-suspended-for-posting-anti-gay-marriage-views-on-facebook/

    School suspends a black woman who objected to the idea that homosexuality is a civil right.
    “The University of Toledo has taken action against an administrator that has aroused concern over free-speech violations. The victim is the school’s associate vice president of human resources, Crystal Dixon, who wrote to a local newspaper in response to an article that claimed homosexuals to be victims of civil rights abuses. In the letter, Dixon — who is black — objected to the article’s claim that homosexual civil rights are being trampled on. In her view, civil rights and homosexuality do not fit into the same box.”

    Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America is outraged that the University of Toledo would suspend her over the letter….the entire incident is “inappropriate and has a chilling effect on free speech.”
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=110624

    Texas School punishes Christian teen for voicing his opinion against homosexuality
    “An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong… Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and “being a homosexual is wrong.” “It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,” Dakota told Fox. “I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/

    University removes Christian from counseling program due to his belief that homosexuality is immoral
    Article Titled: Is Discrimination Against Christians Legal? 7/20/2010. “A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.”
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-discrimination-against-christians-legal/

    GAY ACTIVISTS ON THE ATTACK
    Attacking Christian Charities
    ‘Gay’ activists kill cash sources for Christian charities. Internet-based campaigns scare away corporate donors with ‘hate group’ charge
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=339641#ixzz1XLBuQpkr

    Bricks thrown through door and windows of Christian facility
    “Police are searching for the culprits who threw concrete bricks through the door and windows of a Christian facility in Illinois as it prepared for a banquet for a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda….LaBarbera notes that a left-wing website with a letter from a group of homosexuals taking credit for the attack warns that more will follow if the host site for the banquet does not disassociate from its featured speaker, Scott Lively, and AFTAH.
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1461944

    Pressuring Paypal.com to not handle traditional value groups
    “Homosexual activists are pressuring PayPal to not handle donations made to groups that promote traditional values…Founder Peter LaBarbera [of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality] refers to it as “homofascism in action,” as it asks people to stop financially supporting Christian groups, which the homosexual activists refer to as “hate groups.”
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1433084

    “PayPal officially states that its users “may not use the PayPal service for activities that […] promote hate, violence, racial intolerance” but PayPal has become a favorite payment service for anti-LGBT extremists all over the world. PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate.
    http://allout.org/en/actions/paypal

    Like

  526. Pingback: Impressive

  527. Chortles,

    When you equate being political with not being concerned about proper worship & serious doctrine, what do you do with?

    Carl McIntire, Francis Schaeffer, and the Bible Presbyterians? Concerned about both.

    Theonomists in the OPC. Concerned about both. Muddy has some in his congregation — serious Christians and Republican activists.

    The Dutch Reformed. Concerned about both (Sioux County & Marion County, Iowa – highly Dutch, 70-80%+ serious republican) – I know proper worship is slipping in the CRC & RCA. Ask Greg about Van Til. Many in the URCNA are concerned about Belgic 36 (enough to get an overture to Synod that is still alive).

    The Southern Baptist Convention – political, but pretty serious about worship, and even somewhat Calvinistic in some circles.

    The CREC – Concerned about both.

    Roman Catholics, many of whom are concerned about both, although we say all get worship wrong and some get politics wrong.

    I do think your analysis seems overly simplistic.

    Like

  528. Chortles,

    And without overly kicking Tullian while he’s down, who was better for Coal Ridge Presbyterian Church – highly political D. James Kennedy or apolitical Tullian?

    Like

  529. Erik, whatever you may have had you have surely lost it. The SBC is serious about worship? Are you freaking kidding me? And Kennedy (as much he caused an inflow of air by creating a condition of negative pressure) was ten times the churchman that Tools is/was. You are pulling stuff from an orifice. And it does not smell so good.

    Like

  530. Chortles,

    But your point is that overly political = poor churchman

    How can Kennedy be highly political and an excellent churchman?

    You’re contradicting your own argument.

    SBC is what, 12 million? You’ll find lots of serious Christians there. I know literally hundreds where I live.

    Like

  531. SBC I largely grew up in was only mildly political, two services on Sunday, biblical preaching, two sacraments (I know, Zrim thinks they’re as bad as murderers for getting baptism wrong), no women in office, reasonable church discipline.

    I would go back there today before I went to the CRC & RCA in town (because of women in office).

    Like

  532. Chortles,

    Tell me what elements of worship you disagree with in a conservative Southern Baptist Church that still sings hymns.

    What would a contemporary PCA have on them?

    Like

  533. Gnatty Bumpo, you missed my point. It was that social and political activism at a church level (it started with pietistic social causes and became more political, right and left) fueled by pietism always distracts the the church from…the church. The ruin of Lutheranism in Scandinavia was pietism which usually morphs into liberalism or gives the more serious, literalistic wing a bad name. Arguably, you can blame Lutheran pietism for the socialist welfare state in the Nordic countries which now have no use for Xianity. And how did Kuyperiansm leave the Netherlands? Amsterdam anyone? Machen saw that much of mainline protestantism’s late 18fth/early 19th c. program was anti-immigrant, America firstism. And Schaeffer helped give us Keller whose lasting gift will be the next cadre of liberal presbys.

    Like

  534. Gnatboy, you have become an actual clown.

    Tell me what elements of worship you disagree with in a conservative Southern Baptist Church that still sings hymns. What would a contemporary PCA have on them?

    SBC: No call to worship, no confession of faith, no confession of sin, no declaration of pardon, vapid how-to preaching, semi-pelagian doctrine, entertainment-driven “worship” — and a couple of “hymns” (usually Fanny Crosby or somesuch tripe) = good worship? Not a psalm in sight.

    And even bad PCA churches often have something like a decent liturgy and their pastors often have a decent education and basic commitments to much of Westminster doctrine.

    Like

  535. To the SBC catalog of suck let me add little or no scripture reading, infrequent communion, age segregation, little if any prayer. I’ve been recently. I’m in the south and I know what the SBC has done and is doing. And Ed Stetzer’s beard.

    Like

  536. Chortles – It was that social and political activism at a church level (it started with pietistic social causes and became more political, right and left) fueled by pietism always distracts the the church from…the church

    TN – Wasn’t Kennedy politically active at the church level while Tullian was not?

    Was Kennedy’s activism fueled by pietism or something else?

    You’ve conceded his church was healthier than Tullian’s.

    What goofed up Tullian’s if it wasn’t politics?

    Chortles – The ruin of Lutheranism in Scandinavia was pietism which usually morphs into liberalism or gives the more serious, literalistic wing a bad name. Arguably, you can blame Lutheran pietism for the socialist welfare state in the Nordic countries which now have no use for Xianity.

    TN – Hasn’t the hissy fit here the past few days been over right wing politics, though? Who is concerned about liberal politics in conservative P&R churches on the topic of gay marriage?

    Chortles – And how did Kuyperiansm leave the Netherlands? Amsterdam anyone?

    TN – Not an expert on Dutch history. You can flesh that one out more. As I notes above, The Dutch who came to the U.S. from before & after Kuyper’s generation are overwhelmingly Republican.

    Chortles – Machen saw that much of mainline protestantism’s late 18fth/early 19th c. program was anti-immigrant, America firstism.

    Erik – I thought Machen was a libertarian? You’re for open immigration and heavy foreign involvement?

    Chortles – And Schaeffer helped give us Keller whose lasting gift will be the next cadre of liberal presbys.

    Erik – You’ll have to make the Schaeffer/Keller link for me. Keller cites everyone but Malcolm X (and probably him) as an inspiration. Schaeffer was not a political liberal from what I know of him.

    Like

  537. Who cares about Tools. He’s the religious equivalent of a trustfunder, a case of arrested development. You’re too worried about right and left. It’s the pietistic-revivalist-fix everything-God and country impulse and it knows no party.

    Like

  538. Kevin, surely. Maybe quietly operate a PRC that distances itself from political activism and funding because it wants to actually help women and their families more than fight culture war. How’s that for a crazy uncle?

    Like

  539. Chortles,

    What is the extent of your firsthand experience in SBC’s?

    I’m pretty sure Piper’s not in the SBC, but you would make all of the same criticisms of him as a Baptist? Of Mark Dever?

    How do you know how much Scripture SBC’s read?

    How much more infrequent is SBC communion than many P&R churches?

    You know for a fact that Baptist Hymnals contain no Psalms?

    P&R Sunday schools & youth groups don’t practice age segregation?

    The SBC doesn’t operate several seminaries?

    You can make those sweeping generalizations about a church of over 12 million?

    I think you’re overreaching on several counts.

    If liturgy is the end-all, be-all of a church, you would worship in a CRC or RCA before a SBC? How about a PCUSA that was still liturgical?

    Like

  540. cw l’unificateur
    Posted June 29, 2015 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
    Gnatty Bumpo, you missed my point. It was that social and political activism at a church level (it started with pietistic social causes and became more political, right and left) fueled by pietism always distracts the the church from…the church. The ruin of Lutheranism in Scandinavia was pietism which usually morphs into liberalism or gives the more serious, literalistic wing a bad name. Arguably, you can blame Lutheran pietism for the socialist welfare state in the Nordic countries which now have no use for Xianity. And how did Kuyperiansm leave the Netherlands? Amsterdam anyone? Machen saw that much of mainline protestantism’s late 18fth/early 19th c. program was anti-immigrant, America firstism. And Schaeffer helped give us Keller whose lasting gift will be the next cadre of liberal presbys.

    Chortles: Thith hath pith.

    But I would posit that political engagement of the recent right-wing stripe may not have the same diluting effect as the left-wing socialist kind. I’d guess that being pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, etc. might bind one more to one’s church, because Biblical morality has no home outside one’s church–unlike theological liberalism, where you can dump the Christ stuff for Hillary and Barney the Dinosaur and still keep your friends.

    I could be wrong, of course, but Beatitudism matches up well with secular humanism whereas Biblical morality has no secular home.

    Like

  541. Chortles – It’s the pietistic-revivalist-fix everything-God and country impulse and it knows no party.

    TN – Any distinction between the desire to uphold the Law of God faithfully in the public square out of love of neighbor and what you describe?

    Like

  542. Crazy Uncle – Maybe quietly operate a PRC that distances itself from political activism and funding because it wants to actually help women and their families more than fight culture war.

    TN – You can’t do both?

    The biggest fallacy around here is either/or thinking that goes unchallenged.

    Maybe some people in the church are political and some are not. Both can do positive things.

    Maybe some pastors are political and some are not. Both can do positive things.

    Who says it all has to be your way?

    Like

  543. Tom – I’d guess that being pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, etc. might bind one more to one’s church, because Biblical morality has no home outside one’s church

    TN – Tom, the scary thing about that, though, is that those people might have lots of kids, maybe homeschool them or send them to Christian school, teach them patriotism, American history, and the Constitution, and then they might become politically active as adults in addition to being Christians.

    All that horrible stuff…

    Like

  545. One beautiful byproduct of what I’m doing is that Tom is freed up to be the Tom I’ve appreciated in private conversation.

    People are so busy giving me s**t that he’s freed up to relax and just converse because the whiny butts have someone else to pick on.

    If for no other reason than that, this has been worth it.

    Like

  546. here is a little quote from it:

    The discourses he wrote which gave rise to the terms “Platonic love” or “Platonic relationship” were actually advocating non-sexual friendships between men. Male-to-male eroticism was widely practiced among elite Greek men in Plato’s day; in fact, it was assumed that the ideal love relationship between to human beings was not between a husband and wife, but between an older man and younger (usually adolescent) man.

    Plato didn’t really care for sexual acts between men, because he regarded sexual desire and passion essentially as an irrational appetite that had little to nothing to do with true love. If men loved each other, in Plato’s view, they ought to form a friendship founded on a common commitment to seek out truth, beauty, and virtue —not perform sexual acts with each other.

    Like

  547. Love it Night Fly.

    TN – Tom, the scary thing about that, though, is that those people might have lots of kids, maybe homeschool them or send them to Christian school, teach them patriotism, American history, and the Constitution, and then they might become politically active as adults in addition to being Christians.

    All that horrible stuff…

    Sounds like what I do on my hill.

    Like

  548. Not me, Nightfly, The. But I don’t go in for the “everybody’s a winner” philosophy and vie for what I think is a better way, and I say it’s better to be skeptical of political causes and work in more human ways. But go ahead and disagree, it’s a free country and a Reformed church.

    Like

  549. Micheal, if you go through Plato’s dialogues there is innuendo about sex between men and boys. Don’t know how your source missed it.

    Like

  550. One more and I’m done.

    – What is the extent of your firsthand experience in SBC’s?

    Raised in it, active in it for years, still know deacons and pastors, visit my parents’ SBC, have read baptist history, have insured baptist churches, was involved in SBC Calvinist movement, follow it, interact with them. Shall I go on?

    -I’m pretty sure Piper’s not in the SBC, but you would make all of the same criticisms of him as a Baptist? Of Mark Dever?

    You pick out a famous example — a mixed bag in Piper, and one of the better ones in Dever. Both pal with other celebs and are ultimately not real churchmen. Many more criticisms of Piper than Dever.

    -How do you know how much Scripture SBC’s read?

    I’ve been to services, I watch them on TV, I read orders of worship. It’s a fact. I introduced scripture readings at my old SBC church and little old ladies still stop me, thank me, and tell me how much the miss them.

    -How much more infrequent is SBC communion than many P&R churches? There’s not one in a hundred that are more frequent than quarterly and one of those often gets tossed. Even most PCA churches are monthly now.

    -You know for a fact that Baptist Hymnals contain no Psalms?

    Well, I have one and none are presented as such. They have some Watts which are loosely psalms. I know they don’t sing them. Most would choke on their gum or cough drops.

    -P&R Sunday schools & youth groups don’t practice age segregation?

    Some do to their great shame

    -The SBC doesn’t operate several seminaries?

    Yeah and they produced such leading lights as Steven Furtick and Ed Young, Jr.

    -You can make those sweeping generalizations about a church of over 12 million?

    Yes, and I did. You don’t know what you are talking about. You earlier this week admitted that you used to watch four movies each Saturday and Sunday. That’s what most armchair ecclesiologists do, right?

    -If liturgy is the end-all, be-all of a church (cw -it’s not), you would worship in a CRC or RCA before a SBC? How about a PCUSA that was still liturgical?

    I actually might. Sue me.

    Like

  551. The bottom line here is that we have a group of basically good guys — all somewhat disaffected, all somewhat oddballs — who have gathered around a similar guy who has published a lot of books and has a certain amount of notoriety in circles they are attracted to. They are bonded together through shared stories, shared inside jokes, shared things that annoy them. Whenever an outsider comes along who threatens them they gang up on that person, Christian ethics and decency go by the wayside, and it goes on because no one in the group is willing to speak out. It’s groupthink centered on a cult of personality.

    I was a part of it, I saw it from the inside, I got burned, I deserved to get burned, I got out.

    I still like the debate for my own reasons (basically because I like debate), but people need to know what they’re dealing with. It’s mostly harmless, but it is what it is.

    Like

  554. Chortles,

    My experience is pretty similar to Dever. Academic community. Not bad overall. I’m not a Baptist but I think a lot of the critiques coming from P&R circles are way overblown. They fight way less than we do.

    Like

  555. Chortles – You don’t know what you are talking about. You earlier this week admitted that you used to watch four movies each Saturday and Sunday. That’s what most armchair ecclesiologists do, right?

    TN – Pretty low blow. I spent roughly 15 years in an SBC.

    If you want to match wits and brains, bring it on hillbilly. I thought you were better than that.

    Like

  556. Chortles,

    And if you want to demagogue on movies, join Greg and take Darryl, Sean, and Kent to task.

    You might still have some fundy slip showing.

    Like

  557. Nightfly, The, such penetrating insight but if you’re so above it all then why do you linger so? Real leaf turning would look like complete absence. You’re continued presence and antagonism sure makes it seem like it’s not all out of your system yet.

    Like

  558. Chortles – -If liturgy is the end-all, be-all of a church (cw -it’s not), you would worship in a CRC or RCA before a SBC? How about a PCUSA that was still liturgical?

    I actually might. Sue me.

    TN – Wow, so you would accept women elders, left-leaning Synods & GA’s, environmentalism, and maybe even homosexuality (PCUSA) just because everything looked good on paper?

    Wow.

    Like

  559. Nightfly,
    I intend on it. Too bad me and my wife can’t have any more kids. We wish we could.

    …our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual [power] of wickedness in the heavenlies. For this reason take [to you] the panoply of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having accomplished all things, to stand. Stand therefore, having girt about your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and shod your feet with [the] preparation of the glad tidings of peace: besides all [these], having taken the shield of faith with which ye will be able to quench all the inflamed darts of the wicked one. Have also the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is God’s word; praying at all seasons, with all prayer and supplication in [the] Spirit, and watching unto this very thing with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints; and for me in order that utterance may be given to me in [the] opening of my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery of the glad tidings, for which I am an ambassador [bound] with a chain, that I may be bold in it as I ought to speak.

    If one does not think forcing us to subsidized samesex “marriage” is not a manifestation of “spiritual power of wickedness”, one aught to think twice.

    Like

  561. Zrim,

    I answered why I stay. I like debate.

    The debate got SO BAD here because it was all Darryl & Tom sniping at each other and all Catholics all the time.

    I pick a different side and all of the sudden it’s electric again.

    Imagine that…

    Like

  564. NF,
    I think in large part it has to do with the fact that this marriage flip has such a impact on society yet many feel it is just one more “little” change in our society. I think you see that this is a handwriting on the wall event. Even if it was easy to expect. We should all be able to see this is bad for the US, the Church, and our children. We should also all be able to speak out clearly and definitively on it.

    Like

  565. Chortles,

    Kent started that speculation, not me.

    That’s the sort of thing that if there’s no truth to it, you completely laugh it off.

    I have no evidence save one very odd comment I once personally received from one regular. It was of a sexual nature.

    Let’s just say I wouldn’t be completely shocked and it would explain some things.

    What better stance to take than 2K if you are struggling with that, are troubled by (Republican) politics in the church, and are attracted to a strong law/gospel distinction that is really psychologically helpful in dealing with an orientation that many people in the church (wrongly) consider to be the worst of sins short of murder.

    It probably is at least fair game for discussion.

    Like

  566. Michael, I spoke from memory. I want to say the Phaedrus and the Symposium had that kind of material. But I really don’t want to get out the dialogues, look for man-boy sex and quote it so just forget I said anything.

    Like

  568. appreciate your interesting summary Kevin

    “Part of the reason that Hart’s version of the two kingdoms doctrine is somewhat controversial is that at times Hart has pressed the distinction between the two kingdoms to the point of separation. Indeed, if the classic two kingdoms doctrine denoted the difference between two ages and two governments, Hart has often written about it as if it amounted to a distinction between two airtight spheres, one the sphere of faith and religion, and the other the sphere of everyday life. While it is clear that Hart views these two spheres as expressions of the two ages, by speaking of them in terms of separate spheres he ends up downplaying the overlap between the two ages. This tendency becomes all the more marked in Hart’s more polemical moments. For instance, while Luther or Calvin argued that even in their vocations Christians serve Christ, are bound by his moral law, and are to do everything that they do in service to him, Hart sometimes speaks as if faith and Scripture have little to say about life in this world. To be sure, in key moments, Hart admits that Christianity does teach certain truths about the image of God or about the temporal nature of life in this world. For Hart, these are truths that should shape the way in which Christians engage politics. Indeed, Hart defends his very concept of secularity on the basis of orthodox Christian eschatology. Likewise, he acknowledges that Jesus is Lord over both the eternal and the temporal kingdoms, and that in every area of life Christians are to obey God according to their consciences. But often, Hart’s criticism of the misuse to which American Protestants have framed Christian claims obscures these basic commitments.” from http://www.reformation21.org

    Like

  569. Hey, one fake name’s is as good as the next. I can live with that, although “The Jackal” sounds a little cooler…

    I think I struck a nerve.

    Like

  570. There were more appropriate ones but I’m being all family friendly tonight, plus I appreciate the graininess.

    Like

  571. This might be a first, though.

    First we had the Sowers rule.

    Next it was the (alleged) block of Tom.

    Now it’s changing the commenter’s name.

    Maybe just consider nicely asking someone you don’t like to leave?

    Like

  573. Zrim –

    Kevin, surely. Maybe quietly operate a PRC that distances itself from political activism and funding because it wants to actually help women and their families more than fight culture war. How’s that for a crazy uncle?

    Ok, so 3 scenarios –
    1 – Car rides to unwed and mothers and the expectant (via an organization, not random pick-ups on the street) for various reasons (so that they could attend a party, traveling to see friends), dropping off strollers and diapers, buying baby formula, etc. – I’ve done this on and off for a few years in NYC & CT, mostly to help friends’ organizations when they request- all of which I think is within your “surely.”

    2 – How about public prayer outside an abortion clinic? E.g., PP in Greenwich Village – Starts with a normal church service (service is not just for those participating), followed by the group walking a quarter mile or so to the clinic, prayer for an hour or two; ‘sidewalk counselors’ are present to gently approach and distribute contact info for a PRC; group participating is praying vocal prayer and singing. Not a single word yelled, no signs, nothing rude said.

    3 – you tell me – at what point does it become activism?

    Also, can you give a characteristic example or two of what fight culture war means?

    Like

  574. TN – If liturgy is the end-all, be-all of a church (cw -it’s not), you would worship in a CRC or RCA before a SBC? How about a PCUSA that was still liturgical?

    CW – “I actually might. Sue me.”

    I’ve always liked the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi – the way you pray determines what you believe. Change the liturgy, change the faith.

    Particularly with children – we adults can put up with bad liturgy (of all types) that would be quite damaging to a child’s faith.

    Like

  575. Michael,

    “If one does not think forcing us to subsidized samesex “marriage” is not a manifestation of “spiritual power of wickedness”, one aught to think twice.”

    There are many government policies and laws and programs that you and citizens are “forced to subsidize” that I take it you view as sinful or immoral as well. That of course does not excuse or make irrelevant the issue of the SSM ruling, but this sentiment seems to echo and not be far removed from the old “your sin is worse than mine” mentality – e.g. the convenient double standard activists employ when forgetting things like divorce, cohabitation, drunkenness, sloth, materialism, greed, gossip, envy, etc. that are all too common and ignored amongst their ranks.

    Like

  576. why would homosexuals, who were historically transgressive, now want to emulate bourgeois norms?

    Rom. 1 tells us that they don’t want to emulate bourgeois norms, DGH.
    IOW it’s another instance of the Big Lie.

    Or to put it another way,

    Two steps forward (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriagesnuff films are now rated according to the League of Decency), one step backwards (many Christians believe, as they have been told, that Christians may still object to Christian norms governing same-sex marriages subverting natural law and 2k norms governing marriage).

    Mud, at first I thought counsel’s comments were irrelevant, but then I understood what you were getting at. No, Kennedy is not a sodomite, but think “fellow traveler/useful idiot”. I believe the technical term would be homophile.

    EC I fault OL for providing an open forum for those with buyer’s remorse who have no clue how to be concise and engaging to drone on ENDLESSLY. It’s just bad bwogging.

    If you honestly ever want me to leave, just ask.

    How about just shutting up/not posting so much? You know the whole 3 post a day thing?

    OTOH, I’m not big on those who take their ball and start a new game down the street in the name of doctrinal purity, [And that goes for Mr. JG Machen as well.]

    Hey Mr. Historian, Machen, like Luther didn’t leave. He got the boot. There’a a difference. Capiche?

    Vd, t, how can the state be an enemy of the bible when the chief executive just led a congregation in singing Amazing Grace?

    DGH, think pharisee/Mat.23

    THE strategy on debating any social issue with you is to just wind you up, watch you go, and imagine the look on your allies faces.

    Troll.

    I will let anyone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the 2K theology/anthropology is the outgrowth of its philosophy of Monocausalism. . . .

    Nnnooo . . . . . never mind, this is theology according to the Granfalloon Academy. Suze meet EC our new DS.

    I know the regulars here so well that I can make a comment, know their response before they make it, and have my next comment ready.

    Occasionally when they go off script things get worthwhile — and interesting. A few are completely hardwired and probably beyond hope, though.

    Yo TVD, is that you?

    Like

  577. Muddy –

    Calling me “Newark” elevates me a bit (Viscount, I think) – I might get away with calling myself Freiherr (Baron) when the mortgage is paid off, but at the moment I am in vassalage – to the banks. At the moment, all I can claim is Director & Knight.

    Newark: 4) When the government does evil, we should say something about it to friends and neighbors so that they know they aren’t the only ones with objections (pre-political);
    MG: This is what some may decide to do.

    I don’t get it. Obama vastly expands the scope of powers of the POTUS simply by ignoring the other branches of government. Reagan’s administration sells weapons to Iran against congressional mandate in order to fund violence in Central America against congressional mandate.

    Isn’t the duty of citizens in an ostensible democracy to at least let one another know these are problems? I’m not saying spend your 401k on political ads- just ask the opinion of the guy at the corner store in a non-boorish manner. Build a widespread understanding of what is acceptable for our government to do or not.

    We didn’t have to commit to a republic with democratic elements – but that’s what we claim, and getting it back in order is I think our best course of action. If the cynical believe that is impossible (and maybe it is), I submit that trying to do so is the virtue of Patriotism. We have a duty to “God’s deacon.”

    MG: I see description, not prescription. I live in a land of substantial order and extensive freedom.
    Material well-being is a good thing. Many here are similarly blessed.

    But I don’t think we can turn a blind eye to some very fundamental problems here, including the erosion of the value of wages since the 1950s such that one income is generally not sufficient to support what used to be termed a “middle class lifestyle.”

    Like

  578. Bob,

    You had something for everyone there, so it’s hard to object too strenuously.

    If it’s what, 7 on 1 – wouldn’t I get 21 posts a day?

    Kevin,

    I suspect the clique is opting out of this thread once I turned Muddy’s Occam’s Razor analysis around on them, which is fine.

    500+ comments is probably way more that can be done productively on a topic like this that generates so much heat in the church (and will continue to do so for the rest of our natural lives).

    Like

  579. Kevin, 1 sounds the most humane, 2 begins to seem well intended but a little too earnest, ambitious and possibly misguided. As far as 3, when the petition shows up at church I think activism has weaseled its way in. Sounds as if we’d agree that public behavior that is crass, grotesque, aggressive, confrontational and otherwise unbecoming is unfit as Christian witness.

    Like

  580. @TN – In your argument with cw, you mixed up necessary and sufficient. I think most of geeky P&R types would say that proper liturgy is necessary but not sufficient. Other items could be deal breakers.

    Regarding the SBC, here is an example of 32,000 member SBC church that is pretty typical these days. The Saddleback model of seeker sensitive church is the norm. During the “redneck” sermon series, the sanctuary had Lynyrd Skynyrd playing in the background as people came in. You can check out the pastor’s blog (see the post about the SBC disinviting Ben Carson from speaking and see if you think they argue less than we do).

    As far as 2k goes, I came across this from one of Rod Dreher’s posts this morning,

    Ultimately, I think, we agree on moral truth, but strongly differ on how best to live that out and to advocate for it under present conditions.

    This strikes me as the essence of 2k. We disagree how to live out our opposition to various sins, but since the Bible doesn’t clearly imply a particular course of action our churches should not advocate for one. Whether you should practice civil disobedience and refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples, simply offer a silent prayer while passing on the form, or something in between is up to the individual believer to act on according to his conscience.

    The idea that the 12 or so guys here who advocate 2k have made any difference in how the ssm revolution has occurred is silly – we have minimal influence in our tiny denominations. I like Darryl’s work quite a bit (I haven’t read Billy to Sarah, but I thought Secular faith and Lost Soul were terrific), but if you check the amazon numbers, there are several hundred books on politics and religion that have sold more. There is no way these books have had the influence of say World Magazine.

    In the interest of full disclosure, it seems to me that once our society decided not to stigmatize homosexual behavior anymore, civil same sex marriage became inevitable. Lawrence requires it – Scalia was right. I think Misty Irons makes a compelling case that ssm is a way to ameliorate the negative effects of sinful behavior – which is big part of what the state is about. The state doesn’t make us holy, but it restrains the worst consequence of being a sinful people.

    I do worry that the widespread acceptance of ssm and the link between it and the end to bans on interracial marriage are going to make passing our faith along to our kids even more challenging (this is why I think the language coming from Texas is so counterproductive – they are playing to a script that will reinforce our image as hateful bigots). Our societies embrace of ssm as a fundamental right poses a unique change in that for the first time I can think of, something our faith tradition has taught from the beginning is being described as hateful and bigoted. If conservative protestants had embraced Misty Iron’s more irenic stance 15 years ago, I suspect that we would have seen the environment in which ssm has evolved more like the divorce revolution. But maybe I’m wrong. Either way, that’s water under the bridge now.

    Moving forward, I find Dreher’s description of the Benedict option compelling. By that I understand forming intentional communities of believers that reinforce the language of (o)rthodox Christianity. It is about providing peer groups for ourselves and our children where we can be strengthened in our faith. The pop culture is going to go all out on advocating SSM. Already kids shows on Disney have introduced SS Moms -> the gay couple will be as obligatory in “family fare” as the mixed race cop partners in action movies. It will be celebrated in music, movies, books and opponents to ssm will be uniformly cast as closed minded, stupid, mouth breathing villains. In this environment, we will likely see many more evangelicals “evolve” – following the lead of Gushee and Neff (the former CT editor). Churches that have gone through the exegetical gymnastics necessary to embrace the ordination of women and serial monogamy will have no trouble sweeping aside prohibitions on SSM – we don’t want to be divisive after-all.

    In following the Benedict Option, we will have to accept that the broader culture will look at us as strange as the KJV-only, quiver-full, pre-millennial, YEC yahoos at the backwoods independent baptist church. The fact that we aren’t like those weirdos won’t matter. This will come with significant social cost, and the temptation for our kids will be shed that baggage if they want to climb the ladder professionally. It will be very rough sledding for the foreseeable future I’m afraid.

    Like

  581. sbd: This strikes me as the essence of 2k. We disagree how to live out our opposition to various sins, but since the Bible doesn’t clearly imply a particular course of action our churches should not advocate for one.

    If one is correctly preaching the Gospel every Sunday to believers and unbelievers, those seeking first His Kingdom will figure it all out on the minor points. Cutting time away from the Gospel to rant on political motives and 100% humanist thoughts or a PowerPoint on the recent trip to the circus is not a wise thing and will reap the obvious whirlwind.

    2K has meant that we have a mostly open discussion on the internet, something I do not believe is happening anywhere else in “religious” circles.

    Like

  582. Zrim –

    Sounds as if we’d agree that public behavior that is crass, grotesque, aggressive, confrontational and otherwise unbecoming is unfit as Christian witness.

    100%.

    2 – I think I am more sympathetic to earnestness, though.
    3 – Passing out a petition during a church service seems problematic to me (I’ve never seen it happen, though I imagine it does). As a stack of papers sitting in the back of a church? It’d say it depends, not sure I’d permit it as a pastor. Individuals associated with the church passing a petition amongst one another? Their business, to be supported (or not) in conversation, unless “crass.”

    JC did not found an NGO.

    Thanks for the reply.

    Like

  583. DGH, I missed the 2009 book that this blogger(h/t RCR) takes off from. http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/joeljmiller/why-the-gay-marriage-debate-was-over-in-1950/

    (Alan Petigny, The Permissive Society)

    My memory of what preachers were actually talking about starts around 1960, and the vast majority of Baptist pastors would have been very much in agreement that the 1950’s were an overly Permissive era, and they would have gotten a lot of agreement from the Mainline churches around here. (All about) I started hearing more concern about accommodating the culture (making the Church “relevant”) from the mid-60’s on.

    Like

  584. Zrim – Sounds as if we’d agree that public behavior that is crass, grotesque, aggressive, confrontational and otherwise unbecoming is unfit as Christian witness.

    TN – Agreed on crass & grotesque. Maybe on aggressive & confrontational. “Otherwise unbecoming” – probably don’t agree.

    This guy would probably make Zrim extremely uncomfortable. I think Greg would like him. He wouldn’t fit in well at a Redeemer wine & cheese mixer.

    He’s willing to face scorn and ridicule from 95% of the people he encounters, though, for the sake of helping change (and save) the lives of 5%.

    Sorry if Zrim’s embarassed.

    Like

  585. TJA – hope you stick around, you do a good job of poking at the soft spots (as you put it). With all the weirdness in the combox here, it is understandable why you’d want to stop using your real name.

    Kevin, 1 and 2 for engaging at abortion clinics sound reasonable. I was engaged with a group of Christians that started out that way but then quickly degenerated into shouting and all manner of histrionics that were inappropriate. It is easy to get caught up in that as tensions run high and you are there where the deed is being done on an almost daily basis. It seems, for a lot of people that are passionate enough to go out there that they quickly lose self control. To questions their methods isn’t taken well. In addition to that they often develop a very high degree of self righteous pride that is very off putting. If you have been out there then I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. That said, I’ve seen the Lord use people doing things that I think are inappropriate to reach folks with the gospel – a recent profession of faith in an OPC church from a woman and her oldest son that were initially met at an abortion clinic. The Lord can use even the sins of his people to accomplish his will.

    a. – This site isn’t representative of the OPC. This is one elder’s website where he is intentionally provocative and has a serious commitment to free speech allowing all manner of people to post. Visit any OPC church and with few exceptions you will be welcomed and treated with love and respect.

    Like

  586. The OPC provides all kinds of interesting sources of information for P&R types.

    Some are open and friendly and can tolerate people who disagree. Others have a broomstick rammed up them.

    Both types readily provide edifying assistance in the enhancement of our mystical Union.

    Like

  589. Chris,

    Thanks. Screen name is at the request of a family member. I would have no problem continuing to use my own name. We are but a mist, here for a little while and then vanishing. Why fear men when you are going to spend far more time dead than alive?

    Like

  590. Kent, those guys are easy to spot if they have children – throw the kid a ball and they are usually the ones that can’t catch or throw the ball back. We have an unusually high percentage of those in the Presbytery of the South East.

    Like

  591. SDB, much agreement with what you say, but I have one big question with the Dreher remedy. How can you establish alternative institutions with out maintaing a broadly Pluralist society? Yet Dreher keeps identifying pluralism as the enemy. I mean, if the slow is as slippery as Dreher says it is and leads where he thinks it will, won’t the dominant cultural powers do thinks like amend compulsory attendance laws so parents won’t pass on their bigotry to their kids through homeschooling? Just one example. We tolerate the Amish, but they stick to themselves and don’t vote in large numbers, so they aren’t a threat to anyone. I just can’t see how we get from where we are to where Dreher wants to go unless there is a pluralist society which serves as a host mechanism. Sure, the very idea of pluralism is under attack from the SSM advocates, but Dreher seems to share their vitriol.

    Probably not fair to put these questions to you, but I have never seen a good answer to it over at Dreher’s blog. (and the questíon has been asked). Plus, I am out for the rest of the day.

    Like

  592. muddy: innuendo about sex between men and boys.

    INNUENDO?????????

    Couldn’t be more blatant in some passages…..

    Like

  593. CT, at my fundy Baptist church we faced a dilemma of organizing teams for the Word of Life hoops tournament each year. I played at the university level and was a faithful member of the church and managed to stack the team with ringers who never would have given a thought about God except for the half hour lunch at the tourney with someone screaming at them to pray the prayer and come forward.

    The church kids thought they should be on the A team. We patiently explained for years that all the teams from cities were also stacked with ringers, many bigger and meaner than us, and that losing 100-2 with the need for 3 body bags would not be a good thing. They never understood that, then signed up for the D league competition.

    Like

  594. Dan,

    Good point. Maybe we need to start learning to live off the land? If you’re going to check out of society, really check out.

    Actually, it’s too late for me. Maybe my (not yet born) grandkids need to be learning to live off the land.

    All our sons need to become Eagle Scouts.

    It gives one a new respect for monasticism, although that’s hard to pull off with a wife & kids.

    Like

  595. Kent – I played at the university level and was a faithful member of the church and managed to stack the team with ringers who never would have given a thought about God except for the half hour lunch at the tourney with someone screaming at them to pray the prayer and come forward.

    TN – Reminds me of the undefeated Seventh Day Adventist team we keep losing badly to in softball. Several of those young guys appear strangely un-churched…

    Also reminds me of Muddy’s Upwards (church related) Basketball story of when his kid was told that a foul is like a sin.

    Those kids are going nowhere in basketball.

    Like

  596. Playing church softball on an LCMS team has been fascinating. I’m probably at least 10 years older than anyone else on the team. Mostly college aged or a little older. Several were in a Lutheran fraternity together.

    Guys alternate between good plays and bonehead plays and the entire season I have not heard one negative comment after a bonehead play. At the same time, no one is vocal about their faith. No prayers before & after games like some of the evangelical teams. I’ve probably only even run into 2 of the guys at church services. Not even sure they attend.

    You can tell they have been raised right, though, and that is a strong evidence for the arguments that people are making for the value of liturgy. LCMS make P&R look like pikers when it comes to liturgy in worship.

    Like

  597. Kevin, no a church he established, but if an NGO is a non-profit, non-governmental, voluntary citizens’ group organized on a local, national or international level then there is some overlap. In which case, it’s not at all clear how any political themes are kosher to the church’s endeavor.

    ps but beware earnestness, the gateway drug to shenanigans (I hear those boos and hisses).

    Like

  598. We entered our Baptist church team in the city co-ed softball league. it was a good time, until….

    One of the pastors was our coach and he invited the other team to his farm homestead for a post-game party. They showed up with coolers of adult beverages and while it was a good time there was h.e.l.l. to pay when the senior pastor found out about this.

    Like

  599. Cletus,

    There are many government policies and laws and programs that you and citizens are “forced to subsidize” that I take it you view as sinful or immoral as well. That of course does not excuse or make irrelevant the issue of the SSM ruling, but this sentiment seems to echo and not be far removed from the old “your sin is worse than mine” mentality – e.g. the convenient double standard activists employ when forgetting things like divorce, cohabitation, drunkenness, sloth, materialism, greed, gossip, envy, etc. that are all too common and ignored amongst their ranks.

    Except for divorce in your list, none of those have a legal recognition. And not even it is subsidized by tax breaks and health benifits. We may use money for things like drunkenness, but it is to help people overcome it, not licenses it as a valid choice along with drinking wisely. All sins have a negative and costly impact on society irrelivent to whether we in society encourage it or not. If we start giving our licenses for adultury I will we firmly against that too and this would be an area I could be tempted in just as much as the homosexual is tempted to his/her sin. I am firmly againt Obamacare which is subsidizing abortion and contraception, too. All of that I could be tempts to do or accept. I am not in some ivory tower here, Cletus. My sister is a practicing homosexual. My mother is law has those same desires and has become Catholic and practices chastity. I speak the same clear messages before them as I do here. Just give me someone willing to listen and I speak. What we as married people have done to marriage with no fault divorce and pseudo second marriages is destroying our culture. I willingly admit that. Parents abrogating there duty to teach their children truth and morals is crumbling our nation from within. I could go on but I do have my own family to deal with and to continue on and on would be me sinning. My sin is the worst I know, not addressing this tragidy in our nation would be one of those sins.

    Peace,
    Michael

    Like

  600. MTX, Canada’s “Texas”, the province of Alberta, all the oil money and zero culture… after what seemed like 2500 straight years of a Conservative government snapped and voted the Socialist party into power for the next 5 years.

    I’m not sure just what level of lunacy the new Government has for policy or practice, but if it happened in that province, it can happen anywhere…

    Like

  601. Michael – My sister is a practicing homosexual. My mother in law has those same desires and has become Catholic and practices chastity.

    TN – You might find this video interesting & helpful. I did.

    Like

  602. Kent,

    The URCNA member I know in Des Moines who is Canadian is from Alberta. Must be farmland there that the Dutch were attracted to.

    Like

  603. The farming component of Canada has been very helpful in maintaining the Reformed Church.

    Presbyterians are ultra-liberal up here though.

    Like

  604. NF,
    Thanks. I will watch it when I can. My satellite internet is on dial-up speed right now. I love the boonies where we are, but it does have its drawbacks.

    Like

  606. MTX, the province of Ontario (the backbone of the country along with Quebec (for it’s own tendencious reasons)) flipped it’s mind and elected the Socialists with a 5 year mandate in the early 90s. They immediately ruined the strong economy of the province and wound up giving us the most beloved right-wing and just government in North America for the following 10 years. the good old decade…

    Like

  607. Kent,

    Where did the Canadian Presbyterians come from?

    Are those the ones that the guys at The Puritan Board banned three centuries ago?

    Like

  608. Michael,

    No, you need to just lie back and watch it happen. Politics will make you less than human.

    Or so I’m told.

    Would have been news to 19th century Americans who had a 70% turnout for Presidential elections and who would stand for hours to hear the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

    Would have been news to the generation of the Founders as well.

    Puny humans that they were…

    Like

  609. CT: a. – This site isn’t representative of the OPC.

    I do appreciate the open comments here. It has been valuable and helpful. However, respectfully I disagree. The Lord says we do represent Him in the world; in the same way, we represent our denominations; and further when one sees lack of accountability, it seems fair to make some conclusions. Just did a short study about being make in the image of God with some homeless friends; they seemed to very easily understand James 3:9 e.g

    Like

  610. EC: The Presbyterians joined with the Methodists and Congregationalists in 1925, to form the United Church. No hero cookies for guessing how that wound up in terms of what we’d consider theology….

    Looks like the Presbyterians got their name back in 1939. I’ll spare the horror stories of boat people getting away from Toronto’s closest thing to a WCF-led deal….

    We have Free congregations for non-English UK folk, not my cup of tea either….

    Like

  611. NF,
    It is kind if interesting, last night the local county chairman to the Rep Party, who is a close friend, called me up to see if I wished to fill a precinct chair position in my area. Will be praying about it. Pray for me if you don’t mind. He is wanting to move forward quite quickly on nullification measures here in TX regarding the SC descision on both samesex marriage and the Obamacare ruling against TX. I have kind if been out if politics for a while, but clearly I need to get more in gear.

    Like

  612. Michael,

    Not sure if you’re aware of the organization Courage, but they do great work with those with same sex attraction who are trying to be chaste. There is an hour-long video on their site which I found to be good work: http://everlastinghills.org/

    Regarding the internet quality, have you ever tried a video d/l service (e.g., for Youtube)? this would let you download the videos and then watch them from a local file.

    Like

  613. Chris T. – In addition to that they often develop a very high degree of self righteous pride that is very off putting. If you have been out there then I’m sure you know what I’m talking about – Sorry to hear about your group (anything good can be perverted by human pride). I can’t dispute your experience (re: “self righteous pride”), but it doesn’t fit mine – maybe I just ‘fell into’ the right crowd.

    […] allowing all manner of people to post – and this manner of person is appreciative of the welcome extended.

    Visit any OPC church and with few exceptions you will be welcomed and treated with love and respect – this fits my experience last Sunday at the OPC in Westfield NJ.

    Like

  615. Zrim, CW, Muddy, All

    Just curious how the guy at the link below comes across to others around here – any room for criticism, is he inspiring, do we take him as a model (if we feel called to it)?

    TN – This guy would probably make Zrim extremely uncomfortable. I think Greg would like him. He wouldn’t fit in well at a Redeemer wine & cheese mixer.

    kc – Many thanks for the video link. Love it. Everyone may not be called to this, but how can they not praise, admire, and be inspired by his work?

    Like

  616. Kevin, it strikes me as a #2–well intended but a little too earnest, ambitious and possibly misguided. When a megaphone makes its appearance, I get skeptical. Then again, I’m the crazy uncle, so…

    Like

  617. Kevin, glad to hear you had a warm reception – did you meet Pastor Ben Alvira? He’s a neat guy.

    That video you posted is the cleaned up side of that type of engagement – when it goes that way it is wonderful and a good way to engage people outside abortion clinics. My experience morphed from that to people shouting: “Congratulations, now you are the mother of a dead baby!” and things like that after the ladies were coming out. Yowza! Too Westboro for any sane person.

    Like

  618. Kevin,

    He seems like a really sincere, caring guy. When I get older if I have the stones I might actually sit in front of our local Planned Parenthood with a lawn chair and a sign that says nothing more than, “Please tell me if or how I can help you”. Really simple. I’m sure I would be portrayed as a domestic terrorist, but oh well.

    Like

  619. Chris,

    Agreed that that approach is completely lame. The childbearing mother is holding all the cards under current law. No point in being an ass to her. That accomplishes nothing.

    Like

  620. Kevin,

    Part of the problem with that video for the regulars is that it includes an endorsement from R.C. Sproul, Jr.

    He’s held in only a little higher esteem here than the Bayly Brothers.

    R.C. Sproul, Sr. is generally respected, but Jr. not so much. He’s considered to be too political and runs around with men from the CREC (the P&R equivalent of the Presbyterian Church of Mars to most of these guys, although Darryl has spoken at CREC conferences years ago).

    Not saying all of the above do not have some issues that are troubling.

    Like

  621. Michael,

    “Except for divorce in your list, none of those have a legal recognition. And not even it is subsidized by tax breaks and health benifits”

    You pay taxes. You do not control how those taxes are being used or allocated. As you say, “I am firmly againt Obamacare which is subsidizing abortion and contraception, too.”
    Bingo. And the examples could be multiplied endlessly. Abortion is legal. Your taxes pay for government employees who cooperate in facilitating that. Same with wars and military research/operations. Same with programs/policies that hurt the environment (hello Laudato Si). And so on. And then follow this line of thought down America’s checkered past when it comes to unethical or immoral activities. And of course the government helps subsidize countless corporations with tax breaks and benefits – corporations that can often be engaged in sinful or immoral activities and practices.

    “All sins have a negative and costly impact on society irrelivent to whether we in society encourage it or not.”

    Right – and that includes whether we in society encourage it by enshrining it in law or not. Which was my point about all the common no-big-deal sins the activists conveniently turn a blind eye to (either their own or ones the government supports) while frothing at the mouth on the ssm issue.

    “If we start giving our licenses for adultury”

    Do we have licenses against adultery or fornication? Should the government enshrine a law criminalizing adultery and contraception? How many activists and media pundits are divorced (sometimes many times over) for illegitimate reasons and hence are committing adultery?

    As you say, “What we as married people have done to marriage with no fault divorce and pseudo second marriages is destroying our culture”

    Sure. But do we ever see any heat from activists on that score? Not really, even long before this ruling and prop 8 and the like brought ssm to the fore.

    ” I will we firmly against that too and this would be an area I could be tempted in just as much as the homosexual is tempted to his/her sin. I am not in some ivory tower here, Cletus.”

    My point was not too attack you or undermine your credibility. I was simply saying that to specifically focus and call out the ssm ruling as some indication of a red-line threshold that had been crossed and now means the sky is falling is a bit of an overreaction. I keep hearing pastors on the radio or tv saying “Don’t panic” – such hubris, why on earth would I panic given the history of Christianity? How many immoral and sinful laws and policies have citizens been forced to support in the past? Did Christianity implode because of that? Of course not – why do we think this generation is so special or that Christianity’s survival somehow depends on America?

    Like

  622. From today’s WSJ:

    Justice Kennedy’s Bitter Truth

    The same-sex marriage ruling will unleash the legal furies against those who disagree with it.

    By William McGurn

    June 29, 2015 7:26 p.m. ET

    In the heady days since Anthony Kennedy unearthed a constitutional right for Americans “to define and express their identity,” the extravagance of the Supreme Court’s claim has taken some by surprise. It shouldn’t have. In finding for same-sex marriage the way he did, Justice Kennedy made official what he made inevitable a quarter-century back.

    That was in 1992. The occasion was a Supreme Court decision on abortion into which Mr. Kennedy inserted a new definition of liberty. Where Thomas Jefferson had grounded human liberty in self-evident truth, Mr. Kennedy holds that the mere self suffices.

    “At the heart of liberty,” he wrote, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    Now he has followed through. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court substitutes for the laws passed by the people acting through their state legislatures a new constitutional right to “dignity” based on the court’s “better informed understanding.”

    Back when poor Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade established a right to privacy that likewise appears nowhere in the Constitution, he wrote under the conceit that his decision would resolve the issue once and for all. Instead, his 1973 ruling launched the culture wars.

    Obergefell is Roe on steroids. Roe legalized a market for abortion for those who wanted them and those who provided them. It was qualified by conscience protections plus riders attached to federal legislation greatly limiting the use of taxpayer dollars to underwrite the practice. So Roe didn’t demand much of those on the other side—or on the sidelines.

    Obergefell is another thing altogether. In one of the great flimflams of American life, it is a prescription for endless litigation smuggled in under libertarian clothing. This began with the opening question put to all those who held the classic view of marriage: What can it possibly matter to you, they were asked, if two men or two women who love each other call their relationship marriage?

    We learned that it matters a great deal.

    It matters to Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign last year as CEO of the company he co-founded after it became public that he had donated $1,000 to Proposition 8, the successful California ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.

    It matters to Chick-fil-A, which in 2012 saw the mayors of Chicago and Boston declare the restaurant chain had no place in their cities because its chief executive held the same view of marriage that Barack Obama held until very recently.

    It matters to Catholic Charities, which in several states has been forced out of the adoption business either because the charity does not offer same-sex spousal benefits or declines to place children for adoption with same-sex couples.

    It matters for cake bakers, photographers, florists, jewelers and pizza-parlor owners who happily serve gay customers but draw the line at assisting gay weddings.

    Finally, it matters to all religious schools and religious institutions. Give the Obama administration its due: The president’s solicitor general admitted during the Obergefell oral argument that a victory for same-sex marriage would put the tax-exempt status of such institutions on the chopping block.

    The reason for all this is that the right for men to marry men or women to marry women is only half of the equation—and not even the most important half at that.

    The other half involves antidiscrimination statutes and regulations, not to mention the discretion of federal, state and even private bureaucracies regarding everything from funding and accreditation to tax exemption.

    In short, there is nothing live-and-let-live about the way this movement has operated the past few years, and to pretend otherwise requires a willful blindness. Now, with Obergefell, the full furies have been released.

    As Justice Samuel Alito suggested in his dissent, thousands of Americans who never dreamed that the issue would affect them will soon get highly personal lessons in how the legalization of same-sex marriage by judicial fiat threatens their schools, their institutions and even their livelihoods. This is not your father’s culture war.

    A century ago, another Supreme Court justice famously wrote that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” How far we have traveled since.

    Those seeking to crush all dissent from the new judicial orthodoxy on marriage will not always win, not least because the right to the free exercise of religion—in bald contrast to Mr. Kennedy’s right to dignity—is in fact in the Constitution. Still, however individual cases may turn out, by foreclosing the option for democratic debate and compromise the Supreme Court has ensured a bitter national harvest.

    Welcome to Justice Kennedy’s world. Where upholding the Kennedy definition of liberty—the right to define your own truth—turns out to mean denying that same right to millions of Americans who define marriage and truth in a way different from his.

    Like

  623. The irony of the decision is that we may see conservative Protestants and Catholics united as never before. United for survival.

    Like

  625. Greg,

    Amazing how the community is nowhere to be found when my kid demands a smartphone.

    Somehow I’m the one who ends up paying the bill every month from now until they’re out of college…

    Like

  627. Here’s another one from yesterday on who owns your kids:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-vaccination-bill-passes-heads-to-governor-1435606413

    California Vaccination Bill Passes, Heads to Governor

    Measure tightens rules around vaccine requirements for students

    By Caroline Porter

    Updated June 29, 2015 4:23 p.m. ET

    The California Senate on Monday passed a much-debated bill to restrict vaccine exemptions, putting one of the country’s strongest state-level efforts to clamp down on unvaccinated students in the hands of Gov. Jerry Brown.

    Senate Bill 277, spurred by a measles outbreak that began last year at Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, Calif., allows for medical exemptions but doesn’t permit parents to cite personal beliefs to avoid vaccines for children attending school.

    The measure, which the state Senate previously passed in May, made it out of the state Assembly last week with new amendments, which required another Senate vote.

    If Mr. Brown signs the bill into law, California will have among the tightest vaccine restrictions in the country. Most states give religious exemptions, and 20 states permit philosophical exemptions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, don’t have religious or personal-belief exemptions.

    Mr. Brown hasn’t said whether he will sign the bill, but the governor’s spokesman said in a statement that Mr. Brown “believes that vaccinations are profoundly important and a major public health benefit.”

    Legislatures around the country took up the issue in recent months, with bills considered in at least a dozen states in 2015. Vermont removed its personal-belief exemption but maintained its religious exception; West Virginia specified requirements for medical exemptions; and South Dakota detailed the way children’s immunization records are to be shared.

    “Diseases don’t respect state boundaries,” said Eric Kodish, a pediatrician and director of the Center for Ethics, Humanities and Spiritual Care at Cleveland Clinic, who supports the bill. “California is leading by example.”

    “I am so pleased and so proud of the Legislature,” said Leah Russin, co-founder of the grass-roots group Vaccinate California, which sponsored the bill. “Today we are just one final step away from making California safer for all children.”

    Debate around the bill has been loud and at times acrimonious. While some worry about potential hazards of vaccinations, others say the bill encroaches on the rights of parents to choose what they believe is best for their children. If the bill, which passed the Senate in a 23-14 vote Monday, becomes law, parents who avoid the vaccines without a medical exemption will need to home-school their children or set up an independent study course with a school.

    TN comment – Keep in mind that there are 200 vaccines in development, all of which have for-profit companies with financial incentive to convince politicians to make them mandatory behind them…

    Like

  628. D,

    The Mormons are pretty shrewd and will get along fine without us.

    I’ve seen “Big Love”…

    Like

  629. ” all of which have for-profit companies with financial incentive to convince politicians to make them mandatory behind them…”

    Sounds like common core.

    Like

  630. Cletus,

    Indeed.

    Amazing how a bunch of people in Washington who struggle to deliver the mail on time and on a budget know exactly what the best way for all of us to live our lives is.

    Aided by rent-seekers from the capitalist class, of course.

    Like

  631. Maybe we could all bury the hatchet over this gay thing and all go see “Magic Mike XXL” together this weekend?

    Like

  632. Cletus,
    The thing is though that you did call me out. You assumed that because I have a firm stance against ssm that I judge myself a less sinful person than those who struggle in this way. My stand against this being recognized as a simple right and by extension categorized as normal is not a whim and I do not think this is the end of Christianity as you have alluded. I firmly think this will highlight the strength of God’s Church, which will not change its teaching. I do think it is “an” end for the US officially confirming what is right in this regard, or at least allowing the people to do so, and therefore tragic. I have the right and the duty to cry out against every tragedy endorsed by the US government. This is one of them. Yes I am radical enough that I think many “contraceptions” if not all should be forbidden in America, but at least I think it is a state that should be able to decide this, not the SC. We the people of the states should have the right to do that. It is a free country. Someone could go somewhere else to get contraception, pornography, an abortion, pseudo married or euthanize themselves. I just want the right to advocate or make all those things illegal in a state.

    the government helps subsidize countless corporations with tax breaks and benefits – corporations that can often be engaged in sinful or immoral activities and practices.

    This is hardly the reason why we give businesses tax break though. We do make laws against corp. doing immoral activities. Giving people a license to marry when they are of the samesex is so that they can “rightfully” act in accord with samesex attraction activities, which are immoral, and get the benefits we in society have given marriage. This the we should be allowed to discourage. This is more akin to me being able to get a license to have an affair or get drunk, which are things we should and do have laws against. This is not about me forcing my morality on others. It is about a state having the right to decide what it wishes to have legal and encourage by its own representative governments of the people. Should we be able to ban drinking in TX? I think we should be able to. Do I think we should? No. If we do what should I do? Well that depends. I can at least advocate for its repeal, but at most I could move. I advocate for much more freedom to be given to the states and local communities. Our county just started selling alcohol five years ago. Until then you had to drive to another county to buy. I like to drink so I did when I wished to have something to drink. When the vote came up to have it legal to sell in our county I still voted for it to remain alcohol free. Mainly because I did not want the convenient stores full of half naked ladies holding brewskies. Freedom and the right to vote on things is good. I don’t want the SC taking those rights away. This is a mess, Cletus. Please tell me you see that.

    Like

  633. Zrim –

    if an NGO is a non-profit, non-governmental, voluntary citizens’ group organized on a local, national or international level then there is some overlap. – minus divine institution and an explicit intention to worship God, etc. agreed – ecclesiastical bodies are organizations (with commensurate HR problems).

    Kevin, it strikes me as a #2–well intended but a little too earnest, ambitious and possibly misguided. When a megaphone makes its appearance, I get skeptical. Then again, I’m the crazy uncle, so…

    Even though he has saved over 1000 lives (his ambition?) and acts in a gentle and sensitive manner toward the unhappy, confused women he speaks with (his earnestness?) -?

    What is possibly misguided about the work he is doing?

    Like

  634. TN, I was in the first grade when the Salk. Vaccine became available nationally. My parents didn’t worry about who owned me. Ever seen an iron lung? I have.

    Like

  636. Kent – re: Quebec –

    Do the Quebecois have any political causes these days aside from the French language?

    They used to be notably committed to the British Monarchy (pre-1960s), who treated them quite well I understand.

    Any Quebecois Reformed groups?

    Like

  637. Kevin, the Quebec independence situation is quiet these days. They were roasted in recent elections. Nobody outside the province is missing it.

    Montreal was the corporate capital of Canada until the mid-70s when the provincial government was separatist and almost every HQ shipped to Toronto overnight.

    Like

  638. Dan,

    Polio I get.

    How many other vaccines should the government be able to make mandatory, though? Chicken Pox? HPV? the Flu?

    You just assume the government’s motivations are purely benevolent?

    Like

  639. Kent,

    Montreal also had some nice baseball teams back in the day.

    They want out playing to mostly empty stadiums, though. Too bad.

    Like

  640. Michael – Mainly because I did not want the convenience stores full of half naked ladies holding brewskies.

    TN – What are you, some kind of communist?!

    I’m kidding. You have a good heart and I appreciate that.

    Like

  641. The Expos were strong around 1979 to 1982, had a few HOF players in their prime.

    Then they built up another powerhouse just in time for the 1994 strike to kind of ruin everything. Would have been nice to see them in the World Series against the early twilight of the next Yankees dynasty.

    Like

  642. Kevin – What is possibly misguided about the work he is doing?

    TN – It’s really complicated. You can’t think about it in a straightforward way. First you have to think about it in a backwards way, then turn it upside down, shake it, stand on your head and look at it cross-eyed, then throw in a story about an obnoxious person who offended you who you once saw doing it.

    It’s how sophisticated people reason.

    Like

  643. Kent,

    Raines, Carter, and Dawson are the three big guns I remember.

    I had to look it up, but they had Pedro Martinez before he was a Red Sox player.

    Their AAA team (Denver, I think?) used to play in Des Moines. Felipe Alou was their manager and I got his autograph.

    Like

  644. a full-stop –

    a. – appreciate your interesting summary Kevin Re: DG’s position(s) on ssm at http://bit.ly/1IqY1Ms

    Thanks, good to know a few people read it.

    a. – Hart’s version of the two kingdoms blog post –
    Is that your article? Someone at the OPC?

    How many OPC elders are there, anyway? 10? 50? 100? 5000?

    Like

  645. Expos in 1994 had Larry Walker, Moises Alou, Marquis Grissom in the outfield, all soon gone.

    John Wetteland was the top closer in the game, he left for the Yankees, the pre-Mariano of that dynasty.

    Pedro was soon on his way to Boston.

    Safe to say the strike destroyed the team and interest in the city all in one fell swoop.

    Too bad, it was a good place to visit and see series.

    Like

  646. Of course, if the summary was interesting, it is because what DG had to say was ~interesting.~

    Like

  647. TN, I trust the public officials charged with making these decisions much more than I do the anti-vax crowd.

    Like

  648. Michael –

    This is more akin to me being able to get a license to have an affair

    It’s called civil divorce.

    I firmly think this will highlight the strength of God’s Church, which will not change its teaching.

    Agreed; but things could get significantly worse before they get better. We should be realistic on this, and prepare should the world awake with a groan this autumn and find itself Kasperite (to apply St. Jerome’s comment about the Arianist heresy).

    Like

  649. Dan,

    You are of the generation that generally views these sorts of things that way.

    “You homeschool your kids? Really….”

    My grandpa was a lifelong Democrat and couldn’t be convinced under any circumstances that Bill Clinton wasn’t FDR.

    Like

  650. Kevin,
    It’s called civil divorce.
    I’m going to disagree. I see how the Church could actually allow someone to get civilly divorce as long as it is a valid and godly reason for a separation and the person is never intending on having an unchaste or marital relation with someone else and is always ready for reconciliation with the spouse. Civil remarriage… that is another matter. This could be considered a license to commit adultery, but at least we force people to commit to get that license.

    Like

  651. Actually Dan, I take that back. You’re likely an older boomer – my parents’ age. My grandpa would be 100 if he was still alive. Apologies.

    You get the whole range of opinions on these things with Boomers. My mom – totally anti-vaccine. My brother’s mother-in-law – totally pro vaccine. We have to keep them apart at social gatherings.

    Like

  652. Dan, TN, SDB,

    More of my age-cohort friends & acquaintances homeschool than not – whether Jewish (reform judaism, but with rabbis in the family), Reformed, or Catholic (both English and Latin liturgy attendees).

    My wife and I are, at this point, intending to use the local public elementary school.

    SDB’s comment regarding ssm-promoting Disney cartoons did give me shivers, though.

    Like

  653. TN, I understand home schooling entirely, my church does several things to support home schoolers, and I totally agree that we should be doing that. I actually know personally some of our state and local public health officials and workers and I have seen no reason whatsoever to not trust them. I would not say the same about many in, say, the local law enforcement community, sad to say, but that too is based on actual personal knowledge, not some generational predilection about who to trust or not. I have sat in meetings where anti-vaxers have made their case, and local doctors have shot them down every time, and I know these men and women aren’t on the take.

    Take that, your ageist.

    Like

  654. Watching Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, and George C. Scott in “The Hustler” (streaming on Netflix).

    Nice Jazz score.

    Good stuff.

    Like

  656. ADD, a look at home schooling after watching a generation has been helpful. Back in the day our zeal was as high as our anti-public school rhetoric. Now that the results are in, well, it seems humility is well-advised whatever one chooses. I’ve seen some great results from capable and disciplined home school parents. But, honestly, I’ve seen as many or more cases in which home schooling was probably a bad choice. The well-meaning parents may have been poor teachers, may have sheltered their children too much, or may have used narrow, idiosyncratic curricula. I understand there are still churches in which public schooling is stigmatized and home schooling is glorified; I find that misguided and possibly an infringement on Christian liberty.

    Like

  657. Great movie, TN. The real (?) model for the Gleason character: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/19/sports/minnesota-fats-a-real-hustler-with-a-pool-cue-is-dead.html

    In my neck of the woods, the old time pool room denizens insisted that Minnesota Fats was in fact based on New York Fats, who took a lot of money out of Eastern Tennessee and Kentucky when coal was booming. (I know about this because my late Uncle was the distributor for Brunswick pool tables, as a good Baptist boy I disclaim any first hand knowledge. How I came to play a decent game of one pocket was a complete mystery).

    Like

  658. MG, we are committed to assisting children wherever they go to school. Surest way there is to get our finance committee to open the vault.

    Like

  659. Michael,

    “You assumed that because I have a firm stance against ssm that I judge myself a less sinful person than those who struggle in this way.”

    No, what I took issue with was your statement that “If one does not think forcing us to subsidized samesex “marriage” is not a manifestation of “spiritual power of wickedness”, one aught to think twice” as if SSM was some red-line that we just now crossed. Are you telling me that throughout the history of the United States and its government up through today we have not had other “manifestations of spiritual power of wickedness” its citizens have been forced to subsidize?

    ” I do think it is “an” end for the US officially confirming what is right in this regard, or at least allowing the people to do so, and therefore tragic.”

    Why is this tragic? Why all this placing of hope in the government of the US or any country of any period of history? It’s par for the course – this generation is not special, nor is our geography.

    “I have the right and the duty to cry out against every tragedy endorsed by the US government. This is one of them.”

    Okay and do you agree there are innumerable other tragedies besides ssm that are endorsed or practiced by the US government that you have a duty to cry out against?

    “Someone could go somewhere else to get contraception, pornography, an abortion, pseudo married or euthanize themselves.”

    Okay, so where are all the frothing at the mouth activists on these issues? Why is ssm getting all the attention? We’ve been living with those “tragedies” for quite a while – seems like the sky should have fallen or activists and pundits should be giving them more attention instead of just shrugging them off.

    “This is hardly the reason why we give businesses tax break though. We do make laws against corp. doing immoral activities.”

    So you’re saying there is no example of a corporation engaged in immoral activity that has not gone unpunished by the government when such activity is known? Why are pornography and contraceptive material/drug and alcohol (since you called it out below as preferring a dry county) corporations still in business?

    “This the we should be allowed to discourage.”

    Sure – I am not saying activists must remain silent and just concede.

    “This is more akin to me being able to get a license to have an affair or get drunk, which are things we should and do have laws against.”

    Is it illegal to have an affair? Is it illegal to get drunk? Should it be?

    “It is about a state having the right to decide what it wishes to have legal and encourage by its own representative governments of the people. ”

    What if a state’s people want to outlaw interracial marriage? Or allow polygamous marriage? We already had many states that had already permitted ssm before the ruling. That didn’t cause Christianity to implode or cause all of those states’ citizens to become some strange immoral beasts because the culture had warped them. One state isn’t special, nor is one country.

    Like

  660. ADD, how does that assistance program work? Do church members give to an education fund, is it taken out of general giving, or what? And who is eligible to receive the assistance?

    Like

  661. “We already had many states that had already permitted ssm before the ruling.”

    Iowa: 2009, via our Supreme Court. I haven’t noticed any change, actually. There was a local clash which, if I recall, occurred when someone didn’t want to rent their facilities for a gay marriage. But I think even gay Iowans thought it was rude of that couple to force the issue.

    Like

  663. Muddy – But I think even gay Iowans thought it was rude of that couple to force the issue.

    TN – How in the world do you have your finger on the pulse of gay Iowans?!

    Like

  664. All sorts of ways. We have two or three dozen folks who are part of a mentoring program (Kids Hope, USA) at a nearby elementary school. When we started doing that 5 or six years ago, we saw that families were struggling to buy back to school supplies, so our members started a drive to provide those. For home schoolers, we have made our facilities available for activities that various groups of want to have. We’ve provided transportation for field trips for home schoolers. Private school tuition assistance has been provided many times, but there is no formal program. I think there are about 5 recipients now, varying amounts. We have a general operating budget, a benevolence fund, and a missions fund with a very broad view of what constitutes missions. We aren’t a mega church, and usually when a family has a need for help with a child’s education, it becomes known through Sunday School classes or the deacons. Since we are Baptists, we would never be able to agree on a formal policy, so when a need arises, we just help however we can if we can.

    Like

  665. Dan,

    That’s all going to give Zrim serious indigestion.

    When do your people find time to attend services and act crabby?

    Like

  667. TN, one of our former pastors said there were only two kinds of Baptists, Busy Baptists and Bickering Baptists.

    Like

  668. Dan,

    I just saw the actor Murray Hamilton in “The Hustler”. Perhaps best known for this scene in “The Graduate”:

    Like

  671. In order to play one pocket, you need to be able to make a bank shot. Bank pool, where every shot must be a called bank shot, is a much tougher game. I saw the best ever several times around here.

    http://www.onepocket.org/EddieTaylorHOFpage.htm

    Forgive an old man his memories. Well, it’s almost bedtime here at the rest home, so I’m out.

    Like

  672. Cletus van Damme
    Posted June 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
    Michael,

    “You assumed that because I have a firm stance against ssm that I judge myself a less sinful person than those who struggle in this way.”

    No, what I took issue with was your statement that “If one does not think forcing us to subsidized samesex “marriage” is not a manifestation of “spiritual power of wickedness”, one aught to think twice” as if SSM was some red-line that we just now crossed. Are you telling me that throughout the history of the United States and its government up through today we have not had other “manifestations of spiritual power of wickedness” its citizens have been forced to subsidize?

    ” I do think it is “an” end for the US officially confirming what is right in this regard, or at least allowing the people to do so, and therefore tragic.”

    Why is this tragic? Why all this placing of hope in the government of the US or any country of any period of history? It’s par for the course – this generation is not special, nor is our geography.

    “I have the right and the duty to cry out against every tragedy endorsed by the US government. This is one of them.”

    Okay and do you agree there are innumerable other tragedies besides ssm that are endorsed or practiced by the US government that you have a duty to cry out against?

    “Someone could go somewhere else to get contraception, pornography, an abortion, pseudo married or euthanize themselves.”

    Okay, so where are all the frothing at the mouth activists on these issues? Why is ssm getting all the attention? We’ve been living with those “tragedies” for quite a while – seems like the sky should have fallen or activists and pundits should be giving them more attention instead of just shrugging them off.

    “This is hardly the reason why we give businesses tax break though. We do make laws against corp. doing immoral activities.”

    So you’re saying there is no example of a corporation engaged in immoral activity that has not gone unpunished by the government when such activity is known? Why are pornography and contraceptive material/drug and alcohol (since you called it out below as preferring a dry county) corporations still in business?

    “This the we should be allowed to discourage.”

    Sure – I am not saying activists must remain silent and just concede.

    “This is more akin to me being able to get a license to have an affair or get drunk, which are things we should and do have laws against.”

    Is it illegal to have an affair? Is it illegal to get drunk? Should it be?

    “It is about a state having the right to decide what it wishes to have legal and encourage by its own representative governments of the people. ”

    What if a state’s people want to outlaw interracial marriage? Or allow polygamous marriage? We already had many states that had already permitted ssm before the ruling. That didn’t cause Christianity to implode or cause all of those states’ citizens to become some strange immoral beasts because the culture had warped them. One state isn’t special, nor is one country.

    Cletus, what’s missing from your universe here is that yes, Biblical morality has lost the US Government. We lost fair and square–except for the Oberkgefell decision, which is tyranny.

    But the real concern now is that government–and this is and will be by force–has taken over society, and soon will be leaning on the church[es] and other quasi–religious institutions. We hope that at some point the r2k frogs will realize that the water’s getting close to boiling and jump out of the pot. It’s no longer about legislating morality, it’s about the state forcing us to implicily endorse immorality.
    _____

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/schools-fear-impact-of-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html

    The spreading anxiety among conservatives — including Senator Rand Paul, who mentioned the issue in an interview on “The Daily Show” last month — hints at the potential effect of a Supreme Court decision backing the right to same-sex marriage, especially for religious institutions that forbid sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage. It also highlights the political battles likely to follow.

    Married housing is one concern identified in the letter. Dating policies prohibiting same-sex contact are another, along with questions about whether religious institutions would have to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

    Legal scholars said the scenario of schools’ and charities’ losing their tax-exempt status over their policies on these issues was unlikely — especially in the short term. But they did not rule it out, based on previous civil rights cases and an exchange during Supreme Court arguments in April on whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

    “In the Bob Jones case,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, referring to the 1983 Supreme Court decision, “the court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

    Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the Obama administration, said that was possible. “I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics,” he said, “but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”

    Like

  673. Kevin, I know, we’re all supposed to turn warm from a nice older fellow helping women out for Jesus. But what seems misguided is by inserting oneself unsolicited like a cold-calling salesman. That may not strike you as somewhat misguided but try a thought experiment: a man stands outside your place of business with a little megaphone telling your patrons that the services you render have dire consequences. He may be quite right in some sense, but is this really the way to engage people seriously as to the point? For those inspired (your word), of course, but for those not yet it all comes off as a little self-important and with the cameras not a little self-congratulatory.

    Like

  674. Dan (who is different…from whom?), at least your benevolence is evenly spread out. As a public schooling deacon in a Reformed church that regularly took up tithes for only Christian schools, I always wondered why I couldn’t get a little aid for field trips to Dutch Village.

    Like

  675. Kevin in Newark
    Posted June 30, 2015 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
    How many OPC elders are there, anyway? 10? 50? 100? 5000?

    Here’s from the Statistician’s Report, 2015 General Assembly (see this page: http://opc.org/GA/82nd_GA_rpt.html )

    As of the end of 2014, for a total OPC membership of 31,122–“there are 534 ministers, 1095 ruling elders, and 866 deacons;” for a total of 2495 ordained officer bearers. The breaks down to one minister/elder for about every 19 members.

    Hope this is helpful.

    Like

  676. Zrim,

    Yeah, because an abortion clinic is just “a place of business”.

    Absolutely pathetic.

    Anyone who takes this place the least bit seriously — flee.

    Like

  678. Cletus,
    This is kind of getting rediculous. You are reading a lot into what you think I believe without asking and when I reply with something that should clear that up you ignor it. Maybe I’m reading you wrong. Just letting you know how you are coming across.
    You said:
    No, what I took issue with was your statement that “If one does not think forcing us to subsidized samesex “marriage” is not a manifestation of “spiritual power of wickedness”, one aught to think twice” as if SSM was some red-line that we just now crossed. Are you telling me that throughout the history of the United States and its government up through today we have not had other “manifestations of spiritual power of wickedness” its citizens have been forced to subsidize?

    Of course I don’t think this is the only manifestation of wickedness. I all ready said that here.

    Why is this tragic? Why all this placing of hope in the government of the US or any country of any period of history? It’s par for the course – this generation is not special, nor is our geography.

    It is tragic because there is no right to marry any one in the constitution much less the right to ssm. May hope is not in the US government. I expect my elective constitutional government officials to keep there promises. I believe ever generation is special and each area in which a person is born is significant.

    Okay and do you agree there are innumerable other tragedies besides ssm that are endorsed or practiced by the US government that you have a duty to cry out against?

    Already said this and you are taking one moment in your awareness of me and assume this is all I have ever been against.

    Okay and do you agree there are innumerable other tragedies besides ssm that are endorsed or practiced by the US government that you have a duty to cry out against?

    I seem to have really prove myself to you, Cletus.

    So you’re saying there is no example of a corporation engaged in immoral activity that has not gone unpunished by the government when such activity is known?

    Of course our laws aren’t perfect.

    Sure – I am not saying activists must remain silent and just concede.

    Not only should not have to remain silent, they should be able to expect the SC not to take away their voting rights. 76% of Texans voted against ssm. We also had laws against homosexual sodomy. SC took that from us too in 03′. We also lost our abortion laws to the SC in Woe v Wade. We also just lost our stand against Obamacare to the SC this past week. I am upset about that too. We also just had part of our current abortion laws in TX struck down by the SC. It is kind of getting rediculous to vote down here. We might as well let the SC make our laws.

    What if a state’s people want to outlaw interracial marriage? Or allow polygamous marriage? We already had many states that had already permitted ssm before the ruling. That didn’t cause Christianity to implode or cause all of those states’ citizens to become some strange immoral beasts because the culture had warped them. One state isn’t special, nor is one country.

    Interracial marriage. Really Cletus? Easy to figure out the fourteenth amendment does actually cover that. We as a nation voted on it. Polygamy? Well I guess we will see how that goes now that states can’t vote against ssm and are forced to recognize every states papers who do. I don’t think you realize that what we have as our laws today effects the generations to come in a significant way, Cletus. Christian morality is imploding on a cultural level right during our lifetime. Where will it be in a hundred years? Or 1000? You know it is possible American could last that long. Do we want that nation to be one that gives it’s people the right to outlaw ssm or not. That is why this is a tragedy. Every state is special as well as every country. On this we disagree. You will also find you disagree with Pope St. John Paul II on that.

    Like

  679. Cletus,
    I forgot. Yes there are and should be laws against adultery and drunkenness. Think 23 states on adultery. Most of the drunkenness laws have to do with being in public and drunk.

    Here is JPII btw:
    As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live. Pope John Paul II

    And:
    Patriotism is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features. It is a love which extends also to the works of our compatriots and the fruits of their genius. Every danger that threatens the overall good of our native land becomes an occasion to demonstrate this love…I belive that the same could be said of every country and every nation in Europe and throughout the world. (Memory and Identity, 65-66)

    Like

  680. “Patriotism is a moral virtue. Nationalism, in its various modes, never is. At least, that’s what St. Josemaria Escrivá, a man who loved his land of Spain, submits:

    Love your own country: it is a Christian virtue to be patriotic. But if patriotism becomes nationalism, which leads you to look at other people, at other countries, with indifference, with scorn, without Christian charity and justice, then it is a sin. (Furrow, 315)” – https://evangelicalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/patriotism-as-a-virtue/

    Like

  681. ja meet erik,

    The bottom line for me is that Old School, 2K, theologically conservative people need a HEALTHY way to respond to the things that frustrate them — about their churches, about their ministers converting to Catholicism, about their ministers sleeping with their members, about “Obedience Boys”, about Tim Keller and his followers, about pietism, about revivalism. I agree those are all problems in our churches.

    A place where people come and grouse continually about real people under fake names after being constantly stirred up by a ringleader is not the answer.

    Now I know that if we actually put these things to a vote in our churches, we lose – thus the frustration. Those in the PCA are fighting a losing battle with The Obedience Boys AND with Keller (doesn’t seem possible to lose both those battles, but you will). Those in the URCNA will lose on 2K. Those in the OPC will likely lose on 2K as well. It stinks, but what are you going to do? Where else do you have to go?

    So I feel your pain, but see my post last night – going negative is not the answer. Going positive and winning over some is your best hope.

    Maybe Jed has some pills leftover.

    Like

  682. Court’s decision reflected a Leave It To Beaver w-w:

    The Court’s majority opinion, as it turns out, does invoke the “sacred”. Citing Loving v Virginia, the landmark 1967 case ending miscegenation laws, the majority argues that the individual’s right to choose a marriage partner is “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy” because such a choice expresses the “yearnings”of “our common humanity.”

    These yearnings for “security, safe haven, and connection” make marriage “unlike any other union in importance.” Indeed they make it a “sacred space” of stability marked off from the surrounding chaos of politics and the market.

    The majority cites a paragraph from Book 1 of Alexis DeTocqueville’s Democracy in America designating American marriage as “the image of order and peace”that both serves as a refuge from the “turmoil of public life”and shores up a sense of stable selfhood that “the man of the house (sic!)” carries with him back into that turmoil.

    Marriage is thus “a keystone of our social order.” It constitutes the exception to the rule of a society composed of the vying interests of autonomous decision-makers, the space where competition ceases and peace and “connection” reign supreme. For DeTocqueville, this space is precisely established because it is where the head of the household rules and all other members obey, where democracy yields to patriarchal authority.

    Outside in the marketplace a “man” is nothing special. At home he is king, and is supported by a chosen companion whose mission in life is to support rather than to contend with his every decision. The SCOTUS majority discreetly avoids mentioning this aspect of DeTocqueville’s analysis of wedded bliss.

    My own relatively muted response to the ruling has much to do with such a theology of marriage which, though certainly soft-pedaled by the court, is hardly covert. The concept of “marriage equality” is premised on the notion that a sacred, “safe” space can be achieved by autonomously choosing one’s own marriage partner.

    But the coherence of this claim always rested on an assumption of gender inequality. And the data on marriage and divorce indicate that, even in the Leave it to Beaver days of the 1950s, the degree to which such stability could be achieved had more to do with economic stability and class privileges than anything else.

    Like

  683. Roman Catholic opinion informed Court decision:

    The Court’s argument was based on four “principles and traditions” which show that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply equally to all. They are:

    The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. (Here Kennedy cites Loving v. Virginia, which struck down interracial marriage bans.)

    The right to marry “supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals,” and same-sex couples have the same right “to enjoy intimate association.”

    Marriage “safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.” This doesn’t mean that everybody has to procreate in order to marry civlly: “Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.”

    “[M]arriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order,” and excluding same-sex couples is “demeaning” to them.

    While this is not a decision that Church leaders are likely to cheer, it is striking to me how strongly these principles echo Catholic doctrine on marriage:

    It was Pope Paul VI who labeled marriage an inalienable right way back in 1967: “When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.” (Populorum progressio, 37)

    The special bond between the married is so important in Catholic tradition that we recognize marriage as a sacrament.

    The safety and security of children has rightly been an important factor in the magisterium’s argument against marriage equality. However, it is clear from experience, scientific study, and simple common sense that marriage equality does not, in fact, harm children, and that providing children’s families legal protection can only benefit them. The opinion’s note that people are not required to procreate is also echoed in Catholic tradition: marriage does not lose its dignity if a couple cannot procreate, and Catholics are to exercise prudence in deciding when–and even if–they procreate. Pius XII explicitly noted that couples may practice (licit) avoidance of procreation “for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.” (Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951) Catholic tradition also allows post-menopausal women and other sterile people to marry, asking only that they not deceive their partners as to their procreative capacity.

    The Church recognizes the equal dignity of all human beings, and says specifically of gay and lesbian people that “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358)

    Perhaps a good first step for Church leaders would be to applaud the Court’s decision in light of its overlap with Catholic values regarding marriage. Of course, the Church may still refuse to marry lesbian and gay couples, just as it refuses to marry anyone with an un-annulled previous marriage. In time, I trust that Church teaching on sacramental marriage will evolve, too, and take note of the powerful sprit of love and commitment vivifying lesbian and gay marriages as well as straight marriages.

    Like

  684. Erik the (self-described) Jackass, what, a description of a clinic that isn’t rhetorically loaded enough for you? But if “place of business” is pathetic maybe you think going Carrie Nation on one is kosher? The BBs on line two.

    ps shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere? Jump! Jump!

    Like

  685. Zrim,when I started reading OLTS after a health related absence of a few months, I saw someone else had posted comments as Dan, thus the screen name. I guess I should add that we provide assistance for private school fees on a special needs basis– say a family has a major change in their financial circumstances and they need help so their kid can finish out the year, or if it is clear that the child just won’t do well in a public school environment. Even then, with one exception I know of, the parents and family bear most of the financial burden. Our larger objective has been to focus on being a better Church family by sharing one anothers burdens and trying to see the needs of our neighbors. Right now, we are in a good place financially, but we have also struggled through lean times.

    Like

  686. Darryl,

    Not that I care that much about you changing my name, but is that ethical?

    People watch how you respond to critics and can draw their own conclusions.

    Thus is supposedly John Muether’s blog, too. Does he agree with that? May I contact him and ask him?

    I think Zrim is a dishonest, probably dangerous guy who is leading people astray. He’s taken the 2k theology that you’ve taught him to absurd levels. He’s your #1 disciple. If you feel the need to coddle him, so be it, but I thought you two were grown men who could handle criticism.

    Like

  687. Darryl,

    I just finally figured out how to aim my fire in the right direction.

    Also, how is the liberal Catholic take at Commonweal much different from yours on the issue?

    Like

  688. 13-year-old Darryl,

    Leave a message for 50-something Darryl to call me if/when he gets home.

    Thanks,

    The Nightfly

    Like

  689. @Kevin Just to clarify a bit, I had in mind the disney sitcoms aimed at the “tween” demographic. “Good Luck Charlie” introduced a lesbian couple in the final episode of last season. I don’t recall any hullaballoo. I suspect that this means we are going to see a lot more of this kind of thing in “family fare”. As they noted on NPR this morning, for the marriage equality crusaders, it is all about changing hearts and minds.

    Panicing about outlandish possibilities (pastors being fined, church leaders being arrested, etc…) plays right into the hands of our opponents who want to paint those of us who oppose ssm as mouth breathing, backwood, paranoid, neo-birchers, who can be safely ignored. Meanwhile the biggest threat we face is likely the enticement of our kids by the media-entertainment industrial-complex who has been selling out for the gay rights movement over the past 15yrs. The next phase is children’s programming. Our kid’s peers are going to see opposition to ssm akin to opposition to interracial marriage (all the nuance and logical differentiation won’t mean a thing). The challenge we face is raising them in the faith given that reality.

    Like

  691. Chortles,

    And we can call you “Shooter”. The desperate old guy who latches on to the team for one final chance at redemption.

    Anyone notice how well yesterday flowed without the crabby people around? Looks like today we’re back to the rough & tumble.

    I’m game, as always.

    Like

  692. @adDan
    I agree that Dreher needs to come to grips with the benefits of pluralism. I’m a principled pluralist (i.e., pluralism isn’t a strategy until people like me get power) because I strongly doubt certainty is possible. The challenge we face is convincing the broader society that we should be tolerated and allowed to do our own thing. I don’t think we are going to be successful if they believe this is just a rope-a-dope strategy.

    I find the talk by many conservatives who lament the loss of Christendom and rise of the enlightenment more than a little amusing when they also talk about religious freedom and so forth. A modern day version of Christendom would not work out so well for traditional believers.

    Like

  693. Sdb,

    The problem with Christendom is deciding whose churches get tolerated and whose do not. Protestantism & Catholicism are different enough that it’s hard to see them both being fully accommodated if enforcing right worship is something that the Magistrate is going to be involved in.

    I could stand to see Christian morality inform the law a lot more than it does, though. Serious Catholics & Protestants don’t have too hard of a time agreeing on that.

    Much of protestantism going liberal and half of Catholicism going liberal post Vatican II drove a stake through the heart of that idea, though. Christians did it to themselves.

    Like

  694. Zrim,

    You don’t win a snark war with me because your sense of humor makes Richard Smith look like George Carlin.

    All day, every day, buddy. Bring it.

    Maybe ask Sean to review every post and coach you.

    Like

  695. Late to this party, but …

    MG: There was a local clash which, if I recall, occurred when someone didn’t want to rent their facilities for a gay marriage. But I think even gay Iowans thought it was rude of that couple to force the issue.

    Perhaps they did, but they also didn’t stage protests or shame the couple into withdrawing the suit. Allies for me, but not for thee.

    Like

  696. Nightfly,

    You should get into an argument with that tja guy.

    —

    Seriously, beware the dopamine.

    Like

  697. Jeff,

    That’s Darryl acting 13 again & changing my screen name (tja = the jackass).

    It’s his brightest idea since antagonizing Tom with “vd, t”

    You’re an ethical guy. Counsel Darryl on ethics.

    Like

  698. A friend asks an excellent question: What if the predicted persecution of Xians and churches does not come? What happens to the credibility of the diminutive poultry prognosticators? At least they’ll be able to fund raise off of if for a while. And clicks, clicks, clicks galore.

    Like

  699. Our church functions like Dan’s when it comes to charity. I believe many LCMS automatically give a percent to their local parochial elementary and/or high school (unfortunately, usually high schools are a joint endeavor with other heterodox “Lutheran” congregations), and the schools expect it. Anyway, as a convert, I’ve never been impressed by the modern lcms day school, and our elders/congregation have cut back (with some protest) on how much we fund. The reputation of these schools far exceeds the reality. If the school is barely teaching any doctrine at all, what’s the point? (The church associated with this particular school will leave it up to the parents to decide if they want their child baptized, CW is standard chapel, etc).

    I believe now our church assists with tuition, if the parents request, on a case-by-case basis. We personally home school, because we can’t afford $6k x 6 a year, and don’t believe the education quality is that great (yet). I can understand someone sending their kids to public school chaffing at the “free money,” but I don’t think public schools cost $4-6k a year. (If they do, for extra programs or whatnot, what a scam…). We’re paying $2k a year in taxes–half of our property taxes–for our failing city schools, which were destroyed by a busing/discrimination lawsuit in the 90s. I’d rather give the money directly to my sister and friend–both public school teachers–so they can buy supplies for their classes (they don’t even get paper…)

    Our church helped us not lose our house (paid two mortgage payments) in 2012 when my husband’s business failed and he was facing some health problems.

    I think our church, under pastor and board, has done a good job balancing first, second and third article gifts (translation: bodily needs of members first, then some community; preach the Gospel; administer the sacraments–not necessarily in that order. It’s just the order of the Creed). It was a good 7 years of our pastor correcting and patiently teaching good doctrine and practice before any one started large service projects to help members.

    “The next phase is children’s programming.” Children’s media have been attacking and stomping all over the 4th (your 5th–actually, probably 4th and 5th for us both…) commandment for 60 years (probably longer).

    Like

  700. “Much of protestantism going liberal and half of Catholicism going liberal post Vatican II drove a stake through the heart of that idea, though. Christians did it to themselves.”

    Yeah, I guess that is kinda my point. We (conservative protestants) lost. We were routed in our denominations. If we can’t win in church, what makes us think we can win on the outside?

    In a lot of ways, the gay rights revolution has been a (c)hristian revolution. It has largely been driven by the UCC, PCUSA, EC, ELCA , and liberal RCs. Abortion on demand, subsidized BC, non-discrimination laws, environmental laws, and now ssm are the political realization of their religious view. I’m not saying all of these things are necessarily bad (I’m not saying they are good either), but they aren’t secular.

    The Christian right went wrong when they adopted the tactics of the Christian left. We would have been much better off if we insisted on a libertarian conception of politics. A couple of positive cover stories on Time magazine back in the 70’s and we thought we could out-politicize them and establish our vision for the good. This was hubris. Again, we tried and lost at the denominational level. I don’t know what made us think we could win in the political arena.

    Like

  701. SDB, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is really hard for me to see how Dreher’s proposal as a way forward if things are going to get as bad as he says they inevitably will. The old medieval monasteries flourished under elite funding and protection.

    CW, what credibility do they have to lose?

    Like

  702. And while a lot of people are more “do what’s best for you” about education than when I was growing up (32 years old, home schooled through high school), there are still a large percentage of moms (it’s usually the moms) who are introduced to home schooling and get VERY dogmatic about it (and then very dogmatic about whatever method they use). Some national homeschool organizations (HSLD and Classical Conversations) have contributed to this all or nothing, only way to parent, mentality.

    My experience is it usually works out pretty well for the kid; I know probably 65-70 home school families whose children have turned into competent adults (with varying degrees of help, from co-ops, local schools, community colleges, tutoring, etc). Almost none were exclusively home schooled . I know maybe 5 or 6 where it was a Very Bad Idea and the kids should have gone to school.

    Like

  703. Jeff, the overall point was – so far, the average person has felt zero impact.

    It’s curious again that even though I have been quite open with apprehensions about where things are headed, people are ready to scold me if I’m not exactly on the agenda denouncing everything without qualification.

    Someone on the left might look at right wingers and say “they’re not all in-your-face jerks that want to coerce other people.” Is it possible that some homosexuals are not all in-your-face jerks that want to coerce other people? Or am I off the party line again? My predominant impression of the few gays I regularly interact with is that they are first of all something else – Iowans, jokesters, diet-conscious, etc. – and not first of all activists who want to curse at Christians.

    PC speech seems to be a right-wing thing as much as it is a left-wing thing, although I suppose it needs another name when it comes from that direction.

    Like

  704. Dan, the Reformed worldviewers could actually take a cue from eeeevangelicals like you–if you’re going to put schooling on the outreach list, best to make it general benevolence and thus spread out than taking up tithes for a specific form of schooling without biblical warrant. Ouch.

    Like

  705. Nightfly, The, boo! I triple dog dare you to come over here and eat some first borns with me.

    Like

  706. Correction:
    “Someone on the left might look at *Christians* and say “they’re not all in-your-face jerks that want to coerce other people.”

    Like

  707. Muddy,

    I’m not going to divulge what you do for a living, but do you think you might have a conflict of interest on this issue? You are the magistrate. You’re awfully close to it and I say with sincerity that I don’t think I would want to be in your shoes in the coming decades trying to keep your responsibilities separate. You might be retired before it gets too dicey, though.

    Like

  708. Chortles,

    If it doesn’t come, maybe the reason is that Christians were aware, united, organized, and ready. Note how the left does a better job at those things time and time again than we do.

    Read the NYT piece in yesterday’s paper on the discipline and unity that the 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court maintained this term in contrast to the 5 “conservatives”. As a result connservatives got their asses handed to them.

    Like

  709. AdDan,
    I suspect that the “bad things” will be less legal than cultural. My fear is that we are building the legal equivalent of a Maginot line for invaders who will never come. Meanwhile Disney slips around our defenses and a generation is lost.

    Dreher’s Benedict Option is still quite fuzzy, so it will be interesting to see what he has to say in his book. If it is about running to mountains of Montana and building “covenant” cities, it will fail. If it is about getting communities to think intentionally about where they live and work so that they can support their church and getting churches together to share resources so that we have peer groups of like minded people who can encourage us in our faith, I think it will provide a valuable bulwark against the storm.

    Like

  710. To the screechers from the right, does it give you any pause when your position lines up with Pat Robertson and John Hagee? Yea, yea I understand clocks twice a day and the sun and a dog’s butt, but don’t you feel like your chain is being yanked to serve someone else’s pocketbook and agenda after awhile? I mean there is such thing as political ‘red meat’ and sensationalism and a sucker born every minute. Charlatanism is a thing.

    Like

  711. Sdb,

    Christians doing business with each other whenever possible would be a good start.

    Sean ,

    I know less about Hagee, but I think Robertson is a solid guy with decades of a track record of being consistent and avoiding public moral failure. He’s Pentecostal, which creeps P&R people out, but I think he’s a good man.

    Hagee and Robertson also believe in “crazy” things like the Trinity and the Virgin birth.

    I didn’t take you to be one of the MSNBC watchers. Is there yoga or biking shorts I don’t know about either?

    Like

  712. SDB, Katy: Re: SSM children’s programming. I cannot agree more. It is deeply unsettling. We need the Hays code back (Golden Age of Hollywood).

    DG: Roman Catholic opinion informed Court decision – KiN: What is new about co-opting part of an authority’s position to gain political support amongst those who recognize that authority?

    TN@DG: how is the liberal Catholic take at Commonweal much different from yours on the issue? – KiN: Liberal Catholics are U.S. public enemy #1.

    Like

  713. MichaelTC – civil divorce

    Agreed civil remarriage is a more precise way to state the problem.

    I still see a problem with civil divorce, although on grounds of scandal – others will not make the distinction between a real marriage and a state marriage, and seeing a state marriage canceled will assume the real marriage is canceled.

    Can’t the couple just separate instead of divorcing?

    Like

  714. Kevin,

    There is always the option of taking a baseball bat to the TV & streaming devices and training kids to read books.

    Like

  715. Zrim –
    a man stands outside your place of business […] it all comes off as a little self-important and with the cameras not a little self-congratulatory.

    I don’t think how it “comes off” to those facilitating terminations of human life (or to you as observer) is the most important thing here. I think preserving that life and looking out after the well-being of the mother (for her sake and as decision-maker for another life) is far more important.

    As for the cameras, can you agree that it would be a good thing should his example spread to those you deem self-important activists? The cameras serve a purpose – if he has saved 1000+ lives, I doubt he’s had cameras there daily.

    Like

  716. Kevin, SDB, Katy: Re: SSM children’s programming, etc.

    “We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality.”

    In November 1987 article entitled “The Overhauling of Straight America” appeared in Guide Magazine. A few years later it’s authors did expand it into a book: Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen: “After the Ball — How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990s”. (Plume, 1990), ISBN: 0452264987

    Like

  718. fly, the difference is 2k. Commonweal tries to link the social policy to the church. I am saying that gay marriage as of today imitates Christian marriage but not that you can get it out of church teaching.

    Like

  720. “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.”

    “..if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.

    The Overhauling of Straight America Marshall Kirk and Erates Pill

    Like

  721. Kevin, obviously we look at this example a bit differently. But at one point I think you allowed for not everyone to be persuaded to imitate or promote what this fellow does. I wonder what reasoning you think would be kosher. You don’t like mine, so other than apathy (which I don’t imagine you’d be wild about), what could someone who’s not so inclined say that would satisfy you? What do you imagine someone like me who is with this fellow on the blight that is elective abortion but resistant on his methodology could say to explain why on the latter to any satisfaction?

    But your reasoning that leads you to say as long as lives are preserved what matter the method sounds an awful lot like the reasoning that gives us the form-content dichotomy in religious matters, e.g. who cares how we worship so long as we do it? The point is that it does indeed matter HOW we convey truth and goodness.

    Like

  722. Kevin, SDB, Katy, TN –

    A full-stop – Re: transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign

    I’ve been told by multiple youth in their 20s that they can’t understand movies from the 1930s and 1940s. As in, the pace of speech, vocabulary, grammar, physical mannerisms, level of thought, dramatic action, and standards of morality (including obligations between characters) are simply not comprehensible to them. These are student interns from mildly respectable colleges in NJ.

    Of course, the very social and economic life, even the physical space we typically inhabit has changed (automobiles, suburbanization, “urban renewal,” decline of the public square, decline of skilled “blue-collar” professions, etc.).

    It’s war on the Logos (“the Word”), if you ask me.

    Like

  724. a period, and what happened with the Christian public was desensitized about orthodoxy back in the 1880-1920 period? You think this is the first time something bad happened?

    Like

  725. Kevin,
    Can’t the couple just separate instead of divorcing?

    There could be many reasons for this. Maybe the unfaithful spouse has abondoned the faith and is living wrecklessly and the faithful spouse does not need to be financially and civilly bound to the unfaithful. Maybe the unfaithful spouse is seeking one of those pseudo second marriages. Maybe the marriage actually gets annulled by the Church. I am not everybody else so I can’t know all the situation that may make civil divorce a godly option, even while recognizing the permanace of Catholic marriage. If the state and Catholic marriage had the same definitions, there would be little need for what I am saying could possible happen. The Church would be used by the state to recognize annulments and separations would have a legal way to be recognized and there would be no divorces nor remarriages.

    Like

  726. Sean,

    To the screechers from the right, does it give you any pause when your position lines up with Pat Robertson and John Hagee? Yea, yea I understand clocks twice a day and the sun and a dog’s butt, but don’t you feel like your chain is being yanked to serve someone else’s pocketbook and agenda after awhile? I mean there is such thing as political ‘red meat’ and sensationalism and a sucker born every minute. Charlatanism is a thing.

    You have a point, but I haven’t seen anyone in my local Reformed church or among the more thoughtful people screaming that this is God’s judgment on America or what not. All some of us are calling for is prudential evaluation of the times and that we should pay attention to what has happened elsewhere.

    Like

  727. Sean,

    You also have the problem that if you are going to judge Hagee & Robertson’s political analysis on the basis of their theological idiosyncrasies, you’ve just committed the converse error that 2k people accuse neocalvinists of.

    If a wise turk can analyze what is going on in the world correctly and a pious Dutch Calvinist can analyze incorrectly, couldn’t Hagee & Robertson go either way?

    2k would say that their theology is irrelelevant.

    Like

  728. Erik,

    I know less about Hagee, but I think Robertson is a solid guy with decades of a track record of being consistent and avoiding public moral failure. He’s Pentecostal, which creeps P&R people out, but I think he’s a good man.

    To his credit, Robertson has avoided public moral failure. To his discredit, he says crackpot things like you can divorce your wife if she gets Alzheimer’s. It’s not the Pentecostal thing that creeps me out, it’s the exegesis by vision.

    Like

  729. After spending 2+ years immersed in the 2k world I am now fully convinced that most 2k thinking is based on emotion as opposed to reason.

    The proponents are slick enough to get past most of their opponents, however, who are even more emotional and less logical than they are.

    Like

  730. Robert,

    Agreed. He’s getting awfully old, and old people who speak off the cuff constantly make these kind of errors. Human frailty.

    Like

  731. “He’s getting awfully old, and old people who speak off the cuff constantly make these kind of errors.”

    So erik what’s your excuse?

    Like

  732. “We need the Hays code back”

    Not sure if that was/is a good solution. If you’re marketing toward a target (ie, children), you give them what they want. Plus, there are good points to be made that trash was still present

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/March/35/3/magazine/article/12781/

    And the media is the message and all that. We technically don’t let our kids watch anything (extremely hard to enforce, Frozen is ubiquitous, everyone has a laptop or ipad somewhere to whip out and occupy the kids…). If you don’t watch cartoons for 5 or 10 years, even the “classics,” and then watch one—it’s extremely bracing/screechy/annoying. Even the cloy ones winking at the adults. Real sin like adultery, murder, etc., can easily be introduced in books, but the medium presents it just as a fact of the story, not a always a moral reality or good. The reader decides (or is guided by his/her parents or other authority). Same for music. I think movies and TV don’t offer that neutral position, for the very young, anyway. The tone and direction easily manipulate the viewer into thinking what he is seeing is right or wrong.

    Like

  733. Erik,

    On what grounds is 2k more based on emotion? How has your apparent rejection of 2k been anything but an emotional response to push back you experienced here?

    Watching this ‘transition’ of yours has been rather unsettling, as it seems like you have rather easily switched convictions, after what appears to be a blogosphere dust-up. Sorry if I don’t buy your ‘rational’ transition out of 2k, it seems more like a gut reaction than something you seriously evaluated, compared, and found wanting.

    Like

  734. DG – I am saying that gay marriage as of today imitates Christian marriage but not that you can get it out of church teaching. –

    But also that participants in gay marriage gain virtue as a result? (since you raise the issue again) – E.g.:

    DG: same-sex marriage follows the Christian pattern of one plus one equals
    one. That’s not polygamy. And it is fidelity.

    The authors of the Commonweal might agree with that (or might not, not a publication I read).

    Also, since you are pulling up old comments and calling people to task for them, I reiterate I am interested in knowing whether you agree that the summary of your position(s) I provided is accurate (or just “brilliantly incoherent” -?): http://bit.ly/1IqY1Ms

    Like

  735. I don’t think a modern version of the Hays code would work in our favor even if it could be implemented. Society’s values when it comes to sexual ethics are opposed to ours.

    Keeping your children from watching Disney’s dreck is easy. The challenge is to prepare them to navigate a world when that world views their parents as a moral monsters.

    Like

  736. I barely have any oxen to gore, so my 2K purity is easily preserved.

    Sometimes there are pangs of guilt over selfishness, sometimes justified.

    Happy Canada Day.

    Like

  737. Robert, I think some people are amping up, but I’m all for sober reflection. Part of my problem is that I never intend to say everything that can be said in a comment. So, it’s forever just a part of an angle on an issue. I’m all for people adding to it. Still, when I find myself lined up with Hagee and Robertson, I’m at least gonna cringe and rethink the thing. I also think the evangelical ghetto is a loser position, no matter how you slice it and I still laugh at TBN(as opposed to taking it seriously and looking for a flower on top of the dung hill) that’s just how I vibe.

    Like

  738. Jed,

    A lot if it is center-left guys (Darryl, Muddy, Zrim) having a reaction against the right. They co-opt young guys like you and middle-aged guys like Chortles & Sean.

    Also note how Darryl deals with me and Tom. Pretty much all emotion and childish games.

    The strategy appears to be to frustrate, mock, and melt down all opponents. That’s not logic. It works with Tim Bayly. I don’t think it will work with me, but sit back and watch the ongoing attempts.

    Like

  740. @ Erik:

    “The Nightfly” could be a cool name for a Marvel Comics superhero, so there’s that. You just need to identify your superpower.

    As far as 2k goes, my own brand of 2k is jurisdictional. The church has exclusive jurisdiction over matters of faith and worship.

    If you agree, then if you pursue that thought you can see that if the church now intrudes on the state’s jurisdiction, it will necessarily cede to the state a certain amount of say in matters of faith and worship. This is unacceptable.

    Thus the 18th century revisions to the Reformed creeds. It took time to see that the magistrate cannot be assumed to be faithful to the Word.

    Like

  741. Agree, sdb

    I will admit a lot of my negative reaction to the modern circus (SCOTUS rulings, cartoons, whatever) is rooted in snobbery and cynicism. I was never more embarrassed for my country than when the White House was lit up in rainbow. And then when I read Kennedy’s statement, and then the dissident statements–who appointed these people?! And I’d feel the same way if I supported “gay marriage” or sodomy in general.

    When Benghazi happened the same week the HBO show Veep had an episode about saving a POW to make the administration look good and for political gain, I was convinced it was a documentary. Or close to it.

    And I recognize it’s a temptation to sin, holding those God has placed over us in utter disdain and complete disgust. (And then sin again by calling them incompetent idiots.)

    Enough OldLife for today.

    Like

  742. After spending 2+ years immersed in the 2k world I am now fully convinced that most 2k thinking is based on emotion as opposed to reason.

    Jed, ding. This from the guy who turned on a dime, which suggests he lacks both judgment and a core, which casts a lot of doubt on his current assessments. Like the Baptist college that bans dice, cards, substances, and dancing last year but this year says dancing is kosher.

    Like

  743. sdb, what’s this vendetta against Disney? You sound like a 90s Baptist. Let it go, let it go.

    Like

  744. Could it be that DGH has found a political theory that he likes and has conformed his theology to it? Could it be that early American Presbyterians as a whole did the same? Political tail wagging the theological dog?

    Like

  746. Zrim,

    The core is the one I had when I came here. Getting tight with you guys is what duped me, which is why I’m still around trying to warn others.

    It’s what’s at your core that is the question. Anyone who has become as hardened as you have on the question of abortion needs to look in the mirror and perform an honest self-assessment. What else is going on in your life?

    Like

  747. Zrim,

    Turning was not on a dime. It involved thousands of e-mails from guys who, will maintaining apparently solid confessional professions, really did not seem to have much happiness in their lives and mostly found satisfaction by endlessly mocking and belittling others.

    I began to ask myself, “Is this really the point of Reformed theology? Is this what it leads to?” The drama with Kenneth and its aftermath was the culmination of the wakeup call. Now I’m back, trying to get it right this time.

    Do I enjoy this? Not really, but I’ve been encouraged by some others that it can lead to good, so I persist, at least for a time.

    Like

  748. Jeff,

    I have no beef with you. You are an honorable man. The clique here would most likely dismiss you as a pietist if they spoke freely. I think you are a guy to emulate.

    Like

  749. Some would say what is going on here is serious spiritual warfare. Many will mock that, but those with open minds, consider it and be in sincere prayer for the participants that hearts hardened for years if not decades would be softened.

    Like

  750. Forget TV. Keep your kids out of the bathrooms. It’s bad, people. Madness, madness.

    OFFICIALS: STUDENTS’ GENDER IDENTITY DETERMINES RESTROOM USE

    NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department says in a court filing that transgender students must be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

    The department says in a statement of interest filed Monday that failure to do so amounts to sex discrimination under Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972. The document is in response to a federal lawsuit filed against the Gloucester County School Board by a 16-year-old transgender student who wants to be allowed to use the boys’ restroom.

    Like

  752. Zrim –

    But at one point I think you allowed for not everyone to be persuaded to imitate or promote what this fellow does. I wonder what reasoning you think would be kosher.

    Just that not everyone has the ability or inclination to do so – they may be cowards, or impatient, or loudmouths who scare the women away rather than draw them in.

    Re: What someone resistant on his methodology could say to explain why

    I point back to my initial comment: kc – Everyone may not be called to this, but how can they not praise, admire, and be inspired by his work?. Don’t want to be preachy, but if you want to give qualified praise, emphasis is important- some of your comments do not clearly indicate that you are with this fellow on the blight that is elective abortion.

    as long as […] what matter the method – That’s not my reasoning. My reasoning is greater v. lesser goods. It is good not to annoy people, as a rule, but if they are committing murder, we may just have to step on toes- as always, in prudence (but why the need to so carefully state this?).

    the form-content dichotomy in religious matters – Looks like you may be with me on “lex orandi, lex credendi”, or at least a point related to it.

    dice, cards, substances, and dancing – these are not intrinsically evil (depends which “substances”) and do not harm the social fabric. Indeed, they are of great benefit to human social relations. SSM, quite the contrary.

    Like

  753. Nasty, without a core, disingenuous, secret sinners, probably gay, angry, scorners, closet liberals, (irredeemably?) hardened — did I miss any? I think I missed a few. Breathtaking stuff.

    Like

  754. Erik,

    You missed your real chance to expose OL vulnerability:

    The New Testament predicts the rise of scoffers in the last days (2 Peter 3:3-4 and Jude 18):

    3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

    18 they told you, “In the end time there will be scoffers walking according to their own ungodly desires.”

    H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) was a master mocker. His iconoclastic DNA lives on in many post-modern journalists of the 21st century. Here are a few of his scoffing remarks at religious people:

    Sunday school: A prison in which children do penance for the evil conscience of their parents.

    Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

    A nun, at best, is only half a woman, just as a priest is only half a man.

    What is the function that a clergyman performs in the world? Answer: he gets his living by assuring idiots that he can save them from an imaginary hell.

    The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore.

    The Creator is a comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh.

    The book of Proverbs warns us of a boomerang effect in correcting scoffers for it brings dishonor to ourselves (9:7). Jesus warned of giving holy things to dogs and casting your pearls before pigs—for they will trample them and attack you (Matt. 7:6).

    BTW, your problem has been that you take a blog way too seriously. This is meant to be playful. when you signed off before you had warnings about how 2k wasn’t going to change the world by OL tactics. Who ever thought that it would?

    And so now you want scholarly debate? On-line? vd, t has never taken me seriously and so I respond in kind. You did take me (too) seriously and now you make personal accusations when people say you’re overreacting.

    Try some of Jed’s pills.

    Like

  755. Joel, could be.

    But then again, don’t forget about the way that Constantinianism wagged the political dog. Maybe 2k is a way of finding our pre-Constantinian Christian selves.

    Like

  757. What a world, they have to put up a big warning because there is violence in the movie Casablanca… and meanwhile..

    Hope Sydney Greenstreet doesn’t get too involved in the unspeakable violence I have to be warned about…

    Like

  759. Chortles,

    Mock away, but you know that you are involved in spiritual warfare personally on a daily basis — more than most of us.

    The “gay” comment was a result of two things: Kent making the point that we likely have many gay people in our churches and Muddy’s Occam’s Razor analysis. If we have people here who are adamantly against the case that the Supreme Court ruling will cause problems for the church, what is the simplest explanation for their protests — that they themselves are gay. It sounds harsh, but if you guys are going to take the stand you are taking here in your churches, you had better be ready to hear it.

    One of the guys here once made a sexual comment to me in an inappropriate place, at an inappropriate time, using a term that I have never even used with my wife in over 20 years of marriage. “Awkward taco” as we like to say in these parts. Now can that be corroborated by a third party? No, so it is of no evidential value. Could I have misinterpreted it? Yes, but it did happen, the man likely knows what I’m talking about, so it’s fair game. It was a very odd thing for one man to say to another. I’m content to leave it at that.

    Like

  760. Darryl,

    Personal as in hating you guys, not at all. Personal as in warning people about you guys, yes. I hope this can all be resolved peaceably at some point and that we will all be the better for it. I think we’re all Christians. Hopefully we’ll all be seeing each other in heaven someday, so how can I hope for anything else?

    Like

  761. Darryl,

    If it’s all playful and in fun, why so many posts on Catholicism as if you are on some god-ordained mission?

    Why when people ask what your motivations are you say to love and serve Jesus for the remainder of your days?

    You alternate between playful and earnest and expect everyone to keep up with which is which. People struggle, and these are not stupid people for the most part.

    Your an ordained elder in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You probably need to pick an approach and stick with it if you take the souls of the people who are looking to you seriously. Either that or just quit serving as an elder and have the freedom that accrues to a non-officer member of an OPC. Lots of benefits, but lower expectations.

    As it stands, at some point the leash will probably shorten and a Presbytery will make this blog an issue. You have a long leash because of your status and your publications, but you are not bigger than the OPC. Things need to be done decently and in good order by elders, even outside the church.

    Like

  762. personal as in you’re talking about people and not about thoughts or arguments. personal as in you didn’t respond to the point that you are taking this too seriously. personal in that you’re taking this personally (and have been since I tried to limit your comments).

    Like

  763. Kevin, perhaps I then stand corrected. There really isn’t any good reason one might resist his methodology? There’s cowardice and inability to imitate. That’s it? So, to refrain can only be out of personal defectiveness?

    …some of your comments do not clearly indicate that you are “with this fellow on the blight that is elective abortion.”

    But I have been explicit and clear on the moral and political blight of elective abortion. What I’ve been trying to say is that this can co-exist with being critical of certain behaviors that also share that essential outlook. It’s called nuance, but you seem to be suggesting that taking a pass on public behavior like this fellow must mean one really doesn’t think that way. What can I tell you, I do.

    It is good not to annoy people, as a rule, but if they are committing murder, we may just have to step on toes- as always, in prudence (but why the need to so carefully state this?).

    Because portraying some as “committing murder” doesn’t seem like the most persuasive way to engage another person. It’s the sort of language lifers use amongst themselves to bolster their sense that they are on the right side of righteousness (and perhaps reminding outsiders of the same thing). And so I wonder if you can admit that the motivation is a mixed bag of wanting to help women and bolster a cause. Call me whatever, but I don’t see as much nobility in the latter as I do in the former, and if lifers are about the former I would think they’s stay away from such incendiary language.

    Like

  764. ly, and you call Jeff a pietist.

    Maybe it’s not people that struggle but you. And if you are as smart as you think, don’t you think you can tell the difference between a post about a court ruling and a comment in answer to a question? I don’t blog about my earnestness. But you want my blog to match my ordination vows.

    what exactly did you understand about 2k?

    Like

  765. Zrim
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
    Kevin, perhaps I then stand corrected. There really isn’t any good reason one might resist his methodology? There’s cowardice and inability to imitate. That’s it? So, to refrain can only be out of personal defectiveness?

    …some of your comments do not clearly indicate that you are “with this fellow on the blight that is elective abortion.”

    But I have been explicit and clear on the moral and political blight of elective abortion. What I’ve been trying to say is that this can co-exist with being critical of certain behaviors that also share that essential outlook. It’s called nuance, but you seem to be suggesting that taking a pass on public behavior like this fellow must mean one really doesn’t think that way. What can I tell you, I do.

    It is good not to annoy people, as a rule, but if they are committing murder, we may just have to step on toes- as always, in prudence (but why the need to so carefully state this?).

    Because portraying some as “committing murder” doesn’t seem like the most persuasive way to engage another person. It’s the sort of language lifers use amongst themselves to bolster their sense that they are on the right side of righteousness (and perhaps reminding outsiders of the same thing). And so I wonder if you can admit that the motivation is a mixed bag of wanting to help women and bolster a cause. Call me whatever, but I don’t see as much nobility in the latter as I do in the former, and if lifers are about the former I would think they’s stay away from such incendiary language.

    If only “babykiller” [an accurate term] were as effective as “bigot,” the word that won the SSM debate. Only the left gets away with stuff like that, prob because they control the media and the schools.

    http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-bigotry_prejudice_homophobia.html

    Like

  766. Darryl – But you want my blog to match my ordination vows.

    Erik – I do, and the point that you think that your ordination vows don’t govern your day to day life is really tragic.

    I hope to God I’m wrong, but I sincerely fear that this will not end will for you. Our sins will find us out.

    If you’re sincere that everything you do here is “all in fun”, tell me now and I will go away. I have no desire whatsoever to spend the kind of time I do here if that’s all it is.

    Like

  767. erik, you watch 10 movies a weekend and you tell me to be serious?

    What have you missed while paying “attention” here? Do my ordination vows govern the way I teach history at a secular Christian friendly college? Do my ordination vows prevent me from passing on the right? Do my ordination vows mean I can’t raise questions about the hysteria to which Christians are prone in the culture wars? Are my ordination views a w-w?

    You’re sounding more and more like a pietist.

    Like

  768. NF,
    Whether Hart takes his interaction here seriously or not many of us do. I know you have often been playful and jabby in the past at times, but I have really close to always appreciated your interaction.

    Like

  769. Zrim, our Church library maintains subscriptions to Christianity Today and Christian Century. I’m not sure the Evangelical label fits me or my church. I am not the first or only person in my Church to have read Hunter’s “To Change The World” alongside our church history and figure out that trying to be God’s faithful presence offered a way forward that turns out to be consistent with our past. Still not easy.

    Like

  770. Darryl,

    O.K. If you’re not serious, you’re not serious. That’s not much of a legacy to be aspiring to, though, for a man of your talents. Not much separating your blog from “Mad” magazine or Perez Hilton’s blog if that’s your stance.

    I’ll likely shake the dust off my feet and move on shortly if that’s all this is. Some will get duped for a time, but most will see through it and move on. It’s certainly been a learning experience and I wish you all well.

    Twitter isn’t near as thought provoking, but it does pass the time during the free moments throughout the day…

    Like

  771. Guess I have never understood the critique against being pious here. Can you discribe what you mean by pietist and why it is bad?

    Like

  772. Tom, right because loaded rhetoric is the best way to win the day, but only if you’re the good guy. So what are you saying, you want certain groups to control the common sphere? I thought you claimed conservative? But please, less politics, more statecraft.

    Like

  773. So much drama.

    Another option is locking comments after say, 200 comments. I think that would be reasonable and avoid endless digressions. That solution also wouldn’t rely on the self-control (or lack thereof) of commenters.

    Like

  774. Michael,

    Thanks.

    Darryl,

    The 10 movies is interesting in that that came about after I discovered Old Life.

    When you buy into the notion that what you do Monday through Saturday doesn’t matter all that much as long as you’re in a church that has all the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted for two services on Sunday, you might find that your Monday through Saturday compass gets a bit out of whack.

    I’m not doing that any more, though, although I do still watch some stuff. “The Apartment” later today.

    Like

  775. mtx, pious is different from pietist. A pietist makes experience central to understanding Christianity — think revivalism, pentecostalism, veneration of Mary (couldn’t resist). A confessionalist is different — someone who defines Christianity by objective measures like creeds, worship, church membership. Not to be all self-promotional, but the distinction between pietism and confessionalism is at the heart of The Lost Soul of American Protestantism.

    Like

  776. y, again, what have you learned in all the time you’ve spent here? When did I say the stuff during the weekdays doesn’t matter? Common matters. It’s just not holy or sacred. It also means that on weekday stuff, we expect lots of disagreements and variety.

    What happened to you?

    Like

  777. Colonel Fitts, er i mean gnat boy, or whatever,
    How bout instead of watching more movies, blogging ad nauseum here, flipping and flopping wherever the wind blows you spiritually, name calling, slandering, and generally just being a jerk, why don’t you try spending time with your family?? Or maybe its just that they don’t wanna spend time with YOU…. if the shoe Fitts…..

    Like

  778. When you buy into the notion that what you do Monday through Saturday doesn’t matter all that much as long as you’re in a church that has all the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted for two services on Sunday…

    Wow, what a sophomoric grasp if true. Or you’re flat out making this up out of spite. Either way…

    Like

  779. Neutral parties can observe the mobbing behavior on display.

    fly swatter is likely Sean. Darryl could verify if he wanted to.

    Keep it up guys, it just reinforces my argument. I fully anticipate it. No way you melt me down.

    If I’m not striking a nerve, why the continued engagement and no new posts for several days? Yesterday you were mum, today it’s full speed ahead again. That doesn’t make sense.

    Like

  780. D.G. Hart:
    A confessionalist is different — someone who defines Christianity by objective measures like creeds, worship, church membership.>>>>>

    Confessional Protestantism has no way to unify anything. Besides, like it or not, the WCF was originally ordered by Parliament. IOW, it had a political beginning. It was meant to help keep the Scottish Presbyterians quiet and happy.

    Then there’s that little “personal conscience” loophole that most Presbyterians have escaped through.

    The there’s the little issue of sola scriptura. Please explain Jesus’ separating the sheep from the goats, and that based on their works – whether good or evil.

    I am sorry about what has happened to Confessional Protestantism. Actually, the pietists are still going strong. Modernism and then the constants divisions on the part of the conservatives in order to get away from the modernists pretty much did you guys in.

    Tragic. Now you do all you can to prove that Catholicism is going down the same road.

    …and John 17 is trampled underfoot. Yet Jesus is building His Church, and it does include all those who name the name of Christ, like it or not.

    Like

  781. If one were to take on a bunch of guys in a cult (of personality), what response would you expect?

    Would it look anything like this response I’m getting?

    Like

  783. Mrs. W,

    Some confessional standards were commissioned by the magistrate, some weren’t. However, there is a high degree of unanimity between the Reformed confessions in the period when Reformed orthodoxy was at its high point during the 16th and17th centuries. Your criticism here is fairly anachronistic.

    Like

  784. Hart,
    Thanks for that clarification. I think experience should not be central either. Experience can teach us many things though. Erik is probably being taught something from experience right now. Anyway,
    I believe that is not a just charge against Erik.

    Like

  785. Michael,

    Indeed.

    They’re the bullying clique of cool kids and I’m the guy with the scoliosis brace who eats his boogers.

    What’s likely happening is that yesterday they had agreed on a group strategy to ignore me. Last night I think Zrim broke ranks and piped up. I responded which further inflamed him. The others saw it, also broke ranks, and hopped back on board. Now it’s Katy bar the door again. Soon they’ll decide on some kind of new strategy.

    Could be blocking me, giving me the Sowers Rule, more silence. Who knows. It is high drama, though, isn’t it?

    I’ve been on the inside. I know how it works.

    Like

  786. Mermaid, “Confessional Protestantism has no way to unify anything.”

    Can I get this on an 8-track cassette? It’s a little old but I guess it’s still a hit with some.

    Have you not noticed that Rome has a way to unify everything and it doesn’t?

    I’d say the problem is Rome’s (and those who thought Rome would solve disunity).

    Like

  787. Michael, I think “pious” sometimes taken as a synonym of priggish. You know it when you see it.

    Like

  788. That’s actually a great way to get me to shut up. Start dueling with Mrs. Webfoot and Tom again on Catholicism.

    Garlic, meet Vampire.

    Like

  791. Michael,

    That’s part of why I continue on (the bad part, not the good part). No one can beat me in this format save Sean, and he doesn’t have the stamina or care enough.

    I can take on the others as long as I choose to. They do not have the chops, yo.

    But like I said, that’s the bad part.

    Like

  792. Michael: Feels like I’m watching an episode of Degrassi…

    oh boy, always do appreciate when the Lord gives us vivid actual illustrations ..

    like madmen who throws firebrands, arrows and death, are men
    …who deceive their neighbors,…… and says, “Was I not joking?” Prov 26:18-19
    Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. James 1:14-16

    Like

  793. I do need to get some work done, though, so here’s what I’ll do. I’ll back away from the computer (well, not the computer — the blog — the computer’s where I need to work). I’ll come back in the morning, read all of the insulting comments from the past 17 hours or so, see if I can discern the new strategy, and decide if it’s worth continuing on. Sound fair?

    We’ll see you tomorrow.

    Like

  794. DG-

    I am surprised that someone at the OPC would not mind making “incoherent” statements on basic Christian morality. As a fellow Christian and US citizen, I was hoping to learn from you, in a position of leadership over one of the relatively few groups here commited to traditional morality.

    It looks very much to me like you are employing the exact rhetorical techniques those who undermine organizations have for a long time- stating first one position and then another; redefining words to embrace new meanings; to quote from a seemingly relavant source:

    “Seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual.

    […] mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.” -Auctorum Fides.

    Like

  795. a., can you explain what your last comment. Didn’t make sense to me. Do I need to know what Degrassi is to understand it?

    Like

  797. Joel – sorry, nothing to do with Degrassi (don’t know anything about it) – just to do with watching a spectacle play out

    2k ?
    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/exclusive-county-clerk-resigns-instead-of-issuing-gay-marriage-licenses.html
    Linda Barnette has issued marriage licenses in Grenada County, Mississippi for 24 years. On Tuesday, she resigned.“I choose to obey God rather than man,” “I am a follower of Christ and I believe strongly that the Bible is my final authority,” she wrote. ‘The Bible teaches that a marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Therefore, because of the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, I can no longer fulfill my duties as Circuit Clerk and issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.”

    Like

  798. Kevin, do I really need this while I’m dealing with ly? At least Erik has a history here.

    I’ll stand by most of what I said even if off the cuff. But you always must put it in context and the context you are not addressing is the hysteria I see among people who think the sky is falling just now. It’s always been falling since Ascension Day.

    Are some developments more threatening or troubling than others? Yes.

    But the weeping and gnashing of teeth about gay marriage has yet to acknowledge that gays (whether they know it or not) want to be like Christians. That’s one way of reading this. Why is that so much of a threat to Christian morality? As far as I see it, churches still teach (some of them) that homosexuality is a sin. when the state stopped prosecuting gay sex, wasn’t that pretty bad?

    Like

  800. MTX, the arts and crafts store?! How gay! That’s where uber amounts of gay wedding purchases are made, allegedly, not that I know or anything………….errr…………………I don’t even shop.

    Like

  801. Zrim – You know that there are 2 kingdoms in 2K right? And you know that Christians have responsibilities in both? In any society with generally free government, the Christian also has responsibility as the magistrate and that means participation in the political process. So what informs your decision making in the secular/earthly kingdom? What principles guide you and on what ought society base its laws?

    Like

  802. DG –

    Thanks for the best response thus far on the issue.

    I’ve expressed my concerns and given my reasons for sharing them – of limited weight perhaps given I’m new, but still fundamental. I hope you will reflect upon and understand the gravity of the issue at hand, whether or not you believe it is my place to raise it.

    I think I’ll stand by most of what I said is weasely; but I don’t intend to raise the issue again since the established community of participants here seems unconcerned.

    When the state stopped prosecuting gay sex, it was another step in opening up the problems we are dealing with now, problems my 5-month old will be dealing with his entire life. I will not be able to tell him that OPC leadership can be counted on to speak clearly on Christian morality.

    Like

  803. Hart quoting Erik (I think) – “Getting tight with you guys is what duped me.”

    Me: Wait, we’re going for drinks? I’ll get an Uber. (Does Hillsdale have Uber?)

    Like

  804. Kevin, I’m still trying to understand your thinking a bit. Do you feel as though it is the job of your church to build and uphold all of Western civilization? After all, if they don’t do it, who will? In that context, the angst around Supreme Court decisions and the OPC’s speaking to the culture make sense, I suppose. I don’t really get why the OPC should do anything out of the ordinary on this occasion otherwise.

    Like

  807. Kevin, speaking clearly on Christian morality is alive and well in the OPC. Talking about what a society should do with Christian morality is an entirely different matter. The OPC generally doesn’t speak about public matters (but does proclaim the decalogue).

    I’m surprised you’d say this about a church when you’re own bishops aren’t exactly breaking down the doors of upholding traditional marriage. I mean it’s hard to get Pope Francis to be quiet but has he peeped about the situation in the U.S. or Ireland?

    Like

  808. sdb,

    What’s with all this “won’t somebody please think of the children!” business? As Katy said, “The next phase is children’s programming.” Children’s media have been attacking and stomping all over the 4th (your 5th–actually, probably 4th and 5th for us both…) commandment for 60 years (probably longer).”

    Again, par for the course and we’re not special. This is getting echoes of Falwell’s teletubbies are gay and corrupting our children nonsense.

    You’re afraid because some disney tween shows are starting to hint and show things that kids might actually – shock – also see in reality that Christianity will be lost for a generation? You’re giving businesses far too much credit for holding to principles beyond the bottom line if you think Disney as a public corporation is going to become some crusader for ssm and lgbt – they will support it of course (disneyland already has held pride weekends for years now and Modern Family is on ABC which is owned by Disney and Marvel comics also owned by Disney has a few gay heroes – they get like a day of news press when such characters come out (note they are always minor, never major characters), then it is just as quickly forgotten) but they also know conservatives and christians are a huge source of their business – Iger is smart, much smarter than Eisner, and he’s not stupid enough to alienate that business.

    Michael,

    “Christian morality is imploding on a cultural level right during our lifetime. Where will it be in a hundred years? Or 1000? You know it is possible American could last that long.”

    Of course – which is my point. America (or one’s state that voted for or against ssm) is not the end all be all of existence – you know there are other countries out there that aren’t so bad. On the other hand, there are ones that are theocratic that aren’t doing so hot. My other point is look at history. Christendom went up in smoke after a pretty long run – people at its height could have been asking “where will it be in 100 years” and so on. Christianity got along just fine before, during, and after all the various political and cultural and societal upheavals it has been witness to in history. “But America might go away some day!” Yeah, and? Might be sad and I’d prefer it not to, but what else is new? History doesn’t allow for such pie-in-the-sky idealism.

    “Every state is special as well as every country.”

    I meant we’re not special in terms of geography or history. America is just a country out of many, and a young one at that – it’s not the gospel or somehow integral to the survival of Christianity. Iowa that enacted ssm in 2009 is just a state out of many, not the gospel. Iowans could’ve left and fled to Texas if they feared for their moral sanity, no big deal. Of course they haven’t, which just shows again the sky is falling rhetoric is overblown.

    “Patriotism is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features.”

    I am not denigrating patriotism. But it needs to remain in its right place and proper context – elevating it too high or glamorizing it leads to all sorts of problems and confusion. You don’t want people putting flags in their churches and saying the pledge of allegiance at benediction.

    Like

  809. Publius, yes and yes. The Christian may be afforded certain freedoms in particular arrangements like ours, but he’s hardly compelled biblically to exercise them, much less to think of himself as a magistrate–quite the contrary, he’s compelled to think of himself as a governed man under law.

    But I’m not sure I follow where your comment comes from. Is it all somehow related to my exchange with Kevin…?

    Like

  810. The ‘Jewish Boy’ Mortara was baptised by a domestic servant girl when the baby was in danger of death. Mortara gave every sign of having been on his way to heaven – not particularly likely had Pius IX not intervened.

    A summary from all of last week: http://bit.ly/1NwGB17

    Keep in mind he very likely would have been conditionally rebaptised at some point before becoming a priest- they wouldn’t have had him saying Mass if someone could challenge his orders.

    Also, the most traditional Catholics I know acknowledge what you’ll find if you google “Baptism newadvent”:

    Was the servant correct in baptising the child against his parent’s wishes, even though he was in danger of death? “the answer is a decided negative.”

    Like

  812. Hart – Uber is a ride-sharing service you can order from an app on your phone. It can be employed profitably when one needs to get home after exercising one’s Christian liberty at the local watering hole, e.g., “…Getting tight with you guys…

    Like

  813. Joel – Kevin, I’m still trying to understand your thinking a bit. Do you feel as though it is the job of your church to build and uphold all of Western civilization? […] I don’t really get why the OPC should do anything out of the ordinary on this occasion otherwise

    Thanks for the question.

    I think almost all of us here, as participants of US society, have a duty to try to shape civil law to the long-term benefit of our society. Two reasons why include love of neighbor, and the fact that our political system allows us to vote (e.g., for a president and senators who would select & confirm good SC judges).

    Part of this is voting; part of this is pre-political: trying to build consensus amongst those who, I believe, ought to see the problem and can at least help lend confidence to one another as to what our responsibilities entail.

    I’m not asking the OPC as institution to do anything – clearly not my place. But as a US citizen and Christian, I believe I can appeal to those present to assist one another in the pre-political – or, as a favorite phrase of mine expresses it – to lend ardor to virtue.

    Call it a losing battle if you like, but I think it is a necessary one. I’m frankly flabbergasted (not sure I’ve actually used the word before) that any of this seems foreign or contentious.

    Like

  814. Maybe I don’t pay attention very well but I think I agree with everything CVD just said. Have to go get my head checked, call the pope, and see if the sky is still blue, blueish.

    Like

  815. Cletus,
    This is what I am talking about with you assuming my views and not listening. You just posted to me:

    “Patriotism is a love for everything to do with our native land: its history, its traditions, its language, its natural features.”[my quoting of JPII]

    [You] am not denigrating patriotism. But it needs to remain in its right place and proper context – elevating it too high or glamorizing it leads to all sorts of problems and confusion. You don’t want people putting flags in their churches and saying the pledge of allegiance at benediction.

    I posted this to you right after the JPII quote:
    “Patriotism is a moral virtue. Nationalism, in its various modes, never is. At least, that’s what St. Josemaria Escrivá, a man who loved his land of Spain, submits:

    Love your own country: it is a Christian virtue to be patriotic. But if patriotism becomes nationalism, which leads you to look at other people, at other countries, with indifference, with scorn, without Christian charity and justice, then it is a sin. (Furrow, 315)” – https://evangelicalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/patriotism-as-a-virtue/

    Does this not cover what you are concerned about and saying here:
    But it needs to remain in its right place and proper context – elevating it too high or glamorizing it leads to all sorts of problems…

    BTW, I don’t think having a US or State flag in a church is outside of virtuous
    patriotism. I appreciate a good singing of America the Beautiful on the Fourth of July in the Church too. I don’t think that is perverted nationalism. Do you feel it would be wrong for a Catholic or Christian school to have the pledge said? Would this be perverted nationalism or an act of proper patriotism?

    Like

  816. So you don’t really have a concern with institutional churches, it is just what you think individual Christians ought to be doing. I sincerely doubt that you’ll improve society in the ways you hope, and you make yourself extremely susceptible to be used for the government’s ends, not the other way around.

    As for voting, I don’t vote and haven’t since ~2008.

    Like

  817. This has been one of the better threads in my two or so years here.

    Seeing the prescriptions and contradictions and emotions and broomsticks and trying to synthesise an answer on “how should we then live” is important to me

    Like

  818. Hart, why should the Pope have to say anything when the local bishops are doing their job well enough. Subsidiary you know.

    USCCB:
    Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

    The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

    Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

    I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

    Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm

    Like

  819. Zrim – It’s partially from your exchange with Kevin and partially the general tone of your comments. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but your demeanor seems to be that of wry detachment so I was just trying to figure out where you’re really coming from. I don’t want to assume I know so I thought I would ask.

    With regard to your comment, …but he’s hardly compelled biblically to exercise them, much less to think of himself as a magistrate–quite the contrary, he’s compelled to think of himself as a governed man under law. I have to disagree in part. Yes, we are men governed under the law. But to the extent that we are free citizens who have influence upon the law whether directly or indirectly we take on a small part of the role of the magistrate. It is as much a part of our responsibility as is obeying the law.

    When we pray for those in authority (1 Tim 2:2) in our country it is not just those holding office – because the people collectively hold authority too. Therefore we ought pray the people make wise decisions too. Likewise in praying that we may lead quite and peaceable lives, it tells us that those things are to be desired as are magistrates who uphold and protect them. In a similar vein Eph 6:6-7 and Col 3:23 tell us that whatever we do (our vocations and citizenship included) are to be done as unto the Lord. This includes our civic responsibilities.

    As we exercise those responsibilities we ought keep in mind that the moral law is there for the good of all men (though it condemns them too) and that it should therefore inform the civil law. This is not to say that they are or should be the same thing. The moral law won’t save anyone, but I’d rather live in a society that heeded more of it than less of it. In such a society it’s not only Christians who are afforded a quiet and peaceable life, it’s the reprobate too. Rain falls on the just and unjust, etc. The moral law is the only sufficient standard – mixed with a healthy dose of wisdom – for judging the secular law. So I posted earlier to ask, what standard do you use if you have one? Maybe I read your detachment wrong. Maybe it’s just a reaction to what you see as overreaction…

    Like

  820. Cletus,
    BTW, I still disagree with you here:
    I meant we’re not special in terms of geography or history.

    Our history and location are special. Our history and that of our a fathers shapes who we are as a people and if our location wasn’t special it would not exist. To God it was special enough to create each rock and blade of grass along with each river cutting through our land. It is special to Him and he placed me here for me to recognize that and give Him praise for it. He placed other people else where for them to do the same. That just means both places are special in there own ways not neither place is special because both exist.

    Like

  821. “…trying to build consensus amongst those who, I believe, ought to see the problem and can at least help lend confidence to one another as to what our responsibilities entail.”

    Kevin, why do you want consensus and what’s your goal once you get it?

    Like

  824. Joel, MichaelTX –

    So you don’t really have a concern with institutional churches, it is just what you think individual Christians ought to be doing.

    The only institutional church I am concerned with is my own. I thank MichaelTX for posting its statement, which I could not more wholeheartedly endorse.

    I sincerely doubt that you’ll improve society in the ways you hope, and you make yourself extremely susceptible to be used for the government’s ends, not the other way around.

    My hopes for success aren’t as high as you seem to think; not sure how it makes me susceptible, the main things the government is likely to do is raise my property tax bill (Go NJ! We’re #1!) and devalue the currency.

    As for voting, I don’t vote and haven’t since ~2008. – where I am the Dem primary is all that matters, excepting the Gov – by a very wide margin. I’m sympathetic.

    The last candidate I liked voting for was the first election I was eligible to vote in – Nader. Wouldn’t vote for the Greens now, certainly. Fortunately NJ has all kinds of eccentric people with interesting ideas who run. Easy protest vote to the local Dem hegemony.

    Like

  825. That churches [the Church!] should not speak out about right and wrong, moral or immoral, about what is good and what is not good for man, is some contestable theologizing.

    Man doesn’t live out his days in a vacuum. To ask him to pretend he does is perverse.

    Like

  826. Kevin in Newark: but I don’t intend to raise the issue again since the established community of participants here seems unconcerned.

    Interesting you say that Kevin; if you study a few of the recent high profile church debacles, that may have been some of the same thinking. Also, a pupil after he has been fully trained, is like his teacher which may explain ‘unconcern’. (Luke 6:40) which, btw, may be some of what Eric, for example, is claiming (the pupil), though it would be good if this side of eternity, rather than the other side, he sees this type excuse-making, blame-shifting may not go over too big with the Lord.

    Like

  828. DG –

    Kevin, speaking clearly on Christian morality is alive and well in the OPC.
    I would expect so, based on my very limited experience visiting one of its churches.

    I’m really not judging on much, but the experience, due to the very Christian manner and friendliness of those present as well as the sobriety and sincerity of the liturgy, was a real pleasure.

    Other than that, my only knowledge of it is this blog and its website.

    Talking about what a society should do with Christian morality is an entirely different matter.
    Agreed, in principle. When specific matters come up, there can be uncertainty, or the right and wrong can be clear – to some observers. It’s prudential, and the essential province of laymen.

    The OPC generally doesn’t speak about public matters (but does proclaim the decalogue).
    It sounds to me like it does exactly what it needs to, then. I hope it continues to do so.

    I’m surprised you’d say this about a church when you’re own bishops aren’t exactly breaking down the doors of upholding traditional marriage.
    Why? Who says I think they are doing everything they should be doing? I think the USCCB statement was a good one, though.

    I mean it’s hard to get Pope Francis to be quiet but has he peeped about the situation in the U.S. or Ireland?
    Maybe he was taking a moment to chat with Kasper about the excitement to come this Autumn in Philly. Your hometown, isn’t it?

    Amish – Kevin Love signed 5 years! We are gonna win it all!!!!! I don’t understand these two sentences. Care to clarify?

    Like

  829. For full disclosure. I have voted in basically every vote I was eligible to vote in since I was legal. I believe it is the American Christian’s duty. We should seek to be informed and effect our states and nation to the best of our ability and that means we should at least vote educatedly.

    Like

  830. cw l’unificateur: I’m considering retiring my standard refrain of “I love everybody”…

    knowing this is pure coincidence posted right after mine, I want to say to you CW… love a.

    Like

  831. Zrim
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
    Tom, right because loaded rhetoric is the best way to win the day, but only if you’re the good guy. So what are you saying, you want certain groups to control the common sphere? I thought you claimed conservative? But please, less politics, more statecraft.

    I don’t know what you mean by “statecraft” here. And you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. And even more interested in your children.

    I’m speaking of natural law, of course, what is not just God’s will, but what is good for man.

    –A child deserves a mother and a father.

    –It’s questionable that it’s health for our children to “experiment” with multiple partners and variant sex acts. But the state will be urging our children to do just that.

    –The genders are not interchangeable, yet the schools will be [and are] teaching our children just that. Indeed, the delusion of “being born in the wrong body” will continue to spread, like an infection.

    –The state will now be forcing state employees [as well as private individuals] to cooperate with evil.

    –Religious and quasi-religious institutions will be forced to pretend all sexualities are created equal, such as the example of a Christian college being unable to dent gay “couples” access to housing for married students.

    And almost countless more.

    That the Church has no duty to natural law, no duty to resist the state when it contravenes the natural law or when it teaches our children that “‘God made them male and female’ from the beginning of creation” is meaningless [if not false], well, the arguments for the Church’s silence in the face of evil here do no credit to either God or man.

    Like

  832. “for Catholics[insert Christian if you wish], the common good can never mean muting themselves in public debate on foundational issues of faith or human dignity. This is why any notion of tolerance that tries to reduce faith to a private idiosyncrasy, or a set of opinions that we can indulge at home but need to be quiet about in public, will always fail. As a friend once said, it’s like asking a married man to act single in public. He can certainly do that – but he won’t stay married for long. ” – archbishop Chaput in His book Render unto Ceasar

    Like

  833. a full-stop-

    Kevin in Newark: but I don’t intend to raise the issue again since the established community of participants here seems unconcerned.

    a.: Interesting you say that Kevin; if you study a few of the recent high profile church debacles, that may have been some of the same thinking.

    I can’t say I follow completely, perhaps because I’m not aware which debacles you are referring to, but within any organization problems shouldn’t be allowed to just sit, or else they typically grow.

    I don’t mind bringing up Catholic Church problems (e.g., certain prominent Catholic ‘intellectuals’ betraying the best interests of the faithful); but it isn’t my responsibility to repeatedly raise issues within other institutions- it would be boorish. Especially while sitting as DG’s guest in what amounts to his living room.

    Be great if TN came back, though- even if you didn’t like what he was saying, it’s not like he suddenly started speaking Swahili.

    Like

  834. Publius, mostly agreed, especially on quiet and peaceable lives. Not persuaded on the citizen-as-magistrate point. It’s a popular sentiment that plays well to the peanut gallery but it fundamentally obscures what is the natural order of things, namely the real and important difference between the ruled and ruling. It’s not borne out in Scripture either, which makes it a sentiment Christians should be skeptical of–children aren’t parents, laity aren’t elders, and citizens aren’t magistrates.

    Perhaps what you sense as detachment is as you say, an attempt to douse some of the tendency to get carried away in the earnestness. I’ll take the sober over the sentimental. So what standard to use? There are only two, general and special revelation.

    Like

  835. Tom, you’re going to hate this but it remains difficult to take seriously one who pronounces what the church should or shouldn’t do, etc. when that same one adheres to no church. Take God and the church seriously by adhering formally. Speaking of marriage, your sustained disassociation is the religious version of telling married people what marriage is all about while you remained unmarried. You’re a married guy, don’t you find that supremely annoying?

    Like

  836. Tom,

    The church does speak to the evils in the world, every Lord’s Day when the Law is read and expounded. In churches of any orthodox stripe, I don’t think the issue is a hesitance to call sin what it is. I think the question is what role the church has in dealing with the sins of society – can or should the church throw its weight around in political matters?

    I think a far more cautious approach is necessary, while the church has a duty to proclaim the gospel, and to call sinners to repentance, its hard for me to concede the church should enmesh itself in the politics of the day in any official capacity. The church then becomes a pawn of political partisanship and starts to loose focus on its spiritual mission. Sure if individual church members want to involve themselves politically, fine, but they are doing so as citizens of the state, not as those who speak for the church.

    Like

  837. @ Erik: I have no beef with you.

    Likewise. I mean, we both talk too much. But otherwise.

    However, it does make me a bit sad to see you so mad about … something. Previously, it was a personal offense of someone revealing something personal. Then that was resolved, which made me glad. Now, I don’t understand what the current issue is. Are you upset about the theology, or the name-changing, or what?

    As for being on the inside, you have more keys than I do. I’ve been around here since … 2007 maybe? … and I’ve never known there was an inside track. I’ve talked individually offline with dgh and zrim occasionally, mostly to resolve issues, but I’ve never encountered a hint of a cabal.

    Like

  838. Zrim: citizens aren’t magistrates

    Huh. Does that mean that those pictures of senators voting for themselves are fake, or does it mean that senators aren’t magistrates?

    I wonder whether this line can legitimately be drawn in a republic.

    Like

  839. Jed,
    So do you think it would be wrong for the or “a” church to make an official statement that having ssm in our nation is against God’s will and should not happen?

    Like

  840. Jeff,

    I’ve exchanged thousands of e-mails with upwards of 8 of these guys over many months. Sometimes as many as 100 a day. None of them will deny this. 1 guy is no longer here and 1 is barely here. Now there is nothing sinister in these e-mails, but there was for a long time an Old Life and a behind the scenes Old Life. A lot of my concerns about some of these guys were formed in the latter.

    Interestingly, Darryl is not really one of them. He didn’t participate much and what you read from him here is pretty much what you get. I do have concerns about the Darryl I see here, though.

    I am ready to move on and I’ve made my concerns as clear as I can. Christianity is right doctrine and right fruit. I have concerns about 2k doctrine and how it leads people to bifurcate their lives. I have concerns about the fruit I see in the lives of some prominent 2k people and about the fruit in my own life during the time I was heavily involved in the movement.

    People will believe what they want about my motives, but I believe they are sincere.

    Like

  842. Jed Paschall
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    The church does speak to the evils in the world, every Lord’s Day when the Law is read and expounded. In churches of any orthodox stripe, I don’t think the issue is a hesitance to call sin what it is. I think the question is what role the church has in dealing with the sins of society – can or should the church throw its weight around in political matters?

    I think a far more cautious approach is necessary, while the church has a duty to proclaim the gospel, and to call sinners to repentance, its hard for me to concede the church should enmesh itself in the politics of the day in any official capacity. The church then becomes a pawn of political partisanship and starts to loose focus on its spiritual mission. Sure if individual church members want to involve themselves politically, fine, but they are doing so as citizens of the state, not as those who speak for the church.

    The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind is partly that it lost or lacks the ability to speak of right and wrong, or of morality, or of what is good for man in any terms but “because the Bible says so.”

    This of course is a non-starter with anyone who doesn’t accept the Bible, but even more tragic, it leaves one without the ability to speak to those of his own religion/denomination! You have no common ground to speak to the PCUSA how they have perverted the Bible, and perverted your own Reformed faith!

    Now, like the Dreher and George Weigel, I’ve fairly surrendered the gay marriage issue as a matter of public policy–the Supremes hath spoke, and this will not be rolled back. The question now is how much the state will coerce us to give our assent to the idea that people of the same sex can be “married,” how much freedom we will have to teach our children that they cannot, not in the eyes of nature or in the eyes of nature’s God.

    The Church can and must speak of these things, and others like abortion; I agree the church should not openly endorse, but the politics will take care of themselves when the truth is out.

    I must mention here as a practical matter that the churches [the Church] is the only place where Biblical morality and natural law have a true home; by contrast the sexual revolution and its attendant anti-religion agenda has its own infrastructure [NARAL, GLAAD, FFRF, ACLU*, the Democratic Party]. There is a structural disadvantage here. No wonder we lost.

    _____
    *http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/30/aclu-we-can-no-longer-support-federal-religious-freedom-law/

    Like

  845. Kevin, you know that proclaiming the word of God (limited atonement) is not the same as speaking about public matters (sewer replacement).

    Like

  846. Jeff Cagle
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
    Zrim: citizens aren’t magistrates

    Huh. Does that mean that those pictures of senators voting for themselves are fake, or does it mean that senators aren’t magistrates?

    I wonder whether this line can legitimately be drawn in a republic.

    Dr. Hart doesn’t like my demurral from his “radical” Two Kingdoms theology, that we each are citizen/rulers, each as responsible for the republic as any other individual.

    This puts a great and grave duty on each person, each citizen, each Christian. You don’t get to cop out.

    Like

  847. once upon a time fly thought a bifurcated life was attractive:

    Richard – If my pastor wants to tell me his political views in conversation I have no problem with that. It’s his right and I’ll listen to him and consider what he has to say. I won’t necessarily give his views any more weight than those of the next guy, though, because he does not have authority over me in the political realm as he does in the spiritual realm.

    I remember visiting an RCA church several years ago and hearing the minister speak from the pulpit in support for a sales tax increase on which a vote was upcoming. He favored it because it would help “the children”. In my opinion he was taking advantage of his office and speaking on an issue that he did not have any expertise. A sales tax increase would help some people and hurt others. His position as a minister does not give him the right to weigh in on an issue like this from the pulpit.

    The classic example from modern Presbyterian history is the church taking a position in favor of the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act. Machen did not favor this because he recognized that alcohol consumption was a matter of conscience for the Christian and was not something that the government should be legislating. Scripture did not forbid the consumption of alcohol so ministers were overreaching the boundaries of their office by taking a position on the issue as representatives of the church.

    If a minister is doing their job of preaching and administering the sacraments then his congregants should be able to make wise political decisions on issues that Scripture speaks clearly on. When it comes to issues that are more a matter of opinion then ministers should not abuse their office by weighing in as ministers.

    Imagine being a pastor in Madison, Wisconsin recently. Half your congregation works for the state and the other half works for the private sector. What does the Bible have to say about recalling Scott Walker? Maybe nothing — that’s why we have a political sphere — to work out these difficult issues as a society. We don’t necessarily need the church’s opinion to do that.

    Like

  848. vd, t, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind is partly that it lost or lacks the ability to speak of right and wrong, or of morality, or of what is good for man in any terms but “because the Bible says so.””

    “This of course is a non-starter with anyone who doesn’t accept the Bible, but even more tragic, it leaves one without the ability to speak to those of his own religion/denomination! You have no common ground to speak to the PCUSA how they have perverted the Bible, and perverted your own Reformed faith!”

    so what Bible verses are you appealing to when you a non-church person talk to non-Roman Catholic persons?

    Like

  849. Zrim, you don’t get to cop out. But vd, t gets to sing with the Cookies and appear on television game shows. He was right there in the thick of the culture wars.

    Like

  850. DGH,

    “Joel, who said anything about improving society? Jesus, Peter, and Paul didn’t.”

    My comment was intended for Kevin… I forgot to reference him though.

    Like

  851. Hart,
    Just sharing when the USCCB gets something right. Glad they did. Not all bishops get it right. I already shared what my bishop stated after the ruling elsewhere but it bares repeating.

    On the morning of June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 5-4 decision establishing the legal right of two individuals of the same sex to legally marry in all 50 states. By doing so, the Court has acted in contradiction to their duty to promote the common good, especially what is good for families. I join with the Bishops of the United States in calling this decision a “tragic error.”

    Let me unambiguously state at the outset that this extremely unfortunate decision by our government is unjust and immoral, and it is our duty to clearly and emphatically oppose it. In spite of the decision by the Supreme Court, there are absolutely no grounds for considering unions between two persons of the same sex to be in any way similar to God’s plan for marriage and the family. Regardless of this decision, what God has revealed and what the Church therefore holds to be true about marriage has not changed and is unchangeable.

    Marriage is not just a relationship between human beings that is based on emotions and feelings. Rather, our Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Traditions tell us that God established true marriage with its own special nature and purpose, namely the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children.

    While taking a strong stand for marriage is the duty of all who call themselves Christian, every type of unjust discrimination against those with homosexual tendencies should be avoided. We must treat these individuals with loving kindness and respect based on their dignity as human persons. Christ rejects no one, but he calls all of us to be converted from our sinful inclinations and follow the truth He has revealed to us. Nevertheless, our continued commitment to the pastoral care of homosexual persons cannot and will not lead in any way to the condoning of homosexual behavior or our acceptance of the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

    While some of us may have family members who have same-sex attraction, and there are even some who are members of our local churches, this decision to require the legal recognition of so-called marriage between homosexual persons should in no way lead us to believe that the living out of this orientation or the solemnizing of relationships between two persons of the same sex is a morally acceptable option.

    We know that unjust laws and other measures contrary to the moral order are not binding in conscience, thus we must now exercise our right to conscientious objection against this interpretation of our law which is contrary to the common good and the true understanding of marriage.

    Given this and recognizing my responsibility and moral authority as the shepherd of this Church of Tyler, I will shortly issue a decree in this Diocese establishing, as particular law, that no member of the clergy or any person acting as employee of the Church may in any way participate in the solemnization or consecration of same-sex marriages, and that no Catholic facilities or properties, including churches, chapels, meeting halls, Catholic educational, health or charitable institutions, or any places dedicated or consecrated, or use for Catholic worship, may be used for the solemnization or consecration of same-sex marriages.

    Finally, I call on the Catholic faithful of the Diocese to turn in prayer to the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, asking their intercession for our nation that all of us may come to a greater understanding of the beauty, truth and goodness that is found in marriage as revealed to us by our Savior.

    I instruct that this letter is to be publically read by the priest-celebrant following the proclamation of the Gospel at all Masses of obligation in the parishes, missions and chapels of Diocese of Tyler on the weekend of July 3-4, 2015.

    Given at the Diocesan Chancery
    On the 26th day of June
    Friday of the 12th Week in Ordinary Time
    In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen

    Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland
    Bishop of Tyler

    Like

  853. Nice it’s back to normal with the same people telling Tom multiple times on every thread the same thing you’ve told him 100 times already.

    Yippeeeeeeeeeeeee…….

    Like

  855. TVD:The question now is how much the state will coerce us to give our assent to the idea that people of the same sex can be “married,”

    first though, as you say, how much the ‘church’ will ‘ coerce’

    http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-vote-allowing-gay-marriage-churches-064849720.html

    Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church’s embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The House of Bishops approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining.

    Like

  856. “Jeff Cagle
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
    Zrim: citizens aren’t magistrates

    Huh. Does that mean that those pictures of senators voting for themselves are fake, or does it mean that senators aren’t magistrates?

    I wonder whether this line can legitimately be drawn in a republic.”

    My understanding of the original American polity is that people and states delegate their power to the federal government and retain for themselves all other power and rights. I don’t know if the people qualify as magistrates, but they do not have the limitations that the federal government does. There’s the further problem of the US having a document as the highest authority. Also, there is the problem that the Declaration of Independence is a part of the US Code, which describes the a duty of citizens to rebel against governments acting unlawfully.

    That’s all on paper though, and I don’t think anyone believes that sort of thing anymore. In practice, the President acts as Emperor, so perhaps Christians should treat him as Emperor.

    Like

  857. I just got back from a run, so of course I have insights. Who knew you could run in the woods by firefly?

    Reflect for a moment on the notion that false teaching will rarely be overt, it will almost always be subtle.

    Also reflect on the notion that effective false teachers will rarely be dressed as wolves, they will be wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.

    Their teaching will always appear reasonable and appealing at first, likely containing a clever spin that we had not considered before. It might appeal to our notion that we are smart people, a bit more clever than the rest.

    We need to be Bereans, however, constantly searching the Scriptures to make sure what we are being taught is true.

    Have you considered how infrequently Scripture is cited here, either by the host or by 2k proponents? Is that a concern? Should it be a concern?

    Like

  858. Hart, is Strickland being a “light to the world” or hiding it under a basket? Will these words, if believed, be transformational on society? Yes I think so, but it is the Spirit who brings about that change. We are just to be faithful and not hide the light.

    What does it mean to be zealous for what is right in society or regarding our neihbors?

    1 Peter 3
    13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right? 14 But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

    1 Peter 2
    13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,[b] whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

    How do we do this in America?

    Would it not be to vote and be active in political life to some degree, even including being an activist and possibly running for office. Could this not be a way of honoring “all” men and securing a safe nation for “the brotherhood” out of “love”? Would it not also be in a constitutional republic right to “honor the emperor” by holding elected leaders accountable to their vows? This would impact society for the good right? Jesus, Peter or Paul didn’t have to say explicitly “anything about improving society”. What is done by the faithful Christian does by God’s work transform society. We just don’t know in what way He wishes it to be done always in every society. Might be why the Scriptures aren’t explicit on that.

    Like

  859. DG – Kevin, you know that proclaiming the word of God (limited atonement) is not the same as speaking about public matters (sewer replacement).

    I do. I await your next question with baited breath.

    Joel – I was referring to building consensus in order to preserve or implement laws which are in the best long-term interest of the country.

    Like

  860. Darryl,

    Note the examples I cite, though. Taxes, alcohol, and Scott Walker. Not exactly an institution established by God in the Garden of Eden among those.

    That’s the problem with 2k. It’s a slippery slope that allows us to excuse roo many things, both in society and in our own lives.

    Like

  861. Erik,

    That’s the problem with 2k sin. It’s a slippery slope that allows us to excuse roo many things, both in society and in our own live

    There you go, fixed.

    Systems are better or worse sort of proposition, hardly perfect, but generally the biggest problem with any system of thought isn’t typically the system, it’s the people that adhere to them.

    Like

  862. Kevin in Newark: sitting as DG’s guest in what amounts to his living room

    Kevin, this is the internet – the world wide web – like a megaphone in the town square only times a zillion.

    Like

  863. Erik says: “Have you considered how infrequently Scripture is cited here, either by the host or by 2k proponents?”
    I have considered this and brought it up in April. I haven’t looked in a while, but Darryl was making a point to spend time in the word. Only good can come from that.

    Like

  864. a.
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
    TVD:The question now is how much the state will coerce us to give our assent to the idea that people of the same sex can be “married,”

    first though, as you say, how much the ‘church’ will ‘ coerce’

    http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-vote-allowing-gay-marriage-churches-064849720.html

    Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church’s embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The House of Bishops approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining.

    Oh my, a.

    The dam hath broke.

    Although I thought it already had broke, when the “Episcopalians” went “optionally” gay. Now it’s mandatory!

    Dr. Calvinism: A History will affirm that the “Episcopalians” are American successor church to Henry VIII”s “Church of England,” where Henry went from Rome’s esteemed and papistically anointed “Defender of the Faith” to the founder of a “faith” that is now more politically and theologically corrupt than the Catholic Church ever was or ever [we hope] will be.

    The Church of England and all its spawn is theologically dead. Mr/Ms “a.”–you just confirmed it.

    Whatever remains intact of the Reformers’ Reformation is now waiting its turn, Darryl. Luther and Calvin would sue for peace. They never intended this to become the New Normal.

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lesbian-Couple-Ordained-Jointly-in-Presbyterian-Church-Delaware-297184461.html

    Like

  865. “But the weeping and gnashing of teeth about gay marriage has yet to acknowledge that gays (whether they know it or not) want to be like Christians. That’s one way of reading this. Why is that so much of a threat to Christian morality? As far as I see it, churches still teach (some of them) that homosexuality is a sin. when the state stopped prosecuting gay sex, wasn’t that pretty bad?”

    I’m convinced that Darryl is playing the shock jock. I don’t think we should take him too seriously. He certainly doesn’t take himself too seriously. Pretty soon some credible( or maybe not) news commentator is going to feature OLTS and he or she will question why it is that he gets so many comments on his little blurbs, asking why this is so, since he is only pulling our legs. Comment above….you’ve got to be kidding me! Oops, silly me, you are kidding.

    Like

  867. Zrim –

    Thanks for the reply.

    Not persuaded on the citizen-as-magistrate point. It’s a popular sentiment that plays well to the peanut gallery…

    Surely you see the point – the citizen has a role which collectively is definitive. As in the church, the laity are not elders – but the laity elect elders, unlike in the Roman system, and therefore are responsible to attempt to elect the most qualified elders possible in light of general and special revelation. The same rights and responsibilities apply to citizens.

    I agree with you that general and special revelation – and the good and necessary consequences thereof – are the only guides. In particular, I take it based on the verses referenced earlier and others that to the extent a society endeavors to uphold the revealed moral law (especially the decalogue) – much of which is evident in light of general revelation as well – that it will be quieter and more peaceable. This is not to say it will be holier, more virtuous in any final sense, or a City on a Hill – but it will be a better place to live.

    Like

  868. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, “Confessional Protestantism has no way to unify anything.”

    Can I get this on an 8-track cassette? It’s a little old but I guess it’s still a hit with some.

    Have you not noticed that Rome has a way to unify everything and it doesn’t?

    I’d say the problem is Rome’s (and those who thought Rome would solve disunity).>>>>

    It’s just the truth, D.G. Hart, and part of the history of Calvinism. It may pain you, but the WCF has been ineffective in maintaining unity even within Presbyterianism. Confessional Protestantism, while more orthodox than many other forms of Protestantism, is not able to keep order within the ranks.

    Yes, you say all problems are because of Rome. 500 years of the same ol’ same ol’. Why not just come Home and help the Church fight the good fight of faith? Augustine saw problems in the Church in his day, but didn’t think splitting the Church was any kind of solution. The Apostle Paul before Augustine also saw that wolves were already in the Church, and that more would come in after he was gone.

    You can run from problems, but you cannot hide. The OPC is secure for now, but how about the PCA? There are things that give you the willies in that denomination. I know because you have said as much. You may have just as well stayed in the Catholic Church and worked hard from the inside to correct error and being about discipline. There have been many reformers within the Church through the centuries. Hey, St. Francis was one of them. Why do you think this pope decided to take his name for himself? Pope Francis knows that the Church needs to be restored. The ark is sailing on rough seas.

    It would be nice to have sailors like you aboard.

    Sitting under your vine, hoping for fire to fall on the Vatican is not all that effective. Even writing a book about the failings of the Church could just tend to make you look bad. No, I do not think you are a bad person, or unloving. Just heart-broken in your own way.

    “There are wolves within, and there are sheep without.”
    ― Augustine of Hippo, City of God

    Well, take care, Brother Hart. See you again later.

    Like

  869. mtx, did your bishop speak up about Charleston?

    How about Janet Jackson’s equipment malfunction at the Super Bowl?

    How about Israel and the Palestinians?

    What about Brian Williams?

    Why do you want a bishop to speak about contemporary events? What good does it do? What does it say when they don’t speak?

    How about simply ministering the Word of God in teaching and preaching it?

    Like

  870. mtx, active in political life, being an activist, running for office. None of those things were done by Christ and the apostles.

    Doesn’t mean they are bad. Does mean that when they were trying to establish the Kingdom of God they didn’t do politics. They did something that most people find foolish.

    Like

  872. vd, t, do you know how easy this is? Michael Sean Winters isn’t a “real” Roman Catholic. vd, t who doesn’t go to church or write about Roman Catholic matters other than at OL is. PCUSA Presbyterians are not real Presbyterians. Orthodox Presbyterians are.

    Like

  873. Susan, one of your own, Roman Catholic Andrew Sullivan, thinks that gay marriage is Christian and American:

    Much of the gay left was deeply suspicious of this conservative-sounding reform; two thirds of the country were opposed; the religious right saw in the issue a unique opportunity for political leverage—and over time, they put state constitutional amendments against marriage equality on the ballot in countless states, and won every time. Our allies deserted us. The Clintons embraced the Defense of Marriage Act, and their Justice Department declared that DOMA was in no way unconstitutional the morning some of us were testifying against it on Capitol Hill. For his part, president George W. Bush subsequently went even further and embraced the Federal Marriage Amendment to permanently ensure second-class citizenship for gay people in America. Those were dark, dark days.

    I recall all this now simply to rebut the entire line of being “on the right side of history.” History does not have such straight lines. Movements do not move relentlessly forward; progress comes and, just as swiftly, goes. For many years, it felt like one step forward, two steps back. History is a miasma of contingency, and courage, and conviction, and chance.

    But some things you know deep in your heart: that all human beings are made in the image of God; that their loves and lives are equally precious; that the pursuit of happiness promised in the Declaration of Independence has no meaning if it does not include the right to marry the person you love; and has no force if it denies that fundamental human freedom to a portion of its citizens.

    When you answered the Call to Communion, you communed with Sullivan.

    Like

  874. Mermaid, “It would be nice to have sailors like you aboard.”

    You mean sailors who are mutinous of dictatorial captains, captains who don’t follow the rules but make up their own, captains who are more concern with sailing other ships than maintaining their own? Those kind of sailors?

    Like

  875. Mermaid, where’s the unity?

    Responding to media inquiries, Bransfield focused primarily on Francis’ thoughts on the urgency of ending our reliance on fossil fuels, of obvious import to his coal-producing state.

    In Paragraph 165, Francis writes, “We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the less harmful alternative or to find short-term solutions.”

    In his comments in various interviews, Bransfield seems engaged in a kind of damage control, reassuring West Virginians that there is no way the pope could actually be calling for a swift end to coal mining. His official statement reads, “Specifically regarding coal, the Holy Father does suggest we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, but in the next sentence of his encyclical, he says we should do so ‘only after greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy.’ ”

    “Only after” are not the words used in the encyclical, and Bransfield’s deliberate rewording of this phrase suggests a subtle but important change in meaning. He is essentially insisting that Francis simply can’t mean what he seems to mean.

    In his interview with West Virginia Public Radio, Bransfield’s distortion of Francis’ words is more extreme. He again cites Francis’ call for an end to fossil fuels, but continues: “Right after that in his pastoral he says, ‘where it is economically feasible.’ It’s not economically feasible in West Virginia.”

    This is simply not what Pope Francis says. Bransfield made this up.

    But more than simply an error in quotation, Bransfield here seems to be deliberately translating Francis using the language, talking points and falsehoods of the coal industry. Bransfield is falling for the simplistic “jobs vs. the environment” binary, an inadequate way of framing the issues that is continually parroted by Appalachian politicians.

    Like

  876. But, Susan, why read the blog? I can get that from the guy downtown with the bullhorn and dilated pupils.

    Like

  877. Publius –

    I am enjoying your argument, but does it address the position of most of those present?

    It seems to me there is an ideological commitment to doing zilch with regard to the state beyond, perhaps, voting, even a hesitancy to develop an informed opinion and discuss it with others (what I keep calling the development of the pre-political).

    As I see it, society is composed of institutions; each institution has a particular mission which defines it.

    The state is one of these institutions; its mission is to implement justice according to moral law; this includes the mediation of divergent interests amongst the other institutions and individuals of society.

    To not care whether it does so faithfully is a failure of charity toward one’s neighbor, who is really affected by the state’s coordination of other sectors of society when they go astray.

    The more our country’s legal code and judicial ‘tradition’ depart from moral law, the more social train wrecks we are going to see.

    So, why the commitment to checking one’s Christianity at the door (what denying the need to act justly and charitably comes to) when it comes to involvement in the state?

    Like

  878. Kevin, as if you know what other people here have done. Maybe you have a coercive personality – first in the political realm and then coercing people to join in the coercion.

    I realize winning isn’t everything but do you factor in that just about every battle has been lost over the last 40 years? Maybe stewardship of time would tell us to concentrate on where we have more of an impact – families and local churches. There’s a much stronger biblical case for those.

    Like

  879. Huh. Does that mean that those pictures of senators voting for themselves are fake, or does it mean that senators aren’t magistrates?

    I wonder whether this line can legitimately be drawn in a republic.

    Jeff, I’m referring to the general rule even in a republic, not the exception of (a very few) citizens having a dual role as magistrates. Most churches here in which members are also citizens don’t even have one member who is citizens and magistrate.

    Like

  880. Surely you see the point – the citizen has a role which collectively is definitive. As in the church, the laity are not elders – but the laity elect elders, unlike in the Roman system, and therefore are responsible to attempt to elect the most qualified elders possible in light of general and special revelation. The same rights and responsibilities apply to citizens.

    Pub, but even if the laity elect elders does anyone say, “But to the extent that we are members of the church who have influence upon the leadership whether directly or indirectly we take on a small part of the role of the elder”? That isn’t the plain reading of the NT, which clearly stipulates that there is the office of elder and it is distinct from non-elder. IOW, the Bible doesn’t speak in this fork tongued way with regard to the under-shepherds and the sheep. Perhaps the world’s system of government allows the governed to speak like this, but the Bible doesn’t do that for its members.

    Like

  881. Would it not be to vote and be active in political life to some degree, even including being an activist and possibly running for office. Could this not be a way of honoring “all” men and securing a safe nation for “the brotherhood” out of “love”? Would it not also be in a constitutional republic right to “honor the emperor” by holding elected leaders accountable to their vows? This would impact society for the good right? Jesus, Peter or Paul didn’t have to say explicitly “anything about improving society”. What is done by the faithful Christian does by God’s work transform society. We just don’t know in what way He wishes it to be done always in every society. Might be why the Scriptures aren’t explicit on that.

    MTX, you might pick up Hunter’s “To Change the World.” Pardon the length…

    What history tells us is that the key actor in history is not the individual genius but rather the network and the new institutions that arise out of that network. This is not to undermine or undersell the importance of charismatic figures like Luther, Calvin, or Wilberforce. That kind of genius, courage, and charisma, however, cannot be understood apart from a network of similarly oriented people.

    The importance of cultural capital is determined not by quantity but by quality. Quality is measured according to the kind of status it attracts, and status is almost always measured by exclusivity. As I note in my book, evangelicalism boasts a billion-dollar book publishing industry, yet the books produced are largely ignored by The New York Review of Books, The New York Times Book Review, The Washington Post Book World, and other key arbiters of public intellectual argument.

    Culture is far more profound at the level of imagination than at the level of argument. Deep structures of culture are found in the frameworks of our imagination, frameworks of meaning and moral order that are embedded in the very words we use. There’s a difference between the weather and the climate. Contemporary politics is like the weather, changing day to day or week to week. But culture, in its most enduring qualities, isn’t about the weather at all. It’s about the climate. Changes in the climate of culture involve convoluted, contested, and contingent dynamics.

    We’re accountable for our actions as individual believers and as a body of believers. The nature of that accountability is clear from Scripture, theology, and history. The point is not to change the world but to serve faithfully in our relationships, tasks, and spheres of social influence.

    The rhetoric of world changing originates from a profound angst that the world is changing for the worse, and that we must act urgently. There’s a sense of panic that things are falling apart. If we don’t respond now, we’ll lose the things we cherish the most. What animates this talk is desperation to hold on to something when the world no longer makes sense.

    All Americans think about power primarily in political terms…The state is the sole legitimate source of coercion and violence. When Christians turn to law, public policy, and politics as the last resort, they have essentially given up on a desire to persuade their opponents…Whenever Christian churches and organizations partake in the will to power, they partake in the very thing they decry in society…By focusing too much on political power, we overlook how social power plays out in everyday relationships and institutions.

    Affirmation is based on the recognition that culture and culture-making have their own validity before God that is not nullified by the fall. It isn’t just that the social order is preserved because the rule of sin is restrained, in the old Calvinist formulation, but that goodness, beauty, and truth remain in this fallen creation. Even in the context of late modernity, suffused as it is by failed ideologies, false idolatries, and distorted ideas of community, joy, and love, one can still find much good. Life still has significance and worth.

    What is more, people of every creed and no creed have talents and abilities, possess knowledge, wisdom, and inventiveness, and hold standards of goodness, truth, justice, morality, and beauty that are, in relative degree, in harmony with God’s will and purposes. These are gifts of grace that are lavished on people whether Christian or not. To be sure, there is a paradox here that perplexes many Christians. On the one hand, nonbelievers oftentimes possess more of these gifts than believers. On the other hand, because of the universality of the fall, believers often prove to be unwise, unloving, ungracious, ignorant, foolish, and craven. Indeed, more than any Christian would like to admit, believers themselves are often found indifferent to and even derisive of expressions of truth, demonstrations of justice, acts of nobility, and manifestations of beauty outside the church…The qualities nonbelievers possess as well as the accomplishments they achieve may not be righteous in an eschatological sense, but they should be celebrated all the same because they are gifts of God’s grace.

    …In sum, there is a world that God created that is shared in common by believers and unbelievers alike. In the classical Christian view, the goodness of creation is fundamentally and ubiquitously marred by sin but it is not negated by sin. It may be fractured, incomplete, and corrupted, but his goodness remains in it. The gifts of God’s grace are spread abundantly among the just and the unjust in ways that support and enhance the lives of all. As it is the world that God has given, so it is in the world that his creatures fashion. This work is also typically pursued in common with those outside the community of faith. The task of world-making has validity of its own because it is work that God ordained to humankind at creation. Since all are created in his image, world-making is an expression of our divine nature.

    …It is also important to underscore that while the activity of culture-making has validity before God, this work is not, strictly speaking, redemptive or salvific in character. Where Christians participate in the work of world-building they are not, in any precise sense of the phrase, “building the kingdom of God.” This side of heaven, the culture cannot become the kingdom of God, nor will all the work of Christians in the culture evolve into or bring about his kingdom. The establishment of his kingdom in eternity is an act of divine sovereignty alone and it will only be set in place at the final consummation at the end of time.

    …For Christians to regard the work of culture in any literal sense as “kingdom-building” this side of heaven is to begin with an assumption that tends to lead to one version or another of the Constantinian project, in which the objective is for Christians to “take over” the culture, fashioning all of the world in the image of the church or at least in accord with its values. Typically, this assumption leads to the dualism in which the culture either declares Jesus as Lord or it doesn’t. Christians are either “winning” the culture or “losing” it, “advancing the kingdom” or “retreating,” which is why all versions of the Constantinian approach to culture tend to lean toward triumphalism or despair, depending on the relative success or failure of Christians in these spheres.

    All of which puts a damper on this (frankly) religious fantasy that Christians have any special impact on the world and that politics as a tool really has the kind of power to do it so many imagine. This is where Publius senses detachment, but maybe it’s a realistic take on how things actually work?

    Like

  882. DG Hart:They did something that most people find foolish.

    ‘pietist’ alert
    But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Acts 6:4

    Like

  884. 1) I was include a verse that supported what DG said, is that ok?
    2) also thinking it’s ok for anyone to devote themselves to prayer and His Word if they want or are you saying not too?

    decided I’m gonna pray about your hostility Mud

    Like

  885. It’s difficult to adequately present the Word of God on the internet in a wise and edifying way.

    1) It takes about 2 weeks of church at any location to figure out who the blowhard hypocrites are, almost always those that are constantly spouting off scripture verses, a cloak for the sickest pervs you could ever pray to avoid knowing that you exist and target you are their next victim

    2) the cut and paste job of 1500 words is a bad move on the internet, it appeals to nobody, helps nobody, even worse it steals the works of others and gives them no credit for their thoughts, which at the very least could lead someone to look up the real author. You can tell it’s genuine vikingtard nonsense when the lofty Scripture and Edwards/Owen/Sprugeon is suddenly interjected with sentences that a grade 3 child would feel beneath him in grammar and spelling.

    3) there are clearly problems with P&R that are obvious to all of us members and officers, but there is no way in hades I’m going to introduce them on a forum like this, especially with the presence of jeering and foolish people wasting time and bandwith

    Like

  886. Darryl,

    Not a Southern Baptist. Would be about my 10th choice after all other options, one of which would be returning to the URCNA, travel concerns be damned. Surely you know that not all URCNA’s (and OPC’s) push 2k. That’s why you crusade. Muddy has Theonomists in his congregation. Not even he, a leading online 2k proponent, majors on it in his church.

    This current debate started over gay marriage, but my concern is less about the politics than what bifurcation does in the personal life of the believer. You know that, while inappropriately hilarious, most of our e-mail “reply all” thing revolved around mocking people, belittling people, slandering people, etc. And these were almost exclusively other Christians. What group of 40-60 year old Christian men, mostly church officers, behaves that way?

    The only way that happens is if they have bought into a system that says that the way I act Monday-Saturday in my “common affairs” (which apparently includes discussions of the Christian faith) is covered by what I do on Sunday.

    Now again, you weren’t the worst offender in the e-mails, but you do way too much mocking here. I just don’t get not taking Christianity seriously. You act like you can be the wry observer and caustic critic 6 days and the caring elder on Sunday. No clue how you keep that straight and pull it off.

    Like

  887. a, “Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.”

    See, I’m assuming you are wise. Don’t prove me wrong.

    Plus, you know, there isn’t enough Bible quoted here at OL.

    Like

  889. Muddy : “Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.”

    amen Mud

    See, I’m assuming you are wise. Don’t prove me wrong.

    it’s ok, Mud. nothing to prove, anyway it’s already been established here that I’m illiterate, unintelligent, stupid

    Like

  890. Kent: It’s difficult to adequately present the Word of God on the internet in a wise and edifying way.

    Disagree Kent. It’s being done all over the world. The Lord has opened up the internet to be used by many who are doing just this. Won’t include e.g. website links in order not to incur any wrath.

    Like

  891. a, I’m going away after this, but there’s a pretty simply dynamic here: you get back what you put out. If you’re priggish you’re going to get it back in your face. Maybe if you just, you know, talked with people it would go better.

    Like

  892. a.

    in all honestly you are probably one of the last people I would want to see Scripture verses from, based on the way you behave on here….

    put that in your pipe and stick it.

    Like

  893. Currently reading Augustine’s Confessions, translated by Garry Wills. A decent translation, I’ve read about 3 others.

    Wills has thankfully provided the thoughtful and caring Catholic viewpoint after he realized that the conservative movement is sadly lacking in spiritual application and put his money where his mouth is.

    Like

  895. Muddy – Kevin, as if you know what other people here have done. Maybe you have a coercive personality – first in the political realm and then coercing people to join in the coercion.

    Kevin – Well, Muddy, that’s just it, I don’t know your thoughts and actions unless you tell me. Coercion requires power – the only power I can conceivably have here is an appeal to reasoning based on the Logos, enlightened with charity.

    a full-stop – Kevin, this is the internet – the world wide web – like a megaphone in the town square only times a zillion.

    Kevin: But here in this forum, ideally, we’re not shouting at or past each other, we’re conversing – no human interaction is exempt from charity.

    a full-stop – there are clearly problems with P&R that are obvious to all of us members

    Kevin: To quote Willie Nelson, “you show me yours (and I’ll show you mine).”

    Like

  896. Kevin,

    You wrote: “Joel – I was referring to building consensus in order to preserve or implement laws which are in the best long-term interest of the country.”

    Exactly. Perhaps by putting your mindset in terms of power (i.e. how to coerce your neighbors into doing what you fallibly determine is legitimate behavior) is not very neighborly. Power corrupts, and you’re trying to get us all thinking about how to wield power. That’s a good reason to not vote. You get all the corrupting tendencies of having power, without actually possessing any power yourself.

    Like

  898. Kevin, I have no trouble hearing the mighty lists of my denomination’s problems when I’m with other evangelicals….

    And each of us on here have about a dozen more that nobody else would know about unless they were born into it or underwent 25 hours of due diligence to convince them we really belong in a serious P&R church….

    Like

  899. Kevin, “To not care whether it does so faithfully is a failure of charity toward one’s neighbor, who is really affected by the state’s coordination of other sectors of society when they go astray.”

    Who says I/we don’t care? It’s just a question of expectations. Some think — Augustine might be one — that you can’t set your expectations sufficiently low with people in power. What did one of your guys say — Lord Acton — power corrupts. (and that was in the context of papal infallibility, no less.)

    So read comments here, please, as an expression of low expectations. I sure can see the value of a well-ordered society. I also know the train wrecks that come when people baptize the political order as the blessing of God.

    We limp along. See The Wire.

    Like

  901. Zrim –

    There really isn’t any good reason one might resist his methodology?
    Not amongst the possibilities I see, including the ones you’ve raised.

    There’s cowardice and inability to imitate. That’s it? So, to refrain can only be out of personal defectiveness?
    No, one could be busy with other obligations and good works – we aren’t all called to the same actions.

    But I have been explicit and clear on the moral and political blight of elective abortion. […] this can co-exist with being critical of certain behaviors that also share that essential outlook.
    Agreed, in principle. Particular cases may not exhibit those behaviors, or the behaviors you’ve identified may not be the correct ones to condemn (or they may well be – this is a very general point).

    portraying some as “committing murder” doesn’t seem like the most persuasive way to engage another person. It’s the sort of language lifers use amongst themselves to bolster their sense that they are on the right side of righteousness
    As a rule, I would not advocate approaching someone with the phrase; and sometimes human beings need bolstering.

    And so I wonder if you can admit that the motivation is a mixed bag of wanting to help women and bolster a cause.
    So you know all of your own motivations? I don’t know all of mine. It’s the human condition. I prefer to praise those who do good work.

    if lifers are about the former I would think they’s stay away from such incendiary language.
    Perhaps true in some cases. Not amongst those I know who are very seriously devoted to the abortion problem on numerous fronts- legal challenges at the state level, saving lives on the ground, providing housing, picking up food, prayer, friendliness, real concern.

    Like

  902. ly, since when is laughing at folly unbiblical? I’ve heard God does that.

    The problem is thinking that folly doesn’t run deep in all of us (all about weEEE — you too).

    Like

  903. Dr. Hart says: Erik, the point is that you have changed. [moral dualism] attracted you. Now it doesn’t and you’re back to being Southern Baptist. (I fixed that)
    There are individuals I like, but I am NO fan of the SBC. At all.
    He has changed. And is changing.
    For the record. I rejoice in the work of the Holy Spirit in Erik’s heart, but if you folks think I am behind the scenes pulling his strings (come on now. Some of you thought that), it is not so. We hadn’t emailed away from here in weeks. Save for a sentence or two, before the last couple days. Give him more credit than that. By the grace and to the glory of God of course.

    Besides. I wouldn’t have said and done everything exactly as he has said and done it in this thread. That’s not meant as a jab. Just an honest statement.

    I hope I am allowed to see where the Lord is taking this man. A tremendous blessing and encouragement indeed.

    Like

  904. Joel, DG,

    Joel – Perhaps by putting your mindset in terms of power (i.e. how to coerce your neighbors into doing what you fallibly determine is legitimate behavior) is not very neighborly.

    Kevin – Coercion would be telling my neighbors to swear to not vote for the Dem hegemony in Newark, or else I’ll mix up their recycling with their trash so they get a fine. An application of reason enlightened by Christianity to problems we share is the essence of human society – and flows (perhaps) from our mandate to convert all nations.

    Joel – Power corrupts, and you’re trying to get us all thinking about how to wield power.

    Kevin – I am saying you do have power – the power to use your God-given reason in fellowship with others to address obvious problems threatening our well-being.

    And I reject the Gospel of Lord Acton, whose position here (and likely elsewhere) was not based in Catholic principles. Power is necessary for authority to do its job, even if you want to take a case of a democracy delegating its authority to representatives.

    The ability of man to form institutions/organizations/societies is one of the most wonderful things God has given us. Each has a different mission, serves a different purpose:
    a) the Church (teaching and sanctifying, founded by Christ),
    b) The family (nurturing and educating),
    c) the nation (group linked by common origin, location, religion, language, …),
    d) the state (ordering society), and
    e) the numerous other societies from bridge clubs to choirs to businesses to internet forums (satisfying a variety of man’s needs, material and immaterial).

    If we renege on our obligations in any of these cases, the institutions will lose their way, and likely be corrupted and develop into agents of destruction (even a bridge club without charity can be an excuse to reinforce vices rather than virtues).

    My fundamental concern in this discussion has been that when the leadership of any society betray its principles, all members risk corruption (either by imitating the leadership, or being left as prey). True in the state, true in religious organizations.

    DG – Kevin, you do think that proclaiming limited atonement is more important that teaching against gay sex, right?

    Kevin – Because religion is higher up the hierarchy of values than politics, yes. But each are important within their respective realms. Ready for the next question.

    Like

  905. Here it was:

    Kevin, “To not care whether it does so faithfully is a failure of charity toward one’s neighbor, who is really affected by the state’s coordination of other sectors of society when they go astray.”

    Who says I/we don’t care? It’s just a question of expectations. Some think — Augustine might be one — that you can’t set your expectations sufficiently low with people in power. What did one of your guys say — Lord Acton — power corrupts. (and that was in the context of papal infallibility, no less.)

    So read comments here, please, as an expression of low expectations. I sure can see the value of a well-ordered society. I also know the train wrecks that come when people baptize the political order as the blessing of God.

    We limp along. See The Wire.

    Like

  906. Kevin, wow. Does that mean if one has means and opportunity but is skeptical and refrains from sending money to the guy on TV claiming to save African kids from hunger (in Jesus’ name) he’s probably just being a coward, even has something against starving African kids?

    But here’s hoping it helps to know that I, too, have a great deal of respect for those who help both the women and children involved in certain circumstances–there are at least two people involved, which is something I fear many lifers often forget in their socio-political zeal which tends to be solely focused on the in utero and their supposed haters.

    Like

  907. I haven’t read the comments on OL in quite a while. Don’t have time to read all 900+ on this post. Erik, what happened?

    Like

  908. DG –
    read comments here, please, as an expression of low expectations. I sure can see the value of a well-ordered society.

    I see three main possibilities for the origin of apparently apathetic comments:

    a) low expectations – which I can sympathize with;
    b) “2k” ideology (I’d appreciate being directed to a good, detailed source for understanding it);
    c) limited interest in engaging on the issue (for whatever reason, which is their prerogative).

    If it is “b”, which at this point I suspect, I see a problem with the ideology. If “a” or “c”, I’ve addressed the point several times – we owe each other to speak truth, particularly with regard to matters affecting us all. If we disagree, and think it is worth our time, we can discuss it. If its not worth our time, then the disagreement persists. Which is a part of human life.

    I also know the train wrecks that come when people baptize the political order as the blessing of God.

    I imagine we would agree in some key cases, and disagree on others – but I’m not clear what “baptize the political order as the blessing of God” means.

    Here is an almost arbitrary list of 6 points I take to be true- some statements of fact, others prudential and contingent:

    1) Political systems can be poorly arranged or corrupted by special interests,
    2) our salvation is not in this world,
    3) churchmen generally shouldn’t serve in government office,
    4) politicians or kings shouldn’t define dogma or appoint bishops,
    5) governments acting in the name of religious principles can do evil,
    6) America has fundamental cultural problems with Americanism – with Leo XIII’s writings as an essential starting place, and expanded upon by other interesting writers including DG Hart.

    Like

  909. Muddy,

    “But, Susan, why read the blog? I can get that from the guy downtown with the bullhorn and dilated pupils.”

    Because our choices now are to wring our hands, or to say to hell with what makes America a place worth defending for the sake of future generations, or to do all we can to turn the tide by prayer and being politically involved. The word here is that the world belongs to the devil anyway. That’s not a Christian message, that’s a twisting of scripture. Christianity is supposed to tell the truth (without naiveté) but to be brave and optimistic……hence we have lots of children. Sodomy is opposed to all of the above and it needs to be said for the future’s sake.

    Like

  910. “The Nightfly”

    I commented here occasionally a while ago, around the time Greg first showed up. I’ve read the blog occasionally for the past 2-3 years. DG can attest to my authenticity. I also don’t understand why you think I would be someone else under a fake name asking the question that I did above…

    Like

  911. Hart,
    Does mean that when they[Christ and the Apostles] were trying to establish the Kingdom of God they didn’t do politics.

    I’m not saying being and influential effect in the political atmosphere is “for” establishing the Kingdom of God. I’m saying the established Kingdom of God in America and in other areas of the world effects and should effect public policy for the good will of all and should seek to maintain an environment in which the Gospel of said existing kingdom can be proclaimed freely.

    Why do you want a bishop to speak about contemporary events? What good does it do?

    Because, we are in the contemporary world dealing with contemporary events yet we are not of the contemporary world. We are of Christ and Christ was the light to the world and said we are also and we are not to put our light under a basket or those of the world can not come to see their error and repent. Part of preaching the gospel is having a moral code to repent of keeping. One of those moral codes which we should be allowed to have in place in “our”[people in my state or you in yours] in to make a law that says homosexual sex in unnatural and that we will not endorse it or subsidize it. We the people should be able to decide. Including people of the Church informed by the Scriptures by their bishop or pastor. When we are not allowed to decide for our state what is forbidden for the good of our society, we are being abused by a foreign illegitimate authority not informed by the truth nor holding itself to its own promises and we should speak against it as we are thrown to the lions proclaiming the Good News that we fear not death nor what any man can do to us and our bishops should be allowed and doing the same. We are one people leaders and laity. Both are free to proclaim the truth. We fear God who has freed us in Christ. This freedom include proclaiming the injustice of our magistrates while submitting to their rule even it that means a torturous death.

    Like

  912. kevin, 2k is not ideology. That’s an insult.

    Read A Secular Faith (all about meEEE).

    I’d modify #3 to say that churchmen should not serve in government office.
    #5 to read that governments have done evil in the name of religion (and so I better be aware of that if I step into the public square and talk religion)

    I have no idea what #6 means. How can America have problems with Americanism? I get it that Rome did/does. Why would an American and a Protestant start with LeoXIII?

    Like

  913. That’s okay Caleb, one week is like a thousand years on Old Life.

    Welcome back, might have to replace your plastic cup with a metal one if you come to the plate though, like the Phillies and Reds did when they played each other in the 70s…

    Like

  914. “Sodomy is opposed to all of the above and it needs to be said for the future’s sake.”

    Susan, they didn’t just legalize sodomy.

    So now I assume your are going to DO SOMETHING. Tell us what that is and how it exceeds what others are probably doing.

    Like

  915. Pointing your finger and getting all self righteous at sodomy and abortion is pretty easy until it hits home and hard.

    Like

  916. Beyond all my reasonable expectations, my copy of Douma’s The Ten Commandments is very open to making explicit comment that the majority of adults coming to Christ (for lack of a better term) have the most tremendous pile of rot and garbage from their life, to repent of and begin again as a new creature. And so were some of them. (A good book to read if it’s of interest…)

    I am not all that accommodating in my personal life, mainly through great fortune in a lack of exposure to awful things, my personal attempt to live a godly life, and a lot of cowardice passed off as righteousness.

    There is tremendous opportunity for more honesty on the topics at hand and hopefully those ruined by bad decisions can feel welcome at any church that is open for business.

    Like

  917. Zrim,
    Thanks for the recommendation, but the quote does not make me interested in the book. It is so full of truth and plain assertions and error mixed all together it would give me a splitting headache to try and read the whole thing discerningly. I read weighing ever concept.

    “All Americans think about power primarily in political terms…The state is the sole legitimate source of coercion and violence. When Christians turn to law, public policy, and politics as the last resort, they have essentially given up on a desire to persuade their opponents…Whenever Christian churches and organizations partake in the will to power, they partake in the very thing they decry in society…By focusing too much on political power, we overlook how social power plays out in everyday relationships and institutions.”

    What an assertion! Building a bit of a strawman there. So we Christians here in Texas should not have put forward a bill by our own will informed by God’s law forbidding ssm nor should any of us Christian Texans informed by God’s will voted on it, because we had given up on our ability to persuade those who disagree. Hmm 76% of Texans said no to ssm in Texas. I think the persuasion was just fine. We in America have a right to voice and keep that persuasion in our public policy and moral code against those who would prefer us to be quiet and allow them to change public policy to be what ever they wish. Seemingly Zrim, you would have the moral voice of me to be quiet and not vote because I have given up on influencing culture the “right” way. Why is not part of the right way to influence culture to have laws reflecting God’s moral code? God did not seem to have a problem with it when He set up His chosen people’s nation. Am I suppose to vote how God would/did or how those who would not have traditional morality codified in law? At least people could hear what God says is wrong even if they don’t show up to Church on Sunday by the voice of those who do by their voice in public policy. We should not let the Church doors be the basket we are putting over our light. Maybe they will realize the desires of their heart are continually wicked and in need of God’s transformative help? Public policy is to be reflective of the moral law to love your neighbor as yourself. We should hope to have Church leaders who will speak on these things and we should be willing to speak clearly to our neighbors as to the “hope we have in” us.

    Like

  918. I just want to understand, why so belligerent to the fly of the night? What is this two kingdoms ideology that allows one to be a jerk and watch pornographic materials except on Sunday that he warns of? Thank you for such a warning valiant fly.

    Like

  919. DG – kevin, 2k is not ideology. That’s an insult.

    In truth, no insult intended. I don’t think of ideology as a negative word. c.f. American Heritage online: “A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.”

    Read A Secular Faith – will do.

    I’ll accept your edits to #3 and #5, although I’d add a caveat that we shouldn’t rush to condemn political systems of the past, but instead understand them as the product of historical circumstances possessing both good and bad.

    I have no idea what #6 [America has fundamental cultural problems with Americanism] means. How can America have problems with Americanism? I get it that Rome did/does. Why would an American and a Protestant start with LeoXIII?

    Perhaps I phrased it poorly- by ‘has problems with’ I meant “is afflicted with.” Big issue, interesting issue, I expect you’re in many ways better read it in than I.

    Why start with Leo XIII? I think he offers useful criticism, and the term came to prominence with Testem benevolentiae nostrae. Americanism is a worldwide problem to my mind, and I think some of its flaws come out most obviously in the impact it has had (and is having) elsewhere.

    Like

  920. MtX, I don’t have the ability to cut and paste from Hunter’s To Change the World, but I would second Zrim’s endorsement of it, and would highlight a different part of it that might encourage you to give it a try– the part where he discusses how Religious leaders, whether of the left or right, who want to bring about cultural and social change, have no idea how societies and cultures in fact do change. He writes from the perspective of a sociologist, so I wouldn’t say he gets everything right, but I can say that I have face to face interaction with several Christians of varying points of view about current political issues who have found it a source of clarification.

    And if the offer is still open, I would encourage you to take up the chance to be a precinct captain, or whatever the post was, in Texas — if you resolve to stick with it.

    Like

  921. Kevin, – “Coercion would be telling my neighbors to swear to not vote for the Dem hegemony in Newark, or else I’ll mix up their recycling with their trash so they get a fine. An application of reason enlightened by Christianity to problems we share is the essence of human society – and flows (perhaps) from our mandate to convert all nations.”

    The defining characteristic that separates government from any other institution is it legitimized coercive violence. The Bible calls it the sword. Any regulation of problem behaviors is coercive. Voting pushes you to think about the ways to use the power of the sword to change your neighbor’s behavior. This is opposed to using other social methods to affect your neighbors or to simply leave them alone. I know you can chew gum and walk at the same time, but the more effort that you put into politics, the less effort you’ll put into other activities. The more success you have with government, the more likely you’ll prefer using the sword to other more neighborly means of persuasion. People in government resort to their use of power to affect change in society first, then if they aren’t successful, they start using their pulpit. If you have a hammer…

    Like

  922. Pradeep, it’s about time you showed up. Let’s DO SOMETHING about this. I intend on striking a Tree Pose and keeping it until the SCOTUS changes its mind. Will you join me?

    Like

  924. Pradeep,

    And yet you have no problem linking to a page that contains very graphic descriptions of sexual encounters, the female and male body, violent acts, and foul language? That tells me you are more interested in appearing to be morally outraged than really being concerned about this stuff.

    Like

  925. Not so bad:

    If the Supreme Court embraces same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right, it will—in the long run—mean little. Some children will suffer. For a time, the United States will formally join that small cluster of Western governments giving priority to cultural nihilism. However, healthy subcultures of orthodox Christians, Jews, and (yes) Muslims will survive the political madness; despite intermittent persecution, they may even thrive . . . just as Christians did in pagan Rome during the third century a.d.

    Like

  926. Pradeep – Thanks for the comment, I’m with you. I’m not clicking the link based on BV’s comment, though.

    Muddy – “Tree Pose” – really? Are you aware that nationally there are 700k+ Indian American Christians (of 3.5m Indian Americans total- compare “Dutch” at 4.8m reported)? Also that Indian Americans make up 3%-5% of the NYC Metro/North Jersey population, higher in parts of California? welcome to the country you live in but are not here representing well.

    Like

  927. MTX, you miss the point, which is that legality isn’t everything. Lots of things are legal but it’s the suasion of families and communities that’s really what fosters society–is the family the cornerstone of society like the family values crowd tells us or not? My daughter’s school could decide one day that plagiarism is kosher and will not be sanctioned. Does that mean she’ll start plagiarizing? Not if her mother and I have taught her anything. does the new policy make our job harder? Sure, but we also weren’t raised to be whiners.

    Like

  928. Christianity is supposed to tell the truth (without naiveté) but to be brave and optimistic……hence we have lots of children…

    What in hades does one thing have to do with another? But hear that, families with modest amounts of kids, you’re not brave, whatever that means.

    Like

  929. mtx, lots of clutter there — links from bishops to Bible to people to democracy to magistrates to constitution to moral law. Wow. You need a 2k fix.

    Still haven’t answered my question. What if IIIIIII think Palestinians are a bigger deal than same-sex marriage? What if my bishop doesn’t speak to that? Do I go to the Assemblies of God?

    If you had church officers who only ministered the Word of God, you might get some relief. I say might because the sufficiency of Scripture (for salvation not for politics) doesn’t stop Presbyterians from being afflicted by theonomists.

    Like

  931. Kevin, I am aware of Americanism as a heresy and am astounded at how Americanist the RC US church is to which Bryan and the Jasons call us. But you really think republicanism, separation of church and state, and adapting medieval Christianity to modern society is wrong?

    Like

  933. “Susan, they didn’t just legalize sodomy. ”

    You’re right, they didn’t just legalize it, they are calling it conjugal when it can’t be. There can’t be nuptials where there is no mating. Mating is something that opposites that have the capacity for real union can only do.

    “On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign – at his mother’s request – during a wedding feast.105 The Church attaches great importance to Jesus’ presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence.” (CCC 1613).

    Does recognizing same sex mating as a familial social relationship signify Christ’s presence?

    So now I assume your are going to DO SOMETHING. Tell us what that is and how it exceeds what others are probably doing.

    For one I don’t say it’s okay. Everything starts with having the correct thought and from there we either work( or not) towards what our intellect understands. What ever avenues are in place to allow me to voice opposition, I will do, and I will pray for God’s mercy. God’s not neutral so I can’t be either. It isn’t only not popular to be against a violation of natural law, now it’s illegal to actually believe in a law that precedes and trumps man’s redefinition( just think about that word for a minute. Have be not entered the age of absurdity?).

    Like

  934. These guys all cite one book written in the last 10 years to support their worldview.

    That’s a deep intellectual bench…

    Like

  935. BV, I did not think a link to the IMDB Parental guide for the production D. G. Hart so readily and often recommends would be taken in an offensive manner. It is a useful guide to review what a program contains before watching said program.

    Mr. Grumpy Gravel, perhaps church officers could start by exercising a modicum of self control and refrain from watching or recommending pornographic material such as the wire program that is so Hartily endorsed. Surely the flock of God deserves men that exercise such self control in both kingdoms.

    Like

  936. If I read that one book about the Elders of the Protocols of Zion will that unlock all of life’s mysteries for me as well?

    Like

  937. Comment 932.

    My money says AB is behind all this and has Charter doing his dirty work. Down to the shifting handle and various avatars.

    Whack.

    Like

  938. Well Pray Deep for us, will you?

    PS I’ve never watched The Wire, but only because I don’t watch much TV.
    PSS You did a fairly convincing Engrish the first time around but you totally lost your cover on this comment.

    Like

  939. Pradeep Ravikumar
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
    I just want to understand, why so belligerent to the fly of the night? What is this two kingdoms ideology that allows one to be a jerk and watch pornographic materials except on Sunday that he warns of? Thank you for such a warning valiant fly.

    Heh heh. Jerks for Jesus, the Gospel According to St. Bastard. Then when you link for information purposes only to the sty they wallow in [“The Wire”], they try to turn it against you just for mentioning it.

    Every trick in the book. These guys are good.

    Like

  941. Steve,

    “What in hades does one thing have to do with another? But hear that, families with modest amounts of kids, you’re not brave, whatever that means”

    Christianity is supposed to believe in the future, Steve, that’s all. And to do that we have to be responsible now, and that means bravely battling the society that is opposed to a sane and good culture for the sake of our future generations. We don’t throw in the towel and say too hell with it anyways. It’s bad parenting to send your kids out into the world telling them that it doesn’t matter how they live just as long as they hold tight to sola fide, so why would you say as much at the national level?
    If families are small but not because of contraception or abortion, then they are upholding moral law, and OF COURSE, the size of their family doesn’t matter. How could you, being so smart, miss the nuance of what I speak? Or are you pulling my leg too?

    Like

  943. Muddy – Newark, don’t be gullible. – I don’t understand, care to clarify?

    DG – Kevin, I am aware of Americanism as a heresy and am astounded at how Americanist the RC US church is to which Bryan and the Jasons call us. But you really think republicanism, separation of church and state, and adapting medieval Christianity to modern society is wrong?

    The money questions, eh? For Americans at least.

    Americanism in the American Church is a huge problem. It is astonishing and in every way tragic and unsettling. It is the prerogative of anyone present to celebrate it with glee, to triumph over something that crushes me and my friends with sadness.

    FYI, I don’t know who Bryan is, and the only Jason I know who you are referring to is Jason Stellman, whose work I don’t know (I listened to one episode of Drunk Ex Pastors, I think he probably has more in him than that).

    republicanism – it’s not ideal, but I think we have to tolerate it and use it as best we can (calling people back to ‘classical republicanism’ / ‘civic humanism’ but with sensitivity to modern conditions like massive businesses corporations, the international impact of the US currency, lots more).

    separation of church and state – basically, separate the personnel while everyone remains motivated by Christian principles. Don’t allow JWs and Nation of Islam to profess their “faiths” in public, but tolerate their private worship and respect their natural rights to pass the nonsense on to their children. The internet complicates all of this, of course.

    But this is laughably far from being implementable in the present-day US. The key is to stay grounded in reality and work toward building a consensus on what ‘the common good’ is. We don’t do this well in the US.

    “adapting medieval Christianity to modern society” – the truths of the faith remain the same, the applications in given historical circumstances can differ, everything is not up for grabs, the Kingdom of the Lord is not of this world.

    I’d need to re-read the encyclical and reflect a bit if you are wanting me to be sharing more than off-the-cuff thoughts.

    Like

  944. Steve,

    “My daughter’s school could decide one day that plagiarism is kosher and will not be sanctioned. Does that mean she’ll start plagiarizing? Not if her mother and I have taught her anything. does the new policy make our job harder? Sure, but we also weren’t raised to be whiners.”

    Good. So without actually putting it like that, you nonetheless teach her to ask WWJD? You don’t just say, “Dear, think of it this way….”what would mom or I do?” ” IOW’s, you appeal to laws outside of yourself.
    So how are you a 2k-er then?

    Like

  945. Pradeep,

    I didn’t say I was offended by you linking such explicit text on a public site (or even that I disagreed with your point). It simply undermines your claim to be perplexed that Darryl discusses The Wire on this site. That link was essentially soft-porn text, as well as discussing explicit violence and vulgar language. Those things don’t offend me, but I hope you can see how it comes across as disingenuous for someone taking exception to Darryl discussing The Wire publicly.

    Like

  946. Susan, can you call him Zrim? I don’t know, I hear all sorts of other characters named Steve(Shtefe-slobber spit) and I don’t need any help in this area. Btw, the best guy I know used to tell me, all the time, ‘just do something, even if it’s wrong.” It continues to be really good advice. Speaking of nuance, how do you send your kids out into the world without giving them a heirarchy of beliefs, teaching them had to compartmentalize and distinguish, rather than flattening and scorching, and teaching them to avoid both despair and triumphalism? Hello, 2k.

    Like

  947. It’s bad parenting to send your kids out into the world telling them that it doesn’t matter how they live just as long as they hold tight to sola fide…

    Who.in.THEE.hell is saying anything like this?

    But, Susan, you’re the one who said “Christianity is supposed to tell the truth (without naiveté) but to be brave and optimistic……hence we have lots of children.” You’re the one who implied size matters (which coincides with your defense of Rome). I’m not missing nuance or pulling your leg. I’m asking you what your plain words are supposed to mean.

    And no I don’t ask WWJD, I ask what did he teach. Big difference. Still, how does that poke any hole in 2k, which sums up the Christian life in one word: obedience.

    Like

  948. Zrim,

    MTX, you miss the point, which is that legality isn’t everything. Lots of things are legal but it’s the suasion of families and communities that’s really what fosters society–is the family the cornerstone of society like the family values crowd tells us or not? My daughter’s school could decide one day that plagiarism is kosher and will not be sanctioned. Does that mean she’ll start plagiarizing? Not if her mother and I have taught her anything. does the new policy make our job harder? Sure, but we also weren’t raised to be whiners.

    I did not miss that point. I believe that too. What you have missed is that it is also right for the Christian and the local Church even to seek to have the school get it’s unjust policy back in line with truth and justice which is being unfairly pressed apon you, your family, and your community. This may mean one has to get involved in the politics of the local school board and the local church leaders should not be told this is just a political matter that the church should not speak on.

    Like

  949. d4v34x, your TV viewing, there are lots of conspiracy theories or are you always this mentality?

    Fly of the night, what book?

    BV, Thank you, your position is clear.

    Gravel of Grump, I will. Better Engrish now?

    Like

  950. Steve,

    I will come back later when I have some time. I just don’t want you to think I’m walking away.
    I want you to know I think highly of you, and do not want argue. If we both believe in social responsibility where being responsible means being moral, then why are we arguing? What are our differences politically speaking?

    Like

  951. Kent – Pointing your finger and getting all self righteous at sodomy and abortion is pretty easy until it hits home and hard.

    TN – Not at all comfortable with that sentence…

    Like

  952. Kent –

    Kevin, I have no trouble hearing the mighty lists of my denomination’s problems when I’m with other evangelicals….

    No prob, I don’t see that you’re obligated to discuss organizational problems with those outside.

    You’re in Ontario, right? Is there a “typical” Evangelical attitude there towards the Queen? What’s the attitude at your church toward the monarchy? Your attitude?

    Like

  953. “Episode 10: A man visits a gay bar and a gay porno is seen on a TV.”

    That’s the only stumbling block I saw for this crowd.

    They look past the male/female stuff…

    Like

  954. I can’t help but tell this story, I apologize for the poor taste/racism/insensitivity. When I was at Bible college we had a Welcome Center which, at night, doubled as the guard shack. I used to go there and hang out with the guards because I lived off campus and 1100 pm lights out didn’t apply to me.

    Anyway, sometimes one of the campus clowns got paired with an Indian kid (son of an Indain [as in from India] for the night shift and every now and then John (the clown) would tease Joey by imitating his rather stereotypical Indian accent. Eventually Joey would get his fill and spout off, “John Buckly, do not be making fun of me in my own voice.”

    So sorry Pradeep, if I hear you as John imitating Joey.

    While we’re throwing Maggi goreng at the wall.

    Like

  955. MTX, nothing is being “unfairly pressed upon us” (whiner alert). It’s bad policy making and I’ve no problem adding my voice to its opposition. But what what if I lose? Do I whine more, or do I rely on other ways to foster righteousness in my kids? They’ve had a lot of years being raised differently than what the policy allows. Is that chopped liver? Maybe I am teaching my kids to take loss like an adult and live according to a code that isn’t so worldly that it needs worldly endorsement.

    As for the local church’s involvement in the school’s policy, heavens to Murgatryod. Where does it stop/ Does it stop? You’re thinking like a big government liberal, you know, the thing you hate. Hey!

    Like

  956. Kevin, I’m sure there are small pockets of people in Canada who hold the Queen to be more than just a figurehead. The last generation who were born and raised in Canada, and were twice as Edwardian than the people of that era, have all passed on to their rewards over the last decade.

    My church is URCNA, mostly Dutch Reformed, the royal She doesn’t really exist.

    We don’t think much about the monarchy, unless they visit our shores.

    Like

  957. Sorry, that should say “son of an Indian national who was also a missionary in India”.

    Like

  958. Susan, because we have different notions about what social responsibility looks like. It sounds like this: “If you don’t care like i care then you don’t care at all.” Can you see why I’d struggled?

    Like

  959. MichaelTX
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I did not miss that point. I believe that too. What you have missed is that it is also right for the Christian and the local Church even to seek to have the school get it’s unjust policy back in line with truth and justice which is being unfairly pressed apon you, your family, and your community. This may mean one has to get involved in the politics of the local school board and the local church leaders should not be told this is just a political matter that the church should not speak on.

    The rubber has met the road; the fit has hit the shan. Politics is interested in YOU.

    The same ones who told us 10 years ago that gay marriage was an unlikely “slippery slope” are the same types who tell us this is no big deal. Here is your children’s future:

    Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress by Christine Baldacchino

    http://www.bustle.com/articles/87976-30-lgbtqia-positive-childrens-books-thatll-teach-kids-how-beautifully-diverse-the-world-is

    Like

  960. Kevin, you know Vatican 2 went American. Murray prevailed. That’s what the history books say.

    So are you an SSPXer?

    Republicanism not ideal. As if monarchy is?

    Like

  961. Sort about the italics in para 2 above.

    Hart,
    mtx, lots of clutter there — links from bishops to Bible to people to democracy to magistrates to constitution to moral law. Wow. You need a 2k fix.

    It’s called having an intergrated worldview.

    Who says you can’t have priorities in difference with your Church leader in a way. What you should no do is when that leader is speaking directly to something that is of the Word regarding current cultural change that “I” should submit, not say the Church should not speak on such things in public policy. Yes, the plight of Palistinians should be something a Church leader is will to address. Doesn’t mean all of them have to.

    Like

  965. Michael, I don’t want my church, as church, getting involved with the local school board. What about issues of competency and two way streets? I’m not interested in hearing from the school superintendent, as superintendent, what I should believe concerning the sacraments, exegesis or worship style. This is distinct from political activity as a citizen.

    Like

  966. erik, let me see if I have this. Old Life is like The Wire. Both are offensive. But you can look at OL and score points. I can’t look at The Wire and if I do it proves OL is bad. Logic is in there somewhere (or not).

    Like

  968. But take into account that I never drank as deeply as you. I merely look to Old Life to denature a bit of the revivalist pietism I’ve been soaking in lo these 45 years.

    Like

  970. Darryl,

    Greg covers that beat.

    I’m not one to talk about watching “The Wire”. I’ve seen it and thought it was worthwhile.

    D,

    I would never consider attending any Bible College that would accept me.

    Like

  971. As an alum of the Moody Bible Institute, and one who escaped assimilation by the Borg, we must take it easy on our Bible college brethren, life outside the bubble can be quite jarring.

    Like

  972. I would never consider attending any Bible College that would accept me.

    Weird, NightRider, you seem to be reverting to the positions of many MBI sophomores I once knew, myself being among them /jab.

    Seriously though, you would likely be better off not attending one. You don’t strike me as a Bill Gothard acolyte.

    Like

  973. Zrim,
    MTX, nothing is being “unfairly pressed upon us” (whiner alert). It’s bad policy making and I’ve no problem adding my voice to its opposition. But what what if I lose? Do I whine more, or do I rely on other ways to foster righteousness in my kids? They’ve had a lot of years being raised differently than what the policy allows. Is that chopped liver? Maybe I am teaching my kids to take loss like an adult and live according to a code that isn’t so worldly that it needs worldly endorsement.

    Who said whine? Why not cosider it courage to speak again injustice, especially when many will disagree? Why not “dialog” with your locals and get more people involved against this injustice? God doesn’t call us to win. He calls us to stand and face evil and call it by name for His glory, even if we are laughed at or worse.

    As for the local church’s involvement in the school’s policy, heavens to Murgatryod. Where does it stop/ Does it stop? You’re thinking like a big government liberal, you know, the thing you hate. Hey!
    We are the local church. Why do we want to limit our involvement? Who said I want to make it where the big gov liberal can’t be organized and get involved? It is the big gov liberal that wants all these policies decided in Washington or by the SC instead of by the local community and state by the people. I will be involved in having these unjust unconstitutional decisions nullified.
    Here is a quick cheater on the subject.

    Like

  975. E – Jed,

    Well that Gothard crowd does seem to get a lot of chicks…

    A – Now that is funny.

    Like

  976. Well that Gothard crowd does seem to get a lot of chicks…

    Yeah if you are into chicks that wear ankle-length denim and tote the latest ESV “I Hate the World” Study Bibles (in a floral quilted Bible cover of course).

    Like

  977. Zrim-I think I am seeing a pattern in your replies- you contend against an overstatement of someone’s position, agree with them in principal, then insist the overstatement is the norm. Correct me if I’m wrong. But why not start with addressing what is actually being said?

    D- I don’t see anything racist or insensitive there. It’s a funny story (although my sympathy is with the Indian).

    TN- Re: bible colleges- the Angelicum is just the place for you, then.

    Like

  979. Kent- Thanks for the insight. I don’t know URCNA except by name. They deny she is validly a ruler (however nominal)? Just her, or monarchs in general (eg, the new Dutch King) ?

    Like

  980. It’s a little more complicated than saying that Christians need to preach the law. Even if God’s law has the same commands from the same one covenant (which I think it does) , this law comes to Christians in a different way than the law comes to non-Christians.

    Lee Irons: “Exegetical study of Paul’s teaching on the Law has convinced me that it is impossible to separate the stipulations of the Law from the sanctions. The very fact that the stipulations are telling you to do something or warning you against disobedience implies that they are speaking to you apart from your union with Christ…. The Law of Christ speaks to Christians from a different ethical framework. It speaks to us in a voice which implies that the Law’s demands have already been completely satisfied.”

    http://www.upper-register.com/papers/married_to_another_print.html

    Lee Irons—God’s moral will must not be be defanged into a list of bare non-covenantal commands – “the moral law but not as covenant of works . What did the sacrificial system provide? A substitute who died an accursed death in the sinner’s place. The sacrificial system graphically showed that repentance alone was not enough. The Law will not let the sinner go just because he is sorry and promises to do better next time. ….i

    Irons–“The gospel promotes the fear of God. A person who claims to be a Christian but who has no fear of God does not have a credible profession of faith. But there is a big difference between the kind of fear that is kindled by the law than the kind of fear that sees the gospel of Christ’s satisfaction of God’s law. Legal fear arises from a consciousness of sin APART FROM an apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ. It is a fear of punishment, and it causes the sinner to shrink back from God, but “Perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment” (1 John 4:18).”

    Like

  984. DG-

    Kevin, you know Vatican 2 went American. Murray prevailed. That’s what the history books say. – Yes, I’ve heard something about that. It will blow over.

    So are you an SSPXer? – I’ve been to their churches maybe three times, including the great St. Nicolas de Chardonnet on the Left Bank in Paris. I’m sympathetic.

    Republicanism not ideal. As if monarchy is? – I can’t do this justice on a smart phone, but I think it is important to have an informed understanding of the monarchical ideal.

    Are you an anarcho-syndicalist?

    Like

  986. Kevin, I am an American, reared in the lower-middle class suburbs (Levittown) of Philadelphia. I’m suspicious of wealth, power, and pretense. And I love Newsroom. I’m 6’2″, 205, throw right, bat right.

    Like

  987. DG –

    I used to work at a cafe in New Hope (went to high school in Pennington NJ). 5’7″ 136. Righty, but I think my son may be a lefty. Too bad soccer is – by far- the #1 sport in the neighborhood. The Brazilians even play it on the new baseball field.

    I have no problem with wealth not ill-gotten; am perhaps less suspicious of power than you are; and despise rather than am suspicious of pretense.

    Don’t know Newsroom, but I’ll check it out.

    No answer to whether you are an anarcho-syndicalist?

    Like

  988. Thanks Darryl, we just celebrated our 9th Anniversary this past weekend, and I think she still likes me, so I’ve gotta be doing a few things right. Maintaining mental health, for those of us unfortunate to battle with it, is like maintaining physical health for those with ailments – it takes hard work and professional help. Things are actually going pretty well right now, but as always vigilance and dedication to ongoing health is key.

    Like

  990. Kevin, I have never heard any references to any Queen in church, not even Freddie Mercury’s band.

    There isn’t much of an effort to downplay the monarchy in English Canada, nor much of an effort to speak highly of it. A non-story unless there’s a visit by the family.

    Like

  991. Erik,

    As mostly an observer rather than a poster it’s been interesting to watch your sudden conviction over treating others with a lack of Christian charity on OL. I do wonder, though, how calling everyone here homosexuals squares with your new-found conviction. For that matter, how does it square with the ninth commandment? And how exactly does this differ from your previous mocking of others in your “reply all” group from which you have since distanced yourself (probably wisely)? It does seem as though you’ve simply switched jerseys rather than changing the way you play the game.

    I’m sorry if this comes across as snarky, but if you were serious about being convicted about your past conduct here, it may be prudent for you to stay away from this blog entirely. You have demonstrated on multiple occasions either a person conviction about your conduct here or others in your family or church encouraging you to stay away. I would encourage you to heed your convictions and external counsel. Like R-rated movies/shows and “dirty” books, OL is permissive and fine for some but others would do well to refrain entirely.

    Like

  992. I wouldn’t want to be fully judged on my worst day or week of posting to Old Life. Kind of like OJ.

    Like

  993. And the villains on Old Life lately haven’t exactly stacked up with the unimpeachable Hall of Famers of recent years, so having to condescend to their level requires third-rate material….

    Like

  994. Hart – I’m suspicious of wealth, power, and pretense. And I love Newsroom. I’m 6’2″, 205, throw right, bat right.

    Can I get a 40 time and some fielding percentages?

    Like

  995. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 5:38 pm | Permalink
    Registered libertarian. Vote inconsistently.

    The Pontius Pilate Party. Keeps your hands clean. 😉

    Like

  996. Kent,

    I understand your point, but Erik has made it very clear that he feels personally convicted about engaging in such exchanges and wants to refrain from such activity. I’m just saying as an observer that it seems he is unable to participate here without reverting to such behavior. If he sincerely feels convicted about engaging in that kind of dialogue then he really should consider refraining, especially if people in his family and church have already encouraged him to do so. I’m not saying he is the worst offender here. But if he feels convicted about his behavior then he should take that very seriously rather than focusing on how everyone else violates his personal convictions.

    Like

  997. From Justic Scalia’s decent speaking of the rediculous nature of judges acting like legislators:
    the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

    Like

  998. This was particularly of interest in the Scalia quote:
    But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that[original intent if the 14th amendment] basis; they say they are not.

    Like

  1000. 5′ 11, 177 lbs. Bat right, vote right, mouse left. Any pugnaciousness is my father’s fault, any reasonableness is my own. Red Sox, Celtics, the family recipe for lemon meringue pie. Russian novels, Presbyterianism, yogurt covered raisins. If you aren’t on a tri bike, I’m passing you.

    Like

  1001. NightFly, haven’t heard of it. But, Eugenides is a great writer, I’ll queue it up on my Kindle account, sounds super interesting.

    Like

  1003. MichaelTX
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Scalia: The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

    Civil disobedience, anyone?

    http://patterico.com/2015/06/30/ted-cruz-some-states-can-ignore-gay-marriage-decision/

    Like

  1004. Will do Nightfly, I am always down for a good novel.

    BTW, my guess is BV isn’t Muddy, different style.

    Like

  1006. a.
    Posted July 1, 2015 at 10:41 pm | Permalink
    TVD:The question now is how much the state will coerce us to give our assent to the idea that people of the same sex can be “married,”

    first though, as you say, how much the ‘church’ will ‘ coerce’

    http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-vote-allowing-gay-marriage-churches-064849720.html

    Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church’s embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop. The House of Bishops approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining.

    Yes, this is a particular problem for Protestants Reformationists. The brand has been sullied, beyond redemption. If you will not speak out against the government warring on the Bible and the people who believe in it, how about fellow “Protestants?”

    This is sort of what I’ve been getting at with “natural law” and what we would call moral reasoning. If your interpretation of the Bible is contrary to moral reasoning and natural law, perhaps there’s something wrong with your interpretation: “general revelation comes from God just as “special” revelation [the Bible] does, and truth cannot contradict truth.

    But since scriptural interpretation became relativized, that’s to say no Joe’s interpretation is any more valid or authoritative than any Jim’s, Christians not only lost their ability to speak to “society,” they even lost the ability [or will] to speak to each other!

    “Because the Bible says so” doesn’t even work. Chaos. Babel.

    Like

  1007. Honestly, TVD, I wish natural law was “a thing” but it died when God died, culturally speaking. At this point it’s in the same category as “because the Bible says so” because both are dependent on God.

    Like

  1008. TVD, thanks for the link to the Patterico post. Used to read him fairly often, not sure why I haven’t tried to follow him lately. His conclusion:

    .

    But speaking as someone who has faced retaliation for speaking his mind — and who has watched others similarly situated cave to bullies — I can tell you that it’s a lot easier to bluster on the Internet about how tough you would be, than it is to actually carry through with it.

    So. If you are going to follow Ted Cruz’s advice to simply ignore the Supreme Court, you’d better recognize what you’re doing as civil disobedience — and be prepared to face the consequences.

    P.S. If you’re one of those people who believes it’s time to violate the law, and anyone who suggests differently is a coward, tell us in comments! Start by giving us your full name, where you work and where you live, and specifically what you have already done to resist the central government in a way that subjects you to criminal penalties or fines.

    Like

  1010. Paranoia makes a guy sloppy. Then with projection, it’s like you’re walking through a house of mirrors; you lose your bearing.

    Like

  1011. MG, even senior citizen adults? Just a few hours til bed time here at the Home.

    Like

  1012. ADD, my time will come. But you’ve seen the whole tamale, almost. I’m listening.

    Like

  1014. Why not cosider it courage to speak again injustice, especially when many will disagree? Why not “dialog” with your locals and get more people involved against this injustice? God doesn’t call us to win. He calls us to stand and face evil and call it by name for His glory, even if we are laughed at or worse.

    MTX, the question remains: What do you do when you lose after contributing your viewpoint? I just don’t see any room in ambitious comments like this for losing. And what if you lose because you’re wrong? Can you be wrong? Are you laughed at because you’re way off? Or is none of that even possible? Where’s the humility? Sorry, you just sound here like so many eeeevangelicals who also seem to have very little cognizance of their own humanity in the public square and an air of confidence that comes across as arrogance.

    Like

  1015. Kevin, fine, you are wrong and I am correcting you. I am indeed addressing what is being said. You don’t like it so you “find a pattern,” and lo and behold it derives from a personal flaw. I guess that’s par for the course since I can’t take a principled dissent with our friend’s methodology. And Christians wonder how they could possibly be construed as arrogant by the wider public. Shocking, just shocking.

    Like

  1016. Returning to the original topic of the SCOTUS decision, (warning- long post), I want to offer some thoughts, and welcome reasoned responses and pushback to correct me if necessary (though six people might actually read all this.)

    The changes in America are not really any one group’s fault; it is all about demographics. The conservative Christian movement, which reemerged in the 1970’s, is shrinking, as poll after poll reveals. A majority of millennials especially has rejected the religious conservative positions of their parents. If you look at most traditional churches with traditional theology, they are filled with older people. It is unfair to suggest the changes we are seeing in America could be stopped if a group would have done this, or not done this. It is like the few who predicted the outcome state-by-state, and almost county-by-county, of the 2012 election, even before the Republicans had put forth a candidate. It is all about demographics. There are other factors that has led to this change in demographics (immigration, etc.), but the numbers are all there to suggest the changes in America will continue and conservative Christians will continue to lose power and influence.

    The young people who have maintained some form of Christianity have mostly moved into the mega-churches. Forbes magazine called the ascension of the mega-church the most significant religious phenomenon of late 20th century America. The mega-churches for the most part have distanced themselves from the conservative politics of the previous religious generation. However, while boasting of being free of partisan politics, they are hardly 2k. They seem to have exchanged the previous generation’s conservative politics with more leftist politics, distribution of wealth, freebies to the poor, etc. The religious millennials, while opposed to homosexuality personally, have little passion about the legality of gay marriage since to them it is not an issue of social justice.

    Added to that is how the millennials view gay people versus how those of my generation view them. My five kids all had (have) gay friends in high school. I never had a gay friend (knowingly) in high school. In my day nobody wanted to admit they were gay. Now it is edgy and cool to admit being gay or bi in high school, it actually produces yawns. (Of course I am speaking of public schools.) Thus older conservatives tend to speak of gay people as a group; the gay lobby, the gay agenda, the gay movement, etc. Younger people think of gays as people they know – so their reaction is different. They simply do not have the same reaction to all this that we older ones do. It is shockingly new to us what is happening regarding gay rights, the young people grew up with seeing gay relationships, so gay marriage just doesn’t give them the same shocking reaction.

    Even more, Tocqueville’s insights continue to be proven true today, that Americans have always loved equality over freedom; they have been obsessed with equality. It was only a matter of time as the demographics changed that the gay population would demand equality in marriage. That is one of the reasons I did not think Misty Irons’ proposal would work. If gays were given the right to civil unions, it would not be long before they demanded full equality – marriage or nothing. It is the American way. In Tocqueville’s own words:

    “Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality, but there are certain epochs at which the passion they entertain for it swells to the height of fury. This occurs at the moment when the old social system, long menaced, is overthrown after a severe internal struggle, and the barriers of rank are at length thrown down. At such times men pounce upon equality as their booty, and they cling to it as to some precious treasure which they fear to lose. The passion for equality penetrates on every side into men’s hearts, expands there, and fills them entirely. Tell them not that by this blind surrender of themselves to an exclusive passion they risk their dearest interests; they are deaf. Show them not freedom escaping from their grasp while they are looking another way; they are blind, or rather they can discern but one object to be desired in the universe.”

    The argument over whether the church should use the bible or natural law to speak to the culture about just laws is interesting on the Internet, but rather useless in real life. The people as a whole do not care what the church thinks or says. They know our views on abortion and homosexuality and they do not care. Some argue that the church is to be a prophetic voice regardless whether anyone listens, but that is a different subject.

    I think there is a way to convince Americans that this ruling should be overturned, but it will not satisfy those who take the prophetic position above, and that way is to appeal to Americans with the libertarian argument. Most Americans do not know their civics enough to understand that by allowing the Court to rule this way, not only on this issue, but many moral issues not decided by the people through the democratic process, they have given up their liberties. We should make the same argument Lincoln made after Dred Scot:

    “At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

    The best I’ve read on this approach is found at the Witherspoon Institute http://winst.org. Of course as a political libertarian I am used to always losing and never seeing my guy in office, so I’m not holding my breath.

    As to predictions of coming persecution, it is possible, but so are many other scenarios. America experienced similar declines in religious demographics in the late 1700’s and the early 20th century, yet both saw resurgences of conservative Christianity later on. And it is also possible that if Christians are unfairly robbed of their freedoms by overbearing authority, or gays, the general public will have had enough and push back. Either way, I would think after the debacle that was Y2K we would shy away from predictions about the end of Western Civilization as we know it.

    But in a sense all Christians suffer persecution, so we should not be surprised. II Tim. 3:2, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,” is not only applicable post SCOTUS ruling, it is always true. If you know the heartache of seeing your grown child abandon the faith you are not shocked at the gospel producing some form of hardship. As a matter of fact, most parents would easily spend time in jail instead of watching their child abandon the faith they were raised with. And in deference to our brothers and sisters in Nigeria and other places who are worrying if their heads are going to be chopped off, it seems honorable to them to tone down the rhetoric about suffering and persecution in what is still the freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world. At the same time the changes happening would suggest things will get more difficult socially if not politically for our children if they profess the true gospel, but things generally move more slowly than people assume they will (still no flying cars).

    Like

  1018. “The brand has been sullied, beyond redemption.”

    Funny, that’s what Luther was saying about Rome circa 1520. What’s changed? That’s right. Nothing changes.

    Like

  1020. Sean,

    Michael, I don’t want my church, as church, getting involved with the local school board. What about issues of competency and two way streets? I’m not interested in hearing from the school superintendent, as superintendent, what I should believe concerning the sacraments, exegesis or worship style. This is distinct from political activity as a citizen.

    It is not a question if what you want your church leaders to do or say. It is a question of should they when it is needed and should you or the state be the one who can says they can’t. What if the school board is proposing that all children can no longer pray over their means or before a test. If they do they will be put in isolation classes and then expelled if the “problem” continues. Should a church leader be allowed to say to their congregation that they should be aware of the proposal and that they should make the Christian informed voice heard at the meeting to not have such an unjust law passed?

    Like

  1021. Todd, thanks, but I need to throw water on your flickering candle of hope: justices just legislated from the bench in both the Obamacare decision and the SSM decision. People think that rocks, and think the Scalias of the world are akin to William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes trial.

    Republican candidates will now try to win votes by talking about whom they will appoint for the SCOTUS but history shows that Republicans don’t necessarily do a whole lot better for the conservative side.

    But I totally agree that the ground shift has mostly come from personal relationships rather than some kind of abstract thinking.

    Like

  1023. Zrim- my comment was inappropriate, especially given I’ve just arrived here (limited info set). Please accept my apology.

    Like

  1024. Muddy Gravel
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
    Honestly, TVD, I wish natural law was “a thing” but it died when God died, culturally speaking. At this point it’s in the same category as “because the Bible says so” because both are dependent on God.

    Then you don’t actually understand natural law, then. Romans 2. Further, we can just call it “moral reasoning,” although fundies don’t really do actual reason. Which is why [see the above] they can’t even talk to other Christians, let alone “society.” Fundies couldn’t make a case against gay marriage without thumping Leviticus, and nobody else had the guts to try until it was too late.

    (A different) Dan
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
    TVD, thanks for the link to the Patterico post. Used to read him fairly often, not sure why I haven’t tried to follow him lately. His conclusion:.

    But speaking as someone who has faced retaliation for speaking his mind — and who has watched others similarly situated cave to bullies — I can tell you that it’s a lot easier to bluster on the Internet about how tough you would be, than it is to actually carry through with it.

    So. If you are going to follow Ted Cruz’s advice to simply ignore the Supreme Court, you’d better recognize what you’re doing as civil disobedience — and be prepared to face the consequences.

    So just shut up and bake my cake. Or else!

    Final order: Sweet Cakes bakery must pay $135,000 to lesbian couple
    http://www.katu.com/news/local/Final-order-Oregon-Bureau-of-Labor-and-Industries-BOLI-Gresham-Sweet-Cakes-Melissa-bakery-must-pay-135000-to-lesbian-couple-311494301.html

    Joel
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 8:32 pm | Permalink
    TVD, are you a part of the Judas Party (Republicans)?

    That’s not actually witty, whoever you are, it’s sort of the left-wing counterfeit of it. Comparing the Libertarian Party to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of moral responsibility, that had had a point. You, not so much.

    Like

  1025. TVD, you’re just trying to force a shot against Prots. But, like most forced shots, it was a brick.

    Like

  1026. Muddy,

    You’re probably right, but at least Christians could find common ground with all who appreciate liberty regardless of religion, which is the way politics should work. But I’m a Cowboy’s fan, so my expectations are always disappointed, unless they elect Jimmy Johnson president.

    Like

  1027. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
    “The brand has been sullied, beyond redemption.”

    Funny, that’s what Luther was saying about Rome circa 1520. What’s changed? That’s right. Nothing changes.

    Not capable of defending your own religion.

    Luther then Calvin made it all worse. Say what you want against Catholicism [and you certainly do] but it’s still here. “Protestantism” doesn’t even exist in a coherent form you’d want to be associated with: the Episcopalians, the PCUSA.

    Or maybe it doesn’t bother you, as long as they’re not Catholic. Justification by faith > gay ministers. It’s all a sliding scale to certain Reformationists such as your esteemed self. But it’s also slippery slope, Dr. Hart, and the Reformation done slud down it.

    Your anti-Catholic animus prevents you from speaking intelligibly to Catholics, but you can’t talk with most of the rest of Christianity either.

    Like

  1028. Muddy Gravel
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
    TVD, you’re just trying to force a shot against Prots. But, like most forced shots, it was a brick.

    Oh, that deradly calvinist wit. I may have bricked, but you just dribbled off your foot out of bounds.

    ;-P

    Actually, I was just pointing out that The Prots can’t even field a regulation team. Forget matching uniforms: One has a baseball bat, another a hockey stick, this one has a pogo stick, and the one over there brought a kite.

    You’re not even in the game, even with each other.

    Like

  1029. Todd, intriguing point on older generations seeing gays in terms of a movement and younger ones as people.

    Kevin, thanks but no need. I’d settle for allowing for my principled dissent.

    MTX, your question assumes Christians have their kids in public schools and thus a vested interest in policies made. That’s funny, because most have followed the atomization and consumerism of larger society and tailored education per their own felt needs. You want the goodle days? Well, there was a time when there was one school and everybody from all kinds of backgrounds learned to make it work. So if Christians are riled up at what a local school is doing in regard to religious liberty (or anything for that matter), sure seems rather busybody-ish.

    Like

  1030. Zrim,
    MTX, the question remains: What do you do when you lose after contributing your viewpoint? I just don’t see any room in ambitious comments like this for losing. And what if you lose because you’re wrong? Can you be wrong? Are you laughed at because you’re way off? Or is none of that even possible? Where’s the humility? Sorry, you just sound here like so many eeeevangelicals who also seem to have very little cognizance of their own humanity in the public square and an air of confidence that comes across as arrogance.

    Who says all the evangelicals got everything all wrong? You? Is it even possible you are wrong? Where is the humility, Zrim? Can you be wrong? You are coming across as a hypocrite against people who have public policy positions that they are allowed to have here in America. If you call them having convictions arrogance, you can’t have convictions and not call yourself arrogant. If they or I lose what does that matter? When have I said what else must be done? Have I said we turn to violence? Of course not! Is it possible civil disobedience or State nullification is to come into play? Maybe. What matters is faithfulness in one’s own generation. Scripture says so. To put the rubber on the road, Zrim, would you have allowed us here in Texas to keep our abortion laws, sodomy laws, laws againt Obamacare, the ssm ban or would you have sided with those which say we don’t have the freedom to make those laws here in Texas? We did have all those laws just fine before we entered the union. Would we have enter knowing our freedoms were being sacrificed? Would you take away our pedophilia or polygamy laws next? Where does is end, Zrim? Please answer how you would have ruled on taking away my states right to keep traditional marriage at least. That one is not rhetorical.

    Like

  1032. MTX, the question for you is what do you do when local regions are allowed to govern themselves but you lose the day? You liked Bork’s quote. Do you “go home and come back tomorrow and try again”? Or do you go the “explosive issue route” and claim the winners are quickening the apocalypse or the end of western civ? Can you live with losing? As a states rightser who opposes legalized abortion, what’s more important isn’t may she or mayn’t she but who gets to decide, and if my region says she may I don’t like it but better that we got to decide.

    Like

  1033. Zrim,
    MTX, your question assumes Christians have their kids in public schools and thus a vested interest in policies made.
    Of course it does, Zrim. That was the whole point of the hypothetical sinario. And even if they don’t should they want there neighbors limited from praying? What happened to love your neighbor as yourself? It is unjust to punish people for praying and forcing me the tax payer to fund an administration punishing them for it, right? Is this not making me the punisher of the prayer too?

    Like

  1034. Muddy Gravel
    Posted July 2, 2015 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
    Todd, thanks, but I need to throw water on your flickering candle of hope: justices just legislated from the bench in both the Obamacare decision and the SSM decision. People think that rocks, and think the Scalias of the world are akin to William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes trial.

    That rocks, Mr. Gravel. In fact the irony is that our host Dr. Hart expends time lionizing the clever but empty man HL Mencken rather than the much-maligned William Jennings Bryan.

    Lionizing Mencken is as cheap as praising Jon Stewart; to defend the flawed but prescient Bryan against the forces of Mencken and Stewart’s smuggery takes work, and courage.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/SCO_INHE.HTM

    You really should take up apologetics, Darryl, instead of attacking. Not only would you help mankind, it would be good for your heart. Plus you’re really not a very good Menckenish polemicist anyway. You have all the vinegar but no pith.

    Like

  1035. Zrim,
    MTX, the question for you is what do you do when local regions are allowed to govern themselves but you lose the day? You liked Bork’s quote. Do you “go home and come back tomorrow and try again”?
    Basic answer is yes, but there are things that would fall out of that simple go home idea. Somethings would call for civil disobedience. We obey God rather than men. As long as man’s laws allow me to keep God’s laws then I can keep man’s laws, but when man’s laws are forcing me to forsake God’s laws I will obey God and deal with the consequences of men.

    Like

  1037. Think we are finally getting close to getting each other, Zrim.

    As a states rightser who opposes legalized abortion, what’s more important isn’t may she or mayn’t she but who gets to decide, and if my region says she may I don’t like it but better that we got to decide.

    Agreed. I am willing to say somethings hasten the end of Western Civilazation though. Continual undermining of the original intent of the constitution is clearly hastenin the end of a law order society here in America. That is not good for now or the generations to come. Will lead to the end of America as we know it.

    Like

  1038. MTX, I’m putting your hypothetical into the context of reality. But if you want it a step removed from reality and the kids are actually there then agreed. You might hate this, but now I wonder where there is room for persecution in your outlook? Biblically, persecution is the mark of God’s favor. It’s almost as if you want to avoid it.

    This isn’t to be cavalier or Pollyanna about persecution. It’s to wonder about giving at least some calibration to your apparent crusade for modern virtues of liberty, rights, and justice. How do the themes of suffering and persecution co-exist with your crusade?

    Like

  1039. Bless are those who are pursecuted for rightiousness sake, but which is the one who will get persecuted in our world, the one fighting to have just laws no violently or the one who thinks we should not speak out for what is right in God’s eyes and seek to have our laws written accordingly? Pursecution is a blessing but that doesn’t mean God always gives it, sometimes he allows the good to prevail in a society. This is why we work for just laws. We act on hope enlivened by faith filled with love.

    Like

  1040. Zrim-

    Principled dissent is, I hope, a fundamental part of what this blog is about.

    There was a time when there was one school and everybody from all kinds of backgrounds learned to make it work.

    When? The 1840s? The Lutherans and Catholics always sent a huge percentage to parochial schools, and won most gov battles involved in doing so.

    This may be a stretch, but perhaps there is a parallel regarding an attack on traditional culture/religious identity in the schools in the state laws banning non-English (read: German) instruction. (WWI era and perhaps the two decades prior). The states completely succeeded, eliminating the ability of German American communities to reproduce themselves as such.

    Illinois declared its state language “American.”

    Like

  1041. Todd, Muddy,

    Todd – Great post (article).

    Muddy – Agreed with your comments on said article. Also, it seems I did indeed get taken in by Pradeep (should have read more closely) – joke’s on me.

    Like

  1043. Michael, your hypothetical doesn’t move me. Why do I need the church to lead me as regards social-school policy? I’d much prefer they keep to their own area of, alleged, expertise. Most of them, present company excepted, can’t pull that off, so, why would I follow their lead when it came to my kids? I don’t want Obama adjudicating heresy and I’m not interested in my pastor telling me how to vote. And if all I had was the competency and lawful jurisdiction planks, it’d be enough to make the point.

    Like

  1044. Joel – The defining characteristic that separates government from any other institution is it legitimized coercive violence. The Bible calls it the sword.

    I wouldn’t call justice violence, usually at least; but I can agree that the state has the right to use force to implement just laws. We all have the right to defend ourselves, of course, and this can be a group effort – such as a neighborhood community unifying against rioters.

    Voting pushes you to think about the ways to use the power of the sword to change your neighbor’s behavior. – Perhaps for some. Or else it is a way of allocating resources when choosing amongst a new sewer system, a riverside park, or English classes for illegal immigrants.

    This is opposed to using other social methods to affect your neighbors or to simply leave them alone. – In almost all cases the best policy.

    I know you can chew gum and walk at the same time, but the more effort that you put into politics, the less effort you’ll put into other activities. – that’s the main reason I don’t put any effort into politics – my time is better spent elsewhere. Voting takes about 3 minutes for me – I walk a block and a half to the school the city uses, sign a form, vote, and walk to work.

    Actually it takes longer because I look the candidates up on my smart phone. The workers will ask if I ‘need any help’ – my wife tells me she accepted their help at one point, and the guy pointed straight at the Dem party line and said “then you push this button.”

    The more success you have with government, the more likely you’ll prefer using the sword to other more neighborly means of persuasion. – the political has no purpose without the pre-political.

    People in government resort to their use of power to affect change in society first, then if they aren’t successful, they start using their pulpit. If you have a hammer… – The government pulpit?

    Like

  1045. Sean,
    So church leaders shouldn’t say it is bad to vote for someone who would willingly vote for women aborting their children if there is someone else to vote for? Is this beyond the mandate of Christ for his called teachers? And if someone is running who says we should make pedophilia legal should a Church leader be outside of his area in saying it is wrong to vote for such if there is options?

    Like

  1046. Michael, you can turn up the hypotheticals to eleven, I’m not interested in my pastor, in their capacity as pastor, telling me how to vote. Even worse, when he stamps it with ‘thus sayeth the Lord’.

    Todd, I’m not sure about all that. I understand the plausibility part, sort of, I’m not convinced of a direct causal relationship. But, then, I never lived in my mom’s basement, so, maybe.

    Like

  1047. Zrim- Kevin, wow. Does that mean if one has means and opportunity but is skeptical and refrains from sending money to the guy on TV claiming to save African kids from hunger (in Jesus’ name) he’s probably just being a coward, even has something against starving African kids?

    I’d recommend he stop watching TV (TV comes up a lot around here) – he’d encounter fewer shysters, spend more time talking with other human beings, and find plenty of worthwhile causes to be engaged in.

    He could pick up trash on the street that the city gov can’t seem to keep clean. If your streets are fine, please, come help with mine.

    Or he could help out the guy with the megaphone- the best way to combat a habit of unjustified skepticism (and perhaps to refine discernment) is communal engagement with with real problems. It’s good for the soul.

    Like

  1049. Michael, no, you’re in for church leaders who illicitly bind the conscience of their congregants. We’re talking about ordained clergy grabbing the mantle of church authority(keys to the kingdom) and wielding that authority illegitimately. I don’t need the help, thank you very much, but I do need someone to study themself approved and preach me the gospel, administer to me the sacraments and do the same for my kids.

    Like

  1052. “Guess I’m just not for culturally impotent church leaders.”
    @mtx who are the culturally potent church leaders? Our church leaders can’t even hold onto the choir, yet many believe that they have sway in the political realm. Again, the data on all of this is truly alarming:
    1) South/Latin America has lost 1/3 of RC adherents since the 1970’s. While Tom likes to quote RC sources saying they haven’t shrunk, that’s because like the SBC, it is nigh impossible to get one off the rolls.
    2) the number of mainline and RC adherents is plummeting in the US (and equivalently in Europe). While RCs are to the left of the mainline on social issues, it isn’t by much. This is also a worldwide phenomenon. There is a positive correlation between the fraction of a country that identifies as RC and the fraction of the country that supports ssm et al.
    3) Evangelicals are the “bright” spot in that they are more or less holding steady, though marriage and adherence among the working class is in freefall. Evangelical millennials are significantly leftward on sex issues relative to similarly aged evangelicals 20yrs ago (the 90’s).

    For the past 50yrs, the theme of religion has been cultural engagement – V2 opening up, Niebuhrs “Christ and culture”, political engagement by evangelicals (thank you Francis Schaefer), and ecumenical conservative efforts (FirstThings, ECT, Manhattan Declaration, Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, etc…) and what do we have to show for it? Nada, zilch, zippo, bupkis…. tvd and erik seem to think the 50 or so 2kers in the 500,000 NAPARC have thrown a monkey wrench in our ability to hold back the forces of cultural decay.

    Yet, 95% of RC women of childbearing age use birth control, 1/3 of women have had an abortion by the age of 40, Sociologists looking for the effect of engaging in commercial sex (hiring prostitutes, watching hardcore porn, or attending a strip club) on domestic violence could not find a statistically significant control group of men who didn’t do any of those things in the past year. Largely because watching hardcore porn has become so prevalent – even among the “bright spot” of evangelicals. Now something like 60% of americans support ssm. Those of us who are confessional prots have been routed in all of our denominations. We lost our denomination schools, seminaries, churches, and missions organizations. If we can’t convince the choir, what makes you think we will have any impact on the “world”.

    I don’t throw around these stats to pick on RCs (or mainliners), my point is that we (non-modernist christians) have been utterly ineffectual at winning the “culture war” among our own.

    I came across the following from Mark Steyn…

    conservatives have spent the supposed “end of history” winning a zillion elections, and losing everything that matters. To most of the so-called millennials, conservatism is entirely invisible except as a Jon Stewart punchline – and that invisibility was largely our choice. Instead of launching another radio show or news aggregator or think-tank, never mind obsessing over whether Jeb or Jindal or Christie will play better in Iowa, we need to make like the Islamic mullahs and the sex mullahs and start competing for the space where people actually live.

    I’m not sure about his solution (actually I’m pretty sure it won’t work either), but I am sure about the status of conservatives. And while his focus is politics, I think the same could be said about non-modernist christians.

    The scriptures are clear that believers are aliens, pilgrims, this world is not our home, etc… This reality should guide our behavior. Seeing ourselves as strangers in a strange land is the Benedict Option. Realizing that we aren’t going to transform the world (by politics or other means) and at best we will “restrain evil”. Our churches need to focus on the spiritual formation of her members: preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and providing community where we are encouraged, catechized, admonished, accountable, supported (materially and spiritually), and disciplined.

    I don’t need the church to tell me the right approach to being a professor, how to engage the local school board, or how to vote. They have proven over and over that all of these things are outside of their expertise. They have spent half a century trying to win the culture war, and they haven’t even been able to fight to a draw. Maybe if Darryl and the dozen or so of us in these commboxes sympathetic to 2k got on board things would be different?

    Like

  1055. Yes, what sdb said. Most good pastors and priests I know are already doing this (quietly, so you don’t hear about it). I do think some here might accuse a pastor condemning a real sin, preaching the Law as he should, as “being political,” though, making assumptions about the pastor’s intent.

    My husband and I are those so-called millennials who like Stewart (actually, like Colbert better–both were funnier under the Bush admin), but are also so-called paleo-cons, states rights, frontporchers, chronicles magazine readers, etc. We also have a lot of babies (#6 due today!), but that has nothing to do with our piety (or pietism). So a sermon focused on sodomy, and public encouragement of such, is just kind of irrelevant to our own Old Adams. (I will add it helps to have a lectionary, and follow it. Our pastor almost always preaches on the Gospel that week, often tying in the other readings into his sermons, including the Psalms)

    But there are many people in our congregation who don’t have our education, background, or assumptions. Pastor doesn’t preach politics (thank God, since he and his extended family have FoxNews parties during election season (!!!!!!)), but he will proclaim what God’s Word says, and will whether POTUS or SCOTUS addresses it or not. And he has a better grasp of the struggles of other parishioners than I do.

    Like

  1056. b, sd, “Maybe if Darryl and the dozen or so of us in these commboxes sympathetic to 2k got on board things would be different?”

    What does that mean? Do you want a 2k movement?

    Like

  1058. Heh. No. I was being sarcastic. If only we had supported the BBros and you hadn’t written those subversive nooks on secularism and Palin. Then we wouldn’t have ssm, abortion would be a distant memory, etc…

    Like

  1059. Sean,

    Michael, no, you’re in for church leaders who illicitly bind the conscience of their congregants. We’re talking about ordained clergy grabbing the mantle of church authority(keys to the kingdom) and wielding that authority illegitimately.

    If you remove the words illicitly and illegitimately above you would be right.

    Michael, no, you’re in for church leaders who illicitly bind the conscience of their congregants. We’re talking about ordained clergy grabbing the mantle of church authority(keys to the kingdom) and wielding that authority illegitimately.

    I do believe a church leader should have his conscience bound by truth and then present that truth to his congregants that the Spirit may bind their consciences too. Now if we are talking about things that do not pertain to faith and morality, I can agree with you. Maybe even the how of dealing with those faith and morality issues can be disagreed on, but to say a church leader should not in his capacity as a church leader name evil and say to vote it into having more power is illegitimately takin the “keys” for ourself. A church leader should be able to say it is sin to vote for people who wish to make murder legal and we should all have our consciences bound to that. That is not illicitly use of the keys. Trying to bind me on which corporate tax rate is best for our nation? Yeah most likely that would be illicit, but knowing the teachings of Christ will be what helps me know when a leader is going beyond those licit bounds. I don’t have to illicitly say he should stay out if all things political just because they are political. That is me binding and loosing on my own authority.

    Like

  1060. The stats for From Billy to Sarah:

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #798,543 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
    #1181 in Books > History > World > Religious > Religion, Politics & State
    #1282 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Church & State
    #1820 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Ideologies & Doctrines > Conservatism & Liberalism

    Sorry, DGH.

    Like

  1061. No, “due today” actually means I’ll deliver about 2 weeks from now. Doesn’t the pound sign mean “number” still, and not just hashtag?

    I think the most upsetting thing for me is several acquaintances severing ties with their extended family over this ruling (or rather over the.fb rainbow filter) Your vocation as nephew or son should trump your vocation (which I don’t think is really a vocation) as general “culture war fighter,” especially culture-war-fighter-on-facebook.

    I am teaching my neighbor’s kids the Small Catechism, Bible stories, hymns and a verse in the mornings during the summer. (Free babysitting for her, I get to keep my kids from being distracted by munchkins peering through the windows, begging to play).

    A few years ago we were talking about miscarriages and she talked about her friends’ baby being diagnosed with some fatal disorder, which would result in the baby being stillborn or dying soon after death. The doctor assumed abortion, which the lady accepted as the only option. Neither the lady who “miscarried,” nor my neighbor saw the act as an abortion or willfully murdering her disabled child. I was taken back, but have learned this is quite common. I didn’t point out it was actually a willful abortion, not a spontaneous abortion, but rather told her about several friends who had lived through stillborn deliveries, and their experiences. She had never heard of such a thing. Thankfully, I didn’t run in the house and lock the door when I found out her abortion beliefs. We’re still friends and swap berries for tomatoes and our kids teach each other novel sins, unfortunately.

    So that’s what left kingdom living looks like for me (and I vote–usually. If I forget I don’t think I’m sinning, since in a foregone city in a foregone county, in a foregone state. And I was probably doing something more important with my kids…or commenting on here or something).

    Like

  1062. Katy, “several acquaintances severing ties with their extended family over this ruling (or rather over the.fb rainbow filter).”

    Can you explain? Who severed from whom and why? Where do these folks live?

    Like

  1063. Michael, what teachings of Jesus are your referring to, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? My kingdom is not of this world? How about Paul, ‘live quietly, work with your hands, mind your own business, pray for the peace of the city” How about those lessons as opposed to voter guides and turning the pulpit into a political rally during election season. And you still haven’t touched lawful jurisdiction and competency. The confessions generally allow for events extraordinary in ‘speaking’ to the state, I’d hope they’d reserve those opportunities to instances of state infringement upon ecclesial jurisdiction. Regardless, my pastor rolls up on me and tells me to vote such and such a way, ‘thus sayeth the Lord’ and he and I are gonna have problems. Aside from all that, we’ve got history to look at as to how this has gone when either the church has infringed or taken upon itself state authority and the state has taken upon itself churchly authority(violating legitimate divine charter and delving into areas outside their area of competency). I don’t like either opportunity.

    Like

  1064. In the “nothing new under the sun” category, a lawyer speaks the language of high ideals when he’s really just found a creative way to make a buck.
    ______________
    Corcoran says he celebrated the Supreme Court decision to have marriage equality throughout the United States, but he quickly realized it was unlikely all of the new marriages would end in bliss.
    He says that is why he launched a new division entirely devoted to LGBT divorce.
    “The genesis of this idea began about a year ago when Judge Jones, out in Harrisburg, legalized marriage for all in Pennsylvania. I was out that night with a couple of friends and I came up with that idea. We were talking about the fact that, at some point down the line, there’s going to be a need for gays to get divorced, and I thought wouldn’t be funny if that website was called AdamVsSteve.com. Then the year went by and I thought more and more about it, I realized that there really is a certain kind of empowerment and benevolence in taking what was formerly a derogatory term or a denigration and turning it into some matter of empowerment. And it’s for a good service. These people are entitled to equal rights just like the rest of us.”
    He adds, “The whole thing about the sanctity of straight marriage being compromised by the notion of a homosexual union is the most ridiculous nonsense imaginable and it was high time to use some tongue-in-cheek humor and turn the denigrations that have been used against so many of my friends and family members, to flip it a little bit.”

    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/07/02/countrys-first-gay-divorce-firm-opens-in-philadelphia/

    Like

  1065. Not people on here, my acquaintances and friends.

    They suggested they would not be talking or even have a relationship anymore with relatives, over facebook activity concerning the recent ruling. One was with a sibling, another with a cousin, another with a daughter.

    One woman who has been having marriage difficulties has said she is appalled by the things her husband “liked” or agreed with after the ruling (ok, obvious difficulties if you find out from social media what your spouse thinks…), and that it might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    Who the hell divorces because of a SCOTUS ruling, even if it’s “the last straw”? So, yes, hysteria, which “conservatives” perpetuate for clickbait, viewership ratings, votes, etc.

    So I think this is the devil’s work, in a way, dividing natural avenues to both convert people and “affect the culture.” Yes, the Gospel doesn’t bring peace, but the sword, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t at stake here.

    Like

  1066. Katy, thanks. So is it the anti-SSM’s breaking away from pro-SSM friends, the opposite, or is it breaking both ways?

    To me, this is a sad outgrowth of our politicization.

    Like

  1068. Katy,

    Can you explain? Who severed from whom and why? Where do these folks live?

    Can you also supply social security numbers, childhood invisible friends, and deepest darkest secrets? That’d be helpful, thanks.

    Like

  1069. Jed, I thought you were living a full and productive life outside of OL?
    Who = pro or anti.
    Where = south, northeast, or India, in Pradeep’s neighborhood.

    Like

  1075. Jed, I thought he was going to make fun of me for getting riled up about people who live far away severing relations with other people who live far away (which I would have deserved)

    Like

  1076. DGH, I’ll consider it my patriotic duty, although I think it’ll all be over with by the time my kids draw a paycheck. You can have mine and my husband’s, although I think they might be spending it all on those glossy flyers, assuring us how much we’ll be getting in 50 years (when we’re dead).

    Like

  1077. Sdb,
    I can agree with most of what you have said. Especially this:
    Our churches need to focus on the spiritual formation of her members: preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and providing community where we are encouraged, catechized, admonished, accountable, supported (materially and spiritually), and disciplined.

    My one concerns is when you say “admonished” why are you excluding political ideas? Should we be admonished to vote for proabortions canidates or not? Politicians who say they are running to change the definition of marriage? Why is this not valid admonishment from the church? And of course we should be determined to have our inner church communities more vibrant and living the faith in out hearts, minds and families. But to say there can be something released for Christ’s church condemning something our society is voting on is above my pay grade. The RCC does condemn those who use contraception. They ignore where their conscience should be bound. The Church does condemn voting for ssm. Many ignor where their conscience should be bound. That does not mean church leaders should stop teaching it. The RCC has spoken clearly on ssm.

    CDF 2003-
    4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

    …In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

    …10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

    When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

    When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

    Sdb,
    I can’t say why others conscience is not bound on this and other issues. Mine is and I don’t think the church should be quiet because our culture has made this a political issue.

    Like

  1078. Katy, anytime you want to throw the midwest under the gay bus AND teach me how to rid myself of evanjellyfish FB friends while telling them, ‘you left me’. You have my vote.

    Like

  1079. Why all the suspicion? If someone comes in here and isn’t a jerk it’s just like we’re sitting on my back deck being human beings together. If someone comes in talking trash, well there might be a different result. And I do have a short list of commenters I simply won’t read and won’t feed. They tend to come in bulk, but Costco has better samples.

    Like

  1081. The Court’s decision upheld traditional marriage, and that’s a good Christian thing:

    A few days ago in America, gay marriage became the law of the land, following much of Europe (but not all – if it does get voted down it doesn’t really get reported). You may find it surprising to hear that as a Christian it is my personal conviction that the wide acceptance of gay marriage could have only happened in a Christian context – that is, in a society where a very strong measure of true love and tolerance is practiced.

    I know people will laugh at that, and say, “No, it is the Enlightenment that is doing that work”. Well sure, to some degree… you see, in my view the “Enlightenment” is simply the most sophisticated and deadly of Christian heresies yet developed.

    undertheinfluenceMorally, it hijacks Christianity’s emphasis on the dignity of the individual person and it praise of sacrificial service, particularly to the oppressed. Taking cues from Christian notions of love and freedom, it elevates the importance of the notion of “consent” (if you love something you, like the “prodigal father” in Luke 15, “let it be free” – this is the reason why free consent is considered to be at the heart of marriage in the West[ii]). And, at least until the “Enlightened” gain enough power, the Enlightenment mimics the Christian God’s impartiality and forebearance with its notions of “equality” and “tolerance”. In addition, taking its cue from the incarnation of God’s Son in history, it accentuates our sense of, and respect for, the empirical. It also assumes that the world is ordered and that our sensory equipment is likewise ordered, and reliable. In like fashion, the new life and transformation the love of Christ brings becomes progress and evolution.

    In sum, there is a reason that notions of social justice find a home among those who identify with the person of Jesus Christ. Social justice came from Christianity. There is also, of course, a “Christless social justice” which largely conforms to God’s law and can do some real good in the world. That said, there is also a ”social justice” that certainly does more harm.

    Like

  1082. The Court’s decision upheld traditional marriage, and that’s bad:

    It may be churlish of me to insist that we recognize this deeper structure of Kennedy’s opinion, but—let’s be blunt—it’s a solemn reinforcement of the most reactionary and patriarchal interpretation of marriage: as the taking by one person of another to wife or, in more gender neutral language, to wed. This is the sense of the traditional phrase “man and wife”—a basic inequality encoded in the most basic sentences of the traditional wedding ceremony, “I now pronounce you man and wife,” a phrase generally succeeded by the equally patriarchal “You may now kiss the bride.” (And echoed in the common Jewish ritual of the husband breaking a glass after the vows—a ceremony which I have to admit I performed at my wedding, as it was too fun to give up.) For Kennedy, this is the fundamental right that must be defended—the right of a person to take another person to wed. This operation may be reciprocal, but even such a reciprocal understanding of marriage obstructs a more radically egalitarian notion—marriage not as a taking but as a joining.

    Like

  1085. @ MTX: You’ve got two problems to deal with, and as a Catholic this is probably particularly acute.

    * The first is the role of compromise in politics. Sure, I can vote straight-ticket pro-life (and I actually sometimes do). In the process, I might be voting for someone who violates or advocates violating another of God’s commands.

    So you vote for Dubya because he’s prolife. And you get the Iraq war and trickle-down economics, both of which your church opposes. Weelll….

    That’s compromise.

    The corollary is that there might be reason to NOT vote for (or to vote against) a pro-life candidate.

    For that reason, a minister does not have the right to “thus saith the Lord” on candidates.

    * The second is that its not easy to draw straight lines between laws and desired outcomes. It turns out that we have been able to reduce abortion rates without laws, and that trend seems to have not yet hit an inflection point. Conversely, outlawing alcohol DID reduce alcohol consumption, but gave a large number of bad side effects.

    For that reason, a minister who does not have pretty detailed policy expertise really has no ability to sort out right from wrong.

    A good example is the ACA, which was promoted by American Catholic bishops. Then … surprise! Abortion mandate, leading to SCOTUS decisions, leading to continued push from the administration.

    Like

  1086. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 6:28 am | Permalink
    vd,t but I thought American creation came from Protestantism. It sure wasn’t Roman Catholicism.

    #syllabusoferrors1864

    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 6:35 am | Permalink
    vd, t why do you care?

    Because I think you do harm.

    Like

  1087. MichaelTX: Bless are those who are pursecuted for rightiousness sake, but which is the one who will get persecuted in our world, the one fighting to have just laws no violently or the one who thinks we should not speak out for what is right in God’s eyes and seek to have our laws written accordingly?

    Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, quietly only in your heart for the Lord knows ?

    Like

  1089. @mtx more later, but in short scripture doesn’t tell us how society should be organized. Further, the connection between voting and outcomes is unclear. I can tell a story where Bork gets through, Casey over turns rvw, and abortion returns to states where legislators over reach bringing a backlash that sets the prolife movement back irretrievably so that we have more abortion than we do now. I can tell another plausible story where evangelicals push same-sex unions in the 90’s to ameliorate the most destructive aspects of the gay subculture and take out the energy of the gay rights movement leading to a more tolerant society today. Predictions are hard…especially about the future. As outlandish as my counterfactuals may seem, they aren’t as crazy as someone in 1995 telling you gay marriage would be the law of the land in 2015.

    Teaching that abortion is wrong is certainly the purview of the church. Deciding how best to address it (or whether to) in the legal arena where compromise, horsetrading, and unintended consequences reign is not.

    OK, not so short. I really need to learn pithiness.

    Like

  1090. sdb: “I can tell another plausible story where evangelicals push same-sex unions in the 90’s to ameliorate the most destructive aspects of the gay subculture and take out the energy of the gay rights movement leading to a more tolerant society today.”

    Tried for that in the 2000s. Got funny looks and disbelief from P&R types.

    Like

  1091. Been out on the lake today folks. Tomorrow is the 4th… Will try and get to some responding when I can. Just not right now.
    Peace,
    Michael

    Like

  1092. That’s it, Michael, remind those So Cal’s that some places have this thing called water. I’m starting a company called Wateron, I’m gonna sell water credits to the State of California, I’ll be rich.

    Like

  1093. @jeff you don’t say? I don’t think Misty Irons has been received too warmly either. Maybe that would have blown up in our face. Who knows. My point isn’t to argue for her stance though. Only to say that chuches don’t have the ecclesiastical authority to circumscribe such political views and shouldn’t take sides one way or the other.

    Like

  1094. TVD
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 6:28 am | Permalink
    vd,t but I thought American creation came from Protestantism. It sure wasn’t Roman Catholicism.

    #syllabusoferrors1864

    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 6:35 am | Permalink
    vd, t why do you care?

    —Because I think you do harm.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, lots of people do harm. How do you get through the day? Or is Old Life more harmful than everyone else? And the reason is?

    “Lots of people do harm?” Oh, brother Hart, you make my heart hurt so much sometimes. That’s not how it all works.

    Like

  1096. “I don’t think Misty Irons has been received too warmly either.”

    Funny thing is, only 15 or so years later Misty’s proposal looks downright conservative, and most conservatives now would be happy if gays were only allowed unions and stayed out of marriage. Funny how time turns liberals into conservatives, and vice versa.

    Like

  1097. sdb
    Posted July 3, 2015 at 5:48 pm | Permalink
    @mtx more later, but in short scripture doesn’t tell us how society should be organized. Further, the connection between voting and outcomes is unclear. I can tell a story where Bork gets through, Casey over turns rvw, and abortion returns to states where legislators over reach bringing a backlash that sets the prolife movement back irretrievably so that we have more abortion than we do now. I can tell another plausible story where evangelicals push same-sex unions in the 90’s to ameliorate the most destructive aspects of the gay subculture and take out the energy of the gay rights movement leading to a more tolerant society today. Predictions are hard…especially about the future. As outlandish as my counterfactuals may seem, they aren’t as crazy as someone in 1995 telling you gay marriage would be the law of the land in 2015.

    Teaching that abortion is wrong is certainly the purview of the church. Deciding how best to address it (or whether to) in the legal arena where compromise, horsetrading, and unintended consequences reign is not.

    OK, not so short. I really need to learn pithiness.

    Far more full of pith than vinegar. Well done, sir.

    Teaching that abortion is wrong is certainly the purview of the church. Deciding how best to address it (or whether to) in the legal arena where compromise, horsetrading, and unintended consequences reign is not.

    Yes. And this is what he means by “binding your conscience.” Contrary to the blog author, we are not free to say, the Church is not free to say, “So What?”

    We must each do what we can to carry out God’s will, God’s truth and God’s plan for man, as best as we can figger out how to–in a world of men whose default setting is to construct a Golden Calf to their own liking, which unlike Moses’ tablets ask nothing from man.

    Justice Kennedy, a putative Catholic, just constructed the Golden Calf yet once again, not just voting with the pagans, but writing the majority opinion. So it goes.

    Since it is made in man’s image–man’s baser image, we are animals afterall–I suppose there’s no point in arguing against the Golden Calf, eh? We lost the thread somewhere, SDB, arguing with the Golden Calf.

    Like

  1098. Sdb,
    You are quite right that we can’t know how the consequences on working in one way like voting for or against ssm may turn for the greater good. That doesn’t mean we should vote in a conniving kind of way. That is not the way God would have us vote. “Let your yes be yes” you know.

    Teaching that abortion is wrong is certainly the purview of the church. Deciding how best to address it (or whether to) in the legal arena where compromise, horsetrading, and unintended consequences reign is not.

    I do believe the church can say a should in no wise vote for a proabortion canidate if there is an option. I also think this is easy to come to through natural reason. This quotes may be good for you all to look over to understand my views.

    Jeff, these may directly address your concerns, especially the last few paragraphs.

    CFD 1974 – http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

    11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental – the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.

    CDF 2002 – DOCTRINAL NOTE
    on some questions regarding
    The Participation of Catholics in Political Life http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

    “It is commendable that in today’s democratic societies, in a climate of true freedom, everyone is made a participant in directing the body politic.[4] Such societies call for new and fuller forms of participation in public life by Christian and non-Christian citizens alike. Indeed, all can contribute, by voting in elections for lawmakers and government officials, and in other ways as well, to the development of political solutions and legislative choices which, in their opinion, will benefit the common good.

    …A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy.[12] As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,[13] as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

    3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.[14] If Christians must «recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs«,[15] they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

    …The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible.

    …4. The complex array of today’s problems branches out from here, including some never faced by past generations. Scientific progress has resulted in advances that are unsettling for the consciences of men and women and call for solutions that respect ethical principles in a coherent and fundamental way. At the same time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».[20]

    In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

    When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».

    …5. While a plurality of methodologies reflective of different sensibilities and cultures can be legitimate in approaching such questions, no Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements. This is not a question of «confessional values» per se, because such ethical precepts are rooted in human nature itself and belong to the natural moral law.

    …For Catholic moral doctrine, the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church – but not from that of morality – is a value that has been attained and recognized by the Catholic Church and belongs to inheritance of contemporary civilization.

    …By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. «There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the ‘places in time’ where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility – as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture – are the occasions ordained by providence for a ‘continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity’ (Apostolicam actuositatem, 4)».[25] Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.

    In democratic societies, all proposals are freely discussed and examined. Those who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would view the moral duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as something that disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of their political involvement following from their convictions about the common good, would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a position would seek to deny not only any engagement of Christianity in public or political life, but even the possibility of natural ethics itself. Were this the case, the road would be open to moral anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate pluralism. The oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious consequence. The marginalization of Christianity, moreover, would not bode well for the future of society or for consensus among peoples; indeed, it would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization.[26]

    IV. Considerations regarding particular aspects

    7. In recent years, there have been cases within some organizations founded on Catholic principles, in which support has been given to political forces or movements with positions contrary to the moral and social teaching of the Church on fundamental ethical questions. Such activities, in contradiction to basic principles of Christian conscience, are not compatible with membership in organizations or associations which define themselves as Catholic.

    …Christian faith has never presumed to impose a rigid framework on social and political questions, conscious that the historical dimension requires men and women to live in imperfect situations, which are also susceptible to rapid change. For this reason, Christians must reject political positions and activities inspired by a utopian perspective which, turning the tradition of Biblical faith into a kind of prophetic vision without God, makes ill use of religion by directing consciences towards a hope which is merely earthly and which empties or reinterprets the Christian striving towards eternal life.

    …The Council[VII] exhorted Christians «to fulfill their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each… May Christians…be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the glory of God».[31]

    CDF 2003 regarding homosexual unions

    When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

    When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    Like

  1099. vd, t, who says that you are not free to say “so what?” Odd is the claim that 2k or Old Life restricts speech. It actually distinguishes between what the Bible teaches, and all Christians must submit to that and the church must proclaim (thus saith the Lord) what Scripture teaches. So the church’s speech is restricted, but this is a restriction that Reformed churches have placed on themselves.

    Christians are free to do what Scripture does not forbid. That doesn’t mean that 2k holds that Christians can be antinomian, just that they have liberty in the application of God’s law. Hence a golden oldie:

    Critics of 2k do the same when they say:

    1) We are antinomian. Actually, we believe in the law, and may actually do a better job upholding the First Table than those 2k critics who don’t have an evening service and use praise songs in their morning assemblies.

    2) We favor abortion. Actually, we oppose the shedding of innocent life. But some of us may not feel called to march at abortion clinics or to engage in political discussions from the pulpit. (Some say we don’t oppose it earnestly enough, but those people don’t actually know us to be able to see how earnest we are.)

    3) We favor gay marriage. Actually, 2k advocates believe homosexuality is sin and homosexual sex is not the kind of intimacy to be practiced in marriage. But again, following the example of Machen, favoring an amendment to the Constitution is not the same as regarding homosexuality a sin.

    4) We don’t believe in Christian education. Actually, we do. But we don’t believe that only one form of delivery (or two) is lawful. We believe that parents should make that call under the oversight of elders who have no jurisdiction to declare that certain kinds of schools are unlawful (because the Bible doesn’t say so). We also have reservations about Christian interpretations of biology, Shakespeare, and U.S. history. Much of the time, these “Christian” interpretations are as far fetched as appeals to Scripture for prohibiting beer.

    5) We take Christian liberty too far. Actually, we don’t. As I have indicated, I don’t shop at chain stores partly because of the 8th commandment, which tells me (along with help from Wendell Berry) that the love of neighbor requires me as much as possible to support local businesses owned by my real neighbors, not by distant corporations. Can I require members of the church where I am an elder to follow my practices? After all, I believe Scripture calls me to this form of economic behavior. Isn’t Scripture binding on all Christians? Well, it is, but Scripture also isn’t air tight about the businesses we patronize. I may suggest the value of shopping locally, and how this seems to encourage love of neighbor. But it’s my application of Scripture and my wife’s cross to bear (especially when traveling); it’s not warrant for declaring other Christians who shop at Walmart to be in sin.

    6) We deny the Lordship of Christ. Actually, we affirm it and recognize it everywhere, all the time. We so believe in the Lordship of Christ that we think it exists even when bad rulers occupy office, when non-Christian scientists denounce Christianity, or when evangelicals go to see a Woody Allen movie. Who among us could unseat Christ’s sovereign rule?

    7) We deny the authority of the Bible. Actually, we don’t. All the 2k advocates I know believe that Scripture is infallible, inerrant, and the only rule for faith and life. What sometimes gives us the creeps is the identification of God’s will with a person’s interpretation of Scripture. History has shown that people make mistakes when interpreting the Bible. 2kers cannot be forced to submit to faulty interpretations of the Bible. After all, 2k appeals to Scripture for its truthfulness and that appeal doesn’t seem to convince the Brothers Bayly or Rabbi Bret’s of the world. According to their logic, they don’t believe the Bible because they disagree with my interpretation of it.

    Like

  1100. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 8:05 am | Permalink
    vd, t, who says that you are not free to say “so what?” Odd is the claim that 2k or Old Life restricts speech. It actually distinguishes between what the Bible teaches, and all Christians must submit to that and the church must proclaim (thus saith the Lord) what Scripture teaches. So the church’s speech is restricted, but this is a restriction that Reformed churches have placed on themselves.

    Christians are free to do what Scripture does not forbid. That doesn’t mean that 2k holds that Christians can be antinomian, just that they have liberty in the application of God’s law. Hence a golden oldie…

    The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: if it’s not directly in the Bible it doesn’t exist. Moral imbeciles.

    Like

  1105. Tomas,

    The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: if it’s not directly in the Bible it doesn’t exist. Moral imbeciles.

    We do believe in something called Natural Law… problem is NL arguments don’t carry much water in today’s pluralistic society. We can either get hopping mad about that, or try to figure out what being Christians means and looks like in a post-liberal, postmodern society.

    I just finished reading a very interesting book by Aleksander Dugin, for a book I am working on. He is labeled as ‘Putin’s Brain’, a pariah in the west, and leading intellectual behind the conservative Eurasianist movement. While I have fundamental disagreements with his political philosophy, his brand of conservatism is kryptonite to Western liberalism (which is probably part of the reason for the current rift between Russia and the US along with NATO). Anyhow, he sees a conservatism that has to combat liberalism if it has any hope to survive. I have the itching suspicion that if his ideas caught on here, things would get real interesting

    Like

  1107. MTX,

    The Fourth Political Theory by Aleksander Dugin. You can get in on kindle right away if you’d like. I think his theories are interesting, but as flawed as the Western constructs of civilization. His criticisms of the west are quite compelling, even if you don’t agree.

    Like

  1112. Jed the Peacemaker
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 4:27 pm | Permalink
    Tomas,

    The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: if it’s not directly in the Bible it doesn’t exist. Moral imbeciles.

    We do believe in something called Natural Law… problem is NL arguments don’t carry much water in today’s pluralistic society. We can either get hopping mad about that, or try to figure out what being Christians means and looks like in a post-liberal, postmodern society.

    I just finished reading a very interesting book by Aleksander Dugin, for a book I am working on. He is labeled as ‘Putin’s Brain’, a pariah in the west, and leading intellectual behind the conservative Eurasianist movement. While I have fundamental disagreements with his political philosophy, his brand of conservatism is kryptonite to Western liberalism (which is probably part of the reason for the current rift between Russia and the US along with NATO). Anyhow, he sees a conservatism that has to combat liberalism if it has any hope to survive. I have the itching suspicion that if his ideas caught on here, things would get real interesting

    My point at this point is that Reformationists can’t even use natural law to talk with each other. All they have in common is the Bible but since every man is his own magisterium, you have virtually millions of Bibles.

    Further, my question remains: “What is the duty of the Church to the natural law?” I find the r2k “So what?” to be an inadequate response. The Bible is predicated on natural law [“As (the Gentiles) kept or broke these natural laws and dictates, their consciences either acquitted or condemned them.” Rom 2:14], and adds to it God’s “special” revelation. Since both the natural law and the Bible come from God, in questions of interpretation, they can be used to cross-check each other.

    [This is what I mean about the moral imbecility of some fundies, and indeed it applies to liberal theology as well.]

    As for Dugan, both the center-right National Review and the far-left Crooked Timber hate him. Link to NR here [‘Logos has expired and we all will be buried under its ruins unless we make an appeal to chaos and its metaphysical principles, and use them as a basis for something new.’]

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380614/dugins-evil-theology-robert-zubrin

    we’ll excerpt CT’s rant below.

    Barack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize address got it right—“evil does exist in the world”—and in the case of Duginism, that very thing is staring us right in the face. Readers are urged to check out the websites of Dugin’s English-language publishers, Radix and Arktos Media, so that they may judge for themselves the ideological complexion of these organizations. Is this a kind of guilt by association? No: Dugin is so eclectic and ecumenical in his extremism that we need to be aware of those with whom he associates in order to pierce through the bewildering variety of his sources and references. Dugin himself decides which toxic intellectual sources to draw upon for his own ideological activities, and these are the vile comrades with whom he chooses to collaborate. Choosing to align yourself with Julius Evola (one of Dugin’s arch-fascist intellectual heroes) and Arktos Media is decidedly a mode of self-disclosure and is probably our most reliable point of access to what Dugin is really about.

    Andreas Umland, an important scholar of Duginism, has recently written: Dugin “envisages himself not as a public intellectual but rather as a mastermind who need not necessarily run the state himself, but should define the thinking of the elite: not a politician, but a meta-politician. Ideally, Dugin the theoretician would generate ideas that the political leaders and the propaganda workers would, consciously or subconsciously, realize.” With this concerted commitment to “meta-politics” on the part of Dugin and his followers as well as kindred ideologues of his ilk, we need to, as one website rightly puts it, keep “an eye on the neo-fascists burrowing their way into a subculture near you.” Dugin puts huge emphasis on the idea of “geopolitics,” and Dugin’s spreading influence, first in Moscow and now in other societies, has its own significant geopolitical implications. After Putin’s aggressions against Ukraine, with their real potential for geopolitical mischief, it no longer seems hyperbolic to call Aleksandr Dugin one of the most dangerous ideologues on the planet. All responsible citizens in the West need to know who he is and what he stands for.

    Like

  1113. MTX,

    Heiser is the next book on my list, I just wanted to read Dugin for myself firs before I read his critics. He tries to free himself from modernity without removing the chains that were forged by it. Essentially it is a post-Kantian, Heideggerian conservative political philosophy that picks and chooses from features of other political philosophies in order to preserve tradition, and man’s situatedness in history (Dasein from Heideggerian existentialism).

    If his project were to succeed it would certainly be anti-liberal, anti-modern, without a reversion to medieval constructs. I think his political philosophy is as prone to Antichrist as the West which he claims now embodies Antichrist.

    Like

  1114. Tom,

    I have already read the NR article, I get the hyperventilating, but after reading Dugin, I don’t think they have done much to actually interact and confront his ideals. Probably because he scares the piss out of them. His philosophy is inimical to the sort of liberalism that exists on the left and the right of American politics.

    DGH is right in pointing out that the difference between notions of “liberal” and “conservative” as they have come to be understood in our context as Americans are not that far apart.

    Like

  1115. Christian ethics has a specific content provided by the New Testament texts themselves.
    Christian ethics is not simply a reiteration of ethical principles known by everyone in general
    (natural law). But C S Lewis argued in an essay entitled “On Ethics” that Christian ethics
    has no uniquely revealed content. Lewis claims that no one can imagine a NEW moral
    value anymore than we can imagine a new color.

    At this point Lewis sounds very “reformed”— Jesus did not come to provide a new law but only to challenge people to recognize their failure to live up to the timeless Mosaic law they had already learned from their parents and magistrates. In order to exercise humility in judgment, Lewis says, there should be respect for the most generalized and “catholic” tradition we can find.

    Lewis agrees that “war is very disagreeable” but then he argues that all pacifists claim that “wars always do more harm than good.” Well, it was Jesus who said that those who live by the sword who die by the sword, it was Jesus who commanded us to overcome evil not with evil but with good. But against Lewis, my main argument is not that violence causes more violence, but instead that, no matter what the practical consequences, it is always right for human creatures to do what Jesus their God Creator and Lawgiver commands us to do…

    Like

  1116. Jed Paschall
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    I have already read the NR article, I get the hyperventilating, but after reading Dugin, I don’t think they have done much to actually interact and confront his ideals. Probably because he scares the piss out of them. His philosophy is inimical to the sort of liberalism that exists on the left and the right of American politics.

    DGH is right in pointing out that the difference between notions of “liberal” and “conservative” as they have come to be understood in our context as Americans are not that far apart.

    I don’t think NR hyperventilated at all–in fact dismissing their argument with “hyperventilating” is itself hyperventilating. 😉

    I get the gist of it, treading a lot of the same ground as Leo Strauss, albeit more fascinated than repulsed by Heidegger.

    Though the Fourth Theory is brandished as a weapon against liberalism, some positive aspects could be taken even there. Dugin approves of freedom while rejecting individualism. Human freedom – yes, he says, individual freedom – no. He submits the concept of individual rights to scathing critique: liberalism approves of individual rights because they are puny; these are rights of a small man. Human freedom is freedom for a great man, for people, and it should be unlimited, he says.

    Dugin thrives to cure faults of Communism and National Socialism, perhaps cross-breed these theories, aiming somewhere between anti-Hitlerites Strasser brothers and Ernst Niekisch on one side, and National Communists on the other side. This meeting ground of yesterday’s Far Left and Far Right should be fertilised by Myth and Tradition, desecularised, and Dasein-centered, at first.

    Still, there are features of all three predecessors that are not acceptable for Dugin, and first of all belief in progress and linear development. A flyball governor, a device that prevents a steam engine’s blow up by cutting down fuel supply as it steams up, is the thing mankind needs for its endeavours. Instead of a monotonic process, there should be circular, cyclic process, what others would call a sustainable development.

    Before getting too deeply into the weeds, Western-style bourgeois liberalism, although the enemy of excellence, the great leveler and creator of [Nietzsche’s] fat happy and entirely mediocre Last Man, is also the “low but solid ground” which ensures at least a minimal level of human dignity. Although Dugin’s “flyball governor” is a plea for philosophy’s greatest virtue, prudence, we know from experience that prudence is even more rare in man than intellectual brilliance [Heidegger did join the Nazi party, afterall].

    I’m loath to take my chances with Dugin’s fascistic alternative, despite his assurances that history will not repeat itself.

    Like

  1117. Jed, say more about this.

    You are writing a book.

    Are you under contract?

    Are you on your meds?

    I am serious about wanting to know more about your book.

    Like

  1118. vd, t, and what did Natural Law settle when you and Michael debated the historical Adam? Such a common discourse for a guy who doesn’t go to church.

    #puhleeze

    Like

  1119. @tvd – voting violates the conscience of some Christians. I don’t think they are sinning by abstaining even if I think their behavior is unwise. 2k doesn’t say that moral issues don’t matter. They do! Preaching from the pulpit that gay sex is sinful is entirely appropriate. Disciplining a member engaged in sexual sin is essential as well. But as the Apostle Paul points out, our authority doesn’t extend over those outside of the church. In our current context, the scripture doesn’t tell us what the best way is to deal with these issues politically. This is where 2k comes in.

    And no Natural Law doesn’t help. Contra Jed, some of us do reject the constellation of moral reasoning subsumed under the title Natural Law. If you wanted to follow Aristotle’s example, you would be doing evolutionary socio-biology. I don’t think you can bridge the is-ought divide and nature doesn’t give us a telos. That died with Darwin. While we do have innate moral intuition, we have warring motivations and weak wills (also known as sin)…

    But the question (at least as 2k is concerned) is not what is immoral and what isn’t immoral. The question is what immoral actions should be legislated against, and how much freedom do individual church members have to make that decision. We all may agree that pornography, abortion, ssm, and drunkenness are immoral. We don’t agree on what the best course of action is to combat these social ills, and we don’t all feel equally called to deal with them. Consider Aquinas on prostitution. I think he was wrong and modern law circumscribing it is not the disaster he thought it would be. I don’t think he was sinning by suggesting that we shouldn’t outlaw it.

    @MTX – a big reason that I am not RC is their extra-scriptural over reach. It strikes me that by binding the consciences of adherents, they are violating the restrictions the Apostle Paul placed on the church in his epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Corinthians.

    Like

  1120. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, and what did Natural Law settle when you and Michael debated the historical Adam? Such a common discourse for a guy who doesn’t go to church.

    #puhleeze

    Irrelevance. A “historical” Adam has nothing to do with natural law. That’s silly. That’s one of those meaningless Biblical molehills details that fundamentalists destroyed their credibility with. The irony is that William Jennings Bryan wasn’t arguing such literalism for its own sake, but his vanity made it easy for supercilious slime like HL Mencken to bring him down with it.

    Oh, and your ad hom delegimization—right on schedule. It you can’t hang fair and square with the gloves on, hit ’em with a chair when their back’s turned! Mencken would be proud!

    sdb
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
    @tvd – voting violates the conscience of some Christians. I don’t think they are sinning by abstaining even if I think their behavior is unwise. 2k doesn’t say that moral issues don’t matter. They do! Preaching from the pulpit that gay sex is sinful is entirely appropriate. Disciplining a member engaged in sexual sin is essential as well. But as the Apostle Paul points out, our authority doesn’t extend over those outside of the church.

    The Apostle Paul also takes “natural law” as universal and accessible by man in Romans 2.
    And Romans 1:20.

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    In our current context, the scripture doesn’t tell us what the best way is to deal with these issues politically. This is where 2k comes in.

    Yes, and the counterargument is that [“radical”] 2k gets it wrong, precisely because it refuses to use the brains God gave you, and in dismissing the possibility of “right reason” [which Paul clearly accepts] chooses the moral imbecility of the literalism that insists what is not in the Bible is not accessible to man’s reason.

    And no Natural Law doesn’t help. Contra Jed, some of us do reject the constellation of moral reasoning subsumed under the title Natural Law.

    Not “subsumed” atall. Natural law is in the air your breathe; in the children you procreate.

    If you wanted to follow Aristotle’s example, you would be doing evolutionary socio-biology. I don’t think you can bridge the is-ought divide and nature doesn’t give us a telos.

    Of course nature gives us a telos, if only to procreate, and bring up our children so they do so as well. The Obergefell decision is objectionable on those grounds alone, that the state has rerwritten reality, that all sexualities are created equal, and will now subject our children to this lie.

    That died with Darwin. While we do have innate moral intuition, we have warring motivations and weak wills (also known as sin)…

    Aha. “Moral intuition.” This is what Paul is talking about in Romans. See/ We have established natural law afterall!

    But the question (at least as 2k is concerned) is not what is immoral and what isn’t immoral. The question is what immoral actions should be legislated against, and how much freedom do individual church members have to make that decision. We all may agree that pornography, abortion, ssm, and drunkenness are immoral. We don’t agree on what the best course of action is to combat these social ills, and we don’t all feel equally called to deal with them. Consider Aquinas on prostitution. I think he was wrong and modern law circumscribing it is not the disaster he thought it would be. I don’t think he was sinning by suggesting that we shouldn’t outlaw it.

    Ace argument here. But anti-prostitution laws are not draconically enforced, for precisely the reasons Aquinas prudently and humanely didn’t want to outlaw it. The men need the drain [sewer] for their lusts, and the women need to feed their kids.

    The question of what immorality should be outlawed is a question of prudence: Aquinas is quite aware of the evils that prostitution spawns, particularly the poor sons of whores forced to grow up without a father. But outlawing prostitution would spawn even greater evils, and this is his argument.

    [St. Thomas Aquinas is so much wiser, human and gentle than one would expect from a “Catholic” clergyman/theologian.]

    But the natural law argument would still be against prostitution: The unintended pregnancies, the counterfeit [and perhaps subsuming] of the man’s marital pleasure bond with his wife, the debasement of the sex act to mere pleasure, and of course the harm to the poor woman’s human dignity and self-worth.

    Perhaps this is where we lose the “natural law” thread in our discussions, the difference between the ideal and the prudent. Rather than to the highest, we have geared ourselves to the lowest common denominator. This seems prudent at first, but as Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted all we’re doing is “defining deviancy down.”

    ———-

    NB: I didn’t mean to elide your observation, SDB and thx for the courteous conversation:

    voting violates the conscience of some Christians. I don’t think they are sinning by abstaining even if I think their behavior is unwise

    True, enough, a theological truth claim. Like you, I think it unwise, but if they think God says so, then so be it; conscientious objectors. But absent a magisterium, how can you be sure that’s the only valid interpretation of God’s word [or lack of word] on this subject? This is where Darryl’s attacks on the Palins and Falwells leaves me scratching my head. He’s pontificating.

    [pontiff = pope]

    Like

  1121. DG,

    Think War and Peace meets Erotica Fan Fiction. With a hunky, smart but not too smart Rob Gronkowski meets Tom Hanks as Capn. Miller as the protagonist.

    Seriously though, I don’t want to get too much into it now, but it is a serious project (I am on my meds). It’s fiction, and the writing so far has gone well, and it deals with some of the themes we debate around here in a not too distant near-dystopic future, and that’s all I’ll say. I can e-mail you more details if you’d like. Step 1 is getting the manuscript done, then I’ll worry about representation and the rest of that jazz.

    Like

  1122. Michael,

    Understood your distinction between patriotism and naturalism. But tbh I can hardly tell the difference in the way you’ve been presenting your view. You say:
    “Love your own country: it is a Christian virtue to be patriotic. But if patriotism becomes nationalism, which leads you to look at other people, at other countries, with indifference, with scorn, without Christian charity and justice, then it is a sin.”

    Sure. This is exactly what I mean by “America is not special”. “Other countries” exist – don’t look at them as inferior or with apathy. And certainly never look at any of them as somehow the savior or protector of Christianity – none of them are special.

    “BTW, I don’t think having a US or State flag in a church is outside of virtuous patriotism. I appreciate a good singing of America the Beautiful on the Fourth of July in the Church too.”

    Well I mean sure, of course you would given your perspective.

    “Do you feel it would be wrong for a Catholic or Christian school to have the pledge said?”

    In a school? No. In mass? Yes. The mass is supposed to be *catholic* – that is universal – both in terms of geography (are other countries saying our pledge in their masses?) and in history (were churches in italy in 1600 saying our pledge?)

    “Our history and location are special.”

    Is Iowa when it approved SSM special? Is TX when it rejected SSM special? You already said all countries are special right? So if you don’t like me saying we’re not special, do you like me saying we’re all special? That’s fine – everything I’ve said still applies. I’m simply saying Christianity is not dependent on Des Moines or Houston, nor is it dependent on Iowa or TX, nor is it dependent on America or France, nor is 2015 somehow markedly different from 1500 or 500 or 150 in terms of society’s impact upon Christianity – persecutions, upheavals, revolutions, wars, etc. happen over and over – Christianity still survived. History gives you no warrant for pleading, “America must live on!”. Sure, it would be nice if it does – I like America – but I’m not going to gnash my teeth over it if it doesn’t (happy 4th!).

    “Our history and that of our a fathers shapes who we are as a people and if our location wasn’t special it would not exist.”

    Yes and this could be said about *every* country, culture, and society that ever existed – either now or throughout history. Which is precisely my point. Don’t you think history has reflected Shelley’s Ozymandias poem over and over again? How did Christianity endure and survive and prosper given history’s verdict on that score according to your view?

    “That just means both places are special in there own ways not neither place is special because both exist.”

    Are *any* special in a way that is integral and critical to the survival of Christianity? If not, we need to retire the sky is falling rhetoric. Our generation isn’t special – this is nothing new under the sun and Christians should not be surprised by it but rather soberly prepared and view it as par for the course – if you’re not, guess what, people start freaking out (hence the “don’t panic!” messages from pastors) and severing family/friend ties and other nonsense.

    Like

  1123. sdb,

    For the record, I hold NL as an ideal of human government, and something that does feature in our jurisprudence because we are image bearers, but it can never be applied as it should by fallen people.

    I think that NL being a dominant feature in Western legal-political ideology is about as likely as a libertarian being elected to President – it’ll never happen. I’m pretty used to being on the loosing end of history, with the only consolation being I think I am right.

    Like

  1124. Tom,

    I’m loath to take my chances with Dugin’s fascistic alternative, despite his assurances that history will not repeat itself.

    I come to pretty much the same conclusions. But, after reading him, he hits the blind spots of liberalism pretty hard, and nails the imperialistic impulses of the West. As conservatives and traditionalists in the US become more disaffected by the radical individualism of the left, which hasn’t lost much momentum since the 1960’s (even with conservative counter-movements), I could see some latching onto either his ideals or something along similar lines.

    Like

  1125. Sdb,
    @MTX – a big reason that I am not RC is their extra-scriptural over reach. It strikes me that by binding the consciences of adherents, they are violating the restrictions the Apostle Paul placed on the church in his epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Corinthians.

    A large part of the reason I am RC is because I came to see Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.

    Like

  1126. Cletus,
    You seem to still have difficulty with sayin both nations or states are special, but you might have it closer.

    This is exactly what I mean by “America is not special”.
    You may mean by this that both American AND Russia are special and Americans should not think them selves superior to Russians just because they are Americans, but “not special” is the incorrect words to say that, if that is what you mean. I say again both are special, not either are special. He’s can also be substantial one nation is more just than another as well, but that is something else.

    Is Iowa when it approved SSM special? Is TX when it rejected SSM special? You already said all countries are special right? So if you don’t like me saying we’re not special, do you like me saying we’re all special? That’s fine – everything I’ve said still applies. I’m simply saying Christianity is not dependent on Des Moines or Houston, nor is it dependent on Iowa or TX, nor is it dependent on America or France, nor is 2015 somehow markedly different from 1500 or 500 or 150 in terms of society’s impact upon Christianity – persecutions, upheavals, revolutions, wars, etc. happen over and over – Christianity still survived.

    Yes Iowa is still special as all as TX either way it votes on such and such an issue. Each places geography and unique history doesn’t become void by a correct or incorrect vote on a moral issue any more than I become more or less special to God when I sin or keep in accord with virtue. Cletus, we can not say Christianity is not dependent on what happens in a certain place in a certain time. We are not God. He does His work in time. This would be like saying no Saint in the past has been intergral to Christianity. What happens in places and time does effect Christainity. Only God knows how much.

    Are *any* special in a way that is integral and critical to the survival of Christianity?

    So guess my response to this would be, yes it is possible. The thing is we do know know to what degree. Am I saying the rock won’t keep the Church? Of course not.

    Like

  1127. “Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.”

    Oxymoron of the day.

    Like

  1128. sdb-

    voting violates the conscience of some Christians.

    -How about write-in votes?

    -What if they live in Lakewood, NJ (#7 city in NJ and fastest-growing, 100k pop, 2/3 Orthodox Jewish) – they consent to be ruled by the yeshiva?

    -Does the issue at hand matter – say a close vote on school vouchers (applicable to religious schools) which would be tipped by these groups’ participation?

    -If the church wants to have a picnic but the municipality requires permits be voted on, can they vote for it? Or do they have to ask their non-2k neighbors to do so?

    -What if the town council decides to put to a vote whether to seize a block of properties and turn them over to a casino developer – and the block includes the homes and even church of one of 2kers?

    -What if 2kers live in a community and over time come to make up the majority of a county – and state law requires the municipality to handle police, courts, sewer, etc. How do they run basic public services? Allow them to shut down from defunding?

    -Does a country which requires voting of its citizens (and does not allow for conscientious objection) lose legitimacy? Better to spend money on escalating fines (say the fines were specifically set due to animus against the 2kers) than vote?

    -What if there is a large Muslim population locally (again, county-level) who takes over municipal and county government and will only appoint judges, sheriffs, etc. which meet their requirements- and they walk the line between implementing their law (formally and informally) and not ‘getting caught’ (violating state or federal standards). 2kers do nothing to inhibit this (in cases where there is conflict of principles- e.g., Friday blue laws)?

    -If we have the ability (including collectively) to stop an obvious evil from occurring; we are aware that we have the power to stop it; and we decide to do nothing, how have we not cooperated in an evil?

    Like

  1129. @ Kevin,

    Sorry for the interruption, but a lot of these questions melt away if you allow individual Christians to act politically without needing the imprimatur of the church behind them.

    So a Christian who non-votes for conscience’ sake, does so in faith. The Christian who votes for conscience’ sake, does so in faith. The church permits both because voting and not voting are not sins. That’s 2k.

    Does that help?

    Like

  1130. Bring scripture forward that teaches to ignore apostolic handed down teaching from someone like Timothy that can’t be ascertained by scripture alone and I will be proved wrong. Otherwise it seems it is a manmade tradition that has at times been used to reject Church authority. Believe all the Scriptures? Yes. Only what is found in Scripture against handed down Apostolic Tradition? No. The Scripture are part of that Tradition.

    Like

  1132. MTX: Bring scripture forward that teaches to ignore apostolic handed down teaching from someone like Timothy that can’t be ascertained by scripture alone and I will be proved wrong.

    Can you give an example of such teaching? One of the major issues I’ve had with the Catholic truth claims is that there is a lack of chain-of-evidence tying any oral traditions back to Paul via Timothy.

    Like

  1133. mtx, where does scripture say that we receive what is handed down? Isn’t the burden on you. Scripture does warn about adding to Scripture.

    I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:6ff)

    Like

  1134. Cletus,
    Sorry about the last sentence in paragraph two. Let me reword that.

    It is substantial that one nation can be more just than another, but that is something else. Both, I repeat, are still special.

    Like

  1135. Jed Paschall
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 11:43 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    “I’m loath to take my chances with Dugin’s fascistic alternative, despite his assurances that history will not repeat itself.”

    I come to pretty much the same conclusions. But, after reading him, he hits the blind spots of liberalism pretty hard, and nails the imperialistic impulses of the West. As conservatives and traditionalists in the US become more disaffected by the radical individualism of the left, which hasn’t lost much momentum since the 1960’s (even with conservative counter-movements), I could see some latching onto either his ideals or something along similar lines.

    Leo Strauss plays in the same sandbox, which is why I like him. His critique of modernity is similar, and cogent. But unlike Dugin, he doesn’t scare me because he prized the good over the useful.

    [Since Strauss rejects natural law, or at least rejects it in that he says it’s inseparable from belief in the Bible, you can’t really call me a Straussian.]

    I think you’re right about “radical individualism,” that American conservatives don’t have their own communitarianism puzzled out, aren’t forthright about it. The key, of course, is subsidiarity, not libertarianism. We do have a duty to the poor just as we don’t want our children brought up in a moral sewer. Power must be devolved from Wash DC, which as we saw last week, is the all-consuming Leviathan more than ever.

    Unfortunately, the states blew it on race and have no credibility to be trusted to do the right thing. The argument should be how racist the North was, that Dixie was more overt about its discrimination, but no less racist. In fact, after its greatest triumph in Selma in 1965, MLK and the Civil Rights Movement headed to Chicago on fair housing and jobs, where it crashed and broke up on the North’s more treacherous shores.

    Like

  1136. Hart,
    Was Paul’s gospel inscripturated when he spread “the gospel which was preached of me” or was it being recieved by the Tradition passed on by Paul? They didn’t operated on sola scriptura to hear, believe and obey Paul’s gospel. Paul’s gospel wasn’t contradicted by the OT scriptures but it was only in them either. Sola Scripturist of Paul’s day would have rejected him by citing sola scriptura if that was what was believed. Paul tells the Thessalonians “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”[2Thes2:15] at what point were these Thessalonians to stop teaching and practicing what they had recieved in person from Paul or another Apostle? Should they not keep teaching and practicing these things until the Second Coming?

    Like

  1137. Jeff- thanks – I hate arguing in the dark. Can you point me to a taxonomy or collection of definitions of 2k positions?

    Also, did you get my physics question on that Galileo thread? Which thread was that, anyway?

    Like

  1138. Cletus van Damme
    Posted July 4, 2015 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    “BTW, I don’t think having a US or State flag in a church is outside of virtuous patriotism. I appreciate a good singing of America the Beautiful on the Fourth of July in the Church too.”

    Well I mean sure, of course you would given your perspective.

    “Do you feel it would be wrong for a Catholic or Christian school to have the pledge said?”

    In a school? No. In mass? Yes. The mass is supposed to be *catholic* – that is universal – both in terms of geography (are other countries saying our pledge in their masses?) and in history (were churches in italy in 1600 saying our pledge?)

    That’s a very strong argument. The below resembles what I thought, or thought I’d find, since Catholicism seldom gets caught having not given serious consideration to a given issue. The Church has her own flag as well, and claims equal if not preeminent standing in society. OTOH, subservience to an unrighteous nation will hardly do.

    We have had the American Flag at the side of the sanctuary for years and years and now our new pastor has decided he doesn’t want it there, only for national holidays. He really did not give us a very good reason for the change other than saying the flag is not liturgically correct. Is this something new?

    Neither the Code of Canon Law nor the General Instruction of the Roman Missal nor any other document of universal jurisdiction mentions the display of a national flag in a Catholic church. The display of the American flag is not prohibited, but the U.S. Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy has discouraged the display of the flag in the sanctuary of the Church. Ultimately, it would be up to the local bishop to decide, and usually he would leave that up to the pastor who should have the best sense of the opinion of the parishioners.

    Over the past 15 years during service projects in Mexico I have had the good fortune of visiting the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. That shrine has a very large Mexican flag in the sanctuary, as well as national flags from all of the nations of the Americas. It reminds me of the Olympics or the United Nations, and given the extraordinary international importance of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the flags seem to fit.

    Normally, when the American flag is displayed in the sanctuary, it is placed on the right side of the Church (the epistle side) and the Vatican flag or papal flag balances it off on the left side of the Church (the Gospel side), since the flag of the Holy See takes precedence in the Catholic Church over our national flag.

    While patriotism is a great virtue, it is important to remember that the flag is a symbol, a symbol loaded with different meanings for different people at different times. There was a time when we could proudly and clearly pledge our allegiance to that flag which represented “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” That statement is no longer true since the fateful Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Now it is “with liberty and justice for some.” Once we restore the full and original meaning to that flag by assuring “justice for all”, we can proudly present those colors in all the sanctuaries across the land.

    Rev. Francis J. Hoffman, JCD (Fr. Rocky) is Executive Director of Relevant Radio

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/american-flag-in-the-sanctuary-1744/

    Like

  1139. MichaelTX
    Posted July 5, 2015 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
    Hart,
    Was Paul’s gospel inscripturated when he spread “the gospel which was preached of me” or was it being received by the Tradition passed on by Paul?

    Aye. A sola scriptura argument based on a scripture passage before it was scripture. And how many did Paul teach who went and spread the Gospel before it was inscripturated decades later? In fact, since Paul preached to the Gentiles, how many even had Torahs to read the scripture that did exist?

    Something else was going on.

    Like

  1140. Tvd-

    I think it is important to note that MLK in the North was sponsored by Quakers and the Jewish NAACP (only 7 of 60 founders were black; Marcus Garvey commented he couldn’t find a black man at their HQs, just Jewish lawyers) for the purpose of marching through Catholic neighborhoods.

    The Quakers then settled black families in these neighborhoods (blockbusting) to cause ‘white flight’, realtors made a killing, and the Catholic vote was neutralized (disruption of community). Cf E Michael Jones’ Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing (and Youtube: http://bit.ly/1Rek3rq ).

    Ethnic warfare, American style.

    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t266674/ (don’t know the site, hope it isn’t suspect, but good summary on Marcus Garvey and NAACP).

    Like

  1142. “The Court Gives….
    In order to reach the $135K, Rachel and Laurel submitted a long list of alleged physical, emotional and mental damages they claim to have experienced as a result of the Kleins’ unlawful conduct. Examples of symptoms included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock,” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

    the Court Taketh Away”
    In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal.

    State Silences Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple, Fines Them $135K http://dailysignal.com

    Like

  1145. Matt T—Gillespie’s argument depended on an extrabiblical racial ideology that he, like most of his fellow southern Presbyterians, believed reflected the will of God as revealed in natural law. Gillespie argued that just as various species of animals do not interbreed, so different races of human beings had historically avoided racial amalgamation. The most successful peoples in human history had fiercely protected their racial purity – Gillespie refers to the Jews and to the Anglo-Saxon race as the best examples – and wherever racial maxing had taken place the inevitable result was cultural decline. The only reason racial differentiation was now under attack, Gillespie argued, was because of the godless ideology of Marxism, with its ideal of a unified human race that transcended boundaries of nation, race, gender and class.

    Gillespie warned that forced desegregation would have one of two results. It would either provoke a state of “constant friction and tension” between the two races, “or, on the other hand, it would lead to the cultivation of such attitudes and social intimacies as would normally and inevitably result in intermarriage.” Gillespie recognized that no respectable southern Presbyterian – whether segregationist, integrationist, or moderate – would sanction that….

    Reformed political theology had always emphasized the ongoing usefulness of the Old Testament as a means to determining what is God’s natural, moral will. “Since for two thousand years the practice of segregation was imposed upon the Hebrew people by Divine authority and express command, and infractions of the command were punished with extreme severity, there is certainly no ground for the charge that racial segregation is displeasing to God, unjust to man, or inherently wrong.”

    But Reformed theologians had also traditionally maintained that what is unique to Israel’s circumstances – such as Israel’s segregation from the nations – is no longer binding on Christian societies. Here Gillespie observed that while Pentecost affirms the “oneness of believers in Christ,” “without demanding revolutionary changes in the natural social order.” If the New Testament does not set aside the social implications of differences of gender or wealth, why would we imagine it sets aside differences of race?

    https://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/presbyterians-and-the-political-theology-of-race-part-2-old-testament-politics/

    Like

  1146. Creeping precedent?:

    The judge “placed an effective gag order on [Christians], ordering them to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about [alleged crime] based on their Christian beliefs.”

    Why not ban blogs for containing “hate speech” causing “surprise”? Or at least their ability to publish openly – a limited-access login could be required.

    Like

  1147. @Kevin I guess I would say that the Mennonites are not behaving sinfully by eschewing politics altogether. I don’t agree with them, but I don’t think this makes them morally bankrupt. I also don’t think that Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, is necessarily sinning by leaving the pulpit to serve as governor and run for presidential office.

    Like

  1148. Sdb, All –

    Just trying to figure out if the philosophy is consistently thought through, or contingent on traditional Western nation states without the influence of Muslims and Jews and our particular political problems. I’ll know more after reviewing the link Jeff sent.

    Currently watching a documentary on the Amish (“Shunned”). Not my way of life, that’s for sure. Love that they seem still to preserve German.

    They are historically anabaptist, yes? (as in Jan van Leiden invading Münster?). Today how are they looked upon by those present?

    Like

  1149. @tvd

    Yes, and the counterargument is that [“radical”] 2k gets it wrong, precisely because it refuses to use the brains God gave you, and in dismissing the possibility of “right reason” [which Paul clearly accepts] chooses the moral imbecility of the literalism that insists what is not in the Bible is not accessible to man’s reason.

    No. You are way off base here. What you are missing is that 2k (whatever qualifier you’d like to add) is an ecclesiastical category. It doesn’t say what I can or cannot do politically. Or what conclusions I can draw morally. 2k does not dismiss the possibility of “right reason”, rather it gives christians wide latitude on “disputable matters”. No one claims that what is not in the Bible is not accessible to man’s reason. The proper interpretation of quantum mechanics is accessible to man’s reason, but my church should not declare that the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave guide approach is wrong and the Copenhagen interpretation is correct. One can adopt Bohm’s approach and be a good church member (even if you are ultimately wrong), or one can adopt the Copenhagen interpretation and be a good church member (even if it is wrong). Similarly with politics. The church can and does speak forcefully about moral issues. The church should not speak on matters of politics. A church member who joined a P&R church from the anabaptist tradition, does not have to give up her convictions about staying out of politics to be a good church member. A church member who runs for office is not sinning by running for office. One member may think laws restricting abortion get the government’s nose in where it doesn’t belong and exacerbates the problems with abortion. Another may think that abortion providers should be charged with 1st degree murder. We can and do debate these things, but the church should not discipline a member based on where they fall on the political question.

    Not “subsumed” atall. Natural law is in the air your breathe; in the children you procreate.

    I guess I was unclear. I meant to say that the various flavors of moral reasoning that carry the label “Natural Law” – I was trying to be as general as possible. I reject these categorically. There is no Natural Law (nor are there laws of nature) – these are socially contingent constructs that have almost no persuasive power. Paul, writing in Romans, was not implying that by studying nature, we could come to right ethical conclusions. He was saying that we have an innate sense of God’s existence and right and wrong (I find evolutionary stories about how we developed this intuition compelling). This intuition does not provide a basis for prescriptive moral reasoning much less actually compelling the will to align with these conclusions. All that being said, as a 2k’er, I don’t think you are sinful because you buy Natural Law.

    The question of what immorality should be outlawed is a question of prudence

    This is the essence of 2k.

    But absent a magisterium, how can you be sure that’s the only valid interpretation of God’s word [or lack of word] on this subject? This is where Darryl’s attacks on the Palins and Falwells leaves me scratching my head. He’s pontificating.

    The magisterial reformation retained the magisterium – we just recognized that it could err (as you seem to claim for your own side – the Bishops were wrong to teach in the Athanasian Creed that we can know that those who do not keep the Catholic faith pure and undefiled are “undoubtedly” destined to eternal destruction and the 7th ecumenical council erred by dogmatically proclaiming that Adam was a historical figure and father of the whole human race…in your estimation anyway). See being a protestant isn’t so scary! Anyway, your statement above is the whole point. If the church isn’t sure (i.e., it is a disputable item – scripture doesn’t come down one way or the other on the issue), then it doesn’t have a claim on my submission. The fact that a view is wrong, harmful, or whatever doesn’t necessarily mean it is sinful. I may think the federal dietary guideline are a mess and really unhelpful. I may even “attack” them mercilessly in print. That doesn’t make their behavior actionable by my session (assuming they were members of my church).

    Like

  1150. @mtx

    A large part of the reason I am RC is because I came to see Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.

    Sounds like the making of another 1000 comment thread! It is curious that the Sola Scriptura bodies are more authoritative than the Prima Scriptura bodies…at least in the sense that the adherents submit to their chruch’s teachings. Perhaps by spreading itself so thin by commenting on so many things, it made itself easier to ignore? I guess that’s a sociological question.

    Like

  1151. Sdb,
    Basically I can agree with you on that last post. Especially this part:

    I also don’t think that Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher, is necessarily sinning by leaving the pulpit to serve as governor and run for presidential office.

    One more thought would be, would Mike Huckabee have been sinning had he not stepped down as a pastor while running and then being a governor or president? Is it nessicarily biblically wrong to hold a spiritual and secular office?

    Like

  1152. @Kevin The Amish (and Mennonites) are anabaptists. I think the Amish have much to commend them, but it isn’t a way of life I would choose. I think they get a lot of criticisms of how they incorporate technology into their lives are unfair. We could learn something from their skepticism of technology and novelty. I would go as far as they do, but perhaps a bit more discernment is warranted in our broader culture.

    I think they are really wrong about a lot of things, but I don’t think their radical aversion to all things political and pacifism are inherently sinful. Just not my conviction.

    Like

  1153. @mtx I’m willing to stand corrected, but I don’t think it is necessarily wrong for a pastor to retain his pulpit and run for office. From a prudential standpoint, I don’t see how he could do both jobs effectively ( I suppose it could be a leave of absence or something). If he were to turn his sermons into campaign speeches or excommunicate the democrats in his congregation, then there would be a major problem.

    Like

  1154. mtx, so you mean that tradition is weightier than Scripture because it gives us Scripture.

    And there’s your problem. You think the church came before Scripture. Well, Trent came before Vatican II.

    Plus why inscripturate Galatians and then disregard it?

    Like

  1156. The Amish teach salvation by works. They teach that those who won’t forgive will not receive the life of the age to come. But so do Norman Shepherd and John Piper, and at least one of them is “Reformed”

    “They are historically anabaptist, yes? (as in Jan van Leiden invading Münster?)”

    So this is what you know about Mennonites and Amish, both groups which came after Munster?

    So George Bush was historically American, yes? (as in never invading another country but instead rebelling with the help of Presbyterian clergy against the powers God had ordained?)

    if you ever want to stop using the word “anabaptist” as a swear word and learn something about it, here’s some information about Munster http://www.gameo.org/index.php?title=M%C3%BCnster_Anabaptists

    Like

  1157. do you mean the Calvinists? (like those who wanted a rebellion in France)

    Balserak tells us they were lectures to refugee French ministerial students whose aim was to be sent back to France in these years of struggle, and who also were to be prophets, speaking forth the word of God. They were to go not as soldiers or spies, but to raise the expectations of often struggling Reformed congregations, to console and to harden their resolve, arguing from the word of God that God was on their side in the Holy War that would surely come.

    Balserak shows that in his lectures Calvin discusses in concrete terms the waging of a war in France against the ‘papists’. The lectures portray them as unrelievedly diabolical, as idolators full of immorality and wickedness, and so implacably opposed to the people of God. Calvin dismissed the Nicodemites in similar terms. At the same time he promoted a search for a Prince of the Blood who would head up the Reformed in France, as according to the Institutes was the correct thing to do in the case of tyranny. In each edition of that work from 1536 Calvin writes about the nobility in connection with tyranny as follows:

    For if there are any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the willfulness of kings….. I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, for by it they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance.

    Nobles, as magistrates, are to withstand in the name of the people the king’s tyrannical tendencies. It is another thing entirely to seek out a Prince of the Blood to lead a civil war, a war of religion, a holy war. Calvin failed to attract Antoine of Navarre to the leadership of the Huguenots, but had success with his brother Louis de Condė, each being recent converts to the Reformed cause.
    So with one hand Calvin was working to find a leader for the Huguenots. With his other hand he was preparing a band of prophets who, on returning to France, would fortify the Huguenots against any tendency to compromise or temporise. From 1556 onwards he foretold that this was to be a war to the death, and that God was assuredly on their side.

    Calvin was not so much lecturing on the prophets as regarding the prophetic books as manuals to help himself and his hearers to be prophets in Jeremiah’s and Daniel’s line. He speaks of overthrowing the entire papacy, of ‘the enemy’ (p.132) and prays to the Lord (at the close of each Lecture) for his promised success http://www.reformation21.org/articles/john-calvin-as-sixteenthcentury-prophet.php

    Like

  1158. Sdb,
    You probably realized already but my last post was referring to your 10:05 post.

    Responding to your 10:49 post, you are probably right that could probably lead to a 1000 comments. I do have some opinions about the modern collapse of Catholic submission to Church authority. It doesn’t have to do with the fullness at which the Church speaks to its adherents and society in my opinion. But I suppose it is possible. What is the point in rebelling something that doesn’t require submission. Anyway, I think it has more to do with circumstances in the world just after VII and leading up to the promulgation of Humanae Vitae. I largely think the Catholic community had been primed with ether to have the teaching of artificial birth control teaching of the Church changed by Pope Paul VI. When it didn’t many were taught to use there own conviction on the matter rather than all submit to the teachers of Christ. Many teachers and theologians of the Church taught “independently” of authorized teaching, setting up an anti church within the visible Church. Largely this was successful due to circumstances of the age, in my opinion. Changes in all the Protestant communions regarding birth control, Catholic liturgical changes, media onslaught, and a rebellious air in the 60s and 70s made for a twisted cocktail in Catholic obedience. Disobedience and self determining in one area has spread like a virus. Have you ever read Humanae Vitae?

    Like

  1159. sdb
    Posted July 5, 2015 at 10:45 pm | Permalink
    @tvd

    Yes, and the counterargument is that [“radical”] 2k gets it wrong, precisely because it refuses to use the brains God gave you, and in dismissing the possibility of “right reason” [which Paul clearly accepts] chooses the moral imbecility of the literalism that insists what is not in the Bible is not accessible to man’s reason.

    No. You are way off base here. What you are missing is that 2k (whatever qualifier you’d like to add) is an ecclesiastical category. It doesn’t say what I can or cannot do politically. Or what conclusions I can draw morally. 2k does not dismiss the possibility of “right reason”, rather it gives christians wide latitude on “disputable matters”. No one claims that what is not in the Bible is not accessible to man’s reason. The proper interpretation of quantum mechanics is accessible to man’s reason, but my church should not declare that the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave guide approach is wrong and the Copenhagen interpretation is correct. One can adopt Bohm’s approach and be a good church member (even if you are ultimately wrong), or one can adopt the Copenhagen interpretation and be a good church member (even if it is wrong). Similarly with politics. The church can and does speak forcefully about moral issues. The church should not speak on matters of politics. A church member who joined a P&R church from the anabaptist tradition, does not have to give up her convictions about staying out of politics to be a good church member. A church member who runs for office is not sinning by running for office. One member may think laws restricting abortion get the government’s nose in where it doesn’t belong and exacerbates the problems with abortion. Another may think that abortion providers should be charged with 1st degree murder. We can and do debate these things, but the church should not discipline a member based on where they fall on the political question.

    Not “subsumed” atall. Natural law is in the air your breathe; in the children you procreate.

    I guess I was unclear. I meant to say that the various flavors of moral reasoning that carry the label “Natural Law” – I was trying to be as general as possible. I reject these categorically. There is no Natural Law (nor are there laws of nature) – these are socially contingent constructs that have almost no persuasive power. Paul, writing in Romans, was not implying that by studying nature, we could come to right ethical conclusions. He was saying that we have an innate sense of God’s existence and right and wrong (I find evolutionary stories about how we developed this intuition compelling). This intuition does not provide a basis for prescriptive moral reasoning much less actually compelling the will to align with these conclusions. All that being said, as a 2k’er, I don’t think you are sinful because you buy Natural Law.

    The question of what immorality should be outlawed is a question of prudence

    This is the essence of 2k.

    But absent a magisterium, how can you be sure that’s the only valid interpretation of God’s word [or lack of word] on this subject? This is where Darryl’s attacks on the Palins and Falwells leaves me scratching my head. He’s pontificating.

    The magisterial reformation retained the magisterium – we just recognized that it could err (as you seem to claim for your own side – the Bishops were wrong to teach in the Athanasian Creed that we can know that those who do not keep the Catholic faith pure and undefiled are “undoubtedly” destined to eternal destruction and the 7th ecumenical council erred by dogmatically proclaiming that Adam was a historical figure and father of the whole human race…in your estimation anyway). See being a protestant isn’t so scary! Anyway, your statement above is the whole point. If the church isn’t sure (i.e., it is a disputable item – scripture doesn’t come down one way or the other on the issue), then it doesn’t have a claim on my submission. The fact that a view is wrong, harmful, or whatever doesn’t necessarily mean it is sinful. I may think the federal dietary guideline are a mess and really unhelpful. I may even “attack” them mercilessly in print. That doesn’t make their behavior actionable by my session (assuming they were members of my church).

    The Church doesn’t have to say “Vote Republican.” It can argue the simple moral equation that voting for the party that actively enables abortion is cooperation with evil.

    You seem to vacilate between “the is no natural law” and then make some allowance that there is. I’m having trouble following your argument for that reason. Yes there is a “Two Kingdoms” theology in everything but Reconstructionism/theonomy. Benedict’s Caritas in veritate explicitly says

    The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”

    but then continues

    She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development.

    The thing is, there really is no counterweight to empiricism, skepticism, and utilitarianism–relativism–except the Church. She alone has the intellectual and metaphysical resources to stand against the Golden Calf, man’s natural default.

    Like

  1160. Hart,

    mtx, so you mean that tradition is weightier than Scripture because it gives us Scripture.

    No that is not what I mean. Tradition in no way is more authoritative than Tradition. Neither can an authentic Tradition ever contradict Scripture. Though, I do think the New Covenant Church did come before the NT Scriptures. That is just history validated by the inerrant Scriptures. Scripture doesn’t record anybody having written a Gospel or even a letter before Pentecost. The Gospels and Acts record true history at a later point in time. Just a plain study of history there, Hart; so that is not my “problem” that is yours.

    Like

  1161. Hart,
    Also you are absolutely right that Trent is before VII. This is why all my understandings of VII requires me to hold to the dogmas of VI, Trent, Florence, Lyon,….Nicea. Anything else is not Catholic. His is why I try to get you I read more from people taking a hermeneutic of continuity regarding VII. Anything else is not only nonCatholic it is illogical. This is by I had the dispute with TVD on the historic Adam. I am consistent, Hart.

    Like

  1162. Sdb,

    If he were to turn his sermons into campaign speeches or excommunicate the democrats in his congregation, then there would be a major problem.

    Agreed. Power can be abused by anyone though. That does not mean having the power is a sin, which it seems you agree. Glad to see that. I also agree that it would be difficult to be president and a good pastor. I believe Pope Francis is doing it pretty good for the Vatican. I don’t live there though so I guess I’m not the best judge.

    Like

  1163. Sorry about all the typos there Hart. I’ll fix this one at least:

    Tradition in no way is more authoritative than Scripture.

    My first sentence actually still works in a way though. Scripture basically is Tradition. It just is the written form of it. Other Tradition is the non Scriptural form of it. This is both in Apostolic oral teaching and Apostolic passed on practice.

    Like

  1164. MichaelTX
    Posted July 5, 2015 at 11:53 pm | Permalink
    Hart,
    Also you are absolutely right that Trent is before VII. This is why all my understandings of VII requires me to hold to the dogmas of VI, Trent, Florence, Lyon,….Nicea. Anything else is not Catholic. His is why I try to get you I read more from people taking a hermeneutic of continuity regarding VII. Anything else is not only nonCatholic it is illogical. This is by I had the dispute with TVD on the historic Adam. I am consistent, Hart.

    FTR, brother Michael, Catholics are free to reject a literal Adam. You also can believe in one, as it’s still on the books as normative doctrine, although frankly, I think it’s more there out of benign neglect.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 5, 2015 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, you mean you can’t have Scripture until it’s canonized? Funny how Jesus and the apostles didn’t act that way.

    Darryl, I think Michael quite handled you on this one.

    Though, I do think the New Covenant Church did come before the NT Scriptures.

    Oh, and McMark opened up an interesting door with Calvin and the Huguenots. [Beza also fought for them too, and via, not outside the church.] “Calvinist Resistance Theory” was not a term I made up, after all.

    http://www.reformation21.org/articles/john-calvin-as-sixteenthcentury-prophet.php

    Like

  1165. “I don’t think Misty Irons has been received too warmly either.”

    Funny thing is, only 15 or so years later Misty’s proposal looks downright conservative, and most conservatives now would be happy if gays were only allowed unions and stayed out of marriage. Funny how time turns liberals into conservatives, and vice versa.

    Get a grip, Todd we’re still only talking about 1-3% of the population and always were.
    So why the big deal?
    Cui bono? Who benefits?
    That the family is one of the first natural bulwarks against the state just might be why Leviathan and its acolytes and converts are so insistent on redefining reality and conducting a scorched earth policy when it comes to the agnostics who demur.
    IOW Misty or anybody else drinking the equality kool aid is misting missing the big picture big time. It’s not like the bad bad religious right is the only party out there that believes in 1k transformationalism or idolizes govt. power.
    Besides we is Christians, not liberals or conservatives.

    My point at this point is that Reformationists can’t even use natural law to talk with each other. All they have in common is the Bible but since every man is his own magisterium, you have virtually millions of Bibles.

    And here at OL we can’t even use the English language to talk to each other because TVD insists on cutting the ground out beneath everybody due to his own irrational perfectionist epistemology which is not that much different than Bryan and Called to Confusion’s SOP.
    IOW what we really have is millions of incomprehensible languages in one combox whatever anybody else says.

    So why is everybody talking to themselves out loud in the combox?
    Dunno, maybe they’re trying to convince themselves of the truth of their erroneous propositions.
    Good luck with that, pal.

    neo-fascists burrowing their way into a subculture near you

    GWObama and the Crooked Timber libprogs? Dugin, who becomes the enemy in order to defeat the enemy (the imperial US empire)?
    Then you, Dugin and the libprogs all need a mirror.

    A large part of the reason I am RC is because I came to see Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.

    Then you need to look again, Mtx because your comments/criticisms are incoherent.
    And while that’s bad enough in itself, coming from an ex prot (right?) it’s inexcusable.
    Yeah, I know, it’s Bryan’s whole forte and raison d’etre, which makes his crusade a house of cards and a fraudulent bill of goods.

    There is no question that we are told explicitly, if not implicitly in Scripture that revelation many times was first oral, before it came to be written down in Scripture. After all, Moses was not an eyewitness of the events he records in Genesis.
    Neither is there any question that at the time of Christ and the apostles, Christ himself never wrote anything down and only a few of the apostles, primarily Paul.

    But it is quite another thing to transpose the situation that obtains now – when there are no first hand apostolic eyewitnesses to the NT events – with the NT church when Christ and the apostles were around to preach in person. Which is one of the reasons why Rome is so desperate to claim an apostolic chrism for its bishop(s), if not the apostolic bones for its magisterium, when all the while the apostolic tradition and doctrine inscripturated in the NT is the sine qua non, now that Christ’s handpicked apostolic eyewitnesses are dead and gone.

    And as those apostles began to die off, that inscripturated apostolic witness and tradition was given to the church to preserve, which church incidentally owes its very existence to that word, whether preached at the time or now written, not the other way around. Which is what Paul himself essentially says in 2 Thess. 2:15, no matter the standard Roman attempt to put the cart before the pony and say the church authoritatively determines and preserves both Scripture and tradition.

    Meanwhile the apostolic oral traditions/practices are lost and have yet to be found. Which is to say the Roman paradigm bears no correspondence to reality. True, the church is to authoritatively proclaim the Scriptures, but that is not the same as lording it over them. Much more Rome to this day again can’t even give us a list or table of contents of the apostolic oral Tradition , never mind just one of those storied traditions, all the while she wishes to bind our consciences to them.

    Yet the obvious question: But this is not an opportunity for gross abuse?
    Then credulousness has no bounds, the magisterium is a bounder and the pope and those who parrot his prattle deserve each other.

    cheers, for all the good it will do you.

    Like

  1166. Though, I do think the New Covenant Church did come before the NT Scriptures.

    Though you do miss the salient detail.
    The NT revelation in Christ and the apostles came before the New Covenant church.
    IOW without it, there would be no NC Church.
    Funny how the papist arrogance precludes perception of that obvious and damning distinction.

    Like

  1167. Of interest to some, perhaps. Ran across it in the course of my reading.

    In pre-Revolutionary America, on the other hand, the “Curse of Meroz” was a blockbuster. Imported from the 17th century religious civil wars in England, the term quickly became a favorite whip with which Puritan preachers lashed the pro-British Tories who preferred to stand on the sidelines as the 13 colonies fought for the independence they achieved 239 years today. The term was still being used in the 20th Century by pundits lambasting American neutrality in the two world wars; a cursory search in Google shows that it features in Christian sermons to this very day.

    In his book American Zion, Haifa University historian Eran Shalev (an acquaintance, but not a relative) provides a riveting account of the enormous influence that the Old Testament had on how Revolutionary America saw itself and how it conveyed that vision to others…

    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.664253

    Like

  1168. What are we going to do without the 1st Amendment ? I think we lost it with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. What do you think? I still think that the court just told religious people what we are allowed to believe.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Like

  1169. Dr Hart asks: “why inscripturate Galatians and then disregard it? “
    That really is a great question because Galatians really is the death knell of RCC justification.

    Like

  1170. Bob S
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    TVD: “My point at this point is that Reformationists can’t even use natural law to talk with each other. All they have in common is the Bible but since every man is his own magisterium, you have virtually millions of Bibles.”

    And here at OL we can’t even use the English language to talk to each other because TVD insists on cutting the ground out beneath everybody due to his own irrational perfectionist epistemology which is not that much different than Bryan and Called to Confusion’s SOP.

    No idea what that means, BobS, but I dig multisyllabic rants. They sounds so educated, like Crooked Timber. “Irrational perfectionist epistemology!” Now we’re stylin’.

    IOW what we really have is millions of incomprehensible languages in one combox whatever anybody else says.

    So why is everybody talking to themselves out loud in the combox?
    Dunno, maybe they’re trying to convince themselves of the truth of their erroneous propositions.
    Good luck with that, pal.

    Yo pal, that’s what I said, n’est-ce pas? You get it!

    Reformationists can’t/won’t even talk to each other. Hell, what does “Presbyterian” even mean? The ones with the lesbian married couple ministers?

    —No, no. That’s not us! We’re the other Presbyterians. The real ones.

    How do I know they’re not the real ones? There are so many more of them than there are of you. And you seem so crabby. They’re so nice. Two people love each other, they want to get married, want to be churchpersons together. God is love, you know.

    —That’s not love!

    Why are you so angry? I don’t mind Christians so much if they’re not angry. Like the Presbyterians and that nice lesbian couple who are joint ministers. I’d never be a Presbyterian myself but that seems like a nice church. It’s the angry ones I worry about. You know, the Bible-thumpers. Scary. You can’t reason with those people.
    _________

    And as those apostles began to die off, that inscripturated apostolic witness and tradition was given to the church to preserve, which church incidentally owes its very existence to that word, whether preached at the time or now written, not the other way around. Which is what Paul himself essentially says in 2 Thess. 2:15, no matter the standard Roman attempt to put the cart before the pony and say the church authoritatively determines and preserves both Scripture and tradition.

    I’ll leave this one to Michael, who has the better of the cart-and-pony argument. That the Church owes its existence to the Bible is belied by the fact that the Church was fully functional with no New Testament yet “inscripturated.”

    As for the content of 2 Thess 2:15 and its support for brother Bob’s argument, I have found too many fundamentalists uncritically citing a Biblical argument they read elsewhere without actually reading the passage.

    So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

    Perhaps not definitive enough to break up the Christian religion over? “You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor.”

    Like

  1171. Greg The Terrible
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 1:47 am | Permalink
    Dr Hart asks: “why inscripturate Galatians and then disregard it? “
    That really is a great question because Galatians really is the death knell of RCC justification.

    What is “RCC justification?” Go for it, Mr. Turrible.

    Like

  1172. Mrs. Webfoot
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 1:39 am | Permalink
    What are we going to do without the 1st Amendment ? I think we lost it with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. What do you think? I still think that the court just told religious people what we are allowed to believe.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    No big deal, Mrs. W. you’re allowed to believe whatever you want. Just keep it to yourself.

    http://twitchy.com/2015/07/02/oregons-minister-of-thoughtcrime-orders-bakery-to-pay-135000-to-mentally-raped-lesbian-couple-stay-silent-about-beliefs/

    #puh-leez.

    Old Life Theologicalizing Society is cool with all this. First Amendment rights are for suckers. We’re self-censored, don’t want to cause the state or society any trouble. Just let us have our little church on Sunday, don’t kill us, or jail us, or take our businesses or houses away, please.

    Unless you think it’s absolutely necessary. Then it’s God’s will anyway.

    Soon we’ll all be dead and we’ll be in heaven and you won’t. Welcome to The Church of the Last Laugh.

    Like

  1173. mtx, if the church comes before Scripture, then how do you know that Peter is supreme among the apostles? How many times do you see RC apologists appeal to Matt. 16:20 to support papal supremacy? That sure looks like Scripture is prior to the church, that the church is only authoritative because the Bible says so.

    So if the church comes before Scripture, you are dependent on historical research. What happened before the formation of the Canon? Which historians do you believe? And then the canon merely confirms history.

    That isn’t going to leave you with all the certainty that converts claim.

    Like

  1174. mtx, where is the continuity between calling Protestants heretics and then separated brothers?

    Where is the continuity between denials of religious liberty (Syllabus of Errors) and affirmations of religious liberty?

    The SSPXers are in better shape than you. If you’re going to try to be a conservative Roman Catholic after Vatican 2, you’re going to be the Roman Catholic equivalent of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

    Like

  1176. Mermaid, “I still think that the court just told religious people what we are allowed to believe.”

    But popes have been telling that to people for years. What’s the problem?

    Like

  1177. vd, t, after all the Court did, this is the best you can do?

    If you’re such a blower (opposite of sucking), why don’t you step up and speak truth to the man? Where have you done a single thing that makes you any different from the suckers?

    Like

  1178. Mermaid, also listen to those with whom you are in communion:

    First, let’s make clear what the decision does not do. It does not require religious ministers to perform same-sex marriages, nor does it forbid them from speaking out against gay marriage. These rights are protected by the First Amendment. The court has also made clear that a church has complete freedom in hiring and firing ministers for any reason.

    The legal status of gay marriage is similar to that of remarriage after divorce. Divorce and remarriage is legal in every state of the union, but if a church is against remarriage after divorce, its ministers are not required to perform such weddings, and its preachers can continue to denounce divorce from the pulpit. If a minister gets divorced, his church can fire him or her.

    The divorce analogy is apt. The bishops would do well to look at the record of their predecessors who opposed legalizing divorce but lost. These bishops eventually accepted divorce as the law of the land while not permitting remarriage without an annulment in their churches.

    Today, Catholic institutions rarely fire people when they get divorced and remarried. Divorced and remarried people are employed by church institutions, and their spouses get spousal benefits. No one is scandalized by this. No one thinks that giving spousal benefits to a remarried couple is a church endorsement of their lifestyle.

    If bishops in the past could eventually accept civil divorce as the law of the land, why can’t the current flock of bishops do the same for gay marriage? Granted all the publicity around the church’s opposition to gay marriage, no one would think they were endorsing it.

    Like

  1179. DG, MTX, All,

    where is the continuity between calling Protestants heretics and then separated brothers?

    Here is my understanding of the Catholic Church’s prespective on everyone with a Baptism (in the name of the Trinity and with water):

    All the Baptised are made a part of the (Catholic) Church (by definition). Insofar as their faith is simple, their hearts good, and they are not taught hatred towards the Church, they (at least likely) remain in the Church. The graces of Baptism are theirs. The graces of their Marriage are theirs.

    If leading a morally upright life, then they may not even fall into a state of mortal sin (although this seems rather difficult to imagine to me). If they do fall into sin and are truly contrite, God may grant them pardon (not the ordinary way of Confession, but adequate if God would have it so).

    As they do not have the Eucharist (as in Catholic theology), Confession, and Mass attendance, real aids to growth in sanctity are lost. Still, their good acts are pleasing to God (whether they believe them to be or not).

    The desire for schism can poison this. They can be taught by anti-Catholic writers to hate the Church, repeating the same tired stories and rejecting the adequate explanations on offer, thereby clouding their intellects and rejecting reason and building a habit of illogic- which is not capable to answer arguments and must ultimately rely on side-stepping issues and ad hominem attacks. This results in a meanness of temperament.

    Just as good theology gives good fruits, incorrect theology can give bad fruits. They can come to believe (even contrary to the reality of what occurs within them) that man is incapable of attaining goodness- and can even discourage the good works of others. Believing themselves to be saved, habits of torpor and negligence take the place of prudence and charity.

    Whether through hatred or negligence, the divine life is destroyed within them. They reject the Catholic Church and are no longer a part of it.

    So in summary, the Church looks (and always has, at least in its formal teachings if not in every statement you can pull) at Baptised Protestants as Catholics who simply aren’t living up to the teachings of the Church. No change in doctrine.

    Rhetoric has changed, though – especially from the perspective of English-speakers (who had particularly orthodox and straightforward teachings and practices permeating the language and culture prior to VII). This is true both in the ‘party line’ of the documents and in ‘lose gun’ prelates. Big problem with big effects, almost all for the worse.

    If anyone actually reads this, I may need to dodge some rotten eggs.

    Like

  1180. “The Church doesn’t have to say “Vote Republican.” It can argue the simple moral equation that voting for the party that actively enables abortion is cooperation with evil.”

    They would be wrong to do so.

    Like

  1181. @tvd re: NLT
    I certainly didn’t intend to make allowances. If you define nlt so broadly to include any sort of innate moral intuition, you are talking about some thing different from Mariain, George, etc…. if you mean instead that belief in moral intuition necessarily implies nlt, I disagree. Whether empiricism is a problem or the rcc is the only bulwark against this problem does not make nlt true. The existence of a problem does not umply a solution.

    Like

  1182. “IOW Misty or anybody else drinking the equality kool aid is misting missing the big picture big time.”

    Bob,

    You’re missing the point. The point was not to argue for the position, but to say the reaction to it changes when politics change. The conservative evangelical community was strongly against DADT
    in the military and then later the same ones were against repealing it.

    http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=5387980

    “Todd we’re still only talking about 1-3% of the population and always were.
    So why the big deal? Cui bono? Who benefits? That the family is one of the first natural bulwarks against the state just might be why Leviathan and its acolytes and converts are so insistent on redefining reality and conducting a scorched earth policy when it comes to the agnostics who demur.”

    Some may have more philosophical reasons, attacking traditional marriage, etc., much of it is simply old fashioned greed and power. Follow the money trail. Why are 1-3% of the population receiving so much attention by the government? Attack on marriage and Christianity, or money? Gays have done quite well for themselves financially in this country. The median income for a gay couple is significantly higher than a straight couple. Gays and lesbians on average make $11,000 more a year than straights. Obama needed money for reelection. Lost of money in gay community (and Hollywood who would unload the money if Obama changed positions.) Obama changed positions.

    http://www.anthonyholm.com/writings/20-obamas-gay-marriage-views-evolve-based-on-time-audience-money.html

    Other politicians followed suit locally. Granted the movement on local levels began before Obama’s reelection, with differing motives, some more sincere than others, it’s still politics as usual, which usually revolves around money more than ideology. The U.S. federal government is a business, a corporation. Not overly interested in ideology. That is not as glamorous a scenario as a war on Christianity though.

    Like

  1183. Amazing – the teaching of the Catholic church is specifically tailored to denounce this blog. Thanks so much, Newark, and take a seat next to TVD.

    Like

  1184. Muddy-

    If it seems to apply, I think it would be because participants here are concerned to stay true to the Reformed understanding of Christianity.

    Why not layout things from the Reformed perspective? The blasphemy of the Mass perverts (or attempts to pervert) some of the regenerated from the faith laid out by Christ. While some can still be saved, […]

    I’d read it very carefully.

    Like

  1186. What about voting with the party that actively enabled preemptive war, i.e. not just war? Was that cooperation with evil?

    Kevin, so baptized Prots are separated brethren until they become communicant Prots, at which point they have implicitly rejected all but the Reformed articulation of religious faith?

    Like

  1187. Zrim,

    Thanks for the reply. If a “communicant prot” is one who has an understanding of and affirms the Reformed articulation of religious faith, I think so.

    Not sure whether you would count them as “communicant prots,” but someone attending a protestant church could have little understanding of the Reformed articulation of faith. In this case I can’t see that they are explicitly rejecting Catholic teachings.

    Heaven knows plenty of Catholics don’t know Catholic teachings, and profess to believe things contrary to them. I see them as far more culpable (as a rule) than, e.g., a well-intentioned protestant who lives a life in accordance with Christian morality and has little to no knowledge of the Catholic Church.

    The two key problems I see are:
    1) active rejection of Catholic teachings and practice (by Catholics-in-name-only, the Reformed, or anyone else), and
    2) not being able to benefit from Catholic liturgy and Sacraments (as the Catholic Church defines them, excepting Baptism and Marriage).

    Zrim, you have a good deal of smarts, as do others here. I would love to know more of your thoughts (beyond just “Rome’s wrong,” which I already presume you believe).

    Like

  1188. @Kevin We have had a couple of kilo-post threads on just this issue. You scroll through the “Are the CtC’ers paying attention” posts and you’ll get what you’re looking for.

    I still find it very difficult to square early teachings by the church with the modern ones. The example I’ve posed here a couple of times is the Athanasian Creed which I understand to be a dogmatic statement. As a refresher, it opens with the following lines,

    Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly…Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully…This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

    I’ve posed this several times in recent months. The contrast between this and the status of separated brethern and non-Christians described in V2 is striking, no? We could once know without doubt, now there are all sorts of qualifiers that allow us to doubt. The responses I’ve gotten from RCs around here fall into the following categories:
    1) I’m interpreting this creed “woodenly”. The whole bit about “without doubt” is just there for emphasis I guess?
    2) The creed is right…non-believers and prots are on the highway to hell. I’m interpreting the wishy-washiness in V2 too woodenly. Those lines about culpability are just there for pastoral reasons. They aren’t dogmatic statements.
    3) I’m creating a straw man by cherry picking lines from old documents. Dogmatic statements are only dogmatic if they say so, and the assertion that a statement is dogmatic is not in itself dogmatic, so embarrassing lines like this, assertions about the literal adam, etc… are wrong. But dogma hasn’t changed because earlier catholics erred in their non-dogmatic statement that these were dogmatic statements.

    From where I’m sitting, it seems to me that all of these options are problematic for the RC paradigm.

    Just as good theology gives good fruits, incorrect theology can give bad fruits.

    Insofar as that is true, conservative prot theology is good and RC theology is bad. I find the international data particularly telling. This isn’t just an American or Western European thing. Perhaps there isn’t quite as clean a connection between the quality of one’s theology (and geometry) and one’s fruit?

    As far as why be a protestant?
    1) Protestantism has an organic unity. It allows for prudential diversity that enables a robust witness to very different communities. So while Lutherans, Prebys, Bapts, Anglicans, Pentecostals, and Methodists are institutionally divided, we are united in mission and at one another’s table and thus truly catholic. The diversity allows us to adapt while maintaining unchanging truths of the gospel.
    2) priesthood of all believers – we are all responsible for the health of our churches.
    3) Reformed anthropology makes the best sense of human corruption and provides the best hope.
    4) Reformed theology is the most exegetically faithful reading of the Bible.
    5) Sola Scriptura follows the example of Jesus’s use of the OT to judge the religious authorities of the day. They did not cease to be authorities. The people had to submit, but the authorities still needed to be judged. A few RC apologists have this strange idea that if submission is contingent, then I am only submitting insofar as I agree, thus I am really only submitting to myself. However, we see that submission to the state is contingent (the example of Peter preaching), submission to one’s parents is contingent, submission to one’s husband, master, or fellow congregant (all required by the NT) are all contingent. If one of these requires us to violate the law of God, then we shouldn’t submit. I can similarly submit to my church even if it is fallible and I judge it by my conscience informed by scripture. the level of submission demanded by the RCC overlooks the contingent nature of submission in the NT.
    6) Prots respect liberty of conscience – we don’t bind the conscience of believers on uncertain, prudential matters. No rules about fasting, extra holidays, celibacy, etc… not provided in scripture.
    7) Finally, the most important item for me is the gospel. My standing before God does not rest on the strength of my faith which is weak, faltering, and frankly pathetic. It rests on the object of my faith who is strong, steadfast, and everything I’m not. I look forward to the saint’s everlasting rest with hope and find great comfort in the promise of the resurrection because Christ went before me. I know that my sins are many…both thought and action, and while I hate them I nonetheless find myself going back to them like a dog to his vomit. My only hope is in the finished work of Christ. I am grateful for the growth in holiness I’ve enjoyed over my life, but I along the way I continue to see how much further I have to go. If my salvation were in anyway contingent on the merit I generate, I would have no hope.

    Like

  1189. D.G. Hart:
    Mermaid, also listen to those with whom you are in communion:>>>>>

    Are you blaming the Catholic Church for our loss of freedom? Sometimes what you say doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 6:45 am | Permalink
    Mermaid, “I still think that the court just told religious people what we are allowed to believe.”

    But popes have been telling that to people for years. What’s the problem?>>>>>

    D.G. Hart, you know that the pope is no threat to you. In fact, as a Catholic, I can say that the pope gives me more freedom to think through issues in certain critical areas than the WCF or any Protestant belief system ever did.

    However, the fact that the government of the United States just revoked the 1st Amendment affects all of us, unless we are planning on denying Christ. The Catholic Church has more to lose given its very public stance against same sex marriage.

    Has the OPC issued a statement yet?

    But that wasn’t my purpose in asking about the 1st Amendment. Does anyone else think that it is a very bad thing the court did? Ultimately, this is not really about any kind of marriage. It is about the loss of freedom. Look at the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. I say that they are all gone, not just the clause about the establishment of religion.

    Same sex marriage is kind of a fad, really. Sure, a small minority in the gay community will get married. It is their legal right, now. Most will not. After a few years, what will be the status of free speech of any kind here in the US?

    Like

  1190. Kevin, just that there is more to being Protestant than not being Catholic (which is why I wince when I read things like sdb’s suggestion that Pentecostals are actually Protestant). It’s almost as if some forget there was a Radical Reformation that the Protestant Reformation opposed just as much as Rome. Yes, Rome is right on plenty but also wrong enough to be formally rejected–we’ll take her baptism but not her gospel. Trent’s anathema makes more sense to confessional Prots than V2’s separated brethren. And while confessional Prot’ism has categories for sheep and goats within (and without), it is shy to try and determine which is which for fear of tearing up wheat with chaff. It’s more interested in locating the true church by the three marks, and calling for those who would have eternal life to her.

    Like

  1191. MWF: Has the OPC issued a statement yet?

    well, one thing here at this site, they did though, was to mock, I mean, exhort to ‘Pradeep’

    Like

  1192. @mtx Yes, but it has been quite awhile. I seem to recall that the assertion that taking advantage of “natural” infertile periods to space pregnancies as licit while using “artificial” means to space pregnancies is not was poorly justified. I also seem to recall a line in there somewhere liking marital rape to the use of contraception (though I could be mixing that up with something else…it has been ~15yrs since I read it). Anyway, I didn’t find it compelling at the time.

    Like

  1193. Kevin, “the Church looks (and always has, at least in its formal teachings if not in every statement you can pull) at Baptised Protestants as Catholics who simply aren’t living up to the teachings of the Church.”

    So all that big talk from the papacy was really uttered with fingers crossed? Gregory VII to Henry IV didn’t really mean to depose the king?

    No wonder Rome has no discipline. All bark no bite.

    Like

  1194. @Zrim – perhaps I got a bit carried away with my ecumenicism by including baptists and pentecostals. I agree that the landmark types, restorationists, and anabaptist groups are problematic for protestantism. However, didn’t the pentecostal movement emerge from the Wesleyan tradition which emerged from Anglican tradition? I don’t think we get to blame the anabaptists for them. Maybe I am misremembering.

    Like

  1195. Kevin, how is this for you:

    Q. What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the papal mass?
    A. The Lord’s supper testifies to us, first, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself accomplished on the cross once for all; and, second, that through the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ, who with his true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and this is where he wants to be worshipped.

    But the mass teaches, first, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Christ unless he is still offered for them daily by the priests; and, second, that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine, and there is to be worshipped.

    Therefore the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry. (Heidelberg Catechism, 80)

    Like

  1196. SDB –

    Thank you for a marvelous reply. I’m the guy coming late to the party, raising the same subjects of discussion which have already been beaten to death, I guess – I’ll check out the thread you recommended.

    I’ll address what I see as two key points which your reply suggests to me haven’t been dealt with well by others.

    I) Catholic Bishops fail to teach Catholic theology

    kc – Just as good theology gives good fruits, incorrect theology can give bad fruits. – sdb: “Insofar as that is true, conservative prot theology is good and RC theology is bad.”

    “Conservative prot theology” contains a great many fundamental truths. I don’t think it is lala-love for Catholics to acknowledge this, but instead justice. Insofar as these constitute the formation of participating members, the fruits will be good.

    Why is the Catholic Church in such lousy shape? Many Catholic bishops aren’t insisting on Catholic principles. To put it gently, it may be that some don’t have the faith. Some renege on teaching Catholic theology – although as Modernists, they are usually clever or duplicitous enough to not teach heresy outright. Protestant groups have some of this amongst their/your own ranks, no? It is a basically human problem.

    Even recent Popes have engaged in highly questionable and confusing activity – praying in mosques and synagogues, permitting pagan prayer in basilicas, etc. I see no clear teaching here (some do), but instead a failure to carry out some of the duties of their office. In sum, the fruits of the “new orientation” are widespread Catholic apostasy resulting from a failure to teach Catholic theology and enforce discipline.

    II) The Athanasian Creed is about the Trinity & Incarnation, not the role of the Catholic Church

    Q – “The contrast between this and the status of separated brethern and non-Christians described in V2 is striking, no? We could once know without doubt, now there are all sorts of qualifiers that allow us to doubt. ”

    The responses I’ve gotten from RCs around here fall into the following categories: […]

    I agree with your analysis of 1 and (especially amusing) 3. I’ll take option 2, or a version of it.

    The creed defines its key terms for us – it tells us precisely what it means by “the catholic faith” (which I think here means “the faith which you’ve heard talked about by the Catholic Church”) – basically the Trinity and the Incarnation.

    It doesn’t say anything about the teaching and sanctifying role of the Catholic Church, it simply assumes it.

    Do the Reformed disagree with any of the Christological, Trinitarian, or historical statements of Christ in the Athanasian Creed? I would expect we would agree (correct me if I’m wrong) that anyone who denies the Trinity or Incarnation as defined in the Athanasian Creed is denying fundamental Christianity.

    Regarding the meaning and stylistic tone, yes, the difference is striking – the Athanasian Creed is clear, VII docs are muddled. VII isn’t a full restatement of the Catholic faith – it addressed specific issues, and in several cases not very well.

    And FYI, I’m on board with a literal Adam. I think it is the best explanation for Original Sin.

    Like

  1197. Mermaid, just saying that I’m not sure why I should listen to you about Roman Catholicism any more than I read National Catholic Reporter. Why not try to correct them?

    But if the pope is not a threat, what happened. Popes used to say this:

    X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

    77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

    78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

    79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

    80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

    But I’m supposed to take the successor to St. Peter, the supreme bishop of the church universal, Christ’s vicar on earth, with a grain of salt? Give him a mulligan?

    Are you sure you know what you signed up for?

    Like

  1198. b, sd, bingo. Anglicans begat Wesley who begat two-stage salvation which begat glossalalia. But you may want to include experimental Calvinists (Puritans) who also inspired Wesley and Whitefield.

    Like

  1199. SDB –
    Also, I want to acknowledge the second part of your post – As far as why be a protestant?
    Thank you for this statement. I’ve read it a few times, and will a few more until I have it lodged in my memory.

    A detailed reply would likely be unsatisfying to you – I would be arguing in good faith, and I would fail to convince.

    To take one point, I’ll just mention that I heard a very ‘conservative’ Spanish priest (from Murcia) in NJ who had daily Confession and Latin Mass once give a sermon on the Catholic understanding of priesthood of all believers. As an example, any layman can baptize an infant, i.e., bring about the regeneration of another soul (rejected by DGH and heresy to your ears I expect, but I think it makes a point).

    Like

  1200. DG –

    The Heidelberg Confession quote looks mostly fine to me (%-wise), except I’d add an essential tweak which alters the conclusion:

    1 – the mass teaches, first, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Christ unless he is still offered for them daily by the priests;
    2 –     Therefore the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ,
    3 – and an accursed idolatry.

    1 – J.C. is the high priest – it is he who offers himself at each Mass. The priest is his agent.

    2 – Each Mass is a participation in that same sacrifice of Calvary (as with the Last Supper, despite coming temporally before Calvary).

    3 – “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”. We take the plain words of the Lord on faith, even if they contradict reasoned perception- we accept it as a revealed truth. I don’t have any arguments for you you haven’t already heard. Can’t be idolatry if it is the Lord.

    Like

  1201. @Kevin,
    The reformed see the Athanasian Creed as a true. In some denominations, it is a ruling document. The language in the creed has been incorporated into various confessions as well. My point isn’t that the creed’s teaching isn’t true. It is that this statement from Lumen Gentium,

    Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

    is not consistent with this statement,

    Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

    I don’t see how both statements can be true.

    Like

  1202. sdb, right, but I blame modernity which not only has a remarkable way of producing creatures the pre-modern era would never have recognized but also a way of leading moderns to think there are only two kinds of Christian sin the western world, Catholic and Protestant, and if you’re not the former then by default you’re the latter, which gives us the big tent under which we find everything from Hinn to Sproul to Spong. Of course, the local Catholic apologists rely on this to play the 30k denom card…

    Like

  1203. Kevin, re HC80, then you miss the point which is to reject the papal mass. Tweaking it would make it the Lord’s Supper.

    Here’s hoping any updates to the HC would include the accursed nature of altar calls.

    Like

  1204. Kevin: So in summary, the Church looks (and always has, at least in its formal teachings if not in every statement you can pull) at Baptised Protestants as Catholics who simply aren’t living up to the teachings of the Church. No change in doctrine.

    Kevin, I hear this a lot. However, I believe it is a canard based upon reading Vat II back into Catholic sources.

    Here is the Catechism of Trent:

    Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent. — Cat Trent, Art 9

    The second consideration is that he whose mind is strongly impressed with the truth taught in this Article, will easily escape the awful danger of heresy. For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity. — ibid

    [The church] is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood.. This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church. — ibid

    But if we look to its ministers, or to the manner in which it is to be exercised, the extent of this divine power will not appear so great; for our Lord gave not the power of so sacred a ministry to all, but to Bishops and priests only. The same must be said regarding the manner in which this power is to be exercised; for sins can be forgiven only through the Sacraments, when duly administered. — ibid, Art 10

    What is clear here is that in the 16th Century, Protestants were (a) heretics, because they determinedly resisted the teachings of the Church, (b) therefore outside of the church except for the purpose of tribunal and punishment, (c) hence unable to receive sacraments, (d) hence unable to receive forgiveness of sins.

    They are not Catholics, but are outside the pale of the church.

    Like

  1205. Pope Pius V’s excommunication of Elizabeth I gives the flavor of the times:

    Regnans in Excelsis

    Excommunicating Elizabeth I of England
    Pope St Pius V – 25 February1570

    Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

    He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

    1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God’s goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children’s faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gather with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.

    2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defense or evasion.

    3. We, seeing impieties and crimes multiplied one upon another the persecution of the faithful and afflictions of religion daily growing more severe under the guidance and by the activity of the said Elizabeth -and recognizing that her mind is so fixed and set that she has not only despised the pious prayers and admonitions with which Catholic princes have tried to cure and convert her but has not even permitted the nuncios sent to her in this matter by this See to cross into England, are compelled by necessity to take up against her the weapons of justice, though we cannot forbear to regret that we should be forced to turn, upon one whose ancestors have so well deserved of the Christian community. Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice-seat, we do out of the fullness of our apostolic power declare the foresaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

    4. And moreover (we declare) her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and of all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever.

    5. And also (declare) the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who have in any way sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship. fealty and obedience; and we do, by authority of these presents , so absolve them and so deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other the above said matters. We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

    6. Because in truth it may prove too difficult to take these presents wheresoever it shall be necessary, we will that copies made under the hand of a notary public and sealed with the seal of a prelate of the Church or of his court shall have such force and trust in and out of judicial proceedings, in all places among the nations, as these presents would themselves have if they were exhibited or shown.

    Given at St. Peter’s at Rome, on 25 February1570 of the Incarnation; in the fifth year of our pontificate.

    Pius PP.

    — Regnans in Excelsis

    Like

  1206. Zrim –

    Kevin, just that there is more to being Protestant than not being Catholic

    The main addition seems to me to be the belief that we cannot genuinely attain goodness in God’s eyes, even once regenerated and as members of the elect. We can assume an Augustinian-Dominican position which favors predestination.

    My off-the-cuff thoughts are that God created us out of (don’t run away) a desire to share creation and that we might glorify Him. I don’t understand how our genuinely attaining goodness (obviously dependent upon Him) is anything but a greater glorification of Him. And why would he bother to sacrifice himself if he didn’t create creatures capable of being justly esteemed? Again, granted everything depends upon him.

    It’s almost as if some forget there was a Radical Reformation that the Protestant Reformation opposed just as much as Rome. – absolutely some do forget. Most never had any idea in the first place. You’ll encounter a lot of foolishness, some injustice, and a tiny bit of well-stated truth amongst Catholics speaking on Protestant issues.

    Trent’s anathema makes more sense to confessional Prots than V2’s separated brethren. – I tried above to lay out a position which I believe would be easily acknowledged by both Trent and V2. Elements of V2 make sense to no one – they simply don’t accord with reason in a straightforward manner.

    And while confessional Prot’ism has categories for sheep and goats within (and without), it is shy to try and determine which is which for fear of tearing up wheat with chaff. It’s more interested in locating the true church by the three marks, and calling for those who would have eternal life to her. – I will file this away. Thanks.

    DG –
    So all that big talk from the papacy was really uttered with fingers crossed? – You know that the Church teaches that Catholics who preach heresy or schism or wallow in immorality go to hell, right?

    Gregory VII to Henry IV didn’t really mean to depose the king? – I don’t understand how this relates to the points under discussion. He is one of the great popes, and didn’t want the Emperor appointing bishops. He won, and is praised for it.

    Like

  1208. Boy. Looks like I have stirred up the nest. Not my intent. Just talkin with, Hart.

    Bob S,

    Though, I do think the New Covenant Church did come before the NT Scriptures.

    Though you do miss the salient detail.
    The NT revelation in Christ and the apostles came before the New Covenant church.
    IOW without it, there would be no NC Church.
    Funny how the papist arrogance precludes perception of that obvious and damning distinction.

    I agree the revelation of Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, came before the writing of the NT Scripture. That is not damning for my position. The Apostles though did not become “church” before the revelation of Christ though so you are going to have to remove them from “before the New Covenant church”. They were “called out” before the NT Scripture were written of course, but they were not a community before the revelation of Christ to Israel, Christ baptism should be recognized as that.

    Like

  1209. Greg,
    Dr Hart asks: “why inscripturate Galatians and then disregard it? “
    That really is a great question because Galatians really is the death knell of RCC justification.

    I love Galatians and find nothing against my understanding of salvation in it. How could I? Not only does my view require me to understand VII in light of VI, Trent, Florence…Orange..Carthage…Nicea; it also has all the Scriptures on the front end of this boat. Galatians should be used to give one light on understanding Trent along with all the other Councils.

    “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”- St. Jerome

    Like

  1210. @JC I especially like the post on Lutheran and Calvinist mentalities. Those guys make the CtC bunch look like pikers. HA!

    Like

  1211. Zrim – no, I get the point exactly – just trying to be a good-natured nettle. I also agree “Protestant” and “Catholic” are not the most useful categories.

    SDB – Just some quick thoughts below, I may trip up, but perhaps useful.

    Whosoever will be saved – “whoever would like to be saved”

    before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith – “the most important thing (of others which are necessary, not here discussed) is to believe in the Trinity and Incarnation and other very specific things mentioned in this creed”

    Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly – “keep your belief in the Trinity & Incarnation, do not depart from it, or else you will perish.”

    Now we have no reason to think the good thief Dismas knew anything of this, so I think it is safe to say there is room for God to make exceptions (although we’d be very rash, presumptuous, to assume this in any specific case). Anyway, the creed is a conditional statement for those who would like to be saved – “if you want to be saved, to XYZ, or else” – not a universal statement of who gets saved (i.e., which would need to include Dismas).

    With that in mind, we get to some V2-speak filled with unwarranted generalizations.

    Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

    I would not categorize ‘these also’ as qualifying as being addressed by the Athanasian creed. Do they want to be saved? They don’t know what that means.

    I think the language is presuming (to use a loaded term) that God will make millions (billions?) of exceptions. Maybe He will (sure, they “can” be saved), but how likely is this? The charitable reading would be that the authors hoped this would bring non-Christians to the Church.

    Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

    So this presumes they a) have an ‘implicit knowledge of God’ and b) are possessed of his grace. To rephrase,

    “God does not deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who are possessed of God’s grace and have an implicit knowledge of God (despite not explicitly knowing Him).”

    But what are the helps necessary for salvation? Grace?

    So: “God does not deny His grace to those who are possessed of His grace, and who know him implicitly (although not explicitly).”

    So we explicate the unstated and unproved assumptions which are embedded in the argument and find it is a trivial (if odd) truth.

    The whole point on the part of the many of the ‘theological experts’ (periti) who wrote the documents was to get the documents passed and then have room to apply them in all kinds of wild ways afterwards. Which they did.

    They have been called Modernist “time bombs.”

    Like

  1212. Hart,
    Give me a little time. I do have a clear response from my position regarding this:

    “mtx, if the church comes before Scripture, then how do you know that Peter is supreme among the apostles? How many times do you see RC apologists appeal to Matt. 16:20 to support papal supremacy? That sure looks like Scripture is prior to the church, that the church is only authoritative because the Bible says so.

    So if the church comes before Scripture, you are dependent on historical research. What happened before the formation of the Canon? Which historians do you believe? And then the canon merely confirms history.

    That isn’t going to leave you with all the certainty that converts claim.”

    Til later,
    Michael

    Like

  1213. Jeff –

    The 16th century was a time when catechized Catholics were rejecting Catholic principles.

    I don’t think the docs you posted address those who are Baptised and do not embrace principles which their confessions may teach, but which they do not themselves embrace. If they don’t embrace and insist upon principles in conflict with the Catholic faith, they don’t meet the criteria for being heretics. They are simply Baptised Christians not following the Church’s teachings (from the Church’s perspective, a different sort of problem).

    Those who embrace and insist upon principles in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church are not Catholic. This includes a great many Catholics. Well over half of Catholics profess to reject fundamental truths of the faith. That does not bode well for them.

    Horvat and the Popes he quotes would not even assign the word “Christian” to those who embrace and insist upon non-Catholic principles (e.g., Biden and Pelosi) – although others would assign the word to anyone genuinely seeking Christ in good faith.

    The divide between Catholics and Protestants is deep, real, unfortunate, and will outlast all of us present. It is also, I think, over a miniscule number of theological facts and lots of contingent cultural issues.

    To paraphrase DG (if I may), we here present are all limping along.

    Like

  1214. DGH, you missed how vd, t really stuck it to the man:

    Tillman on Values and Dignity
    by Seth Barrett Tillman
    Guest Blogger
    “The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”—Justice Clarence Thomas in Obergefell v. Hodges, [2015] (dissenting)
    _____________________________

    “Mrs Thatcher came only twice [to the Conservative Philosophy Group], once as prime minister. That was the occasion for a notable non-meeting of minds. Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to ‘Western values’. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values.
    Enoch Powell: No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.’
    Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.’
    ‘No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.’
    Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism. (Mr Blair would have been equally baffled.)”

    Like

  1215. D.G. Hart:
    Are you sure you know what you signed up for?>>>>>

    Yes, I am sure.

    See, you nit pick the Catholic religion, but don’t really see what unites us. Those are your priorities, since your goal is to purify the church in such a way that you fellowship only with the pure. You do not want to contaminate yourselves with sinners and heretics. Therefore you must always be separating from groups you deem unworthy of your pure doctrine and practice. If you are happy doing that, then be happy.

    You would never understand what drew me to the Catholic Church, but I will try to give a short list of the things that attracted me.

    1. The Eucharist, which Protestants dumped.

    2. The mysticism within orthodoxy, which Protestants mess up. Among Protestants, those who claim the greatest orthodoxy reject mysticism, and those who wobble on orthodoxy are strong on mysticism. All of the great theologians of the Church were also mystics.

    3. The coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality, especially of what it means to be male and female made in the image of God. Protestantism is incoherent on this topic, and therefore found it easy to cave to gender egalitarianism. The Church has not caved, and in fact, is getting ready to suffer persecution if necessary. Sure, many will cave. Maybe there will be only a remnant left.

    4. The orthodoxy.

    5. The long history, much of it glorious. Protestantism started 500 years ago, and most of the churches formed at that time have already apostatized. Catholicism has not. Yes, there are movements within the Church which are a threat. What do I do about it? You wouldn’t consider what I do to be anything, but prayer is not nothing, you know. The bark of St. Peter is sailing on rough seas here in the West, but our whole civilization is in peril, and has been for some time, now. I like our civilization, as imperfect as it is.

    I don’t see how small and divided Protestant groups can do anything, really, except keep on fighting one another and keep on dividing. You are not even in favor of the pietists let alone the Pentecostals. So, it is you against everyone. If you wish to live like that, it is your choice. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. It is still a somewhat free country in many ways.

    6. The emphasis on the Incarnation and the divinity of the Trinity.

    7. The Bible that Jesus and the apostles used is the one the Church uses – in translation, of course.

    8. The veneration of the saints. Yes, I know you call it saint worship, but it is not. We have many great examples of men and women who have gone before and have fought the good fight of faith. They teach us that Christ is able to work in and through sinful human beings, making them more like Him. They cheer us on in our race. Each one must run his or her race according to the calling and grace God has given in Christ. The saints show us that it is possible to become more Christlike.

    …and I know that you Protestants also admire greatly – even in a way, venerate – your own heroes of the faith.

    9. The beauty. In fact, that may be number one on the list. The beauty.

    10. St. Thomas Aquinas. Yes, I also loved Augustine, but Thomas is special to me. Whatever Church he belonged to, that’s where I wanted to be.

    See, a lot of it, – or all of it,- is not anything that would be of interest to you, but I did try to give you an honest, straightforward answer.

    Now, back to the topic of what the court just did to us. It does worry you a bit, though, doesn’t it, that we have lost our 1st Amendment, right? I mean, that affects all of us, believer and unbeliever alike. There is a reason it is the 1st Amendment. It guarantees the most basic of human rights.

    It’s not just that now government wants to control all kinds of speech. They want to control our thoughts as well, and are willing to use all their considerable power to silence the opposition.

    Do you see this ruling in a different light? Maybe you do. Maybe I hope I’m wrong. Of course, my experiences color my understanding of this ruling.

    Thanks for you time, Brother Hart. Take care.

    Like

  1216. Thought everybody might find this of interest. This is what we have locally put together to vote on regarding ssm ruling.

    WHEREAS Republicans believe in federalism, states’ rights, and private property rights; and

    WHEREAS Republicans stand by Article I, Section 6 of Texas Constitution, which reads: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.”; and

    WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States has overstepped its Constitutional authority by ruling on and imposing a view of marriage; and

    WHEREAS, Texas, a free State, has the historical and legal right to nullify those actions of the federal government that are outside the United States Constitution; and

    WHEREAS, Marriage is an institution ordained by God and the government has no authority to regulate and control it; and

    WHEREAS, Texans desire to determine marriage for itself, according to our traditions and values.

    BE IT RESOLVED, we call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation that nullifies the actions of the Supreme Court of the United States; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, we call on the State of Texas to protect Texans from federal government coercion to participate in marriage ceremonies which violate Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, we desire that Texans consider preserving its religious institutions by prohibiting government to interfere with marriage; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Republican Party of ______ upholds traditional marriage as between a man and a woman, even if we believe the government has no right to be involved in such a sacred, religious institution.

    Like

  1217. “J.C. is the high priest – it is he who offers himself at each Mass. The priest is his agent.”

    Wow. I thought Christ was now seated at the Father’s right hand.

    Like

  1220. Kevin, it goes to Jeff’s point. What popes today say that someone is excommunicated and anathema. You’re telling us it’s because everyone is fine in the church? Or could it be that the bishops are squeamish about being judgmental? Heck, even lay RC’s are. It’s okay.

    Like

  1223. Mermaid, then Pius V also sought a pure church when he excommunicated Elizabeth I. Today’s bishops don’t have the nerve to discipline public figures. And all that glorious history. . .

    “The coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality.”

    Are you serious? Celibate priests prescribing this and what’s happening to the celibate priests.

    You’re in the RC land of chocolate.

    Like

  1224. MTX, this was my favorite: “BE IT RESOLVED, we call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation that nullifies the actions of the Supreme Court of the United States;”

    I don’t think it works that way post-Civil War.

    The time on the clock is zero, the score is final, and everyone has left the stadium.But, yeah, go and keep on playing if that makes you feel better.

    Now it would be interesting if a Texas clerk refused to enter a license, the matter got litigated, and the highest state court rules that the Texas Constitution protects the clerk’s religious rights.

    Like

  1225. DG,

    What popes today say that someone is excommunicated and anathema.
    There have been some excommunications, but not many.

    You’re telling us it’s because everyone is fine in the church?
    Is that what my comments suggested?

    Or could it be that the bishops are squeamish about being judgmental? Heck, even lay RC’s are.
    It could be, and indeed I think that is the reason.

    “J.C. is the high priest – it is he who offers himself at each Mass. The priest is his agent.” Wow. I thought Christ was now seated at the Father’s right hand.
    Scriptures reveal Christ and the angels are limited by space and time, as you well know. The Last Supper along with the reality of the flesh and blood in the Eucharist provides the scriptural support. Otherwise the Heidelberg excerpt would be correct that priests alone are offering Mass.

    Jeff, imagine if Pius V had had a chance to read Richard McBrien.
    Imagining the result is the first time I ever thought anything pertaining to Richard McBrien with pleasure.

    Like

  1227. Kevin, appreciate the responses.

    You know the work around for Christ being present here is his Spirit. Why Pentecost matters and this may be another advantage that Protestants have over Roman Catholics. We have a well-developed doctrine of the Third Person of the Trinity. My suspicion is that the doctrine of the papacy has undermined pneumatology.

    Like

  1228. DG-

    It is more than just the 3rd person of the Trinity- the 2nd person is present in the priest as he offers Mass, in the Word of the scriptures proclaimed, in the praying and singing congregation assembled, and “body and blood, soul and divinity” in the Eucharist.

    Here is a 352p book on the Holy Ghost for those interested, pneumatology, reflections, and devotions:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Paraclete-Manual-Instruction-Devotion/dp/0895551314#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1436210995869

    Like

  1229. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
    Kevin, appreciate the responses.

    You know the work around for Christ being present here is his Spirit. Why Pentecost matters and this may be another advantage that Protestants have over Roman Catholics. We have a well-developed doctrine of the Third Person of the Trinity.

    That’s why the Holy Spirit led you to create not just one, but 100s or 1000s of different churches and interpretations of the Bible. That’s some development.

    Like

  1230. Todd, some legitimate points, but the big picture remains.
    Whatever the intentions of SCOTUS, leviathan still benefits.

    Yeah, it would make sense to try to alleviate some of the stuff that bugs the actors in this farce – taxes are way too high – but the state still has a legitimate stake in seeing marriages and families prosper for the sake of the next generation – and the future of the state. Hence some kind of tax break for marriage/children.

    And again, it’s not about equality. The LGBQTers want special rights.
    They want to be both transgressive and bourgeois at the same time and criminalize anybody that disagrees as queer bashers.
    Neither has the campaign for ME been conducted on any other basis than a paraphrase of Danton, both an instigator and collateral damage of the Fr. Revolution: lies, lies and more lies.

    Was that because they didn’t get their unions previously? I doubt it. Perverse audacity knows no bounds. Limits and rules are for breaking.
    pax

    Like

  1231. Here is my understanding of the Catholic Church’s prespective on . . .

    Let me guess, Kevin. Private interpretation.

    1 – J.C. is the high priest – it is he who offers himself at each Mass. The priest is his agent.

    Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
    For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
    So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb. 9:25-28
    But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
    Heb.10:12

    Christ himself is the high priest.
    He offered himself one sacrifice for sins forever.
    It is finished until the judgement.

    3 – “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”. We take the plain words of the Lord on faith, even if they contradict reasoned perception- we accept it as a revealed truth. I don’t have any arguments for you you haven’t already heard. Can’t be idolatry if it is the Lord.

    John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

    Garage? Screen? Sliding glass?
    Shropshire? Merino? Dorset?

    Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
    1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    Do Romanists literally drink the cup, not what’s in it?

    And if not idolatry, could it be blind stupidity?

    I agree the revelation of Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, came before the writing of the NT Scripture. That is not damning for my position.

    Then you don’t understand your position, Mtx. The church, the household of God is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. Eph. 2:19,20

    Rome wiggles out of this two ways.
    One by pretending to still have performative (Bryan’s term) apostles.
    Two, by turning the descending subordinate and modifying clauses in 2 Thess.2:15 on their heads. Grammatically the sentence tells us there are two different ways the Thessalonians have been taught, not that there are two different traditions.

    Stand fast and hold
    the traditions
    which you have been taught
    whether by word or epistle.

    Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

    PS. I hear you talking TVD, but I don’t have to understand or listen to a word of what you are saying according to your own fraudulent semantics.

    cheers

    Like

  1232. Bob S
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    PS. I hear you talking TVD, but I don’t have to understand or listen to a word of what you are saying according to your own fraudulent semantics.

    cheers

    You understand just fine, that’s why you went for the drive-by. 😉

    You can claim the Holy Spirit all you want, but so do 100s of other denominations. That’s the fruit of the Reformation, every man his own pope, 1000s of different spirits.

    “Your spirit and our spirit cannot go together. Indeed, it is quite obvious that we do not have the same spirit.”–Luther to Zwingli, 1529

    So it goes in that wild and wacky world of Christianity Mark 2.0.

    Like

  1233. Bob –

    Thanks for taking the time to write out a response.

    Let me guess, Kevin. Private interpretation.
    Just my understanding, which I think to be accurate.

    KiN 1 – J.C. is the high priest – it is he who offers himself at each Mass. The priest is his agent.
    Bob: Nor yet that he should offer himself often re: Heb. 9:25-28

    It is participation in the single offering – when Christ offered his body and blood, and so many ran from him, the apostles stayed. With the injunction to do as Christ had done, the apostles also, serving as agents for Christ, offered his body and blood.

    Again, I’m thinking-on-the-go here: but man comes into existence at conception – born with Original Sin and a total inability to please God without regeneration. An individual can’t partake of the regeneration before he even exists, even if he is predestined/predetermined to so partake. So regeneration occurs in the individual subsequent to his conception. And yet the ability for man to be regenerated doesn’t re-occur- the fruit of Christ’s one sacrifice is participated in by subsequent men.

    Bob: Christ himself is the high priest. He offered himself one sacrifice for sins forever. It is finished until the judgement.

    Agreed.

    KiN 3 – “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”. We take the plain words of the Lord on faith, even if they contradict reasoned perception- we accept it as a revealed truth. I don’t have any arguments for you you haven’t already heard. Can’t be idolatry if it is the Lord.

    Bob – John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. Garage? Screen? Sliding glass? Shropshire? Merino? Dorset?

    I don’t understand. There are times when I think the meaning of scripture takes some thought to puzzle out, but John 6: 47-59 seems pretty clear.

    Bob: Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    Do Romanists literally drink the cup, not what’s in it?

    And if not idolatry, could it be blind stupidity?

    We’re arguing over prepositions (and their lack) and case markers in statements which have gone from Syriac/Aramaic->Greek->English ?

    Maybe I don’t follow your point. Can you restate it?

    Like

  1234. Jeff, turns out according to Father Dwight, Elizabeth had it coming:

    The English Catholics who had taken refuge on the continent were among the chief conspirators. Idealistic young Englishmen trained for the priesthood at newly created seminaries in Douai and Rome. While they professed to a purely pastoral mission their expatriate leader, William Allen loudly supported the Pope’s deposition of Elizabeth and Philip of Spain’s invasion plans.

    Confronted by these threats, Elizabeth’s men set up a harsh plan of counter-terrorism. If the pope and the Catholic monarchs were her enemies, then so were all Catholics. Legislation against treason was extended to catch not just those who questioned Elizabeth’s legitimacy, but all missionary priests and those who sheltered them. Torture was not supposed to be permitted, but they devised special laws to justify its use to gather information from captured Catholic priests. After torture, the standard penalty for traitors was to be hanged, cut down when still alive, castrated, disembowelled and dismembered. Over 100 Catholic priests suffered this fate. Their fate was horrible and their heroism was historic.

    The gruesome example had been started by Elizabeth’s father. The first to die so terribly was the Carthusian abbot John Houghton. From his own cell in the Tower of London Thomas More saw Houghton and two others being dragged to Tyburn on hurdles and exclaimed to his daughter: “Look, Meg! These blessed Fathers be now as cheerfully going to their deaths as bridegrooms to their marriage!” Still alive when the executioner grasped his still beating heart, Houghton cried out, “Dear Lord Jesus, what will you do with my heart?”

    During the persecutions the priests operated under aliases and in disguise—which of course only made them appear that much more guilty when accused of being spies. To counter act their courage Elizabeth’s councillors Burghley and Walsingham created a network of spies, informers and agents provocateurs. Their work was complemented by the private torture chamber of the sadistic rapist Richard Topcliffe.

    Like

  1236. @tvd
    “That’s why the Holy Spirit led you to create not just one, but 100s or 1000s of different churches and interpretations of the Bible. That’s some development.”

    I think Darryl might have had a little help.

    Like

  1237. Hebrews 9: 25 The Messiah did not do this to offer Himself many times, as the high priest enters the sanctuary yearly with the blood of another. 26 Otherwise, He would have had to suffer many times since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared ONE time, at the end of the ages, for the removal of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment— 28 so also the Messiah, having been offered ONCE to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, NOT to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.

    Smeaton—-The allegation that His priesthood began not on earth, but at His ascension, has only to be placed in the light of this epistle to be fully refuted. Its entire teaching proves that He acted as a priest during His whole humiliation, and that His death was a sacrifice (Ephesians. v. 2 ; Hebrews. ii. 1 7, v. 7).. a. The high priest under the law was not first constituted a priest when he entered the holiest of all: he had already, in his capacity as high priest, slain the sacrifice, the blood of which was carried within the veil. And, in like manner, Christ was already a priest when He gave Himself for His people. It was not, and could not be, a new sacrifice within the veil, when one part, and the principal part of it, was performed previous to His entry.

    b. The passages which make mention of Christ’s one oblation, or of His offering Himself once, are conclusive as to the fact of His being a priest on earth; for that word ONCE cannot be understood of what is done in heaven. It must refer to His death as a historic fact, completed and finished here below.

    It is against all reason to affirm that the sacrifice was offered once, if it still continues. Nor does the epistle stop there: the analogy instituted between the fact that it was appointed to all men once to die, and the one atoning death of Christ (ix. 27), leaves us in no doubt that we must view that sacrifice as COMPLETED on the cross.

    c. The priestly sacrifice which Christ offered is emphatically described as coincident with the Lord’s death. The clearest proof of this is furnished in this epistle (Hebrews 9: 26), when it is noticed that the Lord was under no necessity to offer Himself OFTEN, like the Jewish high priest, who had to offer a new sacrifice with every annual return of the great day of atonement, and enter with the blood of others. It declares that to offer Himself OFTEN would have been equivalent to a repeated suffering on the part of Christ; and therefore there can be no more conclusive proof that Christ was a priest on earth, and that His sacrifice was FINISHED by His death during His humiliation.

    http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Doctrine_of_the_Atonement_1000

    Like

  1239. Mark –

    Did you see my comment to Bob just above? He raised most of the same objections: https://oldlife.org/2015/06/the-court-gives-the-court-taketh-away/comment-page-25/#comment-333790

    You seem to suggest there may be an objection with regard as to when Our Lord became High Priest – I would assume from his conception.

    I would be interested in your (or anyone’s) reply to the questions I raised. Surely there are plenty of good Reformed scholars who have offered insights interesting enough to share.

    Like

  1240. Muddy,
    The TX Governor, Lt. Gov. and the TX Attornee General have all said no clerk, JP or Judge have to do anything with ssm if they have a religious stand against it and that there should be no negative repercussions from their suprovisors in any state office, if they do. They have cited current state cinstitutiinal law regarding protection of conscience as a reason.

    Like

  1242. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, then Pius V also sought a pure church when he excommunicated Elizabeth I. Today’s bishops don’t have the nerve to discipline public figures. And all that glorious history. . .

    “The coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality.”

    Are you serious? Celibate priests prescribing this and what’s happening to the celibate priests.

    You’re in the RC land of chocolate.>>>>>

    Sure, all that Protestants can see are celibate priests – oh horrors! Yet the Apostle Paul was celibate. Calvinists’ favorite Church father, Augustine, took a vow of celibacy as well. The tradition of celibacy is as old as the New Testament, but you know that.

    But that is not what I am talking about, of course. What does Protestantism offer a woman? That’s what I am talking about. Name one Protestant female who is honored among the male theologians as an equal. How often do you quote female Protestants? How often do your preachers quote, say, Elizabeth Elliot in their sermons?

    Your female theologians, even those of the PCA, are trying to redefine what it means to be a woman. Women do not feel that their voice is being heard.

    Anyway, all you can see are men not being allowed to have sex. Why doesn’t that surprise me?
    😉

    Let’s talk about the Protestant, sexually active, heterosexual, married pastors who fall into sin, shall we? …but I don’t care to go there. All it proves is that human beings often choose sin, even men who have the best intentions of faithfully keeping their vows. God’s grace in Christ is just as necessary for priests and pastors as it is for anyone else.

    Now, do you think that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision has for all practical purposes nullified the 1st Amendment?

    Like

  1243. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, then Pius V also sought a pure church when he excommunicated Elizabeth I. Today’s bishops don’t have the nerve to discipline public figures. And all that glorious history. . .>>>>

    Do you publish and distribute the tract The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regimen of Women in the OPC? If not, why not?

    Now, what about an issue from our time? Here is what the USCCB wrote after Obergefell v. Hodges.

    Can you provide a copy of the OPC’s statement on this issue of the courts giving and the courts taking away – which is the title of your post after all?
    —————————-
    “Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

    The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

    Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

    I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

    Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.”

    Like

  1244. Mrs. W- thanks for posting the usccb doc, I think their press releases are praiseworthy on the issue. They need to follow through with disciplining the catholic-in-name-only (CiNO) politicians, though.

    I don’t think we have anything to be ashamed of with Pius V, though- he was a great Catholic hero. Elizabeth ran a totalitarian police state and was thoroughly worthy of being overthrown. You might be interested in the Catholic writer and lecturer Michael Davies on that period, lecturesat keepthefaith.org. He was an elementary school teacher in England, and lived in the US for awhile- I never met him but know his close friends. He was saintly.

    Yours in Christ,
    -Kevin

    Like

  1246. Mermaid, no one claimed that Protestants has a “coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality.” But as per usual, when Protestants point out the flaws in RC claims, the response is always “you’re just as bad.”

    Well, you’re supposed to be better, holy, perfect.

    BTW, Peter was married.

    Like

  1247. Mermaid, again. why complain about Protestants? We said we were imperfect. If you’re going to swagger about Rome, we’re supposed to bow and say, “you betcha.”

    We all limp. (But the point of being Roman Catholic is kicking away the crutches, right?)

    Like

  1248. @mwf do you know whether usccb has issued a statement on including sexual orientation in nondiscrimination law? I know they oppose enda, but did they issue statements on the sort of nondiscrimination laws passed in Oregon and New Mexico?

    Like

  1249. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 5:20 pm | Permalink
    Jeff, turns out according to Father Dwight, Elizabeth had it coming:

    The worst is that Elizabeth made up her own religion just as Luther and Zwingli and Calvin did: Pick one doctrine from Column A and 3 from Column B. Once that Reformation toothpaste got out of the tube, the urge to become your own pope was irresistible. Must have been fun. 😉

    Like

  1250. Martin Luther—“In the first place the sixth chapter of John must be entirely excluded from
    this discussion, since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable. Not only because the sacrament was not yet instituted, but even more because this passage itself and the sentences following plainly show, as I have already stated, that Christ is speaking of faith in the incarnate Word.”

    Click to access John_6.pdf

    “It was inconceivable to Calvin that the pericope could reflect the actual liturgical practice of
    the early church, having been written from a post-resurrection perspective. Because of the
    chronology of events in the Gospel narrative, Calvin almost had to interpret this pericope as
    a reference to a ‘perpetual eating of faith’ …”

    Like

  1251. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, no one claimed that Protestants has a “coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality.” But as per usual, when Protestants point out the flaws in RC claims, the response is always “you’re just as bad.”

    I doubt you know what the Catholic Church teaches on the theology of sexuality. Further, since the Catholic Church recognizes the married Eastern Orthodox priests as true priests via apostolic succession, and indeed has itself ordained some married Anglican converts as true priests as well, you clearly don’t understand the teaching on clerical celibacy either, that it’s not a sine qua non.

    Meanwhile sola scripturists argue “justification” passages to death [as though you really have any idea who or why God chooses to save] while you permit divorce, which Jesus explicitly forbids in the Bible.

    Like

  1252. Hart,

    mtx, if the church comes before Scripture, then how do you know that Peter is supreme among the apostles? How many times do you see RC apologists appeal to Matt. 16:20 to support papal supremacy? That sure looks like Scripture is prior to the church, that the church is only authoritative because the Bible says so.

    So if the church comes before Scripture, you are dependent on historical research. What happened before the formation of the Canon? Which historians do you believe? And then the canon merely confirms history.

    That isn’t going to leave you with all the certainty that converts claim.

    I will go on and respond, but what is with all the “if”s about the Church being before the Scriptures. This is logically simple. You should easily admit what I have said. Anyway, Simon being named Peter and the rock happned in the history. We use he innerant Scriptura I witness to that reality. The conversation Jesus had with Peter about him strengthening his brothers once he had got back on track. The Scripture are a witness to the reality of the things in history. We faithfully believe the Scriptures and therefore can be used to correct any error as Paul says in 2 Timothy says. So Papal sepremacy/primacy exists and the Scriptures are just used to show that it exists. The Gospel writers were witnessing to what already was. We look at the Scriptures and see what already was before the written page.
    Regarding which historians, we believe the anointed “histrorians” by the Apostles, the original “historians” who have been given the promised protection from error by the Living Word, Christ, which is recorded in the written Word under the inerrant guidance of the Holy Spirit who inspired those writers. “He who hears you, hears Me.” This study of “history” is called studying Church Tradition. This is why descerning the historic mystical body of Christ is so important to the Catholic. To misdiscern it is to lead to error, because it will lack the protection of the Holy Spirit who will protect from error and be lead to all truth. This is why I believe the Protestant communions recieve an erroreous canon among other things which leads the many communions to disagree with each other. This is why the Anglican communion even though it seems to have a historic continuity and retains episcopal structure, completely lacks the ability to continue teaching simple moral and biblical truths. It lacks the protective Spirit of God.

    Regarding the canon only confirming history, I think this is an understatement. It not only confirms history. It proclaims it inerrantly and transforms those who believe it. We will not go wrong in believing its witness. Ever.

    Hope that all helps some, Hart.
    Peace,
    Michael

    Like

  1253. Mark Mcculley
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
    Martin Luther—“In the first place the sixth chapter of John must be entirely excluded from
    this discussion, since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable. Not only because the sacrament was not yet instituted, but even more because this passage itself and the sentences following plainly show, as I have already stated, that Christ is speaking of faith in the incarnate Word.”

    Click to access John_6.pdf

    “It was inconceivable to Calvin that the pericope could reflect the actual liturgical practice of
    the early church, having been written from a post-resurrection perspective. Because of the
    chronology of events in the Gospel narrative, Calvin almost had to interpret this pericope as
    a reference to a ‘perpetual eating of faith’ …”

    Very cool that you’re investigating the Eucharist, Mark. If you reduce the Christian religion to the Bible and rabbinical hairsplitting on “justification” and the like, then “Protestantism” exists at least as a coherent approach to Christianity.

    But Catholicism argues that the Eucharist is the core truth, and as we see, Luther parts company with the “Protestantism” that minimizes it as well.

    Arguing the Bible against the Eucharist? Quite a conundrum. Your linked article yields little succor:

    Conclusion
    John 6, a well-trod hermeneutical battlefield, is unique in several ways. First, the deniers
    of the Supper tried to make it more important than the words of institution. Second, most
    modern interpreters of this text have denied the unity of this passage, and therefore also any
    real chance of listening to Jesus. “If in this first part of this discourse Jesus calls himself the
    bread of life, while in verse 51b he speaks of his flesh and blood, it is neither necessary nor
    possible to harmonize this, as the exegetes of the 16th and 17th centuries did.”113 Even the
    most conservative theologians today see Scripture as so fractured it cannot be understood
    as a totality. To do so in John 6 is to say the words purportedly from Jesus’ lips are not
    really His. Can we know reliably who Jesus is and what He said? Not without God’s actual
    words in Scripture.

    Oy.

    Like

  1254. Even the most conservative theologians today see Scripture as so fractured it cannot be understood as a totality. To do so in John 6 is to say the words purportedly from Jesus’ lips are not
    really His. Can we know reliably who Jesus is and what He said? Not without God’s actual
    words in Scripture.

    Remind me what an article like this has to do with sola scriptura biblical inerrancy?

    And tell me why every possible attempt –

    from Calvin’s novel and questionable concept of “perpetual eating of faith”;

    to Luther’s requirement that it “must be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer to the sacrament in a single syllable”;

    to the “it’s obviously corrupt” academic critical approach above;

    – why do these seem more credible to certain readers than what a simple, prayerful reading of the passage has communicated to so many?

    Like

  1255. mtx, “Simon being named Peter and the rock happned in the history. We use he innerant Scriptura I witness to that reality.”

    There’s the problem. You say the church comes before Scripture but you rely on Scripture to find the church. Without Scripture, you wouldn’t know that Peter is primary and supreme. So you want to have it both ways. Church before Scripture to beat the Protestants, Scripture before church to arrive at Peter.

    By the way, you think Peter being named rock proves primacy? And you have all the pastoral epistles on church life by — get this — Paul, and you go to two verses the way that fundamentalists go to Genesis 1 to prove a young earth.

    The Word always precedes the church because Word and Spirit create God’s people. Canonization is simply the confirmation of what the Spirit has already done. If that sounds hard to believe, just remember immaculate conception. You’ve got some whoppers too.

    Like

  1257. Mark –

    That’s not an argument or appeal, it’s an assertion. The only people who will be convinced by that link are committed Anglicans- it is based on the 39 articles.

    Did you read my last comment? I’d be interested to know how someone could read John 6 and still support the claims of Calvin, Luther, or those who say the passage is corrupt. Your tradition of interpretation clearly has answers, I’d be interested in hearing them.

    Like

  1258. Hart,
    I have no problem with the Church only confirming what is the already the inerrant Word of God. How would it be doing anything else? It is the Spirit who inspired the autographs of the writer. They did not become inspired once the Church proclaimed the canonical books. This is what the Church says in the VII doc Dei Verbum. I believe the wording is “recieved” books at Trent. Here is Dei Verbum:
    The commission[command to preach] was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.

    …And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.”

    Notice it does not say create, but preserve. The bishops of the Church are commissioned to preserve and proclaim, not create the written Word of God.

    You said: There’s the problem. You say the church comes before Scripture but you rely on Scripture to find the church. Without Scripture, you wouldn’t know that Peter is primary and supreme. So you want to have it both ways. Church before Scripture to beat the Protestants, Scripture before church to arrive at Peter.

    Hart, you are arguing with the plain normal way life works. I’m trying to explain my understanding to you using words. When you recieve these words and read them, I will have inspired them with what I already believe and understand. My words aren’t creating what I believe and understand, but they are witnessing to my understanding and belief. These words can be used to prove what I believe and understand. So the truth(my belief) exists prior to my words and my words witness to truth(my belief). Let me come at it a different way. Think of the Scriptures like a map. The map of a place shows how to get to and travel in and around a place. If I wish to get to New York. I pick up a map which includes all the roads I will need to get to New York. The map is inspired by the truth of the terrain that existed before the writing of the map. I can believe the truth of the map, if it is accurate to where we are actually trying I get to, New York. It may not include all the details of what is on the journey, but it will have true markers if it is an accurate map. One of those makers in the Scripture map would be Matthew 16. Anyway, we should end up seeing all the markers in the “map” on the way or while in “New York” and we can describe why we are in “New York” to someone else with the “map” who is outside of the city which was preexisting to the map, “New York”, by pointing to markers written about the “terrain” of “New York” like Matt 16 among many others, like Paul’s letters, that witness to an existing community with authoritative structure that existed prior to the NT Scriptures. The reality is before the idea or teaching and the idea and teaching is what gets innerantly inscripturated and we us this as a witness to the truth, therefore it can be used for correction, rebuke…

    Dei Verbum – “This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them.”

    Again, Hart, in my understanding it is my thought that matches with history, reality and logic. Hope that clarified any misunderstanding. If you can show me where I am wrong I am still listening.
    Peace,
    Michael

    Like

  1259. mtx, sorry, but the map analogy doesn’t work at all. The Bible is God’s word. If we want to know what God reveals to be true, we may go to nature but that’s not very clear. Instead, God spoke through the prophets and the apostles. That speech comes first and it is what reveals. The church only comes later. If you want to say that canonization comes along afterward, I get that. But this constant meme that the church gives us the word is really laughable when those same claims rely on Peter as the Rock and the first pope. If the canon wasn’t firm until 386, then no one knew that Peter was the first pope until 386.

    Protestants may have a gap between 100 and 1500. Roman Catholics have their own gaps. Too many people doing what is the pay grade of the bishops. Oh, that’s right. The bishops don’t teach things like the doctrine of Scripture.

    Like

  1260. @Kevin,
    The question of how to properly read John 6 came up a couple of months ago. Jeff Cagle presented a ideas that are relevant to your question on that thread (which call). You can start here and go forward. If the link doesn’t work right, the last two comments on page 10 of the thread going forward have what you want. It is very hard for me to see how Christ’s discussion of bread and wine isn’t meant figuratively here. If Jeff is lurking, he would be a great person to discuss this with as he has already thought through the exegesis pretty carefully. I don’t think it will settle a 500yr debate or anything, but I think it gives a pretty fair explanation of where we prots are coming from.

    Like

  1261. Darryl,

    “But this constant meme that the church gives us the word is really laughable when those same claims rely on Peter as the Rock and the first pope. If the canon wasn’t firm until 386, then no one knew that Peter was the first pope until 386. ”

    The 3 legs of the STM-triad mutually attest to each other. It is obvious the church was operating before John finished Revelation, let alone before the canon was fully recognized (therefore it would be incumbent upon someone supposing that the rule of faith or mode of operation somehow suddenly changed when the ink dried on Revelation to demonstrate such a shift occurred – and naturally they would have to be consistent with their rule of faith in demonstrating such). Do you think the canon was just chosen arbitrarily? Of course not – it reflected what was being read in liturgies and the practices/beliefs of the faithful for centuries beforehand.

    Like

  1262. Hart,
    Who did the OT prophets and their writings speak to? Was it not the existing people of the kahal/ecclesia/congregation/church of the OT people? Who did the NT Apostles and NT Scriptures speak to? Was it not the existing people of the NT ecclesia/kahal/congregation/church? God created the people and spoke to them through the prophets and apostles. It was God who created the people directly through the convenants. Adamic covenant- direct. Noahic convenant- direct. Abrahamic covenant-direct. Mosaic covenant- direct. Deuteromic covenant-direct. Davidic covenant-direct. New covenant by God in the flesh-incarnationally direct. Now he has sent his own Son. The people of God are created directly by God and the Scriptures witness to that creation.

    Like

  1263. Actual I think I should correct myself. I believe the dueteronomic covenant was through the mediator Moses at the request of the covenant people. In the sixth covenant God rested.

    Like

  1264. And let’s not forget the Adamic covenant has two parts. The prefall part and the promise of sending a redeemer, therefore it is two covenants. Which makes the dueteronomic covenant the seventh convenant in which God rests and that makes the New Covenant the Eighth and New Creation.

    Like

  1265. vd, c, “it’s obvious the church was operating before John finished Revelation.”

    And that Paul had a lot more to do with it than Peter. Doh!

    I don’t think the canon was a liturgical reader, some prayer requests there, some poems there, some nice stories about Jesus over here. I think the canon reflected an understand that God spoke through the prophets and apostles. The Empire provided a mechanism for making it uniform.

    Like

  1266. mtx, God created his people by calling them. How shall they hear without a preacher? Think call to communion. God speaks, people respond. Ecclesia as called out one. Word matters and the words of God matter most, not the guys who usurp God’s authority.

    Like

  1267. Mark Mcculley
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 8:45 am | Permalink
    Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.

    “A fair conclusion based on the Church of England’s own doctrinal standards would be that Rome does indeed fall short of the measure of a true visible church.”

    The Church of England, a religion made up by Queen Elizabeth I to which she appointed herself “Supreme Governor?” Now there’s some circular reasoning.

    BTW, if you understand what “substance” means in Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics–which is what “transubstantiation” is about–it’s not what you might think, and therefore not what you’re condemning. Protestants blow a lot of air in the wrong direction.

    In a transformation the matter of the thing being converted passes over into the terminus of the conversion. When the sheep eats the grass, the matter of the grass passes over into the sheep. This cannot be true in the case of the Eucharist because, if it were, then each confection of the Eucharist would add to the matter of Christ’s body! Yet, Christ has his own discreet quantity of bodily matter. So, on account of the accidents remaining and on account that this conversion does not add to the matter of Christ’s body, this conversion simply cannot be a transformation.

    The Church has given this conversion the name transubstantiation.1 To see why this word is apt, we need to delve a little more deeply into the difference between transubstantiation and transformation. The idea of transformation rests upon what is called the hylomorphic theory, another stalwart principle of Aristotelian philosophy. This is the idea that all material things are the composite of a material and formal principle. The formal principle (the form) configures the matter to be a certain type of matter: a human body if the form is human, an oak tree if the form is that of an oak tree, and so on.

    In a transformation, when substance A (eg grass) becomes substance B (eg sheep flesh), the matter of substance A endures throughout the conversion and continues on as the matter of substance B, yet the form of substance A becomes the form of B. The matter remains but there is a change in form, hence the word transformation. In transubstantiation, however, the whole substance (the form-matter composite) of substance A (bread) is converted into substance B (the Body of Christ): hence the word transubstantiation. Precisely how this happens we cannot say, but it is certainly within the power of God to do this. Every created agent is limited to bringing about a change in form only (a sheep can transform grass into its own body matter by digestion), but God – as the ultimate cause of all being – can surely bring about changes at the level of being: converting one entire substance into another.

    http://www.faith.org.uk/article/a-match-made-in-heaven-the-doctrine-of-the-eucharist-and-aristotelian-metaphysics
    …

    Like

  1268. TVD, are you Roman Catholic? (Genuine question; I’m having a hard time distinguishing brethren around here)

    Like

  1269. Hart, yes a caller/preacher is required before the called out ones can be. You are avoiding my point though. The books are all historic real books. The OT people were created and called out by God before the Books of Moses and other writings and then grown from that beginning during the writing of all the inerrant books. The New Covenant people were created and called out by the Son of God incarnate before the writing of the Gospels, Acts and books of the NT and then grown during the writing of all the NT books. This is just basic logic and history, Hart.

    Like

  1270. Katy
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
    TVD, are you Roman Catholic? (Genuine question; I’m having a hard time distinguishing brethren around here)

    Decline to state. At Old Life anything you say about yourself can and will be used against you.

    Like

  1271. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 6, 2015 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, again. why complain about Protestants? We said we were imperfect. If you’re going to swagger about Rome, we’re supposed to bow and say, “you betcha.”

    We all limp. (But the point of being Roman Catholic is kicking away the crutches, right?)>>>

    You are interested in only one aspect of Catholic teaching on sexuality – the celibate priesthood. You jump on that because you think you win there. Are you making an argument against celibacy or for marriage? I don’t see you doing either. What is your point?

    So, your defense of your beloved religion boils down to “we all limp”? What kind of a defense is that for the system that Calvin invented? He certainly didn’t think he had a limp as far as the truth of the Gospel goes.

    It looks to me like the main point of your religion is to oppose all things Catholic, but not necessarily to offer a coherent alternative.

    D.G. Hart:
    Mermaid, no one claimed that Protestants has a “coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality.” >>>>

    Exactly. Protestants do not have a coherent theology and philosophy of sexuality. Catholicism does.

    That is one of the things that I found attractive in Catholicism, but for you, it seems to be irrelevant. I suggest that is part of why Protestantism is in the state it is in. Maybe that lack of coherency in this area of sexuality is why main stream Protestants not only caved to same sex marriage, but also embraced it.

    Like

  1272. mtx, how do you know that? Do we have a good historical account of Moses and Israel apart from Scripture? What about Jesus? What Roman historians were doing church history?

    Looks to me like if we know Jesus and God’s plan of salvation, it only comes from Scripture.

    Like

  1274. Jeff,
    Really sorry I missed this post of yours the other day. You posted:

    Jeff Cagle
    Posted July 5, 2015 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
    MTX: Bring scripture forward that teaches to ignore apostolic handed down teaching from someone like Timothy that can’t be ascertained by scripture alone and I will be proved wrong.

    Can you give an example of such teaching? One of the major issues I’ve had with the Catholic truth claims is that there is a lack of chain-of-evidence tying any oral traditions back to Paul via Timothy.

    I’m sure there are easily more than these but these are obvious and essential to a Catholic understanding of the faith. Ok, how about episcopal form of church governance, apostolic succession and communion with the local church lead by Peter. Paul appointed Timothy to teach and lead in the Church and Timothy followed that “tradition” teaching others to do the same. This “tradition” was followed after him. Paul was in communion with all the other Church leaders(bishops), including Peter. Timothy practiced the same. Until 1054AD that “tradition” held in Ephesus. Timothy acted in a episcopal church governance teaching way and taught others this was right. This “tradition” is followed in Ephesus to this day The Greek Patriarchates of Ephesus have taught and held all of these as truths of the faith until they dropped communion with the See of Peter in 1054AD in the Great Schism. Paul’s Timothy was the first passer of “traditions” at the Church See at Ephesus. Here is their bishops list:

    Hierarchical Succession of the Patriarchal See of Ephesus
    Bishops of the Apostolic Throne
    1. Apostle St. Timothy (65-80?) circa 80-95
    2. Apostle St. Onesimus (80?-97?) circa 95-97
    3. Apostle St. Gaius (??-??)
    4. Apostle and Evangelist St. John The Theologian (65?-100?) circa 98-117 A.D.
    5. St. Polycarp of Smyrna (100?-156)
    6. St. Thraseas of Eumenia (156-160)
    7. St. Sagarius of Laodicea (160-167)
    8. St. Papirius of Smyrna (167-170)
    9. St. Melito I of Sardis (170-180)
    10. St. Polycrates of Ephesus (180-200)
    11. St. Apollonius of Ephesus (200-210)
    12. Camerius of Smyrna (210-220)
    13. Eudaemon of Smyrna (220-250)
    14. Unknown (250-260)
    15. Unknown (260-298)
    16. Pluinos of Ephesus (298-???)
    17. Menophantes of Ephesus (???-???)

    Patriarchate of Ephesus
    18. Evethius (367-382)
    19. Antoninus (382-400)
    20. Heraclides (400-403)
    21. Castinus (403-428)
    22. St. Memnon (428-440)
    23. Basil I (440-444)
    24. Bassian (444-447)
    25. Stephen I (447-451)
    26. John II (451-475)
    27. Paul (475-513)
    28. Aetherius (513-531)
    29. Hypatius I (531-542)
    30. Andrew (542-553)
    31. Procopius (553)
    32. St. Abraham (553-558)
    33. John III (558-586)
    34. Rufinus (586-604)
    35. St.Theodore I (604-???)
    36. Stephen II (???-???)
    37. St. Hypatius II (???-735)
    38. Theodosius (735-???)
    39. John IV (???-???)
    40. St. Theophilus (???-???) Circa 824.
    41. Mark I (???-???) Circa 833
    42. Basil II (???-???)
    43. Gregory (???-???) Circa 880
    44. Cyriacus (???-???)
    45. Theodore II (???-???)
    46. Nicephorus I (???-???)
    47. Unknown (???-1078)
    48. Michael (I) Parapenakios(1078-1090)
    49. John V (1090-1155)
    50. George (1155-1156)
    See Vacant (1156-1157)
    51. Nicholas I (1157-1213)
    52. Nicholas II (1213-1224)
    53. Monasteriotes (1224-????)
    54. Nicephorus II (????-1260)
    55. Isaac (1260-1288)
    56. John VI (1288-????)
    57. Myron (????-????)
    58. Michael II (????-????) Circa 1205
    59. St. Theoliptos of Philadelphia (????-1332)
    See Vacant (1332-1353)
    60. Makarios (I) Chrysokephalos of Philadelphia (1353-1382)
    61. Matthew (1382- ????)
    62. Joseph (????-????)
    63. Joasaph (????-1438)
    64. St. Mark (II) Evgenikos (1438-1444)
    65. Metrophanes (1444-????)
    See Vacant (????-????)
    66. Daniel (????-????)
    67. St. Solomon? (????-1575)

    Patriarchate of Philadelphia in Venice
    68. Gabriel (1575-1618)
    69. Theophanes (????-????)
    70. Gerasimos (????-1657)
    71. St. Demetrios (????-1657)
    72. Athanasius I (1657-1685)
    73. Meletios (1685-1716)
    74. Makarios II (1716-????) circa 1721

    Patriarchate of Smyrna
    75. St. Dionysios (I) of Smyrna (????-1763)
    76. Unknown (1763-1768) Returned to Venice
    77. Athanasius II (1768-1772)
    78. Methodios (1772-1789)
    79. Sophronios (1789-1797)

    Patriarchate of Ephesus
    80. Anthimus I (1797-????)
    81. St. Dionysios II (????-1818)
    82. Benedict (1818-1822)
    83. Paisius I (1822-1827) Last Patriarch in Venice
    84. Cyril (1827-1829)
    85. Hierotheos (1829-1831)
    86. Seraphim (1831-1833)
    87. Chrysantus I (1833-1837)
    88. Paisius II (1833-1840)
    89. Chysantus (1840)
    90. Athanasius III (1841-1850)
    91. Anthimus II (1851-1853)
    92. Paisius III (1853-1857)
    93. Chrysantus II (1857-1869)
    94. Melito II (1869-1883)
    95. Constantine (1883-1897)
    96. Joachim (1897-1920)
    97. Eusebius (1920-1922)
    98. St. Chrysostomos I (1922-1924)
    99. Callinius (1924-1926)
    100. Alexander (1926-1932)
    101. Agathangelos (1932-1935)
    102. Stephen III (1935-1948)
    103. Maximos (1948-1972)
    104. Basil III (1972-????)
    105. Athanasius IV (????-????)
    106. Luke (????-1991)
    107. Chrysostomos II (1991-2006)
    See Vacant (2006-2008)
    108. Abel (2008-

    Like

  1275. Mermaid, Wendell Berry has a coherent view of sex and marriage. He’s not Roman Catholic. Not sure Christ died for a coherent philosophy of sexual relations.

    Just look around Old Life. You’ll find that sex is the least of my objections.

    Like

  1276. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, where’s your courage now?

    Discretion is the better part of valor, Butch. Esp since Old Life plays dirty. ;/-)

    Like

  1277. Hart,
    mtx, how do you know that? Do we have a good historical account of Moses and Israel apart from Scripture? What about Jesus? What Roman historians were doing church history?

    Looks to me like if we know Jesus and God’s plan of salvation, it only comes from Scripture.

    The Scripture definately do witness to that and it does it inerrantly, but so does the fact that that there are Isaelites that were born of the Israel of Issac of Abraham of Terah of Nahor of Serug of Re’e of Peleg of Eber of Shelah of Cainan of Arphaxad of Shem of Noah of Lamech of Jared of Mahalaleel of Cainan of Enos of Seth of Adam of God. In like manner I can lay out a line of holders of the See of Peter and other Sees that witness to the existence of a covenant community that existed in covenant with God that was not dependent on being of Israel by the flesh but according to the Spirit, because this dividing wall between the gentile and the OT covenant people was removed in the New Covenant. It is these groups that believe believed God’s promises and recieve the inerrant Scriptures and witness to them in the world. The unbelieving Jews have not become part of the New Covenant and recieved the fullness of the Word which the New Covenant community have recieved. You personally reject seven books yourself in the eyes of the covenant community, but that is better than rejecting 34. At least you believe in repent and be baptized into Christ. Hart, can you admit people were baptized before the NT Scripture were written?

    Like

  1278. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm | Permalink
    Mermaid, Wendell Berry has a coherent view of sex and marriage. He’s not Roman Catholic. Not sure Christ died for a coherent philosophy of sexual relations.

    Just look around Old Life. You’ll find that sex is the least of my objections.>>>>>

    Christ died to redeem lost and sinful mankind, male and female, made in the image of God. He has a coherent philosophy and theology of sex – which is much more than sexual relations, but of course it is also about sexual relations.

    In fact, read Ephesians 5. Christian marriage is one of the ways that the Gospel is preached.

    The Church is the Bride of Christ, and He is her Bridegroom.

    The Church is feminine.

    Protestantism does not have a coherent philosophy and theology of what it means to be male and female made in the image of God. It’s not really something Protestants even think about much. Complementarianism is pretty good, but it doesn’t really take into account what motherhood means.

    …but that doesn’t interest you. It does me, and that is one of the main reasons I joined the Catholic Church.

    Have a good evening, Brother Hart.

    Like

  1279. Boasting of the superior sexuality of RC? That’s closer to distasteful stand-up comedy than it is is an argument.

    Like

  1280. Mrs. Webfoot
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Protestantism does not have a coherent philosophy and theology of what it means to be male and female made in the image of God. It’s not really something Protestants even think about much. Complementarianism is pretty good, but it doesn’t really take into account what motherhood means.

    …but that doesn’t interest you. It does me, and that is one of the main reasons I joined the Catholic Church.

    Have a good evening, Brother Hart.

    “Christian historian” John Fea, a gentleperson of Darryl’s acquaintance–joining leftist hack Randall Ballmer–thinks even Evangelical Protestantism will soon melt before the culture and go gay.

    http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2015/07/when-did-divorce-become-acceptable-in.html

    If so, soon the Vatican will be the only thing between the shrinking numbers of “orthodox” [and anti-Catholic] Protestants like Darryl [and nominal, liberal Catholics as well!] and Christianity going completely gay. The Reformation in particular, though, will be quite a hollow victory if it’s the vehicle that FUBARs Biblical morality. American Catholics may be ignoring their pope and bishops by joining the Gay Pride parades, but entire Protestant denominations are leading them!

    Wish I’d see you at places like Fea’s, Darryl, although neither of you pose any threat to the leftist hegemony in scholarly establishment. Hacks like Randall Ballmer enjoy free rein. [Reign!]

    [John was going to write a book on Presbyterians and the American Revolution. Oh, what fun we all could have had together!]

    Like

  1281. Muddy Gravel
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 11:12 pm | Permalink
    Boasting of the superior sexuality of RC? That’s closer to distasteful stand-up comedy than it is is an argument.

    Don’t, Muddy. Don’t.

    Like

  1282. TVD,
    I know the beauty of the Catholic vision of marriage and sexuality, but Muddy has a point. Sin is a terrible witness. Ask Pope St. Pius V. “All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.”
    Or Pope St. Pius X. “All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.”[4]

    Like

  1283. MichaelTX
    Posted July 7, 2015 at 11:38 pm | Permalink
    TVD,
    I know the beauty of the Catholic vision of marriage and sexuality, but Muddy has a point. Sin is a terrible witness. Ask Pope St. Pius V. “All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.”
    Or Pope St. Pius X. “All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.”[4]

    Cannot agree more. The thing that the Old Life “remnant” of the Reformation don’t understand is that I admire them as whatever’s left of Christianity. Of Biblical Christianity! I talk to your surrogates only to talk to you, Darryl. They follow your lead.

    In America, the Catholic vote is split 50/50. This was always a Protestant nation. That’s where you come in, Butch.

    The Vatican will never give in on divorce, or on gay marriage. “Protestantism” gave in on the first, and is now giving in on the second. Come out of your bunker, DGH. John Fea, a good man and a good historian, has already given comfort if not aid to the enemy.

    I am not sure what will happen to evangelical views on same-sex marriage. Many evangelicals leaders have already accepted it. Most have not.

    But if history is any indication, evangelicals WILL accommodate to the prevailing winds of American culture. They always do.

    As a putative “honest broker,” John just gave that leftist hack Randall Balmer [a major figure in American religious studies] some serious back. Perhaps you agree American evangelicalism is as weak and as damned as the Protestant mainline, but you should at least admit it, perhaps do a commercial for your own remnant of the True Christian Faith.

    I’ll get your back on that, if you dare rise from your torpor. Stuff’s been going down, Dr. Hart. Stop gnawing at First Things’ ankles and get in the real game, go after the real frauds.

    http://usreligion.blogspot.com/

    Like

  1284. mtx, I can admit to a lot of things. But your knowledge of the succession of popes is not Scripture.

    Why does this always happen? Protestants bring up sola Scriptura and Roman Catholics always make claims that suggest the magisterium function the way the apostles did.

    The bishops aren’t the apostles. Get over it.

    But if you still think they are, boy are you in for a disappointment.

    Like

  1286. vd, t, do your friends in Hollywood your views on gay marriage?

    I’ve taken on Balmer in Graham/Palin:

    Balmer’s evidence for demythologizing the Religious Right is his own encounter with Paul M. Weyrich at a seminar sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. (Perhaps to maintain credibility with his liberal friends and peers Balmer explains that attended this seminar “for reasons I still don’t entirely understand” and insists that he “didn’t realize it at the time” that Ethics and Public Policy was “a Religious Right organization.) At this meeting Weyrich lectured other leaders of the Religious Right that the pivotal event in animating evangelicals politically was the Internal Revenue Service’s decision to rescind Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status on grounds that its student policies were racially discriminatory. Ed Dobson, an associate of Jerry Falwell, later confirmed Weyrich’s history. According to Balmer, Dobson said that “the Religious New Right did not start because of a concern about abortion.” “I sat in a non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority,” Dobson added, “and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something.” Such admissions lead Balmer to conclude that the “abortion myth” is simply a fiction that attributes “noble and altruistic motives” to the formation of the Religious Right when in fact its leaders entered the political arena to protect the tax-exempt status of segregated schools. He argues that linking the anti-abortion movement to the abolitionist crusade is particularly disingenuous. The Religious Right “has no legitimate claim to the mantle of the abolitionist crusaders.” Unlike the abolitionists who, according to Balmer, forged “a moral consensus against the abomination of slavery,” the Religious Right did just the opposite — they concentrated their efforts “on legal redress rather than [working] to alter the moral climate that would diminish the demand for abortion.”

    Balmer’s reading of abortion is as uncharitable (by Christ-like criteria) to fellow evangelicals as it is toward American history. For starters, Balmer does not exactly get right the way that slavery ended in America. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery by executive fiat during a war that revealed precisely a moral consensus on slavery had yet to emerge in the American public. Abolitionists were not exactly pleased by Lincoln’s willingness to tolerate slavery to preserve the Union. But his misreading of the nineteenth century is not nearly as brazen as his attribution of mixed if not duplicitous motives to the Religious Right. Balmer admits that abortion is “lamentable” but thinks, as a “libertarian,” that it is a “choice made by the individual and her conscience, not by the state.” He also concedes that the Democrats have “botched the abortion issue,” elevating it “to an intrinsic entitlement and . . . have refused to acknowledge the moral implications of abortion itself.” Still, Balmer does not stop to let his own devotion to Jesus and the Bible point toward a properly Christian position about abortion. His purpose is not to demonstrate what loving Jesus would mean for contemporary American politics. It is apparently to discredit the faithful who followed Jerry Falwell and Karl Rove. Balmer uses one piece of the story about how evangelicals embraced the abortion issue to show that “Political movements and politicians who seek to clothe themselves in the mantle of religious legitimacy invariably fall prey to self-righteousness, intolerance, and fanaticism.” For some reason — perhaps one spelled out by Christ himself when he taught about the problem of removing a speck in an adversary’s vision while having a log in one’s own eye — Balmer fails to notice that he, like the abolitionists, was exhibiting his own brand of self-righteousness.

    The remarkable incongruity between Balmer’s professed love for Jesus and disdain for the Religious Right is explicit in the conclusion of The Kingdom Come. He is unwilling to take prisoners and is relentless in trying to demonstrate how feckless born-again Protestants are in siding with George W. Bush. The legacy of the Religious Right’s alliance with the Republican Party for Balmer is as obvious as it is ugly:

    . . . the purpose of all this grasping for power looks something like this: an expansion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the continued prosecution of a war in the Middle East that has enraged our longtime allies and would not meet even the barest of just-war criteria, and a rejigging of Social Security, the effect of which, most observers agree, would be to fray the social safety net for the poorest among us. . . . Indeed, the chicanery, the bullying, and the flouting of the rule of law that emanates from the nation’s capital these days make Richard Nixon look like a fraternity prankster.

    Balmer surely has a point but no sense of politics involving compromise much less patience for wayward fellow travelers. In fact, the same sort of moral idealism that Balmer uses to skewer the Right was exactly the perspective that allowed leaders such as Falwell and Robertson to denounce Democrats or secular humanists. Why a sophisticated New York academic who is a priest in the Episcopal Church would not see that he is engaging in rhetorical arguments characteristic of the Moral Majority is a puzzle.

    The solution could be that evangelicals, whether on the left or the right, bring a Sunday school mindset to the public square. Balmer himself invokes the lessons of his childhood lessons at church. He admits that he has a pin indicating his perfect attendance at Sunday school but thinks he missed the lesson about the followers of Jesus being “obliged to secure even greater economic advantages for th affluent, to deny those Jesus called ‘the least of these’ a living wage, and to despoil the environment by sacrificing it on the altar of free enterprise. I missed the lesson telling me that I should turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, even those designated as my enemies.” Yet, Balmer was apparently present for all the Sunday school classes that taught that civil magistrates pursue the same morality in secular society as God requires in the church. Despite Israel’s theocratic ways and holy wars in Palestine, the Old Testament for Balmer becomes a model of tolerance and compassion. Despite the New Testament’s clear instruction about male ordination, for Balmer it reads like a primer on egalitarianism. In fact, the entire Bible, an ancient book that has little explicit political theory and much teaching about the consequences of sin and the promise of eternal life, becomes in Balmer’s hands a textbook on liberal democratic politics. Ironically, Balmer is proof that the evangelical left can thump the Bible just as loudly as the Religious Right when marching into the public square.

    I stick my neck out. You?

    Like

  1287. “The Vatican will never give in on divorce, or on gay marriage.”

    That’s right. It will “develop” on divorce and homosexuality.

    Like

  1288. DG Hart– “born-again Protestants show no more capacity to think conservatively than they did in the age of Billy Graham’s greatest popularity. They do not know how to yell “stop” to the engines of modernity the way conservatives typically have. They have not learned to be wary of concentrations of power and wealth, frustrated with mass society and popular culture’s distraction from “permanent things,” or skeptical about any humanitarian plan to end human misery. Instead, evangelicals are more likely to support political plans to improve society, grow the economy, and expand the United States’ global presence as long as doctors are not performing abortions and ministers are not presiding over the marriage of gay couples.”

    http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/webexclusives/2011/november/sarahpalin.html?paging=off

    Like

  1289. “God rules the church (the spiritual kingdom) as redeemer in Jesus Christ and rules the state and all other social institutions (the civil kingdom) as creator and sustainer.”

    Since Jesus Christ is God and both creator and redeemer, I reject the distinction, as does Craig Cartner—“John Yoder critiqued the doctrine of the Trinity with which Niebuhr worked. Noting the important rhetorical role played by Niebuhr’s appeal to this doctrine, Yoder suggests that Niebuhr’s use of this doctrine needs to be tested biblically and with reference to the history of dogma. Niebuhr used this doctrine to support his view that the radical and uncompromising ethics of Christ needs to be supplemented and corrected by the more conservative ethics of the Father as revealed in creation and the more flexible ethics of the Spirit as revealed in the historical community of the church. ”

    Carter—“Yet this use of the doctrine of the Trinity does not conform to the New Testament witness where the Jesus tells his disciples that the Spirit will be sent by the Father in his name in order to remind them of what he has said to them (John 14:26). The unity of the witness of Father and Son and Holy Spirit is the point of Nicene orthodoxy. Niebuhr’s position is more in keeping with Sabellianism (or Modalism), which was considered and decisively rejected by the early church.

    Carter– By focusing on the persons of the Trinity one at a time, modalism allows for a distinguishing of different social ethics as expressed by the three persons of the Godhead. Orthodox Trinitarian theology, reflecting the concerns of the biblical narrative, stresses that all three persons are involved in the special work of each and thus makes it impossible to play one off against the other. If Yoder is right, the whole theological foundation of Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture is severely undermined.

    https://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july03carter.html

    Like

  1290. Hart,
    I did not say the bishops were the same as the Apostles. Anyway, if you are willing to admit people were baptized before the NT Scriptures, you know there was a New Covenant Church into which they were baptized before the NT Scriptures were written. Are you willing to admit these baptized believers must have believed the Gospel by Apostolic oral tradition that did not contradict the OT Scriptures, even if it wasn’t from an Apostle(like those that someone like Timothy would have taught)?

    Like

  1291. For those interested in SCOTUS history, Scalia said the following in his 2003 dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:

    Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid. Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

    Like

  1292. mtx, the implication of the RC position on authority is to elevate tradition to the status of Scripture. Plenty of popes had no objection to taking advantage of that implication.

    The baptized believers to which you refer came after Scripture, after the apostles wrote, or while the apostles were still around. Scripture, the teachings of the prophets and the apostles, came before the church. It’s really quite simple historically.

    And the people who believed believed the gospel proclaimed by the apostles. They didn’t have to wait for the formation of the canon to know what they believed. The letters and gospels circulated in the church.

    Why emphasize oral tradition? You know what happens when you whisper one thing to someone what happens to that message when it goes all the way around the room. So now you want to tell me that oral tradition is a good way for preserving the truth? More like it’s a good way of holding on to church office power.

    Like

  1293. So now you want to tell me that oral tradition is a good way for preserving the truth

    Absolutely it is. Your example was memorization of a banal phrase. When we are talking the teaching / handing down of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, which is enabled (determined) by the grace of God, I think oral tradition is quite strong.

    Also, the Church was born on the Cross (water and blood) in Christ’s self-sacrifice for our salvation. There were no epistles or written gospels for quite some time afterward.

    Why should the Church depend more on what Paul wrote than what he preached? It seems to me a hundred times as many must have heard him preach as ever read his letters, or heard them re-read. The man really made his way around, and he wasn’t the only one at work.

    Further, we don’t even have all of his letters. What we know is that he passed on the faith, lips to ear.

    Like

  1294. Hart, if you will not admit that people were baptized into the Church before the NT Scriptures were written then the Scriptures witness against you. Peter called out on Pentacost to repent and be baptized and more than three thousand were baptized that day. That is active oral Tradition. The Ethiopean eunich recieved oral Tradition from the Philip and believe and was baptized. I’m not trying to put oral tradition over Scripture. I am tryin to get you to admit a historic fact that the New Covenant people, the Church, operated completely without the NT Scriptures at one point and the innerantly Scriptures you and I both believe in prove that for us. Can you admit that?

    Like

  1296. “Why should the Church depend more on what Paul wrote than what he preached?”

    Doctrine aside, civil courts are wiser than RC with its oral tradition. Ever heard of the “hearsay” rule? What he said is inherently less reliable than what he wrote. “What he said” is liable to be the basis of all kinds of gross superstitions. And no doubt has been.

    Like

  1297. “I am tryin to get you to admit a historic fact that the New Covenant people, the Church, operated completely without the NT Scriptures at one point and the innerantly Scriptures you and I both believe in prove that for us. Can you admit that?”

    Scripture tells us early believers used the Scripture to judge the apostolic witness.

    Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
    Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

    Like

  1298. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 6:31 am | Permalink
    vd, t, do your friends in Hollywood your views on gay marriage?

    I’ve taken on Balmer in Graham/Palin:

    As for Hollywood, the real danger to me is in the legal profession, which leans quite left, and yes, I’ve left an internet trail enough that I wonder sometimes if it affects my income.

    How brave to take on a lefty in a book in which you attack the religious right, with no more than a tu quoque. Does Balmer even know you did? Mostly, you agreed with him.

    Like

  1299. Bruce,
    Quite agreed with you over here. The Gospel is definately not in contradict to the OT Scriptures and the Bereans should be commended for testing the Apostles message for not contradicting that OT witness. The point I am having trouble getting Hart admitting is that the Gospel was not completely contained in those OT Scriptures and the Bereans along with the early Church believers would have believed the Gospel not by a Sola Scriptura paradigm, but by looking to the OT Scriptues to recieve the Apostolic witness (orally, as in their tradition) of the Gospel and baptized people into the Church. They preached and believers believed Tradition before any of that Tradition was inscripturated.

    Like

  1300. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 6:35 am | Permalink
    “The Vatican will never give in on divorce, or on gay marriage.”

    That’s right. It will “develop” on divorce and homosexuality.

    Like much of “Protestantism” already has, you mean, in direct contradiction of the scriptures.

    As usual, you throw rocks at the wrong side of the Tiber, condemning it for what it hasn’t done, while ignoring what your side of it already has.

    Amazing mind you have there, Butch, just bloody amazing.

    Like

  1302. There was an oral tradition at the time of Christ and the apostles. They both denounced it and pointed to the scriptures. If your precedent is the Pharisees you might want to re-think your position.

    Like

  1303. The Pharisees and other Jewish leaders tried to lead people from Christ, succeeded adequately to have Him executed, and expelled Christians from the synagogues. Sounds to me like they abused their offices as religious leaders and were traitors to both the OT and their oral tradition.

    An oral tradition, like any tradition (written, musical, artistic, legal, philosophical, histoorical) can be based on falsity or truth. Christ is recorded as condemning false traditions, such as the Pharisees’ misinterpretation of Judaism (which He fulfilled).

    Human language can be written or spoken- I fail to see the essential difference with relation to God. Should we have communal penning of the Our Father on Sundays?

    Like

  1304. Christ gave oral instructions, he did not issue written memoranda. He is only recorded as having written one word or short phrase in the entire NT (with a stick, in the dirt)- and no one saw fit to copy it down.

    For someone who lived on Earth such a relatively short time, isn’t it notable he spent it preaching, teaching, conversing?

    Like

  1305. Kevin, you don’t see how fallen people might be able to use something oral to their advantage? That’s sure how the Eastern Church viewed Rome.

    Like

  1309. @ MTX: No problem. It’s a madhouse at OLTS lately.

    I had asked you for an example of an oral tradition that we know originated with Paul.

    Your response was “Ok, how about episcopal form of church governance, apostolic succession and communion with the local church lead by Peter. Paul appointed Timothy to teach and lead in the Church and Timothy followed that “tradition” teaching others to do the same.”

    Thence followed a list of bishops.

    I’m not sure if this was an example of an oral teaching that goes back to Paul, or corroborating evidence that there is a lineage from Timothy onward?

    Are you saying that the succession itself is an example of an oral teaching, or are you saying that the succession provides a possible path for oral teachings to be transmitted?

    Like

  1310. Muddy,

    “There was an oral tradition at the time of Christ and the apostles. They both denounced it and pointed to the scriptures. If your precedent is the Pharisees you might want to re-think your position.”

    Christ and the apostles denounced *all* oral tradition?

    Like

  1311. vd, t, if Garry Wills doesn’t represent Roman Catholicism, then PCUSA doesn’t represent Presbyterianism.

    Try amazing your own mind.

    Like

  1312. @ Cletus: Jesus denounced binding the conscience to the traditions of men.

    If one could produce oral traditions that were very clearly from God Himself, then it would be one thing…

    Like

  1313. DG- people use written traditions to their advantage all the time. Lawyers argue words mean something other than what the writer will profess he meant. These lawyers often win.

    Can you point me to what you’re referring to w/r/t the Eastern Church?

    It’s worth noting Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus were proponents of the papacy. For nearly two centuries following Mohammed, most popes were Greek or Syrian. They greatly contributed to the understanding of the papacy with their superior educations and closer ties to all of Mediterranean culture (a.k.a. “culture”).

    Like

  1314. Muddy,
    Christ denounced manmade tradition that contradict the Word of God. I denounce that to, which is why I am trying to get Hart to see he has a manmade tradition that is contradicted by the Word of God. The Bereans did not reject the oral tradition of the Apostles citing Sola Scriptura. They recieved Apostolic tradition because they were moved by the Spirit and there was no contradiction with the OT Scriptures. Be baptized into Christ was nowhere in the OT Scriptures. This was an oral tradition before members of the Church could read about it and believe. It was preached.

    Like

  1315. MTX,
    Anytime an OT prophet spoke, that spoken word was to be judged by the standard of “it is written.” Dt.13:1-3; Is.8:20; cf. Gal.1:8.

    The apostles’ witness is nothing but the capstone of the promissory word, the word of fulfillment. You can’t drive a wedge between the supremacy of the written Word in the OT, and some other form of supremacy under NT conditions. Jesus condemned those in the “authoritatively interpretive” seat of Moses, demanding their answer: “Have ye not read…?”

    How do you know what the apostolic tradition is? It is preserved for us in written form. Peter declares that this written form is superior to even his immediate experience of audible words out of heaven (2Pet.1:19), since the experience itself could not be captured and passed on. He is about to die, but the inscripturated prophetic Word will remain.

    The RCC claim to preserve additional Tradition besides what the Bible contains is specious. It is self-serving. It is viciously circular. And, given how often it contradicts the plain teaching of the apostles, it’s just a lie.

    Ezk.13:6 “They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.”

    Like

  1316. ,i>D. G. Hart
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, if Garry Wills doesn’t represent Roman Catholicism, then PCUSA doesn’t represent Presbyterianism.

    Try amazing your own mind.

    You don’t see the difference between one individual Catholic dissident and a 1.8 million-member church, the largest Presbyterian church in America, giving official blessing to gay marriage?

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Lesbian-Couple-Ordained-Jointly-in-Presbyterian-Church-Delaware-297184461.html

    Of course you do. Even your biggest fans aren’t buying this disingenuousness, Butch. You insult your own intelligence by insulting theirs.

    Like

  1317. Bruce,

    SS could not have been the operative rule of faith in the OT or NT just by definition. Even your own side admits as much – James White: “You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation – that is, when new revelation was being given – sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?”

    “How do you know what the apostolic tradition is?”

    From Scriptural witness as well as the witness of the common life and practice of the universal church handed down the generations.

    Jeff,

    “Jesus denounced binding the conscience to the traditions of men.”

    Right so is all tradition the traditions of men? If not, was there tradition that is not traditions of men that is binding that Christ and the Apostles did not denounce?

    “If one could produce oral traditions that were very clearly from God Himself”

    There are countless teachings from Tradition, with varying degree of accompanying witness in Scripture. Three such teachings include the recognized canon and its inspiration/inerrancy, and that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and the rule of faith is comprised of the STM-triad. Other such teachings would include things like infant baptism and the eucharist. And so on.

    Like

  1318. Kevin, It’s all over but here’s one moderate source:

    Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ’s twelve apostles. The Church built its identity on them as witnesses, and responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter.[11] In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly commissioned to “bind and loose”; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10). It is thus possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter’s ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles. In addition, the New Testament does not contain an explicit record of the transmission of Peter’s leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general, very clear. As a result, the Petrine texts of the New Testament have been subjected to differing interpretations from the time of the Church Fathers on. Many theologians regard Roman “primacy” as having developed gradually in the West due to the convergence of a number of factors, e.g., the dignity of Rome as the only apostolic Church in the West; the tradition that both Peter and Paul had been martyred there; Rome’s long history as a capital of the Roman empire; and its continuing position as the chief centre of commerce and communication.[12] This view, however, does not necessarily consider the primacy of the bishop of Rome as contrary to the New Testament. It is possible to accept the primacy of Rome in a qualified way as part of God’s purpose regarding the Church’s unity and catholicity even while admitting that New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for it.[13] Whether or not Peter’s role can be transmitted in its totality, it would not exclude the analogical continuation of his ministry of unity, guided by the Spirit, among those who continue the apostolic mission. This “Petrine function” is necessary for the unity and catholicity of the Church. It may be executed by the pope, as Vatican I suggests, in consultation with but not independently from the bishops of God’s Church.

    Like

  1319. The Eastern Orthodox, even according to the Vatican, possess the real apostolic priesthood, the real Eucharist, and all the other sacraments. Protestants should ask how their version of Christianity got so radically different, and by what authority.

    Like

  1320. DG –

    “Moderate” -? ~That’s more than many of the German Bishops will concede.~

    Thanks – and I do acknowledge that oral tradition can be abused. I’m not at all sure it can be abused more easily than written documents, though – I think people hold to truths more firmly when they are lodged in the memory and heart via oral tradition, than they do when armed with a mass of documents they may or may not have a good understanding of.

    If anything, many who at least purport to be experts on the Bible seem more willing than the less erudite faithful to entertain propositions which are at variance to the faith. Experts with a command of the written tradition can be (although needn’t be) a real danger to the faith.

    You want to talk about developing sense of tragedy, look at religious scholarship and the trickle-down to how the faith is understood in the pews Sundays.

    Like

  1321. Bruce,
    The written Word is most definately good for correction, rebuke, exhortation, training in righteousness and should always be believed. [2 Tim and many other places] The verses you cite though do not teach that a prophet or teacher can only teach as doctrine what comes from the written Word. Was there not a covenant people before Dueteronomy was written just like there was Apostles preaching the Gospel before it was inscripturated. I have been pointing Hart to the Scripture for correction. Basically using the “have you not read” formula. That doesn’t mean I believe in Sola Scripture and if the Scriptures taught it, I would be corrected by them. They don’t teach it though.

    Deuteronomy 13:1–3
    If there arise among you a prophet, or a adreamer of dreams, band giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And cthe sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God dproveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

    Amen. Let us remember. That the Catholic Church held the councils that confirmed all the Christology which we all believe and condemns the worship of any other gods than the one Trinity. (Just so it doesn’t come up this Includes the worship of Mary. Condemned with an anathema in a ecumenical council.)

    Isaiah 8:20
    20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    “According to” means it can’t contradict it. Not doctine has to all come from it.

    Galatians 1:8

    8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

    Agreed. This does not change the fact that the Gospel was being preached before Gal. 1:8 was written. It was not derived from the OT Scripture. It was in accord with it. It did not contradict it (like Isaiah speaks) and was the fulfillment of what the world had been promised since even before the Scriptures were written. [Gen 3:15] “15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Is this verse not inspired by the Spirit and written by Moses long after this covenant promise was made? The Israelite believed the Tradition written down in Genesis before it was written. It was their history. The New Covenant Kahal believed the history in the Gospels before they were written. We believe because they believed and many died for those beliefs. Some surely before any NT Scriptures were written, Steven.

    Like

  1322. Jeff,
    Are you saying that the succession itself is an example of an oral teaching, or are you saying that the succession provides a possible path for oral teachings to be transmitted?

    I am saying succession itself is a good example of tradition. Doesn’t have to be oral. Though I’m sure it was. It was practiced tradition. Paul appointed Timothy. Timothy did the same. Others followed that tradition. Episcopal structure was another. It was a tradition kept in Ephesus where Timothy was the first teacher/overseer(bishop). This is why I included the list. This show the tradition was believed and passed down. So I guess my answer is also “succession provides a possible path” for tradition to be know as well. One of those both/and things.

    Like

  1323. CVD,
    “SS could not have been the operative rule of faith in the OT or NT just by definition. Even your own side admits as much…”

    And your point is? The prophets and apostles do not distinguish between previously recorded Scripture, and their own inspired utterance, e.g. 2Pet.3:16. Jesus said that his sheep recognize his Voice, Jn.10:27. Jesus said to his apostles, “He that heareth you heareth me,” Lk.10:16. What was said of Abel is no less true of the apostles: “He being dead yet speaketh,” Heb.11:4. How so? From the Word. Alone.

    Nay? But also by the church? And do you admit of implicit faith as well? Is.8:20, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Now the perfect has come, and new revelations of prophecy have ceased, 1Cor.13:8,10. Come, let us reason together; he who has ears, let him hear; the word of God discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    Scripture is the norming norm. It judges the prophets, and the apostles. Or it also sits in judgment of those who presume to continue to speak in the name of God–whether Patristic exegetes, or Protestant preachers claiming to rehearse what has previously been said from the page; or Popish prelates claiming to possess a secret deposit of revelation.

    Bruce: “How do you know what the apostolic tradition is?”
    CVD: “From Scriptural witness as well as the witness of the common life and practice of the universal church handed down the generations.”

    Except, the witness/common life/practice is inconsistent with itself, and frequently contradictory of Scripture. So, you’d like it if the elements of the Tradition the Magisterium (currently) thinks is reliable and non-contradictory of Scripture were, in fact, the best bits. And how does the Magisterium discriminate? It selects for supporting material–supportive of its predispositions.

    The RCC is irreformable. Trent settled that question. Therefore, the Bible cannot correct the failures of the Magisterium, by definition–because there can’t be failures of the Magisterium. So says the Magisterium.

    The duty to choose an infallible Source belongs to all. By your own fallible reasoning, you have chosen Rome’s claims of infallible Interpretation. You should choose the Shepherd himself; “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine” Jn.10:14. Rome is a whited sepulcher; a stranger’s voice calls therefrom. “And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” Jn.10:5.

    Away with misplaced trust! Believe in Him, not his fallible followers, no matter what their pedigree. Don’t let it be said of you, Jn.10:26 “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.”

    Like

  1324. Hart,
    Yes! I am relying on the text of Scripture to prove that there is or at least was true oral Tradition. I have admitted this already. I believe what the Scriptures teach. The Church teaches the same thing as the Scriptures teach, that there is Tradition from the Apostles and that it is absolutely true and the Scriptures prove that and the Scripture contain that. Here is what I said to you about 8 posts ago. “Simon being named Peter and the rock happned in the history. We use the innerant Scriptures To witness to that reality. The conversation Jesus had with Peter about him strengthening his brothers once he had got back on track. The Scripture are a witness to the reality of the things in history.” I use the Scripture to witness to reality. One of those realities is that at one point there were no NT Scriptures and the Church operated completely on Tradition that did not contradict the OT Scriptures to believe the Gospel. I have admitted my dependence on the Scriptures to confirm that there was oral Tradition before those NT Scriptures were written. Now can you admit this occurred this way in history? I’m not saying you have to believe God intends on you believing the traditions taught by the Catholic Church. Just admit the NT Scriptures prove that the Church at one time operated completely on Tradition that did not contradict the OT Scriptures. Can you do that now?

    Like

  1325. Bruce,

    “Scripture is the norming norm. It judges the prophets, and the apostles.”

    How could Scripture judge the prophets and the apostles that were writing Scripture itself? That was White’s point. Everyone agrees the prophets and apostles did not *contradict* previous Scripture, but that doesn’t get you to SS.

    “or Popish prelates claiming to possess a secret deposit of revelation.”

    There’s nothing secret about the deposit of faith. There’s no secret Vatican vault.

    “Except, the witness/common life/practice is inconsistent with itself, and frequently contradictory of Scripture.”

    You ever hear atheists argue that Scripture is inconsistent and contradictory with itself? Does that convince you?

    “And how does the Magisterium discriminate? It selects for supporting material–supportive of its predispositions.”

    The apostles and Christ authoritatively interpreted Scripture and Tradition. Were they therefore unreliable or self-serving with nefarious intentions by mere virtue of that fact?

    “The RCC is irreformable.”

    This is a bad thing? Why would you hold to a system that doesn’t at least claim it’s irreformable or give the assent of faith to something not claiming divine authority? Would you prefer the prophets and Christ and the Apostles have walked around saying “our teaching might be right or wrong – who knows – just come along if you like until you change your mind”. Divine revelation is infallible (and irreformable) by definition.

    “Therefore, the Bible cannot correct the failures of the Magisterium, by definition–because there can’t be failures of the Magisterium.”

    Sure there can be failures. There can’t be failures in articles of faith it proposes as dogma. There couldn’t be failures in articles of faith and interpretations Christ and the Apostles proposed either – that didn’t make Christ and the Apostles overlords of Scripture – they operated together and in accordance with each other, just as STM-triad operates together and in accordance with each other.

    “The duty to choose an infallible Source belongs to all. By your own fallible reasoning, you have chosen Rome’s claims of infallible Interpretation.”

    Just as an NT believer fallibly chose to submit to Christ/Apostles claims of authority and infallible interpretation. As Newman wrote, “While, then, the conversions recorded in Scripture are brought about in a very marked way through a teacher, and not by means of private judgment, so again, if an appeal is made to private judgment, this is done in order to settle who the teacher is, and what are his notes or tokens, rather than to substantiate this or that religious opinion or practice. And if such instances bear upon our conduct at this day, as it is natural to think they do, then of course the practical question before us is, who is the teacher now, from whose mouth we are to seek the law, and what are his notes?”

    Like

  1326. MTX,
    You dishonestly recast my words; then you dismiss what I (never) wrote. That’s about par for the course.

    You miss the point of Dt.13. It’s relevant, because Rome teaches contrary to the Law of God. Just as Israel was warned to ignore impressive prophets who seemed capable of accurate prediction, because they taught contrary to the Truth the people already possessed–so also Rome should be shunned for departing from the gospel. And, come to think of it, for her idolatry.

    You miss the point of Is.8:20. Rome refuses to answer to the bar of Scripture. She doesn’t speak in accord with it, but contradictorily. She makes the Bible read as she likes–much like the Supremes make the Constitution read as they like. It is because there is no light in her.

    Gal.1:8, here is the verdict: Rome’s gospel is “another.” How do I know? Because I actually have a Bible in front of me, and Rome’s Catechism to the side for comparison. We should all be like the Bereans. Rome may impress as angelic to many; but that’s not the criteria laid down in Scripture.

    Like

  1327. Bruce,
    Being I have the Bible beside me and the Catholic Catechism with me too and I do not find the contradictions which you assume are there and Cletus my brother in the faith will witness to that as well, we have fulfilled what Christ teaches us to do in Matthew with a wayward brother. How do we move to the next step and “take it to the the Church”? Do you believe there is one Church body that could speak authoritatively on this subject for us?

    Like

  1328. Bruce,
    BTW, I am an extreme “original intent” Constitutional proponent. I am for my local and State of Texas government calling out the Supreme Court’s ruling as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. I’m a principles of 1798′ in Kentucky and Virginia proponent.

    Like

  1329. TVD: You insult your own intelligence by insulting theirs.

    Sorry, Tom, but every time you try to hang the PCUSA around our necks, I start channeling Reagan: “There you go again.”

    As far as we are concerned, the PCUSA has been excommunicated. That’s the end of it. Their actions not only have no bearing on ours, but vindicate the act of excommunication.

    So please, stop insulting our intelligence.

    Like

  1330. Cletus: There are countless teachings from Tradition, with varying degree of accompanying witness in Scripture. Three such teachings include the recognized canon and its inspiration/inerrancy, and that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and the rule of faith is comprised of the STM-triad. Other such teachings would include things like infant baptism and the eucharist. And so on.

    So are you claiming that these are oral traditions that are known to come from God Himself?

    Like

  1331. Jeff Cagle
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
    TVD: You insult your own intelligence by insulting theirs.

    Sorry, Tom, but every time you try to hang the PCUSA around our necks, I start channeling Reagan: “There you go again.”

    As far as we are concerned, the PCUSA has been excommunicated. That’s the end of it. Their actions not only have no bearing on ours, but vindicate the act of excommunication.

    So please, stop insulting our intelligence.

    You do that yourself everytime you fall for Darryl’s tricks. Here’s the context.

    TVD
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
    D. G. Hart
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 6:35 am | Permalink
    “The Vatican will never give in on divorce, or on gay marriage.”

    That’s right. It will “develop” on divorce and homosexuality.

    Like much of “Protestantism” already has, you mean, in direct contradiction of the scriptures.

    As usual, you throw rocks at the wrong side of the Tiber, condemning it for what it hasn’t done, while ignoring what your side of it already has.

    Amazing mind you have there, Butch, just bloody amazing.

    Darryl attacked Catholicism for something they didn’t even do but that Presbyterianism has. Then to attempt to equate one Catholic dissident to the largest official Presbyterian body in the USA defies all logic.

    That’s the insult to your intelligence, Jeff. But maybe I overestimated it. 😉

    Like

  1332. It seems to me that tradition is a crucial aspect of Christianity – as we pointed out before by listing the citations to the church fathers and medieval theologians during the writing of the Westminster Confession. But, tradition can be wrong. It is not the Word of God. The apostolic inscripturated tradition is the Word of God. We see this dynamic in how Christ used scripture to correct the authoritative tradition of the scribes and pharisees. These guys were authoritative, and tradition mattered. One might even say it was authoritative. But aspects of their tradition was in error, and the lodestone by which one determined whether the tradition was in error was the scriptures.

    A major problem I see with the RC criticism of Sola Scriptura is that it applies equally well to Jesus’s use of the OT. Second, the claim that contingent submission to an authority (in this case tradition or say the magisterium of a church) necessarily implies that we are really only submitting to ourselves would apply to all other calls to submit to say parents, husbands, government, each other, etc…. It is clear from scripture that this submission is contingent. If such contingency undermines the reality of submission, then the apostolic calls to submission are non-sense. If contingent submission to authority (say tradition or presbyters) is not problematic, then the authoritative role of sola scriptura survives.

    A possible objection is that the fracturing of protestants into countless denominations proves that sola scriptura is unworkable. I think this criticism fails. First, the fracturing seen in the west (mainly america) is also seen in non-Christian sects that were previously more unified. Second, prior to sola scriptura groups did break away from the RCC – they were exterminated until groups managed to break away with the support of the magistrate. In America you see the confluence of religious tolerance, entrepreneurship, consumerism, and lots of wealth and free time result in the explosion of the variety of religious belief – even among RCs. Given that one of the largest religious identifications in the US is now “recovering catholic” it is hard to maintain the claim that protestants have been uniquely fractured.

    The problem I see with the RC approach to authority and tradition is that it has resulted in a very corrupt clericalism and efforts to bind the consciences of adherents in ways explicitly forbidden in scripture. There simply is no accountability to the laity, yet scripture describes how the laity are to confront errant bishops.

    Like

  1333. We’ll claim the PCUSA when your side claims the Catholic Episcopal Church. We’re on the record claiming liberalism is not Christianity, while your side considers them separated sisters.

    Like

  1334. Sdb,
    Haven’t I said before that I like interacting with you. Your first paragraph is basically right on with the Catholic view. Ill comment on some of your other stuff later.

    Like

  1335. MTX,
    “Being I have the Bible beside me and the Catholic Catechism with me too and I do not find the contradictions which you assume are there.”

    “Assumed?” No, but “studied” the rightly divided word to see if Rome’s claims hold up. And how shall we adjudicate this discrepancy, between your claim and mine? I say: set the Scripture before our eyes, and sit in submission. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” Jas.1:5.

    Your solution is to give over the responsibility to “test the spirits” (1Jn.4:1) to them who testify of themselves (cf. Jn.5:31) they are not false prophets. This is not wise.

    Mt.18:17, “…tell it to the church.”
    “Do you believe there is one Church body that could speak authoritatively on this subject for us?” I’m sure YOU believe there is, if you freight several of the terms in your own question with RCC bias. I’ll wait for a more neutral query, or wait for you to define your own terms explicitly.

    Like

  1336. mtx, “This does not change the fact that the Gospel was being preached before Gal. 1:8 was written.”

    How do you know unless it’s written? Does the Vatican have recordings?

    Like

  1337. mtx, all I’ll concede is that the church operated on what it understood to be the teaching of the apostles and that for much of the church there was a clear sense of the writings which contained the apostles’ teachings. That’s a long way from where you want to go — word of mouth oral tradition.

    Like

  1338. vd, t, for the millionth time. We don’t acknowledge the PCUSA as Presbyterianism.

    But if you do, why can’t we acknowledge Garry Wills as Roman Catholicism. He’s still in the church. For all we know, so are you.

    Like

  1339. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 9:36 pm | Permalink
    vd, t, for the millionth time. We don’t acknowledge the PCUSA as Presbyterianism.

    But if you do, why can’t we acknowledge Garry Wills as Roman Catholicism. He’s still in the church. For all we know, so are you.

    Sophistic. Wills is one guy, PC[USA] is a church with 1.8M people. Further, even if Wills is in the church, the PC[USA] IS the church. You were booted.

    It’s like Garry Wills saying HE’S the Catholic Church, not the Vatican. Your logic only works in your fantasy world.

    Like

  1340. CVD,
    “How could Scripture judge the prophets and the apostles that were writing Scripture itself?”

    What they had already judged them for truth and consistency. And if you are a sheep of the flock, do you not recognize your Master’s voice when He speaks anew? 1Pet.1:10-12 explains that even those directly receiving divine revelation did so in an attitude of humility and inquiry.

    “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

    They were faith in search of understanding. They were certain it was the Word of God given them; now, what did it mean? That’s being under the Word, even as it came by them.

    I have to ask: do you subscribe to the notion that if you can get a Protestant to concede there had to be a time when God’s people (OT or NT) operated without a (complete!) written revelation, that this is fatal to the concept that the written Word is the norming norm? That, by the way, is the substance of the Reformation shorthand, sola scriptura.

    Seems like you’re trying to undermine the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture by asserting it’s insufficiency by way of it (former) incompleteness, and positing a “prophetic” Magisterium as the solution to this “problem.” But that would make the Scriptures insufficient ANY time “the prophetic utterance was rare” (1Sam.3:1) or practically nonexistent, as in the centuries before Christ’s arrival. Indeed, Rome still teaches the basic insufficiency of Scripture.

    And that’s the whole issue. Jesus knows nothing of the insufficiency of (OT) Scripture, and neither do his apostles. Incompleteness as a defeater to SS shades all Jesus’ rebukes, and all the apostle’s appeals to the OT, even yes, prior to the completion of the NT. They treat those to whom the word of God came as being without excuse, not especially for denying new revelation, but fulfillment and confirmation of the old.

    Therefore, incompleteness is not insufficiency; nor is the absence of an inspired prophetic interpreter–not if Scripture may be believed.

    Like

  1341. Hart,
    I’m just having trouble understanding how a historian could not admit people believed the Gospel and were baptized into the Church before the NT Scriptures were written. The Scriptures are historical documents. They are just inerrant ones. Peter preached, more than 3000 believed and were baptized. This happened before Luke wrote Acts. Simple history 101. Like I said I don’t know why a historian would have trouble admitting this unless there was some unreasonable bias.

    Like

  1342. MichaelTX
    Posted July 8, 2015 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
    Hart,
    I’m just having trouble understanding how a historian could not admit people believed the Gospel and were baptized into the Church before the NT Scriptures were written.

    #heh

    Like

  1343. CVD,
    —-“There’s nothing secret about the deposit of faith. There’s no secret Vatican vault.”

    What’s “secret” is that no one can ever inspect the whole, or even a part of it. It doesn’t really “exist” in any meaningful way. The Magisterium pulls out this thing or that (sometimes like a rabbit out of a hat–pseudo Isidorean Decretals, anyone?) , and even uses acontextual references to suit itself. That’s not a public, preexistent, authoritative BODY of truth. Like the Bible.

    —-“You ever hear atheists argue that Scripture is inconsistent and contradictory with itself? Does that convince you?”

    I demand the atheist put his money where his mouth is. Show me the contradiction; give me equal time to rebut the contention. Would you like me to start listing numerous contradictions and reversals and contortions of the Magisterium? Let’s start with extra ecclesiam Romanum nulla sallus vs. “separated brethren.” Your turn.

    —-“The apostles and Christ authoritatively interpreted Scripture and Tradition. Were they therefore unreliable or self-serving with nefarious intentions by mere virtue of that fact?”

    In the Bible, I find the Lord Jesus chiefly denigrating rank tradition. And correcting the false, or supplying the true, Christocentric and gospel interpretation of the Scripture. I don’t have to resort to anachronism and obfuscation to embrace the Fathers, either. They were who they were, warts and all. But to the Magisterium, to consider nothing but this issue of Scripture sufficiency, much of their opinion is utterly invisible–for it is fatal to Rome’s later doctrine.

    —-“Why would you hold to a system that doesn’t at least claim it’s irreformable…”

    What’s funny is how serious you are. You aren’t even being facetious here. You so identify your Church as the continuation of the Incarnation; you treat its present existence as an ideal. No, it’s not funny. It’s tragic. The RCC cannot admit its failures–ethically, doctrinally, organizationally. This individual or that, after a herculean effort, can be censured (like the military, it’s the token low-rung pasty that becomes a scapegoat). For many Roman Catholics today, Rome’s recent scandals have been the equivalent of Luther’s pilgrimage to Rome in 1510–an eye opener. But seeing the ethical canker should ultimately lead to a review of her beliefs, and the foundations thereof.

    The RCC needs to REPENT. Luther was begging, pleading for it 500yrs ago, until he was given the boot. It wasn’t until he was thoroughly “out” of the system that he finally realized that the papal institution wasn’t just in need of some spiritual reinvigoration. It WAS the problem. It was a metastasized cancer. The counter-Reformation did not heal the sickness. Trent declared that a diagnosis of “sickness” was an act of disloyalty, sedition. Kill the messenger.

    Rome isn’t a continuation of the Incarnation, with a Pope as Head of the church. The whole True church (without a denomniational designation) is irrefragably human, from top to bottom. It is the Bride, not the Groom. And as such, it is certainly in need of daily repentance and faith; not just individually, but generally. Unwillingness to see this, to admit this, is living in denial. Living death.

    Pity proudly irreformable Rome, which cannot repent.

    Like

  1344. Bruce,
    “Assumed?” No, but “studied” the rightly divided word to see if Rome’s claims hold up. And how shall we adjudicate this discrepancy, between your claim and mine? I say: set the Scripture before our eyes, and sit in submission. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” Jas.1:5.

    Ok Bruce, explain to me what you think I believe about soteriology and we will see if we can get somewhere? This is the area and reason why I said “assume”. It was not the denagrate your biblical reading ability. Maybe we can get somewhere before we need to “take it to the Church”. Let’s put that difference between us on the back burner.

    Like

  1345. DG, all,

    Help us out here. We need a Christian historian.

    From what I can see, the consensus is that St. Paul was born in ad 5, converted around 33-36, and wrote Galatians ca. 54. The only earlier NT writings were a few of Paul’s epistles (starting ca. 50-51) and the epistle of St. James ca. 43.

    The Council of Jerusalem was ca. 50, and is referred to in Acts and Galatians. At the Council, judgments were made by the leadership of the Church regarding the non-applicability of Jewish law to Christians. Sounds like an exercise of teaching authority to me.

    So baptisms and ordinations were taking place, the Eucharist was being celebrated, the Church was ruling and teaching clergy and lay.

    Circumcision was made optional- contra the apparently “everlasting” decree of God in Genesis 17. Apparently the Church was quite confident in her divine authority.

    Some dietary restrictions were retained- unwarranted disciplines required of the faithful, some might argue.

    And all this without Galatians or the gospels.

    all I’ll concede is that the church operated on what it understood to be the teaching of the apostles
    That teaching was oral and fully activated before Galatians was written- I’m happy to grant it may have been discussed by Peter, James and Paul at the Council.

    ‘Advanced’ scholars disputed some of this throughout the 20th century- but again, I believe this is now the critical consensus. If you wish to dispute elements, please let us know how that upsets the well-supported whole.

    They weren’t waiting around for the NT to be written. They weren’t in an uncertain state. They were the Church, knew it, and acted like it. How is this not the same Church as that of the 3rd century? And where does the argument that the oral handing down of the faith – without the NT no less – is not primary (or is impossible or condemned) come in?

    Like

  1346. Sdb,
    A major problem I see with the RC criticism of Sola Scriptura is that it applies equally well to Jesus’s use of the OT.

    I just don’t think you can make that jump. Catholics use the Scriptures to teach and correct all the time and this doesn’t prove they believe in a Sola Scriptura use of the Bible; therefore, a Catholic who disagrees with Sola Scriptura is not required to criticize Jesus for using the Scriptures to teach and correct.

    If you can,I would appreciate you rewording this part before I comment on it:

    the claim that contingent submission to an authority (in this case tradition or say the magisterium of a church) necessarily implies that we are really only submitting to ourselves would apply to all other calls to submit to say parents, husbands, government, each other, etc…. It is clear from scripture that this submission is contingent. If such contingency undermines the reality of submission, then the apostolic calls to submission are non-sense. If contingent submission to authority (say tradition or presbyters) is not problematic, then the authoritative role of sola scriptura survives.

    Like

  1347. @ Tom,

    Nice try, but your riff on the PCUSA surfaces frequently. It wasn’t just a one-off response to DGH.

    It is common for you to hold up the PCUSA as “Presbyterian” in some kind of attempt to link us to them, as if we were somehow responsible for their beliefs. We’re not, and you know it quite well.

    Like

  1348. Kevin: They weren’t waiting around for the NT to be written. They weren’t in an uncertain state. They were the Church, knew it, and acted like it. How is this not the same Church as that of the 3rd century? And where does the argument that the oral handing down of the faith – without the NT no less – is not primary (or is impossible or condemned) come in?

    The point is not the form. After all, Jesus taught “as one with authority” and expected to be believed. There’s nothing inherently defective about oral teaching over against written.

    The point is about the authenticity. We have a high degree of confidence that the written Scriptures are authentically apostolic. We do not have a high degree of confidence that the oral traditions alleged by the RCC are apostolic.

    Like

  1349. Jeff Cagle
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 12:55 am | Permalink
    @ Tom,

    Nice try, but your riff on the PCUSA surfaces frequently. It wasn’t just a one-off response to DGH.

    It is common for you to hold up the PCUSA as “Presbyterian” in some kind of attempt to link us to them, as if we were somehow responsible for their beliefs. We’re not, and you know it quite well.

    Yes, just as Kevin has to make the same point over and over because y’all refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Darryl makes attacks on Catholicism that are 1000 times more true of his own religion.

    The actual fact is, theological liberalism stole your church fair and square, using your own ecclesiastical rules, as they have much of “Protestantism.” You left, or were thrown out.

    You may pretend they haven’t made the word “Presbyterian” a joke, but your micro-denomination has nothing to say about it. They own the brand far more than you do, just as Garry Wills [or the Lefebreists] calling himself the “true” Catholic Church would be ridiculous.

    But the real point is to show how unsound Darryl’s arguments are. I wish you could get Presbyterianism back, but for him to predict Catholicism is going to go gay is just projection [or wishful thinking], that Catholicism betray Biblical morality as much as so much of “Protestantism” has.

    Like

  1350. Jeff Cagle
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    The point is about the authenticity. We have a high degree of confidence that the written Scriptures are authentically apostolic. We do not have a high degree of confidence that the oral traditions alleged by the RCC are apostolic.

    Y’all should try some examples. For instance, the Trinity is Tradition.

    Here’s some sola scriptura.

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith

    Like

  1351. Michael Sean Winters, National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Kasper, Richard McBrien, Catholic Theological Society, Notre Dame, University of San Francisco, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Cardinal Martini, German Bishops, Irish Bishops . . .

    Like

  1353. Kevin, an oral handing down of what the apostles taught and what they wrote is very different from an oral tradition that says something additional to Scripture. If you notion of tradition is simply that the apostles’ teaching was communicated orally for a long time, well, sure. But that’s not how Roman Catholics refer to tradition and its authority as a supplement to Scripture.

    I think you know this.

    Like

  1354. vd, t “for him to predict Catholicism is going to go gay”

    Going?

    “The Apostolic Visit was obliged to point out the difficulties, in the area of morality, that some seminaries have suffered in past decades. Usually, but not exclusively, this meant homosexual behavior. Nevertheless, in almost all the institutes where such problems existed, at least in the diocesan seminaries, the appointment of better superiors…has ensured that such difficulties have been overcome. Of course, here and there some case or another of immorality–again, usually homosexual behavior–continues to show up. However, in the main, the superiors now deal with these issues promptly and appropriately. Nevertheless, there are some places–usually centers of formation for religious–where ambiguity vis-a-vis homosexuality persists.”

    Just what kind of communion are Bryan and the Jasons calling me to?

    Not to mention Fordham:

    The New York Times, which up until a few years ago, declined running wedding announcements involving same-sex couples, reported that J. Patrick Hornbeck II “married” Patrick Anthony Bergquist Saturday at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan. The ceremony took place June 27, just a day after the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage” nationwide. That would not have been necessary legally, since New York State has allowed gay “marriage” since 2011. But the ceremony was conducted before the Episcopal Church in America voted this week to allow same-sex “marriage” rites in its churches.

    When asked whether Fordham was concerned about having a professor of theology whose lifestyle choice is in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church about marriage, a spokesman for the university said Hornbeck has the right to get married.

    “While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham’s senior director of communications. “Professor Hornbeck is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.”

    Like

  1355. Tradition.

    Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20 ESV)

    But the PCUSA is scary. Unitarians? Cuddly.

    Like

  1356. Jeff-
    The point is not the form. […] There’s nothing inherently defective about oral teaching over against written. The point is about the authenticity. We have a high degree of confidence that the written Scriptures are authentically apostolic. We do not have a high degree of confidence that the oral traditions alleged by the RCC are apostolic.

    Thanks Jeff. I’ve never heard “sola scriptura” argued before, so am still learning what the positions taken are.

    I think we would have to list those oral traditions so we are clear what we are discussing.

    What are the grounds of authenticity for the Reformed in the three instances of teaching authority below?

    All are of variously disputed presence in SS, and which the Church claims it teaches based on its apostolic teaching authority:

    1) The Nicene Creed: Not in SS. Further, I believe most Reformed use the version of the creed containing the filioque added by Charlemagne’s court, and confirmed in Rome over 2 centuries later, rather than that approved by the Councils of Nicaea & Constantinople. Why, if not out of respect for the teaching authority of the Church?

    2) Virgin Birth of Christ: (which I think the Reformed believe in?) – my understanding is that this requires comparative philological analysis of both Jewish and Christian sources to determine the precise scope of possible meanings for the word employed for “virgin/unwed woman.” I’m not convinced sola scriptura independent of a rich scholarly tradition can get you this (and it is still disputed). Yet the Church has taught it consistently.

    3) Why respect the church’s canon of SS? Why not add the Shepherd of Hermas (2nd century look at Christian ethics) or the Didache (a mid-1st century catechism, more or less), beautiful works of Christian life which were given great authority by some in the early Church? The official teaching authority determined not to include them, and they remain not included.

    Is the argument the Reformed tradition simply decided independently that Rome happened to be right on these issues? On sola scriptura grounds? What would that mean in each of these cases?

    Like

  1357. Kevin, an oral handing down of what the apostles taught and what they wrote is very different from an oral tradition that says something additional to Scripture. If you[r] notion of tradition is simply that the apostles’ teaching was communicated orally for a long time, well, sure. But that’s not how Roman Catholics refer to tradition and its authority as a supplement to Scripture.

    I think you know this

    I have never heard the distinction drawn quite that way, DG. I’m not clear what you mean by “sola scriptura.” (the idea is not something I grew up with, and I have 0 academic training in anything pertaining to religion).

    Are we discussing oral & written tradition, the scriptural canon, the Church’s teaching authority, …? I’ll try to observe your parameters if you’ll make them explicit to me.

    My notion of tradition is that the faith was communicated to the apostles orally, by the apostles orally (with various texts surviving and not serving as tools), and later over time put into writing and sorted by accuracy and authority to facilitate the transmission of the faith. Writings supplemented the more important preaching and liturgy.

    Some writings were lost, and some writings of importance (i.e. articles of faith as well as cultural context) made it into writing only outside of the canon of the Bible (creeds, historical context, contemporaneous texts serving as the basis for philological studies facilitating the interpretation of scripture).

    If Christ wanted us to have written Creeds and Catechisms of scriptural authority (i.e., which would support a sola scriptura Christianity), why didn’t Providence arrange that the Nicene Creed (or something like it) and a 1st-century Catechism (Didache or something like it) make it into scripture?

    You agree that the apostles taught through words and writings both, and that both handed down constitute (true) tradition (“that which is handed down”)? Do you also agree I (and others here) have provided some examples which aren’t clearly a part of SS but are clearly a part of the faith?

    It seems to me that admission of the apostolic teaching authority of the Church follows – although I am sure there is a different, Reformed position. I’d be interested to know what it is.

    Like

  1358. Kevin, I don’t know why God gave us the canon the way he did. You have any thoughts on how he gave us human existence the way he did? Why a universe billions of years old when the main point of creation apparently is Christ and his people?

    Yes, the apostles used words oral and written. But the way you construe the oral tradition allows you to affirm the immacculate conception of Mary. Not in Scripture.

    I think you see the problem.

    Like

  1359. But the way you construe the oral tradition allows you to affirm the immacculate conception of Mary. Not in Scripture. I think you see the problem.

    In truth, I don’t see the problem. Not sure why you’re insisting I do. Can you have another shot at explaining it?

    It seems to me you skipped past the points I and others have raised here, perhaps because you think we are hopeless although reasonable.

    Perhaps the problem you see arises from a dogmatic commitment to denying certain statements of the Catholic Church. You won’t address reasonable arguments which might lead you away from this commitment – even to the extent of being hesitant to admit some basic historical facts regarding the apostles which Michael rightly raised.

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with dogma, of course. Yet we should both respect and be careful not to overemphasize our own reason- whether it leads us to affirm or to deny. I think my reasons for believing in the apostolic authority of the Church are pretty good.

    Regarding the I.C., Pius XII ultimately stated it was a gift not compelled by reason. Nevertheless, I’ve always found the argument of interest that if Christ was to be born of man (woman), and if original sin is passed down through generation (genetically, if you like), then it is reasonable that Christ’s mother would not possess original sin.

    Like

  1360. Kevin, a Protestant fears that tradition is an open invitation to make stuff up. Why not say that Mary pulled Jesus out of a hat? Maybe that’s what the apostles “orally” communicated.

    Like

  1361. But that fear shouldn’t preclude them from trying to understand the Church as it was under the apostles, which I think is important. It helps us understand what the Church is in a permanent sense.

    Fears that result in a reluctance or inability to affirm truth (e.g., the Council of Jerusalem predates Galatians; there are truths of the faith not explicitly in SS) need to be put aside, or else they can only lead us astray. Passion/Emotion has its place, but cannot lead us in affirmations regarding our faith.

    I have to conclude either I’m back on everyone’s do-not-read list, or else there is no Reformed response readily available to those present addressing these basic issues.

    It’s not like I’m trying to hammer people over the head or am willfully misunderstanding you. Usually I carefully read and reflect on the posts and comments, think for awhile, skim the Wiki article or another source to double check facts and dates, write, and look forward eagerly to thoughtful responses.

    Like

  1362. Hart,
    All I would like you to admit right now is what history and the Scriptures witness to us; the Gospel was preached and people were baptized into the Church before the inerrant NT Scriptures were written. Can you do that?

    Like

  1364. BTW Hart,
    I’ve been meaning to recommend this book to you being you said you were doing research on a RCC book and we had been talking about VII and Tradition. It is only a 55 page book and is really good in presenting the Catholic view of both Apostolic Tradition and ecclesiastical tradition. Also if you buy the $9 hard copy, the kindle is only .99 I always like it when I can get something in both forms, myself. It is by Fr. Chad Ripperger and called The Binding Force of Tradition. Hope you enjoy.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CDX64J8?ie=UTF8&redirectFromSS=1&pc_redir=T1&noEncodingTag=1&fp=1

    Like

  1367. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
    mtx, thanks, but the book I’m writing is about Roman Catholics and political conservatism. Think Pat Buchanan.

    Fringe Presbyterian attacks fringe Catholic, a pyromaniac loose in a field of straw men, nailing your two greatest obsessions at once.

    Your liberal pals will give you another pat on the head, O Courageous One. Braver than CNN, smarter than MSNBC. The Nation will give you Two Thumbs Up.

    Like

  1368. Not to mention Fordham:

    The New York Times, which up until a few years ago, declined running wedding announcements involving same-sex couples, reported that J. Patrick Hornbeck II “married” Patrick Anthony Bergquist Saturday at St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan. The ceremony took place June 27, just a day after the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage” nationwide. That would not have been necessary legally, since New York State has allowed gay “marriage” since 2011. But the ceremony was conducted before the Episcopal Church in America voted this week to allow same-sex “marriage” rites in its churches.

    When asked whether Fordham was concerned about having a professor of theology whose lifestyle choice is in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church about marriage, a spokesman for the university said Hornbeck has the right to get married.

    “While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham’s senior director of communications. “Professor Hornbeck is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.”

    Wow. Some layperson at Fordham not being cruel means Catholicism has gone gay.

    You still can’t tell the difference between one Catholic individual and a 1.8 million member Presbyterian Church ordaining gay couples officially.

    Well, actually, you can tell the difference, but I guess you think your fans are idiots. Maybe you’re right. 😉

    Like

  1369. Hart,
    Mary herself would have know what she said. This is how writers would have know that. Are you admitting the Gospel was preached and people were becoming part of the Church before the written NT?

    Like

  1371. mtx, I’ve never denied this, but it doesn’t mean license for the immaculate conception of Mary?

    And are you admitting that Peter as the Rock of the church rests on Scripture?

    Like

  1372. Hart,
    I already gave you an out on not accepting all the Catholic Tradition by admitting what I have called you to admit. You have denied this though. You have said the existence of the Church is dependent and derived from the NT Scriptures and the Gospel proclaimed in them. This clearly is not true if the Church was preaching and baptizing before the NT Scriptures were written.

    I will admit I came to understand the reality of Peter being appointed the rock by reading the Scriptures that emerged from the heart of the NT Church that came into existence after the writing of the OT Scripture but prior to the NT Scripture, because this is in accord with reality and the witness of all the Scriptures.

    Like

  1373. Luke was from Asia Minor (lived near Troy, where Paul picked him up) and as a physician likely had money to travel.

    He was educated (polished literary style, attention to historical and geographic detail) and perhaps was particularly conscious to include the poetry of the Magnificat in his Gospel.

    Perhaps after his conversion, as a literary man, he contemplated writing a book on the early Church and took ~a business trip~ to Ephesus to interview Mary and John as primary sources.

    Like

  1374. MTX – Are you admitting the Gospel was preached and people were becoming part of the Church before the written NT
    DG – I’ve never denied this

    Not denying === admitting … Looks to me like you’re dodging a very simple historical question, DG.

    You’re a historian commenting in the public realm.

    “The political, social, and religious beliefs of history teachers necessarily inform their work, but the right of the teacher to hold and express such convictions can never justify falsification, misrepresentation, or concealment”

    “The desire to score points as an advocate should never tempt a historian to misrepresent the historical record or the critical methods that the profession uses to interpret that record.”

    https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-and-standards-of-the-profession/statement-on-standards-of-professional-conduct

    Like

  1375. Kevin in Newark
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
    MTX – Are you admitting the Gospel was preached and people were becoming part of the Church before the written NT
    DG – I’ve never denied this

    Not denying === admitting … Looks to me like you’re dodging a very simple historical question, DG.

    You’re a historian commenting in the public realm.

    “The political, social, and religious beliefs of history teachers necessarily inform their work, but the right of the teacher to hold and express such convictions can never justify falsification, misrepresentation, or concealment”

    ^heh

    Like

  1376. Hart,
    Here is your denial right here:

    The Word always precedes the church because Word and Spirit create God’s people.

    Now if you are talking about the Living Word incarnate, Jesus Christ, we would be agreeing, but what you mean is that you believe the church community organization and authority is built by looking to the NT Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit. Right?

    Like

  1377. Jeff,

    “So are you claiming that these are oral traditions that are known to come from God Himself?”

    There needs to be a bit of clarification on “tradition” – tradition does not have to be strictly or exclusively oral, but can also come through actions, practice, observation, etc. As Dei Verbum states: “This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.”

    I am claiming that all teachings in Scripture and Tradition are divine revelation and the church’s ongoing and developing understanding of them is protected and guided by God. If you would like to demonstrate where Scripture teaches or identifies the scope and extent of the canon, and that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, and that SS itself is the rule of faith, that might help substantiate your position.

    I am also claiming that Christ and the Apostles were not OT SS’ists and did not denounce *all* tradition or hold that none of it was binding. Jews believed in binding tradition. Some of that tradition was corrupt and manmade and that was rightly denounced by Christ as you stated. But other tradition was not. Just as Christ/Apostles authoritatively interpreted the OT Scriptures, they authoritatively interpreted Tradition as well.

    Bruce,

    “What they had already judged them for truth and consistency.”

    Of course. As I already said, no one is saying the Apostles thought they were contradicting the OT, but that’s not enough to get you to them holding to some version of SS – SS asserts far more than that.

    “I have to ask: do you subscribe to the notion that if you can get a Protestant to concede there had to be a time when God’s people (OT or NT) operated without a (complete!) written revelation, that this is fatal to the concept that the written Word is the norming norm? That, by the way, is the substance of the Reformation shorthand, sola scriptura.”

    I’m not sure what’s difficult about this. Do you disagree or agree with White’s statement? SS could *not* be operative during apostolic times by definition. Your argument would basically make the entire NT superfluous – we could all be OT SS’ists. Actually scratch that since you assert the prophets were SS’ists as well. So I guess we really only need the Pentateuch. How can something be the “norming norm” in apostolic times when that “something” (Scripture) is still being generated and in flux at that time? It makes no sense – a “changing standard” is not a standard at all.
    This also would then nullify all your appeals to Scripture to support SS since it couldn’t have applied or been true when those verses were written. Whether this entails SS is a manmade tradition I leave to you to decide.

    “Indeed, Rome still teaches the basic insufficiency of Scripture.”

    Rome teaches the formal insufficiency of Scripture. Material sufficiency is perfectly acceptable and legitimate position to hold. I am not denigrating the sufficiency or authority of Scripture – I am merely pointing out that God meant for Scripture’s authority to properly function in a certain way, and that way is not via SS.

    “What’s “secret” is that no one can ever inspect the whole, or even a part of it.”

    Sure you can. Attend some liturgies. Read councils and fathers and catechisms. Read devotional and spiritual and theological works. The common life, worship, teaching of the church is publicly accessible to all.

    “The Magisterium pulls out this thing or that”

    This is a common caricature (Darryl is bringing it up as well with his concern over tradition) but really doesn’t carry much weight on inspection. The Magisterium is not some overlord pulling things willy-nilly as it sees fit. It is a servant to Scripture and Tradition. Rome can’t tomorrow say Romans in uninspired, or the Book of Mormon is inspired, or the council of Nicaea never happened, or Orange actually affirmed Pelagianism instead of condemning it, or pretend the Feast of the Assumption wasn’t being celebrated universally for centuries before the definition, or assert Aquinas and Augustine never existed, and so on. If your characterization was true, Rome should’ve just removed books from the canon at Trent that you consider are contrary to its doctrine so as to bolster its case and eliminate all those “problem” verses right? But it didn’t do that – why – just to put on appearances?

    “That’s not a public, preexistent, authoritative BODY of truth. Like the Bible.”

    You mean your Bible that has passages asterisked as disputed and which textual critics and historians continue to slice and dice depending on their presuppositions?

    “Let’s start with extra ecclesiam Romanum nulla sallus vs. “separated brethren.” Your turn.”

    It has never been a dogma that formal membership in the RCC was required for salvation. That was rather easy compared to some of the complicated arguments I’ve seen for harmonizing some of the apparent internal or historical inconsistencies in Scripture. Note, again I am not trying to denigrate Scripture – just saying it isn’t some cakewalk – inerrancy is full of nuance and qualifications which is why we have hundreds of scholarly volumes on it.

    “In the Bible, I find the Lord Jesus chiefly denigrating rank tradition. And correcting the false, or supplying the true, Christocentric and gospel interpretation of the Scripture. ”

    Right – so the mere claim and acts of authoritative binding interpretation does not necessitate the actor or claimaint is somehow self-serving or corrupt.

    “The RCC cannot admit its failures–ethically, doctrinally, organizationally. ”

    I just said it could admit failures. It can’t admit failures in certain spheres – semper reformanda is a Protestant principle.

    “Luther was begging, pleading for it 500yrs ago, until he was given the boot. ”

    Here we go. Luther had nearly 4 years to recant after 1517 before Exsurge Domine was issued (and even that gave him 2 months more) and plenty of interactions with RC representatives over those years – Augsburg Diet, meetings with Miltitz, Leipzig – he dug his heels in.

    Like

  1378. Cletus van Damme
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    “Indeed, Rome still teaches the basic insufficiency of Scripture.”

    Rome teaches the formal insufficiency of Scripture.

    If it were sufficient, there wouldn’t be 100s of so radically different sola scriptura denominations. “Presbyterianism” can’t even hold itself together doctrinally, let alone “Protestantism” as a whole.

    You can’t just thumb open the KJV and re-invent Christianity every Sunday morning. [Well, actually sola scripturists can and do, which proves the point. ‘Protestant orthodoxy’ is oxymoronic.]

    Like

  1380. Kevin, you’re going to enter vd, t land soon if you’re not careful. This is a blog it’s not the frigging AHA.

    If you don’t see where this sort of so-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife interrogation is going, then you’re not as smart as you think. Mtx and you want simple answers to complicated questions, ones that also are responsible for differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Is that sufficiently historical for ya?

    Like

  1382. “tradition does not have to be strictly or exclusively oral”

    No kidding.

    “I just said it could admit failures.”

    Like nothing ever changes? Or the Crusades were only — get this — pastoral not dogmatic? How in hades could ministers of the gospel ever think war was the solution or that land is holy? But tradition needs to be understood expansively. You bet.

    Like

  1383. Hart,
    Good we have a phrase we can agree on then. I can totally agree with “The Word always precedes the church because Word and Spirit create God’s people” language if you are not excluding the direct action and Words of Jesus and the action and preaching of the Apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ. The difference we have then must be that you believe only what was written down in the NT Scripture are what people are accountable to and I have come to see there are things that were not recorded that have effected the world Christ entered that are true as well as what was written. Is this a fair assessment of our difference?

    Like

  1384. Darryl,

    “Or the Crusades were only — get this — pastoral not dogmatic?”

    The “dogma of the Crusades” doesn’t even make sense as a term, so how could one believe it. Dogma reflects eternal principles, not contingent or temporal application or implementation of principles, and further is to be held by the universal church, not issued to a particular segment.

    And read Thomas Madden on the Crusades for a more balanced view than the typical popular narrative. Plus, Protestants should be grateful to the pope and Lepanto for saving their butts.

    Like

  1385. DG-

    I made an error above – mixing my Piuses. Pius Ix declared the I.C., of course. He did so following the longstanding tradition of the Church, citing Augustine and Irinaeus, making reference to popes, bishops, and lay in teaching and liturgical practice. Yes, there had been diversity of opinion amongst the theologians.

    More than anything he pointed to the scriptural exegesis of the Fathers, the Angelic Salutation at the Annunciation, and the fittingness of her being a pure vessel for our Lord.

    Your blog is viewable publicly and you are a respected historian writing on religion. It is up to you how you interpret facts, but we non-academics depend on professionals to understand basics such as (as an indispensable starting point) chronology. I respectfully submit that even on a blog, where things can be looser and more playful, you need to not sidestep facts when asked directly. Dispute them if you will.

    Like

  1386. DG- part of the seriousness which comes up here is that even if it is a blog, the issues touch on the salvation of souls. It doesn’t get more serious.

    You can argue Catholicism is leading people to hell through idolatrous worship, but don’t be surprised if its adherents insist on a careful observance of historical facts.

    My intent here is to be acting in good faith.

    Like

  1389. Kevin, I don’t think you understand how historical scholarship works. Maybe less about a blog.

    Who said I was blogging as a historian? I blog as a big mouth.

    Like

  1390. DG – I definitely don’t understand how historical scholarship works. I didn’t have a single history class in college (excepting a half dozen or so music history classes). I pick up history here and there- not the same as historical scholarship.

    Just pleading for help – and justice – from a professional.

    Like

  1391. Hart,
    If it truly is a “T”radition from Christ or the Apostles, Yes. All the Truth in the Scripture started this way. These will never contradict The inscripturated Tradition, The New Trstament books.

    Like

  1392. Michael: “The difference we have then must be that you believe only what was written down in the NT Scripture are what people are accountable to and I have come to see there are things that were not recorded that have effected the world Christ entered that are true as well as what was written”

    Sean: Michael, what is this tradition that wasn’t recorded? Does it attain the same authority as apostolic writings?

    I have more, but that would be a start. Try to be succinct.

    Like

  1394. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 9, 2015 at 10:33 pm | Permalink
    Kevin, I’m just a guy.

    Now that Erik and Andrew have got wise to you and stopped doing your dirty work, yes, you are just a guy, Darryl.

    Stripped of your cannon fodder, now you have to do honest work, Darryl. Kevin and Michael [and Susan and Mrs. Webfoot] waste their time on you out of respect, not because they think you are a waste of time.

    The secularists publish your books because you do their dirty work. Stand up for Biblical morality against even your own Presbyterian “church,” and you’re a nothing. Attack Billy Graham, Sarah Palin, and the ridiculous Pat Buchanan, and you’re quisling gold, bro.

    Like

  1395. BTW, Dr. Hart, perhaps you can help here. I actually do try. The haute-academic Religion in American History blog has re-instituted “comment moderation,” solely because of l’il ol’ moi.

    Heh heh.

    This response to their latest offence against God and man

    http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2015/07/virgin-nation-interview-with-sara.html

    is sitting in “comment moderation” limbo, with no it seems no hope of ever seeing the light of light. Perhaps it’s an oversight. You’re part of their club, ain’t you? Hep a brother out here. Doin’ what I can. What lying scum. This is the enemy, D, not Sarah Palin or even Barack Obama.

    These people despise the Bible, despise the natural law. Sexual “purity’ is to be mocked, and to be destroyed.
    __________________

    …especially given that President Clinton was not interested in promoting their cause [sexual purity].

    Excellent observation.

    The fight for marriage equality is very conservative in that it’s not attempting to dismantle the traditional function of marriage, but rather to allow more people to participate in it.

    Interesting use of “very conservative.”

    The words “pregnancy,” “motherhood” and “children” unfortunately do not appear here. “Same-sex” appears 4 times. That parents have historically attempted to “control” [temper, discourage, end] their daughters’ non-marital heterosexual activity seems uncontroversial, and done with good reason.

    Like

  1396. It’s hard to keep up here.

    Kevin: What are the grounds of authenticity for the Reformed in the three instances of teaching authority below?

    OK, so there are two competing ways to evaluate tradition in play.

    In the Catholic method (which I am less familiar with), Tradition appears to refer to the deposit of faith that reaches back to the apostles. So, and correct me if I’m wrong, a Catholic believes that, say, perpetual virginity is a doctrine that reaches all the way back to the teachings of the apostles, passed on through the ages in the Church:

    In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

    They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs [sic]. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16).

    — “Scripture and Tradition”

    So for the Catholic, the test of valid tradition is whether the Church affirms it. This explains why a Catholic is so eager to determine which church is the true church, a project that seems somewhat baffling to a Protestant.

    A Protestant, meanwhile, is going to consider tradition to be fallible, hence always subject to revision. It consists of the best wisdom of the church or theological consensus.

    As such, it may always be tested against Scripture. If tradition is found to be contrary to Scripture (as in Ch 23 of the 1646 Westminster Confession), then it should be revised.

    Further, in matters of faith and worship, we believe that individuals have liberty with regard to things God has not commanded (Rom 14, Col 2.20, Gal 5.1). As a corollary, the church may not teach as doctrine those things that God has not directly commanded. This is the Regulative Principle: The Church limits itself to ONLY what the Scripture teaches, or can be deduced by good and necessary inference from what Scripture teaches. The purpose of that principle is to allow believers freedom in matters not commanded by God.

    Does that answer the question?

    So with regard to your three examples:

    (1) The Nicene Creed is held to be good and necessary inference from Scripture, including the filioque.

    (2) The virgin birth is also good and necessary inference: “How can this be, seeing that I do not know a man? … And he took her to be his wife, but had no relations with her until she gave birth.”

    (3) The canon is a really interesting question. Catholics are certainly correct that there is no inScripturated list of Scripture. However, we DO know from Scripture that

    * Jesus quoted the OT books as authoritative Scripture (“thus it is written”),
    * Peter considered Paul’s writings to be Scripture
    * The apostles were given authority to teach in Jesus’ name.

    We infer, then, that there are a set of works, minimally including the Law and Prophets, that are the word of God given to man.

    The church consensus on those works is then our best understanding of what the canon is.

    Note that the Reformed understanding of the question gives a better answer than the Catholic understanding to the question, “Why do RCC, EO, Russian Orthodox, Syriac Codex, and Protestants all have different canons?” On the Catholic understanding, the EOs simply forgot the apostolic tradition and added to it, even though EOs place much more emphasis on preserving that tradition and rejecting doctrinal development.

    On the Protestant understanding, the different canons reflect the fact that the canon is a fallible list of infallible books, identified by church consensus. It is therefore unsurprising that the core of the canon would be agreed to by all groups, but that there might be differences in the margins.

    Finally, on the question that you and DGH batted back and forth: The reason that the Immaculate Conception is a problem is that it makes Mary’s Immaculate Conception a matter of gospel importance, even though that matter is not even hinted at in the Scripture.

    Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

    — Pius IX, Ineffalibus Deus

    So I as a Protestant ask Irenaeus’ question: If there had been such a secret tradition, would not the apostles have written it down for us?

    And this strikes at the heart of the matter. To a Protestant, the notion of an infallible oral tradition, unknown in the Scriptures, appears to be a resurrection of Gnostic tendencies: “We have a secret knowledge that we learned directly from the apostles.”

    Like

  1397. Sean,
    Before I say a unwritten “T”radition, can you admit all the wrtten NT Tradition was first believed by members of the Church?

    Like

  1398. Hart,
    No comment? You have already stated Tradition from the Apostles, that actually was from the Apostles before the written NT, was authoritative and the people of the early Church believed them and came into the Church.

    Like

  1399. Michael, I don’t really know what you’re getting at, but we have written apostolic tradition, I want your oral tradition with apostolic imprimatur. But let’s say we’re playing the game I played back in college, did the Jews already have a scribal tradition in place when it came to prophetic utterance and covenant engagement with God? Is there some departure from this OT tradition?

    Like

  1400. Sean,
    I will quite readily agree we have written Apostolic Tradition in the NT. I am not exactly sure what you mean by “scribal tradition” prior to “prophetic utterance”, but I will say they had oral Tradition before the written account of Genesis? This was their history. The OT people would have know their covenants with God before they were written in Genesis. This knowledge would be from unwritten Tradition. In the same way the Gospels, Acts and other writings are from a real history that at least the writer knew before the writing, but it is often that these truths written in the NT Scripture would have been known by many people before their being written. This is what I mean by, all the written NT Tradition was first believed by members of the Church. Can you admit that is true?

    Like

  1401. Btw, I’m not saying every member of the Church would have known every truth contained in the NT Scripture before the writing. Just that at least one member of the Church would have known each truth contained in the NT first. Can that be admitted by you?

    Like

  1402. @ MTX: Your question admits of a simple answer: “Yes. What then?”

    The issue is not the format (oral v written). The issue is the authenticity.

    Like

  1404. Jeff,
    I’m not ignoring you. I am hoping Sean will respond before I move forward. It took 2 1/2 days to get Hart to admit the simple fact you have so easily admitted. I am not certain why Hart has disappeared from the conversation we have been having for days now. We just now got somewhere. You may want to read back over our last couple days chat.

    Like

  1405. Cletus van Damme: “tradition does not have to be strictly or exclusively oral, but can also come through actions, practice, observation, etc”

    When did the pedophilia tradition began?

    Like

  1407. Michael, I’m busy. I have to reread what you wrote and I will later. I’ll give you a hint, Canon as a later ecclesial development (add on) and not part and parcel of covenant dealings is not gonna fly. And then we get to the authority you assign “T”

    Like

  1409. Sean,
    I don’t think I am trying to go anywhere you are talking about. I am not trying to undermine the absolute truth and requirement to submit to the NT texts.

    Like

  1410. LoserStar,

    When did the pedophilia tradition began?

    When seminaries stopped observing the ban on admitting homosexuals.

    It wasn’t a pedophilia problem, it was a homosexuality problem.

    ~How long have you been interested in pedophilia?~

    Like

  1411. Cletus van Damme
    Posted July 10, 2015 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
    LoserStar,

    User name checks out.

    How so? Smells like a

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

    to me. When the Catholics are getting the edge, Old Life overturns the chessboard. Molestation! Inquisition! Edgardo Mortara!

    MichaelTX
    Posted July 10, 2015 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
    Jeff,
    I’m not ignoring you. I am hoping Sean will respond before I move forward. It took 2 1/2 days to get Hart to admit the simple fact you have so easily admitted. I am not certain why Hart has disappeared from the conversation we have been having for days now.

    Oh, I imagine he’d love to see the end of this one. Fortunately LoserStar is keeping it going. 😉

    Like

  1412. sdb –

    re: the Amish I think they get a lot of criticisms of how they incorporate technology into their lives are unfair. We could learn something from their skepticism of technology and novelty.

    Agreed. The Amish documentary I’m watching makes me want to take another drive out to Lancaster county. Mostly I think I just need a vacation. PSA of the day – There’s a town in Sicily giving away free houses (Gangi).

    I think a fair criticism of the Amish is their excommunicating those who leave, though. Preserves the community, I’ll admit. But is it what Christianity asks of us?

    DG – Re: SSPX –

    The SSPX are not the Amish (a small, tightly knit, group oriented toward its traditions with no interest in the rest of society).

    You’re trying to drive a wedge in what sub specie aeternitatis is not a fundamental crack. The SSPX is not in schism, its bishops are not excommunicated, and they are warriors for the faith. Irregularities are not good, but beats the CiNOs. It’s not the first jurisdictional irregularity in history.

    Cardinal Ranjith of Sri Lanka has said he would consider turning his seminaries over to them.

    Like

  1413. Tvd,

    I simply meant he was doing justice to his fitting username with that sterling contribution.

    Like

  1414. Cletus van Damme
    Posted July 10, 2015 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
    Tvd,

    I simply meant he was doing justice to his fitting username with that sterling contribution.

    Roger. I’m thinking sock puppet all the way, an Old Life regular sliming the Catholic Church behind a fake identity. Now who would have motivation to do that? I bet Darryl knows, heh heh. 😉

    ____________________

    DG – Re: SSPX –

    The SSPX are not the Amish (a small, tightly knit, group oriented toward its traditions with no interest in the rest of society).

    You do know who you’re talking to, yes? Elder Hart’s 30,000-member OPC is the SSPX of Presbyterianism, a dissident splinter.

    Like

  1415. Hi Kevin,
    I’m off in the mountains with very spotting internet access…not exactly vacation, but pretty nice nonetheless. I don’t know enough about the ins and outs of Amish life to have a strong opinion one way or the other about their practice of shunning, but I do think the fundamental problem with much of Christianity over the past 150yrs or so has been a wide spread reticence to apply church discipline. Now the head of the theology department at Fordham is celebrating a ssm.

    You say that the child abuse crises was about homosexuality. I don’t think that’s right. The abuse crises was about a lack of discipline and clericalism…gotta keep things looking good even if that means threatening parents with excommunication for pressing charges against their child’s rapist. One can be RC and believe more or less anything and remain in good standing. If one isn’t willing to discipline members who stray from orthodoxy (however a given group defines it), then orthodoxy will not persist. This is what happened in the PCUSA, EC, UCC, etc… the evangelicals wanted everyone to be nice and focus on sharing the gospel (was it Moody who said something to the effect that arguing over dogma never saved a soul?).

    I’m not arguing for a “pure” church or attempting to tear out all the tares and letting a few stalks of wheat get burned up in the process. But the scriptural witness is clear – false teaching is to be rooted out, we are to have nothing to do with someone who claims to be a Christian and who persists in sexual sin (this gets special mention by Paul). Our unwillingness to confront errors in our churches (on right doctrine, right worship practice, and right behavior) have emptied our rhetoric of any credibility. One may not agree with the approach the Amish take, but they have credibility. They actually believe what they preach. I’m not so sure the public actually believes the RCC really opposes BC, abortion, ssm, etc… So all the fine tradition, magisterium, etc… is completely emptied of meaning.

    Like

  1416. Sdb,
    Just my thoughts but I believe in the next hundred years there will be a dogmatic moral council. Should be interesting. I’m in the process of having my grandkids and great grandkids ready for it. My oldest is only ten right now.

    Like

  1417. Bruce,

    The RCC cannot admit its failures –
    Wikipedia: List_of_apologies_made_by_Pope_John_Paul_II
    Reuters (2010): Pope [Benedict] apologizes for “unspeakable crimes”
    NY Times (Yesterday’s, actually): In Bolivia, Pope Francis Apologizes for Church’s ‘Grave Sins’

    doctrinally – The only apology needed is due to its squelching its own voice – e.g., 18th century failure to criticize absolute monarchs, 20th century reluctance (not at all failure) to criticize the U.S. gov & allies, pluralism, NIMBYism, etc.

    I’m talking everything from papal statements to man-to-man conversation between priest and parishioner (being respectful of the proper authority of each neither requires nor entails wussy-ness).

    organizationally – As in, managing Vatican City? What else is new. Some centuries are better than others.

    In terms of the hierarchy? Why not track down the perpetrator?
    Wikipedia: Chronological_list_of_saints_and_blesseds

    Starting with the date of your birth, perhaps, look up at least one saint of the Church in each generation:

    imagine their childhoods raised in the faith, the many Masses they attended, the essential submission they rendered to the Church of their day, their lives and struggles both human and spiritual, cursing them vehemently on the way, moving by generations back to St. Francis, St. Benedict, St. Augustine, or St. Clement of Rome, as far back as you personally feel convinced the hierarchy existed and error extended.

    Then of your chosen saint, make an idol – and smash it.

    Like

  1418. MTX – I believe in the next hundred years there will be a dogmatic moral council. Should be interesting.

    And there goes my peaceful night’s sleep.

    Sorry Michael, not to be obnoxious, I’ve really admired your posts- but I’d be worried that another Council might end up as, in Pope Benedict’s words, “a Council of the Media” (see link at bottom), with negative consequences. I think what we need is for people to respect their stations in life and do them well – not big ideas and a media splash- sounds distracting.

    Families raising children, priests staying in a parish and looking out after the community, bishops appointed from within the diocese (Newark always gets outsiders, love our new one, but it’s like we’re a colonial province).

    Lots and lots of catechizing and lots and lots of babies.

    Men and women tending to their vocations.
    http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/02/14/pope_benedict's_last_great_master_class_vatican_ii,_as_i_saw_it_%5Bfull/en1-665030#

    Like

  1419. Michael, I’ve reread your posts, part of the problem I’m going to have with agreeing with your claim is that a scribal tradition is going on simultaneously with an oral tradition. So, it’s not a matter of an oral tradition being taught and preached by the ‘gifted ones’ and then later transcribed. And then there’s reference being given by Christ and Paul and Peter to this scribal tradition. If you’re going where the old RC apologetic wanted to go, positing oral per apostolic persons and then a later magesterialy supervised transcription, that argument doesn’t hold up. But, I’ll wait and see where you’re going.

    Like

  1420. Sean,
    If I am “going anywhere” is to provide an answer to the hope I have in my position being that which corespondent to Scriptute and reality. This al started with this post of mine in reply to sub:

    MichaelTX
    Posted July 5, 2015 at 12:23 pm | Permalink
    Sdb,
    @MTX – a big reason that I am not RC is their extra-scriptural over reach. It strikes me that by binding the consciences of adherents, they are violating the restrictions the Apostle Paul placed on the church in his epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Corinthians.

    A large part of the reason I am RC is because I came to see Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.

    Hart replied that this was the “oxymoron of the day”.

    I asked for Scriptural proof to ignore Apostolically handed down tradition and I would be proved wrong.

    He replied it was incumbent of me to make that case for receiving tradition and also cited Galatians 1 about scripture “warning not to add to Scripture” as Hart put it. Which is not what Galatians says, but does talk about believing another gospel than “the gospel preached by me[paul].”

    I replied:

    Hart,
    Was Paul’s gospel inscripturated when he spread “the gospel which was preached of me” or was it being recieved by the Tradition passed on by Paul? They didn’t operated on sola scriptura to hear, believe and obey Paul’s gospel. Paul’s gospel wasn’t contradicted by the OT scriptures but it was only in them either. Sola Scripturist of Paul’s day would have rejected him by citing sola scriptura if that was what was believed. Paul tells the Thessalonians “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”[2Thes2:15] at what point were these Thessalonians to stop teaching and practicing what they had recieved in person from Paul or another Apostle? Should they not keep teaching and practicing these things until the Second Coming?

    Hart thought I must think Tradition was greater than Scripture. I clarified that I did not.

    Hart:
    mtx, so you mean that tradition is weightier than Scripture because it gives us Scripture.

    And there’s your problem. You think the church came before Scripture. Well, Trent came before Vatican II.

    Plus why inscripturate Galatians and then disregard it?

    Me:Hart,

    “mtx, so you mean that tradition is weightier than Scripture because it gives us Scripture.”

    No that is not what I mean. Tradition in no way is more authoritative than Tradition. Neither can an authentic Tradition ever contradict Scripture. Though, I do think the New Covenant Church did come before the NT Scriptures. That is just history validated by the inerrant Scriptures. Scripture doesn’t record anybody having written a Gospel or even a letter before Pentecost. The Gospels and Acts record true history at a later point in time. Just a plain study of history there, Hart; so that is not my “problem” that is yours.

    Also you are absolutely right that Trent is before VII. This is why all my understandings of VII requires me to hold to the dogmas of VI, Trent, Florence, Lyon,….Nicea. Anything else is not Catholic. His is why I try to get you I read more from people taking a hermeneutic of continuity regarding VII. Anything else is not only nonCatholic it is illogical. This is by I had the dispute with TVD on the historic Adam. I am consistent, Hart.

    I followed up with this clarification of my typos:

    “Tradition in no way is more authoritative than Scripture. ” Was my intent.

    My first sentence actually still works in a way though. Scripture basically is Tradition. It just is the written form of it. Other Tradition is the non Scriptural form of it. This is both in Apostolic oral teaching and Apostolic passed on practice.

    Sean,

    After this it took several days to get Hart to admit the Church was functioning, preaching, and baptizing people into it before the written Tradition, the NT Scriptures, were in place. You can read the recast of that if you wish. Ok so from here if you wish to come into this chat now, can you admit that? Jeff has quite easily.

    Thanks Jeff. It speaks volumes for your integrity.

    Like

  1421. Kevin,
    Anything the Church authoritatively does now is a media mess. Look at how they portray Pope Francis. This can mean the Church is now bound to avoid dogmatic ecumenical councils. One will happen again, unless the last “dogmatic ecumenical council” is the judgment. I do doubt the next dogmatic council will be in my lifetime though and I do agree that the plan is strong families producing strong men to be strong priest and strong priest becoming strong bishops in their diocese for today, was for the past, and will be in the ever going future. This is that “second” Adam Option that Hart’s recent post touched on.

    Like

  1422. Michael, make a better effort of not telling me what to do. I know where you’re coming from and I told you what I thought of it. The written tradition was going on simultaneously; 1 cor. 14, 2 thess. 2. You’re trying to rehash an old higher critical argument positing an oral tradition preceding and in place of(this was the old argument) a scribal tradition. I don’t care how much you shorten the period of time before the scribal tradition kicked in, it doesn’t work. And you still haven’t proven apostolic oral tradition, that the RC, allegedly, superintends.

    Like

  1423. So Sean,
    From a Sola Scriptura(not adding to Scripture) position you are saying the Apostles or somebody at least was writing before Pentacost when more than 3000 were baptized into the existing New Covenant Church?

    Like

  1424. Michael, prove what you’ve got(RC) is the oral apostolic tradition. I’ve already shown you simultaneous scribal tradition. Canon and covenant are inseparable. Canon isn’t an add on.

    Like

  1425. Sean,
    I have already pointed out I am not try to prove my position. I am defending it. The Authoritate NT Scriptures teach there was a time they did not exist, but the covenant community did. This is a practical study of history.

    Like

  1426. You haven’t proven anything. I’ve pointed out that the inscripturated tradition was going on simultaneously. And on the other score, you’re trying to defend a position you can’t prove or substantiate-RC as superintendent of apostolic oral tradition. And, as has been pointed out to you, parts of that oral tradition are in conflict with inscripturated tradition.

    Like

  1428. mtx, “The Authoritate NT Scriptures teach there was a time they did not exist, but the covenant community did.”

    You can’t help but go back to Scripture.

    Like

  1429. @ MTX:

    Two observations:

    (1) You’re frustrated with DGH because he seems not to answer your questions. While I’m not an expert on all things DGH, I have observed over eight years that he tends to be oblique rather than direct. Looking at his statements of Jul 10 in that light, they seem to read, “Yes, of course, but …” rather than “I’m not going to tell you …”

    Maybe that helps.

    (2) One of the difficulties is that there are two different understandings of Catholic Tradition going on. You seem to be operating on the understanding that Catholic Tradition consists of the oral teachings of the apostles, passed down through the ages. I’ve been interacting with you on that basis.

    If so, then the obvious question is, How do you know that the traditions of the Catholic Church are, in fact, the traditions Paul passed down?

    If the answer is, “Because the church says so”, then you end up quickly in a tight circle. If there is a different answer, then it needs evidence.

    So that’s the kind of conversation I think we’ve been having.

    Cletus, on the other hand, seems to approve of a Doctrinal Development kind of Tradition in which Tradition consists of ongoing, developing, infallible teaching of the church that extends the teachings of the apostles. In this way, it comes close to being an ongoing revelation.

    If this is what Tradition means, then Catholics have literally added to the gospel that Paul taught. That is, if Paul did not teach that “whosoever does not believe in the Immaculate Conception cannot be saved”, then Pius added to Paul’s Gospel.

    So it seems to me that it might be helpful if the Catholics here conferenced a bit and decided which kind of Tradition you are arguing for.

    Like

  1430. Sean, the only thing I am trying to prove is that from your sola scriptura paradigm you can not prove my position wrong. Your position makes Scripture unable to be used for “correction” and “rebuke” regarding this position of mine. If that proves something to you that is only incidental.

    Hart, my position does not prohibit me using and absolutely believing Sacred Tradition, especially the written form of it. My position proclaims it as inerrant, historic, apostolic and useful for correction, rebuke, and training in rightiousness so that the man of God may be fully equipped.

    Like

  1431. Jeff,
    When you see me put a “T” in my word tradition, I am usually speaking of the Deposit of Faith. Meaning all the teaching and example of Christ and the apostolic people whom He effected. This includes the writings of the NT books, unwritten oral Traditions and implemented exercises and example of the apostolic Church leaders. This never changes in its content, but our understanding of the implications and extensions of that Deposit of Faith can shine light an a broader area of believed doctrine as time and examination of that one Tradition from Christ and the Apostolic Church extends in to the future from its initial cementation in the early Church. Maybe that will make more sense of my position, which to my knowledge is the Catholic position. Cletus or Kevin can confirm my words here if they wish.

    Like

  1432. Kevin,
    Admitting “sins done in the church’s name” and the personal failings even of the supremest members of the hierarchy is not the same as admitting the church on earth is a sinful, fallible, broken institution, creaking along by God’s sustaining grace; and which in some places is a “branch broken off.” Which, ironically, is a warning Holy Spirit issued to… wait for it… the Roman branch of the church, ch.11, v13.

    CVD is more honest: “What’s to reform?” I was just reviewing my copy of the CCC, and noted once again the irreversibility of the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is a simple admission that Rome cannot reverse itself. It can never admit a mistake: that she either clothed the wrong man in vestments, or even that the man has fallen from grace. The lowly priest can be stripped down to his ordination, deprived of duties and honors, may even be tossed like a bone to secular authorities to be put in jail.

    The higher up the scum rises, the less possible it is to admit a man is unfit. When is the last time a bishop or a pope was stripped of rank, much less stripped down to his ordination? For crimes unbecoming. They just bring radioactive cardinals back to the Vatican, where they live out their days in perfumed sinecures.

    No, Rome cannot admit her sins. Which means she cannot repent. Rome is envisioned as an Ideal on earth, distinct from its ministry and its members.

    You say Rome has no doctrines to correct, no truth to return to. Only her need to find her voice once more, and state what she believes. What she has “always” believed. Sorry, Newman’s notion of Development isn’t going to fly except on wire hangars within Rome’s airspace, inside her cavernous cathedrals. When refocusing exclusively on what Scripture teaches is ruled out, then the range of acceptable opinion (and eventually dogma) knows no principled bound. It is pure faith IN THE CHURCH to believe the mind of its leaders will never take her to dark, sinful places. In reality, there is no “mind of the church” outside of a human counsel, whether of the council or of the pontifex maximus. Therefore, Rome dogmatically “protects” her pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements.

    This is why the Reformers truly understood that in place of sola scriptura, Rome operates on the basis of sola ecclesia. In neither case are other sources of authority denied. We believe in the church’s authority; Rome believes in Scripture’s. The issue is: which authority is NOT subject to amendment. Only the Word doesn’t change, and is able to correct the church when it strays. Can the “saints” do that? Not a chance. Smash the Bible? Jer.23:29 “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?”

    Organizationally, faith in the Roman system is reducible to this: submission to the pope; the conviction that by sticking with Rome and avoiding a schism, adherents will weather the temporary personal blemishes found here and there like variable, chameleon freckles. Trust.the.system.

    Unitas supra castimonia. In bygone days, Rome’s pursuit of purity in service of unity included the Inquisition and War. In the modern age, Rome’s unity IS purity, by definition.

    TVD likes to harp on the numerical insignificance of the OPC, as if the “remnant” were not a biblical theme. He then likes to lump various segments of the Protestants together, identifying all Presbyterians alike, or an even larger grouping. What percentage of the RCC, clad in all it’s pristine unity, is committed without reservation to its doctrines and order? The miniscule faithful within the walls.

    I’m amazed at how “Protestant” so many Romanists sound, as they criticize their own pope and hierarchy. “He’s authoritative ONLY in faith and morals!” As if you, O Laity, had the right to determine for yourself where the limits of faith and morals lie! Your fathers knew better than you. Not as infected with democratic self-determination as you. In a hundred years, Francis’ politics and economics may be the bedrock of ultramontane devotion. And you are on the wrong side of history. Hmmm, perhaps that will be another 10,000yrs in purgatory for you?

    Submit, friends. This is the ultimate doctrine of your communion. Pray, pay, obey. Intone the mantra. Don’t attempt to limit the scope of your Holy Father’s authority. It is his prerogative to set those limits, your place to respect them. Not subject his testimony to your petty bar of reason.

    Being Rome means never HAVING to say your sorry. Maybe it’s politic to do so, but no one should expect it, like something due. Rome does not surrender. She flies her battle flag just inside her border, a promise to return.

    “Lower your flags, and march straight back to ROME, stopping at every home you pass by to beg forgiveness for a THOUSAND years of theft, rape, and murder.”

    Like

  1433. That sounds exactly right to me. As I understand Jeff to put it, whether oral or written the question is authenticity of the teachings. Seems to me we should all agree the apostles had a mandate to teach authoritatively orally, and to write their thoughts as letters and gospels for the Christian community.

    Jeff, I am working on a reply to your thoughtful response to me earlier- juggling various responsibilities. Just fed my 6 month year old (half-bday today) his first solid food- avocado.

    Like

  1434. Michael, besides the limitations of talking across paradigms, it would seem the minute you deviate from inscripturated tradition, particularly based on some oral tradition, you could be called into account. Or is this your divining Cross’ question begging flag.

    Like

  1435. Jeff,

    “that extends the teachings of the apostles. In this way, it comes close to being an ongoing revelation. f this is what Tradition means, then Catholics have literally added to the gospel that Paul taught.”

    Only that’s not what RCism teaches. The apostolic deposit is fixed. RCism teaches development of doctrine, as do Protestants – it’s unavoidable. Tradition is “living” by definition (the common life, teaching, worship of the church handed down through the generations) – hence development. That does not mean there’s ongoing revelation or something “close” to ongoing revelation.

    As the site quoted Newman, “Thus the Apostles had the fullness of revealed knowledge, a fullness which they could as little realize to themselves, as the human mind, as such, can have all its thoughts present before it at once. They are elicited according to the occasion. A man of genius cannot go about with his genius in his hand: in an Apostle’s mind great part of his knowledge is from the nature of the case latent or implicit … I wish to hold that there is nothing which the Church has defined or shall define but what an Apostle, if asked, would have been fully able to answer and would have answered, as the Church has answered, the one answering by inspiration, the other from its gift of infallibility; and that the Church never will be able to answer, or has been able to answer, what the Apostles could not answer…”
    The deposit is fixed, our understanding develops.

    So let’s adapt to that the Reformed view. Do you think the Apostles all had full-orbed completely developed understandings of all teachings of the deposit of faith? Most protestants acknowledge a form of development of doctrine – you presumably consider WCF and other confessions to have developed doctrines and to be faithful to the DoF – in that case if the Apostles of 1st century were presented with WCF/Reformed doctrine/essentials – would they immediately accept it or would they possibly have to reflect and think on it before accepting it?

    I don’t know why this conversation has been dragging on for so long – Michael and others seems to be simply saying the preaching of the AD (and the church being formed and operating based on such preaching) preceded inscripturation. I take it that is not controversial and we could move on and stop putting the cart before the horse.

    Anyways, so at a minimum it seems Tradition and inscripturation were operating in parallel until the last sentence of the last book was written correct? So my question is why assume that pattern and the rule of faith suddenly changed and shifted in essence in terms of transmission and operation when the last inspired word was penned – would it not be more reasonable to assume the pattern continued by default (especially when the church was already operating for decades as Scripture was being written and the apostles’ numerous statements about receiving and handing on of both written and unwritten tradition) unless there was strong evidence to the contrary? And given your rule of faith, such evidence would have to exist in the writings/Scripture themselves correct? But if your rule of faith was not operating during inscripturation, I fail to see how that can even be possible, let alone probable since any appeal to support SS would violate the original meaning/intent of the words.

    “How do you know that the traditions of the Catholic Church are, in fact, the traditions Paul passed down?”

    The same way we know the written tradition he and others passed down – that is the identified extent and scope of the canon of Scripture, that said canon is inspired and inerrant, that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle, and that SS is not the rule of faith.

    Now you are correct to point out RCism is not monolithic on this issue – I’m sure you’re aware of the partim-partim and material sufficiency debate. I am merely pointing out the partim-partim view which seems to be often assumed as *the* RC position is not the full story. Ratzinger:
    “But the Fathers did not see this as a set of affirmations being passed on alongside Scripture. In fact, they simply denied the existence of such statements. For them tradition was the insertion of Scripture into the living organism of the Church and the Church’s right of possession of Scripture, as Tertullian formulated in classic fashion in The Praescription Of Heretics. For them, tradition is simply scriptura in ecclesia [Scripture in the Church]. Scripture lives in the midst of its vital appropriation by the Spirit-filled Church and only so is it truly itself. ”
    and
    “In spite of such texts, neither Bonaventure nor Thomas are scripturalists, since they both know well that revelation is always more than its material principle, the Scripture, namely, that it is life living on in the Church in a way that makes Scripture a living reality and illumines its hidden depths. So we are back at the beginning. If one identifies revelation with its material principles, then tradition has to be set up as a proper material principle in order to keep revelation from being totally in Scripture. But if revelation is prior and greater, then there is no trouble in having only one material principle, which even so is still not the whole, but only the material principle of the superior reality revelation, which lives in the Church. This means, to be sure, that the three realities, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium are not static entities placed beside each other, but have to be seen as one living organism of the word of God, which from Christ lives on in the Church.”

    Like

  1436. ,i>D. G. Hart
    Posted July 11, 2015 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
    mtx, “The Authoritate NT Scriptures teach there was a time they did not exist, but the covenant community did.”

    You can’t help but go back to Scripture.

    Logical fallacy. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Scripture, therefore the Church.

    Wrong.

    Like

  1437. Bruce,

    Are you aware that you aren’t presenting any arguments? You appeal neither to reason nor scripture- there is no logically compelling reason to reply to you.

    Nevertheless, you’ve accused me of dishonesty. I’ll presume you believe this is a just charge, although I don’t understand your grounds. I hope you’ll not accuse me of further dishonesty as I try to understand what you are saying, or assuming.

    Admitting “sins done in the church’s name” and the personal failings even of the supremest members of the hierarchy is not the same as admitting the church on earth is a sinful, fallible, broken institution – what would it mean to admit the church is a “sinful institution”? I don’t understand why admissions of the “personal failings” or its “supremest members” fail to qualify.

    creaking along by God’s sustaining grace – I think this would be readily and widely admitted, but perhaps you mean something other than the plain meaning of the words (?).

    and which in some places is a “branch broken off.” Which, ironically, is a warning Holy Spirit issued to… wait for it… the Roman branch of the church, ch.11, v13. – Your meaning isn’t clear to me. If the Church hierarchy fails to excommunicate those in need of it and allows scandalous behavior to occur uncorrected, the hierarchy is in that respect failing in its duties.

    the irreversibility of the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is a simple admission that Rome cannot reverse itself. It can never admit a mistake: that she either clothed the wrong man in vestments, or even that the man has fallen from grace. – You can argue the Church is incorrect in its metaphysical teachings, but to justify your hostility (I would say to prove your point, but I’m not sure what it is) you would have to argue at least two of these: a) the falsehood of the doctrine b) Rome’s belief that it is false c) a resulting harm. Regarding falling from grace, priests can indeed fall from grace. You are assuming a fall from grace would deprive one of Holy Orders. Does it deprive one of Holy Matrimony?

    The higher up the scum rises, the less possible it is to admit a man is unfit. When is the last time a bishop or a pope was stripped of rank, much less stripped down to his ordination? – I happened to have been reading last night about Milingo, former Archbishop of Lusaka – laicisized in 2006. There are others.

    No, Rome cannot admit her sins. Which means she cannot repent. Rome is envisioned as an Ideal on earth, distinct from its ministry and its members. – Tell me more of Roma Eterna and Christians the New Israel.

    You say Rome has no doctrines to correct – Perhaps it hasn’t sufficiently made clear in recent generations who is in the Church, who is out of it, and why. For example, irrational hatred and unsubstantiated charges are direct attacks – lala-love isn’t going to work here. There are friends, potential friends, good-natured enemies, and enemies filled with inveterate animosity.

    Sorry, Newman’s notion of Development isn’t going to fly – It has flown. We are aloft and not coming down.

    This is why the Reformers truly understood that in place of sola scriptura, Rome operates on the basis of sola ecclesia. In neither case are other sources of authority denied. We believe in the church’s authority; Rome believes in Scripture’s. The issue is: which authority is NOT subject to amendment. Only the Word doesn’t change, and is able to correct the church when it strays. Can the “saints” do that? – Are you saying the saints don’t correct the Church (membership) when it strays?

    Organizationally, faith in the Roman system is reducible to this: submission to the pope; – and the bishops, the traditions of the Church, sound doctrine and right morals, fellowship amongst the faithful – if you actually knew the catechism you owned, you could be schooling me. I’m being relatively lazy right now.

    the conviction that by sticking with Rome and avoiding a schism, adherents will weather the temporary personal blemishes found here and there like variable, chameleon freckles. Trust.the.system. – And giving fraternal correction where necessary. But basically right.

    Unitas supra castimonia. – Gratias ago tibi pro me ensinare parolam novam. Non est saepe hodie quod hominus spiritu male (non posso concludere oltram) linguam latinam congnoscet. Pro mihi, problema est mixturare totas linguas latinas in unum. Sed credo que est possibile que me comprehendas. Desculpas-me pro infelicitatis.

    In bygone days, Rome’s pursuit of purity in service of unity included the Inquisition and War. In the modern age, Rome’s unity IS purity, by definition. – The Inquisition still exists and is active – it has simply been renamed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is headed by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller. I suggest you direct your animosity in that direction – write a letter expressing your thoughts and post the reply here on Oldlife.

    Sorry, which wars? Lepanto, which saved Europe from the Turks, probably the most important battle in the history of Europe (some sensible person brought it up earlier)?

    What percentage of the RCC, clad in all it’s pristine unity, is committed without reservation to its doctrines and order? The miniscule faithful within the walls. – Not sure which walls you’re referring to, but we don’t all make it to Heaven. It’s part of the human tragedy. Fortunately, some come at the last minute.

    I’m amazed at how “Protestant” so many Romanists sound, as they criticize their own pope and hierarchy. “He’s authoritative ONLY in faith and morals!” – Remind me of the significance of your amazement to others?

    As if you, O Laity, had the right to determine for yourself where the limits of faith and morals lie! – Surely we do, it is a part of developing wisdom. All virtues reinforce one another, of course (e.g., wisdom, patience, charity, Christian hope and joy all co-occur if not precisely correlate- and without say, charity and patience, the others will diminish, either quickly or gradually). Don’t get me started on using middle english.

    Your fathers knew better than you. – I expect some did and some didn’t.

    Not as infected with democratic self-determination as you. – probably true, so?

    In a hundred years, Francis’ politics and economics may be the bedrock of ultramontane devotion. – I think the tentative expressions of his politics and economics have been the most obviously helpful contributions of his papacy thus far. I pray he devotes all of his energy to this area. I will gladly rally to his call.

    And you are on the wrong side of history. Hmmm, perhaps that will be another 10,000yrs in purgatory for you? – Quite possibly not something you’ll need to worry about, but keep studying your catechism.

    Submit, friends. This is the ultimate doctrine of your communion. Pray, pay, obey. – You forgot be sanctified in the liturgy.

    Intone the mantra. Don’t attempt to limit the scope of your Holy Father’s authority. It is his prerogative to set those limits, your place to respect them. Not subject his testimony to your petty bar of reason. – not sure what you consider a mantra – the E.O. like kyrie jesu christe, gia [I usually say filiu, latin I am] tou theou, eleison me, ton amartelon. The Rosary can’t really be called a mantra since it involves a directedness to a number of scenes from scripture- I think a mantra precludes outward directedness.

    Being Rome means never HAVING to say your sorry. – Any chance you’ll apologize for calling me dishonest, or do you prefer people not take your words seriously?

    Rome does not surrender. She flies her battle flag just inside her border, a promise to return. – it can try to surrender, and ingloriously fail in doing so, succeeding in a lamentable and pathos-inducing way.

    “Lower your flags, and march straight back to ROME, stopping at every home you pass by to beg forgiveness for a THOUSAND years of theft, rape, and murder.” – So you’re a scot, are you? Ever read the poem by Robert Henryson (1425-1505) on the Annunciation?

    O lady lele and lusumest,
    Thy face moist fair & schene Is!
    O blosum blithe and bowsumest,
    Fra carnale cryme that clene Is!
    This prayer fra my splene Is,
    That all my werkis wikkitest
    Thow put away, and mak me chaist
    Fra termigant that teyn Is,
    And fra his cluke that kene Is;
    And syne till hevin my saule thou haist,
    Quhar thi makar of michtis mast
    Is kyng, and thow thair quene Is.

    http://www.poetrynook.com/poem/annunciation-3

    And the highlanders tended to be Catholic (some still are), revolting against the Presbyterian hegemony.

    Like

  1438. Apologies to everyone else – I just don’t want to get in the habit of ignoring people when they ask me questions.

    Like

  1439. “Michael and others seems to be simply saying the preaching of the AD (and the church being formed and operating based on such preaching) preceded inscripturation.”

    Formation of the canon is different from inscripturation. The latter precedes the former. Rome takes credit for the former. It also broadens the latter.

    The apostles themselves were aware that they were writing something. They also had a sense of having an OT canon. The oral tradition claimed by mtx and vd,c as authoritative is special pleading.

    Like

  1440. D. G. Hart
    Posted July 11, 2015 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
    “Michael and others seems to be simply saying the preaching of the AD (and the church being formed and operating based on such preaching) preceded inscripturation.”

    Formation of the canon is different from inscripturation. The latter precedes the former.

    I think you meant this the other way around, Darryl?

    The terms “inscripturated” and “canonization” have become barriers, not rivers, in the flow of this communication, since there is no clarity on the terms. You can hardly “canonize” anything that’s not “inscripturated,” by definition, since to “inscripturate” is to write [genuine] scripture.

    A point of order here, is all. Perhaps y’ll should just dispense with the jargon and cut to the chase. Michael argues that the Church was up and running and bringing the Good News and saving souls just fine before anything in the New Testament was “inscripturated,” let alone “canonized.”

    The terms “inscripturated,” let alone “canonized,” are completely irrelevant to his argument.

    If I follow this discussion correctly. 😉

    Like

  1441. (Christian norms now govern same-sex marriage)

    From Darryl’s original essay. Um, no. “Same-sex marriage,” at least among men–and gays outnumber lesbians by a huge margin–isn’t monogamous even in the ideal.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

    This entire thread started with a false premise. I can only hope you guys make these errors innocently, not out of deception.

    Like

  1442. Darryl,

    “Michael and others seems to be simply saying the preaching of the AD (and the church being formed and operating based on such preaching) preceded inscripturation.
    – Formation of the canon is different from inscripturation.”

    No one has said otherwise. I have no clue why this must be repeated but let’s try again. NT books conservatively estimated to be written between 45 – 95 AD. Pentecost happened before then. The church was operating and functioning as various books were being inscripturated over those 60 years – it wasn’t like there was a switch that magically turned on when John penned the last word of Revelation saying “The church and Sola Scriptura may now activate! All unwritten tradition that has been passed down or taught has now been written and anything that wasn’t is now unnecessary!”

    After 95 AD, we then had a few centuries where the identification of the full extent and scope of the canon was discussed and developed. That recognition of the canon is irrelevant to Michael’s and Kevin’s points that the church was operating after Pentecost and before and concurrently with the process of inscripturation of the NT.

    Moreover, during inscripturation, what do we see repeatedly in those written texts? Commands to follow and receive and hand on written and unwritten tradition, and that the church is building up and operating according to both. What do we not ever see? Commands or instructions that all aforementioned unwritten tradition has been converted to writing or will be at some point after which the church can then blast into operation. Apparently according to SS proponents, that command or conversion just magically “happened” at some point.

    “The apostles themselves were aware that they were writing something.”

    They were also aware they were preaching and passing/handing on unwritten somethings for successors and teachers to receive and pass on.

    “They also had a sense of having an OT canon.”

    They also had a sense of having unwritten tradition as did Jews (and there was no fixed canon amongst the Jews). Or is this another argument that the apostles were OT SS’ists and condemned or ignored any unwritten tradition as binding?

    “The oral tradition claimed by mtx and vd,c as authoritative is special pleading.”

    That’s odd considering it’s explicitly witnessed to and claimed to be authoritative by the Scriptures you hold as authoritative.

    Like

  1443. I’d certainly prefer to moderate this debate than litigate it. So much imprecision in terms.

    Oral “tradition” is not the same as oral “transmission.” Need to clarify your terms.

    And since “tradition” is such a Catholic magic word to justify their entire church that it’s capitalized as Tradition, the Protestants cannot concede the word: To do so would be to concede the entire Romish argument. Pope Peter, therefore Pope Francis.

    OTOH, the same Tradition that ‘intraditionurated” the papacy, the Eucharist was the same Tradition that ‘intraditionurated” the Trinity. You could look it up.

    Like

  1444. cvd, there was certainly a sense of a ‘canon’ among the Jews. The law and the prophets had a very particular designation and Jesus referred to a known/assumed set of writings(prophetic utterances) when addressing the Jews. Covenant required treaty documents. Sola Scriptura has everything to do with apostolic authority and an already established scribal tradition. Canon is intrinsic to covenant dealings. “Not one jot or tittle will be done away with”-It was pretty set, “canonized” in Jesus’ mind.

    Like

  1445. I am just checking why I can’t post. This a different email of mine. I have posted three post now and nothing has come through, two last night to Sean and Hart and one this morning.

    Like

  1447. Sean,
    Michael, besides the limitations of talking across paradigms, it would seem the minute you deviate from inscripturated tradition, particularly based on some oral tradition, you could be called into account. Or is this your divining Cross’ question begging flag.

    Not sure what you are meaning by the Cross reference. Anyway, I have said repeatedly said only Apostolic Tradition that doesn’t contradict written Apostolic Tradition, the NT, could even be considered as valid.

    But again Sean, you have avoided answering a simple question. Was the New Covenant Church functioning before any written Apostolic Tradition in the NT?

    Like

  1448. Hart,
    I won’t rewrite my post to you. If you find my thoughts and questions of that last post to you worthy to stay in OLTH post’s hell, so be it.

    Like

  1449. the court gives ……its own conscience and as Zrim calls it, the thinking that one has an unreasonable’ hyper sense of religious liberty ‘

    the court taketh away (attempts) ….the sake of conscience toward God

    Like

  1450. Jeff,
    Again, thanks for a thoughtful response and apologies for the delay in reply,

    1) The Nicene Creed is held to be good and necessary inference from
    Scripture, including the filioque.

    Many dispute the necessity, and I think both it and the I.C. are better grounded in the post-apostolic writings of the fathers. My argument may not be rigorous and certainly won’t convince, but I think it raises worthwhile questions I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on.

    The Puzzle: We know our Lord was without sin from birth. We know original sin passes by human generattion (‘genetically’). Somehow Mary did not pass original sin to the Son of Man. It is using our God-given reason to try to figure out why. The fathers speculated on it- they began with an idea that whereas the female progenitor of the human race brought sin to man through sexual relations (following the temptation of a fallen angel), the mother of our Lord brought salvation through abstention (giving her fiat to instructions of Gabriel).

    Irenaeus contributed significantly to this understanding (google Against Heresies Book III Chapter 22).

    Also, “in refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin ‘except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned.'”

    A Solution: But that doesn’t resolve the puzzle. She came into the world through generation, so normally would have had original sin. But either at the Annunciation/Incarnation/conception of Jesus, or at her own Conception, original sin was withheld. If Mary is a ‘second Eve,’ then it might be fitting she ttoowas brought into existence without original sin.

    Numerous fathers (particularly Syriac and other Eastern) attest to the belief:
    “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate.” -Ephrem; for more: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

    Scripture does not provide a clear answer. The Catholic Church decided (after 1200 years of celebrating a feast of the I.C., although without a defined dogma) that the latter was a good and necessary inference- from the truths of the faith.

    The Filioque Similarly Grounded: It is argued by many that Scripture does not necessarily support the filioque (by a great many Eastern Orthodox, perhaps the Oriental Orthodox, and I perhaps the remaining Assyrian Church of the East- in my opinion the E.O. rejected it historically because it came from Rome after the papacy found it necessary to turn to the Franks for defense, which upset Constantinople). They ackowledge that Christ says he will send ‘another Comforter’ – but does this clearly indicate procession?

    I argue this reasoning from the faith was what the apostles were doing infallibly, and what the Church was doing infallibly in writing the Nicene Creed and adding the filioque. Perhaps Paul wrote of it explicitly in a lost letter. Perhaps he explicitly preached it. Who knows. The Reformed and Catholics agree it is a truth of the apostolic faith, though. It seems unlikely to me Nicaea was operating from SS principles.

    The Reformed can disagree with the E. Orthodox (etc.), but then why not add ‘sola scriptura’ to the Creed and recite what you believe is a more accurate expression of the faith?

    More to say, but I’ll leave it at that. As an aside, I mistakenly used ‘SS’ earlier to mean ‘sacred scripture.’

    Like

  1451. Michael, I’ve told you they were operating simultaneously, NT letters, and reliant on the OT, just like Jesus(not by bread alone). And I’ve given you references. But, who appointed you interrogator? That’s my job. Regardless, I don’t have any issue with apostolic teaching, preaching, etc.

    Like

  1452. vd, t, if the church was up and running just fine, why did the church include in its canon so much evidence that the church was not running just fine. Think reading the Bible, like Corinthians or Galatians or John.

    Like

  1453. vdc, “Moreover, during inscripturation, what do we see repeatedly in those written texts? Commands to follow and receive and hand on written and unwritten tradition, and that the church is building up and operating according to both. What do we not ever see?”

    First you’re a historical expert on the readings of the bishops who attended Trent. Now you’re an expert on the Greek and Latin Fathers (and mother — Mary). How did we earn your presence.

    In point of fact, we don’t see anything of the kind. Where do the apostles talk about an unwritten tradition? Why does Paul have to address super apostles in Corinthians with whom he disagrees? In fact, the entire NT shows how little agreement there was in the early church. Jesus vs. the Pharisees, the disciples not having a clue about Jesus, Paul vs. Peter to his face, Paul vs. the Judaizers. The list goes on.

    And again, if things were moving along swimmingly without a canon, why form one?

    The more I interact with you the less reverence for Scripture I detect. Scratch those itching ears.

    Like

  1455. Sean,

    I am not speaking or asking about the OT that has no Apostolic Tradition in it. I am asking about the NT books that is the inerrant written Apostolic Tradition. Was any NT books written when the occurrence of the upper room happened or Peter preached on Pentecost and more than three thousand were baptized into the New Covenant Church? This should be easy to answer, Sean. Scripture doesn’t record anyone writing a book of the NT that day. Can you please answer?

    Like

  1456. Hart,

    Can you please check and see if there is some reason why my regular email is not working? I would prefer using my blog email if possible.

    Like

  1457. @mtx My understanding is that we reformed have always understood the church to have existed from the beginning,

    This church has existed from the beginning of the world
    and will last until the end, as appears from the fact
    that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects.

    And this holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time
    it may appear very small to human eyes—
    as though it were snuffed out.

    For example, during the very dangerous time of Ahab the Lord preserved for himself seven thousand who did not bend their knees to Baal. (from article 27 of the Belgic conf).

    So yes the church came before scripture and is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone.

    Just as there were not prophets in every age, the apostolic era was unique. There was a select group whose inspired words were inscripturated. The church recognizes their canonicity…it does not establish it. It is established by the ultimate author of God’s word who is the Holy Spirit.

    What extrabiblical traditions can be traced to the teaching of the apostles and demonstrated to arrived unchanged? I dont think episcopal chains are good examples as the role of the overseer has evolved considerably as evidenced by the divergence between east and west. Further traditions had taken.root that John excoriates and Paul warns Timothy about.

    It seems to me that the role of tradition would be spelled out more explicitly in the pastoral epistles if they were so crucial.

    Like

  1458. Michael, you’re making an illegitimate distinction between prophecy in the OT and NT. The NT is a continuation of the scriptural narrative. A new and better covenant, no doubt, but still continuing the biblical narrative, which is why you see in Matthew the effort to ground themselves in the redemptive and Davidic line. The NT is the fulfillment of the story. 2 Peter 1:21. The apostles are in the same line as the prophets of old.

    6 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

    Like

  1459. Sean,
    I have not brought up anything about the Church doing anything about the canon. I have only been seeking to defend my phrase about my being RC largely because I came to see Sola Scriptura was a mademan tradition that has often been used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in the inerrant Scriptures. I think you have final admitted this Apostolic New Covenant Church existed before the writing of the NT Scripures. I agree the Church only says what is already true about the Scriptures, it does not make them inerrant and they always from their inscripturation were part of the written Word of God. We all just may not have known it.

    I do not think I am dividing the Old Covenant Scriptures and New Covenant Scriptures unfairly or the Old Covenant Kahal/Church/Ecclesia and the New. The OT Scriptures witness to the covenants growth and being weakly kept of Adam(a man with his wife), Noah(a man with his family), Abraham(a man and his tribe), Jacob/Israel(a man and his 12 son’s tribes), Moses/Sinai(a man and his nation), Dueteronomic Mosaic renewal-penitential(special role of the Levites in the nation because they were zealous against the golden calf), David(a man and his kingdom). The New Covenant books witness to not only an earthly covenant but a heavenly covenant drawn out of that Old Covenant body. It witnesses the “new creation” reunited with heaven from earth. The first since the Fall that truly reconciled all men to God through “the second Adam”. It is like the first covenant again(a man and his wife/the Church). This is an unbreakable covenant, unlike all the covenants of the OT which were all broken, because it is kept not by the faithfulness of men but by the faithful Son of God eternally. This is why it is call the “new and everlasting covenant”. The first covenant with Adam was a covenant in which obedience from creation below was required and obedience and participation with the life of God was to occur. The new first/eighth covenant obedience from God incarnate from above was now to obey below. This makes it fulfilled and unbreakable forever. Christ is not only seen as new and perfect Adam(head of mankind) but also Noah(head of all those saved from destruction)
    But also Abraham(head of all those with faith in the promise) but also Israel(head of those who recieve the promise receiving heads/Apostles) but also Moses(head of the new free from sin Israel) but also David(head of all nations). He is the Son of David who made the new and indestructible temple of God, His Body. All the OT points to this hope in faith that is fulfilled by Christ united to the Bride in one body, the Church. The New Covenant Church has not always existed and the NT Scriptures witness to its creation, but she and her authority structure were created before the writing of any one of the NT Scriptures.

    Sean, there most definately is a valid division in the Old Covenant and the New, there is a new authority structure than the OT Israel. The axe was set to the tree and a new sprout came out.

    Like

  1460. Michael, I had a great response and the internet demon ate it. He hates me. But, basically, you’ve waxed esoteric but haven’t dealt with the scriptural evidence against your position. We could hash out points of continuity and discontinuity and the Lord knows they exist(Gal 3) but that’s gonna take us far afield. I understand you need discontinuity here to justify your RC move, the scriptures won’t give it to you. The apostles themselves align their office with the OT prophet(2 Peter)-continuity. The NC is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and finds it’s origins in the promised seed-continuity. Jesus himself confirms the place of the inscripturated tradition(neither jot or tittle) and then I give you Matthew’s gospel tying the NT narrative to the OT narrative-continuity. On canon/treaty/inscripturation we’ve got continuity. I can make the RC argument round(cohere) but I can’t square it(see what I did there? I’m that good) with the scriptural witness, OT or NT. You waxing poetic and with worse sentence structure than me(and I can tear it up) doesn’t change the relevance of OT scribal tradition to NT administration and the scripture proofs I gave you bear that out. 2 Thess 2:15, 1 cor 14:37, 2 peter 2, and there’s quite a few more.

    Like

  1462. 2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

    Whose position does this support again?

    Like

  1464. TVD: Whose position does this support again?

    How ‘bout now that the canon is closed….this be said…. “I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.”… “in my opinion, such and such this and that, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

    Like

  1465. Tom,

    Whose position does this support again?

    Ours.

    1. Just at the outset, it is clear that Paul is referring to a fixed body of content. Even if there are additional unwritten traditions, they should be fixed. That’s not the modern Roman Catholic view of tradition. Tradition isn’t fixed in Roman Catholicism. It includes things that, at best, are legitimate inferences from the original tradition of the Apostles passed on orally, if there is such a thing. That means Rome is bound to tell us what that fixed body of oral tradition is. Rome can’t and Rome won’t.

    2. But perhaps more importantly, where is the evidence that what Paul taught orally is different than what he taught by letter. You have to assume that one body of content includes things not found in the other. But where’s the evidence for that.

    3. There’s every indication that the oral tradition of which Paul speaks consists simply of the gospel and its implications for practical Christian living. All of which Paul gives us in his letters.

    What exactly did Paul and Peter and Jesus and the other Apostles teach that never got written down? It must be a fixed body of content because all of them died or ascended. Peter isn’t teaching orally anymore. What was it he said that never got written down? Where did he say it? And why should I trust that Rome has this content but no one else does?

    Like

  1466. Sean,

    I have not intended to say the NC is not a continuation of the salvation history begun in the old. I assumed you should see that in my referencing Jesus about the axe set to the root of the tree and then a sprout growing forth from that cut down tree. The sprout is most definitely coming from the OC, but it is new. New wine not in old wine skins, you know. Regarding 2 Thes 2:15, I have never said not to teach and believe the written Traditions of the Apostles, the NT. Regarding 2 Corth 14:37, I believe all of the writings of Paul. Regarding 2 Peter 2, yes there are prophets of the NC but none should be like the OC prophets who called the OC People of God to get back to keeping the Dueteronomic Covenant. All the NC prophets will be calling “all” people the keep the teaching of the Apostles and Christ, “either by word of mouth or written letter.”[2 Thes 2:15]

    Like

  1467. @mtx Maybe I missed it while I was offline the past few days, so apologies if this was already asked. Can you give an example of an extra-biblical tradition/saying the EO and RCC attribute to the apostles?

    Like

  1468. Michael, what can I tell you? To some degree we’re speaking past each other, on another score, we’re unwilling to give the ground. You need more discontinuity at certain points, OT prophet-apostolic office, for example, that I neither need nor think the scriptures support. Rome is strange on this score, apologetically they need the break from the OT scribal tradition to the oral to lay in place their magisterial authority(superintention) of an otherwise unknown oral tradition but then their priestly and pageant orientation harkens back to the temple template(OT) and obliterates the pilgrim church motif. The webs we weave.

    Like

  1469. Sean & Sdb,
    I just realized something. My post July 13, 2015 at 12:44 am above was responding to both of you guys. Oops. I thought Sdb’s post was from Sean. Really sorry for any confusion guys.

    Like

  1470. Sean,
    Not to complicated of a web where I stand. The NT speaks clearly of the removal of he OT being active authority and show Christ building the NC community that has new authority structures.

    Like

  1471. SDB,

    false teaching is to be rooted out, we are to have nothing to do with someone who claims to be a Christian and who persists in sexual sin (this gets special mention by Paul). Our unwillingness to confront errors in our churches (on right doctrine, right worship practice, and right behavior) have emptied our rhetoric of any credibility.

    Are you eligible to be a Bishop? You know that any baptized male can be made Pope, right?

    The abuse crises was about a lack of discipline and clericalism

    Lack of discipline could indeed be fundamental, but I think it has got to include an account of the large number of homosexuals suddenly in the priesthood. My understanding is that most of the unfortunate abused were in or past puberty (although still quite young) – by definition that’s not pedophilia (which requires a prepubescent victim).

    Up until the 1960s (more or less) practicing homosexuals were effectively excluded from seminaries, as is proper. It was a failure of discipline to relax this discipline (i.e. a sin of negligence of the gravest character), and a further failure of discipline (but much more as wel) to cover it up. Whatever the percentage of SSA-afflicted individuals in the priesthood previously, discipline (personal and institutional) was quite good, so there was not a significant problem.

    threatening parents with excommunication for pressing charges against their child’s rapist. – I don’t recall hearing of anything like this, don’t deny it occurred, and agree it is quite wrong – sin begets sin.

    One can be RC and believe more or less anything and remain in good standing. – in good standing with a laxist “leadership,” but both the faithless and the “leadership” will be called to account by God.

    One may not agree with the approach the Amish take, but they have credibility. They actually believe what they preach. I’m not so sure the public actually believes the RCC really opposes BC, abortion, ssm, etc… So all the fine tradition, magisterium, etc… is completely emptied of meaning. – Cheers, and enjoy the mountains. Which ones, btw?

    Like

  1472. And Sean, my pastor (a church historian) pointed out last night that many if not all of the early church fathers were vehemently opposed to the making and use of images for/in worship. The Roman church disresembles the early church about as much can be imagined. And in the use of non-specified/non-inspired (by God) images Rome also differs greatly from the OT Israel cult, too.

    Like

  1473. Sean,
    I stand by my statement to Sdb that Hart has called an oxymoron and continue to state to anyone the Scripture which we all believe to be inerrant can not prove that statement wrong, but actual witness to the truth of it if one is willing to be “corrected” and “rebuked” by the Scriptures.

    A large part of the reason I am RC is because I came to see Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.

    Like

  1474. Michael, the NT gives no such understanding ot the OT having no active authority. Now, the temple is gone and why Rome harkens back to the priestly structure is indeed a great mystery. I’m sure it’s way down deep in the oral tradition that the pointy hats are busy divining.

    Like

  1476. @Kevin – I was in SE TN helping my folks. It was nice mostly unplugging…

    I guess if you can have an Arian Pope, you can have a Calvinist… that would be fun times.

    Like

  1477. @mtx I guess this is what I get for dropping in and out. I’m completely lost now. Perhaps a reboot is in order if you are still interested. Maybe we can push this thread to 2000 comments! Erik would be proud.

    It sounds like the fundamental issue is that
    1) you find Sola Scriptura itself unbiblical
    2) Sola Scriptura has been used to undermine the authority of the church.

    Is that basically right?

    Like

  1478. I am wondering whether there is an example of an apostolic teaching that was not included in the canon that has been passed down – a dogma that the EO and RC agree on that has its root in apostolic teaching.

    If the premise of my query is wrong, and this isn’t what you mean by the oral apostolic tradition being handed down, perhaps you can clarify (maybe again?).

    Like

  1479. SDB –

    I know the westernmost mountains of NC somewhat well – missed not being able to go this year. Ever been to the Campbell appalachian folk school in Brasstown NC? If not, I strongly recommend it.

    Well, you would have to not teach Calvinism (sorry). And if married, that would be a problem. But I think your attitude toward discipline is precisely what is needed.

    Like

  1480. Sean,
    I am not nor have I said the OT books aren’t still God’s authoritative Word. I have said the authority structure of the OC people of God and the Levitical priesthood is no longer applicable to the NC People of God. We men may all be priest of God now and we don’t look forward in faith the coming of the one sacrifice of Christ we partake if the reality of that which has happened “once for all.”

    Like

  1481. Robert
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 10:21 am | Permalink
    Tom,

    Whose position does this support again?

    Ours.

    1. Just at the outset, it is clear that Paul is referring to a fixed body of content. Even if there are additional unwritten traditions, they should be fixed. That’s not the modern Roman Catholic view of tradition. Tradition isn’t fixed in Roman Catholicism. It includes things that, at best, are legitimate inferences from the original tradition of the Apostles passed on orally, if there is such a thing. That means Rome is bound to tell us what that fixed body of oral tradition is. Rome can’t and Rome won’t.

    2. But perhaps more importantly, where is the evidence that what Paul taught orally is different than what he taught by letter. You have to assume that one body of content includes things not found in the other. But where’s the evidence for that.

    3. There’s every indication that the oral tradition of which Paul speaks consists simply of the gospel and its implications for practical Christian living. All of which Paul gives us in his letters.

    What exactly did Paul and Peter and Jesus and the other Apostles teach that never got written down? It must be a fixed body of content because all of them died or ascended. Peter isn’t teaching orally anymore. What was it he said that never got written down? Where did he say it? And why should I trust that Rome has this content but no one else does?

    And the Catholics claim it supports their position.

    Frankly, this business of grabbing one verse and building a whole theology around it is a chancy business. 2 Thess 2:15 in particular is rather isolated, not really flowing to or from the verse preceding it.

    As Thomas More noted, in the end the layman is still at the mercy of his interpreters and commentators.

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/bible/where-is-that-taught-in-the-bible/

    This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, “beyond what is written” excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.

    Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings “by word of mouth” beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul’s Letters.

    Like

  1482. CW,
    Hmmm, which kind of tradition — written or oral — is easier to fake/make up/meld to one’s preferences? I wonder.

    I don’t have a problem agreeing with that. This is most definitely requires decernment and reliance on the Holy Spirit.

    sdb,
    It sounds like the fundamental issue is that
    1) you find Sola Scriptura itself unbiblical
    2) Sola Scriptura has been used to undermine the authority of the church.

    Is that basically right?

    Yes, if you add in that the Scriptures witness to the Church’s creation and existence, specifically the NT books.

    Like

  1483. SDB, All, –

    If I can offer my thoughts.

    an apostolic teaching that was not included in the canon that has been passed down – a dogma that the EO and RC agree on that has its root in apostolic teaching.

    How about the efficacy of the Sacraments – e.g., Confession and Last Rites – including the priesthood, Eucharist, and sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (Mass, Divine Liturgy). Depends what you agree is ‘in the canon.’

    Also, the Orthodoxwiki article on “Holy Tradition” may be of interest (excerpts with my insertions):

    Oral word precedes written
    Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. – i.e., they were handed down before being written.

    I myself have […] so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 (Note: In this instance, the oral word preceded the written word. Hence Holy Tradition.) – http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

    Writing takes on the role of helping to fix teachings with certainty. Oral teaching and writing are both fundamentally a part of tradition.

    Various biblical quotes demonstrating necessity of Holy Tradition

    Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.John 20:30-31

    Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25

    I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 (Note: Here Paul makes a reference to a letter written to Corinth before the letter we know today as 1st Corinthians. This letter is unknown to modern scholars.

    Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2

    And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. Colossians 4:16 (Note: The “epistle from Laodicea” is not available to us today is [sic] written form.)

    So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

    Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6

    Like

  1484. Kevin,
    Rome says: “WE know; we have the secret; Peter told us the stuff they didn’t write down, told us to keep it unwritten too. TRUST US (you have no choice). Believe the church; have faith in Rome.”

    This whole “oral precedes written” rabbit-trail is a smokescreen. The Bible, in those vv which no one is denying, isn’t telling us to listen to Rome. Or to any other church that claims to have preserved some unwritten stuff. Paul is telling the Thessalonians to believe what they received from him FIRST-HAND, from his own lips.

    Rome wants us to believe that THEY can keep doing what the apostles did. That’s NONSENSE.

    Rome doesn’t have that authority. Never did. It’s a lie. It all comes down to that bare assertion: “We DO have that right! Jesus gave it to us, seriously, he did, Peter, primacy, unbroken succession, blah blah blah.” If you don’t buy the first assertion, it’s all a bunch of hot air. The TEXT doesn’t say what Rome reads between the lines to make it say. In the end, it’s just an attempt to pull rank. A power grab.

    The imposing Roman edifice is not impressive to those of us who care about a firm foundation. We can see it isn’t there–not in the Bible, not in history.

    Like

  1485. Sean,

    I said they *also* had a sense of unwritten tradition, not rather or instead – I agree the Jews held God’s written word in high regard, to say the least. But the OT canon was not fixed or uniform amongst Jews and the various sects during Jesus’ time – there was fluidity. And even if we hypothetically grant it was, that does nothing to refute or defuse the Jewish and apostolic adherence to binding unwritten tradition – the two are hardly mutually exclusive.

    Darryl,

    “In point of fact, we don’t see anything of the kind. Where do the apostles talk about an unwritten tradition?”

    Come on now. This isn’t your first rodeo, you know the verses – some of which have already been supplied in this thread.

    “In fact, the entire NT shows how little agreement there was in the early church. Jesus vs. the Pharisees, the disciples not having a clue about Jesus, Paul vs. Peter to his face, Paul vs. the Judaizers. The list goes on.”

    How disagreement and controversies in the church entails there was no binding unwritten tradition or that the early church was somehow retroactively practicing SS even as Scripture was not yet complete or fully written escapes me.

    “And again, if things were moving along swimmingly without a canon, why form one?”

    One reason is because of the spurious writings that began circulating claiming to be apostolic. I didn’t say the church was moving along swimmingly, I did say the church was operating and functioning before Scripture was complete (operating before the process of inscripturation of the NT began and also concurrently and in parallel with it once that process began), let alone before the canon was fully identified. Apparently that remains a controversial statement, though I have no idea why.

    “The more I interact with you the less reverence for Scripture I detect. Scratch those itching ears.”

    Scripture and Tradition are not mutually exclusive. Just because a person defends Tradition does not entail they denigrate Scripture – in fact that would be hard to do considering Scripture and its recognition comes out of Tradition itself.

    Like

  1486. Bruce
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
    Kevin,
    Rome says: “WE know; we have the secret; Peter told us the stuff they didn’t write down, told us to keep it unwritten too. TRUST US (you have no choice). Believe the church; have faith in Rome.”

    This whole “oral precedes written” rabbit-trail is a smokescreen. The Bible, in those vv which no one is denying, isn’t telling us to listen to Rome. Or to any other church that claims to have preserved some unwritten stuff. Paul is telling the Thessalonians to believe what they received from him FIRST-HAND, from his own lips.

    Rome wants us to believe that THEY can keep doing what the apostles did. That’s NONSENSE.

    Rome doesn’t have that authority. Never did. It’s a lie. It all comes down to that bare assertion: “We DO have that right! Jesus gave it to us, seriously, he did, Peter, primacy, unbroken succession, blah blah blah.” If you don’t buy the first assertion, it’s all a bunch of hot air. The TEXT doesn’t say what Rome reads between the lines to make it say. In the end, it’s just an attempt to pull rank. A power grab.

    The imposing Roman edifice is not impressive to those of us who care about a firm foundation. We can see it isn’t there–not in the Bible, not in history.

    Great rant, but sola scriptura is a Protestant tradition–it’s not in the Bible. And the Trinity is a Christian tradition: Give me a Bible verse that “proves” it, I’ll give you 100 that dispute it.
    As for sola scriptura being a “firm foundation,” that there are 100s of different and differing “sola scriptura” denominations belies the claim of “firm.”

    It all comes down to that bare assertion: “We DO have that right! Jesus gave it to us, seriously, he did, Peter, primacy, unbroken succession, blah blah blah.”

    Not a “bare assertion” atall, but a well-developed argument based on scripture as well as the church fathers such as that Protestant go-to guy, St. Augustine:

    “But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-tradition

    Like

  1487. Clete, I don’t care about the sects, Jesus seemed sure. The apostles didn’t seem to struggle either. And if I’m remembering correctly, at work, there was a pretty clear ‘canon’ accepted among the jews. I thought Josephus weighed in on this as well, I don’t quite remember. Still, Jesus is good enough for me. Yes, take the intended shot-man made traditions adherer.

    Like

  1488. Bruce,

    Your post is scornful invective and empty assertions. It is filled with false dichotomies. You indicate a either a lack of understanding of the positions you attack, or a willful disregard of that understanding. Your response does not indicate you are acting in good faith.

    Pick up a copy of the Baltimore Catechism (or just read this old version online: http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/). It is much easier to understand and remember than the new Catechism (and expresses the same faith). You’ll have a better idea of what you want to attack.

    I’m happy to keep engaging with you, but give me something to latch on to.

    Like

  1489. Sean,

    Do I understand you correctly that the Reformed believe the priesthood was introduced by “Rome” contrary to apostolic practice?

    Can you tell me when this is to have occurred? It would have to account for the Assyrian Church of the East, the Thomas Christians of India, and the Ethiopians.

    Also, is there a theory who the instigators were?

    Like

  1490. Sean,

    And if I’m remembering correctly, at work, there was a pretty clear ‘canon’ accepted among the jews. I thought Josephus weighed in on this as well, I don’t quite remember. Still, Jesus is good enough for me.

    You are indeed correct. And it was the Protestant canon. Jesus gives it when he talks about the “blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (story from Genesis—1st book in every canon and story from 2 Chronicles—last book in the Jewish canon, which has the same book as ours).

    At one time, some tried to argue for a difference between a Alexandrian canon and a Jerusalem canon, but that has been basically invalidated. Jews read many books for spiritual edification, but they treated only the Tanakh as Scripture. IE, only Protestant books.

    Both Rome and the East come in and say that they know better than Jesus. It’s really quite shameful for the “church Jesus founded” to have a different OT canon than he did.

    Like

  1491. Kevin, I’m not speaking for the ‘reformed’ but yea, Rome is taking it’s lead more from levitical priesthood-altars, sacrifice than from the NT model of elders-preachers. Instigators? If I remember correctly it got good and codified in Rome during the Gregorian reforms along with papal supremacy.

    Like

  1492. Sean,

    Rome is taking it’s lead more from levitical priesthood-altars, sacrifice than from the NT model of elders-preachers. Instigators? If I remember correctly it got good and codified in Rome during the Gregorian reforms

    If you could point me to as well-reasoned a source as possible on the proposed history, I would be appreciative.

    Preferably a source which is aware of all the Catholic objections to the argument, and believes he has adequately addressed them in good faith.

    Like

  1493. Kevin, it was back in college, but I believe Francis Oakley and/or Eamon Duffy cover the ground.

    Like

  1494. Robert,
    Before you assert so confidently about Josephus, can you provide the quote? He lists 22 books and many are unnamed if my understand is correct. This assertion also causes confusion when considering that Ecclesiastes and Song of Song were debate as being scripture among the Jews around 250ad and Sirach is quoted as Scripture by a rabbi in the Talmud or Mishna around 200ad as well.

    Like

  1495. Sean,

    This isn’t argument by any means, just data for the grist mill (and no doubt contested at that), but I’ve heard it said only three religious systems in history have lacked a sacrificial priesthood: Islam, Protestantism, and Buddhism. Buddhism sometimes calls people priests, but they don’t sacrifice.

    Like

  1496. Tom,
    As I think you are probably aware, the question is not *whether* a person values various traditions (for who does not?); but in what place does any tradition belong?

    Augustine (A.D. 354-430): “We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men.” De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.

    Kevin,
    I’m tempted to say that your first paragraph directed at me, could just as well have been written by a Protestant with reference to various “empty assertions” and “false dichotomies” belonging to the Balt.Cat. Are they arguing in bad faith?

    The nifty thing about the BC is how bereft of any “support” it is. No footnotes–not to Scripture, to Fathers, or papal dictates (unlike the modern CCC). Just accept it, on Rome’s bare Authority.

    BTW, Q&A 510-512 are omitted from the version you linked to.
    Here’s an unembarrassed instance of “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men:”
    Q. 1348. Why does the Church command us to abstain from flesh-meat on Fridays?
    A. The Church commands us to abstain from flesh-meat on Fridays in honor of the day on which our Savior died.

    I think you mean to tell me, that as long as I disagree with the doctrine of the RCC, I just don’t understand what it says; or the authority by which it makes it’s claims. It’s a “paradigm thing.”

    I wish we really were engaging, really were wrestling over whether Rome’s tall order stands up to scrutiny in the light of both Scripture and history.

    Augustine: Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:394.

    Like

  1497. Sdb,
    Looks like your post then my response is definitely producing the posts. I really wish Hart would give me back my regular email though. I don’t know what I did. I miss my avatar. St Michael is the patron of my home and I love that statue in Hamburg, Germany. It is at a Lutheran Church.

    Like

  1498. Bruce
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
    Tom,
    As I think you are probably aware, the question is not *whether* a person values various traditions (for who does not?); but in what place does any tradition belong?

    Augustine (A.D. 354-430): “We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men.” De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §49, PL 43:429.

    Are you arguing Augustine against Augustine?

    Ignoring a quote you don’t like and replacing it with one you do like is not coherent argument. What you do is argue why

    “But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

    doesn’t say what it says.

    Augustine: Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:394.

    Seems to me Augustine is saying that the Church will decide disputes [as opposed to “private conscience,” in this case what is canonical. The only question is which church, Rome’s or Luther’s. Either way you get magisterial decisions.

    Like

  1499. As part of his argument that the Reformed church is best equipped for the exile he envisions, Trueman makes this arguments as to why the Roman Catholic Church is not:

    Catholicism’s institutional footprint is so large—and Catholic theological (and emotional) investment in it so significant—that the temptation to preserve the Church’s place in society will be very great. This preservation will require compromise, even complicity, and it will very likely blur the clarity and undermine the integrity of Christian witness.

    I read this and automatically ask, When has Catholicism not been compromised by humanism in countless ways? When has Catholicism not blurred the clarity and integrity of Christian witness?

    http://americanvision.org/11199/carl-truemans-total-surrender-exile-theologians/

    Like

  1500. Sean,
    When the early established Church leaders were teaching, like the Apostles and those appointed by them, preached baptism for the forgiveness of sins and entrance into the communion of the New Covenant Community were then not on this aspect operating Sola Tradition per believed/assumed Apostolic teaching authority?

    Like

  1501. Mark,
    Men of the Church do compromise quite regularly. This is sad, but the question must be does the “Church” compromise. This is easy to find out… Read the official teachings of the magisterium, the Catechism, the Dogmas, the Ecumenical Councils and de fide pronouncement of the Pope. In these there is no compromise. They are clear. They condemn, they save from error. these are what the faithful Catholic live by, not the compromised example of weak leaders or laity.

    Like

  1502. Bruce,

    Thanks for the response.

    I’m tempted to say that your first paragraph directed at me, could just as well have been written by a Protestant with reference to various “empty assertions” and “false dichotomies” belonging to the Balt.Cat. Are they arguing in bad faith?

    Not necessarily – firstly, I’ve never seen a Protestant argue against the BC3. You may be the first.

    The nifty thing about the BC is how bereft of any “support” it is. No footnotes–not to Scripture, to Fathers, or papal dictates (unlike the modern CCC). Just accept it, on Rome’s bare Authority.

    It should contain one citation – see the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is a condensation and adaptation of the larger catechism, not an independent work.

    BTW, Q&A 510-512 are omitted from the version you linked to.

    I’d never gone to that website before- just posted the link to be helpful. I noticed it was an older version from back when Brooklyn and St. Louis were top 5 US cities, maybe that’s why. Could you tell me what Q&A 510-512 addresses?

    Here’s an unembarrassed instance of “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men:”
    Q. 1348. Why does the Church command us to abstain from flesh-meat on Fridays?
    A. The Church commands us to abstain from flesh-meat on Fridays in honor of the day on which our Savior died.

    That’s not a doctrine, it’s a discipline. How do you account for the Council of Jerusalem maintaining the Jewish dietary law of not eating meat containing blood and meat of animals not properly slain?

    I think you mean to tell me, that as long as I disagree with the doctrine of the RCC, I just don’t understand what it says; or the authority by which it makes it’s claims. It’s a “paradigm thing.”

    The Logos – the Word – brings reason to all men. We can all partake of it. Insofar as we do so, whatever our beliefs, we can share in reason. Insofar as we are motivated by patience and charity, we can communicate and learn.

    I wish we really were engaging, really were wrestling over whether Rome’s tall order stands up to scrutiny in the light of both Scripture and history.

    I’m not going anywhere except to collect rent from tenants and play with my baby. Fire away.

    Augustine: Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput III, §5, PL 43:394.

    Augustine was a Bishop, was he not? Spent a fair amount of time in Rome? Friends with Archbishop of Milan St. Ambrose? I expect he believed Peter was the first pope based on all the usual scriptural evidence Catholics raise.

    Like

  1503. Kevin,
    You quite correct about Augustine.

    “In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.”

    St. Augustine: Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith

    Like

  1504. Michael, I already signed off on simultaneity. Soon you’ll be wanting me to assign oral tradition to the time between Paul dictating and the guy taking the dictation. You have to prove apostolic origin and authority(succession) for your oral tradition(deposit) that would add-on, much less conflict with the inscripturated tradition. And then you still need to establish this move away from reliance upon the written word(not by bread alone). And then after that, me, myself, and I, following the Apostle Paul’s admonition-Gal 1:8 will let you know how you’re doing.

    Like

  1505. I do think the quote Bruce brings up though have a valid place. You and I, Kevin, believe in a greater amount I truth than Bruce does in his Sola Scriptura paradigm. Augustine is calling us to meet him where he is and use to the largest extent Scripture alone. I think the point Bruce is making is if you wish to make a case for Rime to him, your only chance is with his love of Scripture.

    Like

  1506. I stand by my statement to Sdb that Hart has called an oxymoron and continue to state to anyone the Scripture which we all believe to be inerrant can not prove that statement wrong, but actual witness to the truth of it if one is willing to be “corrected” and “rebuked” by the Scriptures.

    A large part of the reason I am RC is because I came to see Sola Scripture was unscriptural manmade tradition used to undermine the authoritative Church witnessed to in scripture.

    Ahem “…people are unaware of their incompetence, innocent of their ignorance. Where they lack skill or knowledge, they greatly overestimate their expertise and talent, thinking they are doing just fine when, in fact, they are doing quite poorly.” [here]

    Like

  1507. [Huh. This never posted yesterday and can’t see things have moved past it tho K got a few more verses to twist for traditions. Trouble is, he got a track record already.]

    Mike, since neither you nor Kevin, nor CVD for that matter, speak to the question, it is no wonder that you might be getting the cold shoulder.

    Nobody denies that the Word of God at first or at times was oral/orally transmitted. That has been admitted numerous times.

    What is denied is that there continue to be inspired apostolic oral traditions only found at Rome along side of the inspired apostolic oral teachings that were fully, finally and perfectly inscripturated in the NT.

    IOW both Christ’s work on the cross at Calvary and the canonical NT Scriptures are done deals contra Rome’s mass and magisterium.

    For all your prattle about arguments, none of you have demonstrated that the NT acknowledges anything outside of the NT as inspired/on par with NT Scripture. If you think so, you haven’t been paying attention to the discussion.

    That the Word was first oral, then written down does not prove your non sequitur that the same situation obtains today: That there are different but equally inspired oral and inscripturated apostolic traditions now, with the first being only found somewhere in the bowels of Rome; the other in NT Scripture.

    True, you think a drive by gloss of 2 Thess. 2:15 sufficient for your paradigm, but we live in the real world, not the lala land of Romanism. Grammatically, “by [spoken] word or our [written] epistle” modifies the method of teaching, not what was taught.

    After all, K thinks he can affirm both Heb. 9&10 on the once for all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary and the mass as a legitimate continuing sacrifice, i.e. A is both B and not B. Nor can he understand that on the basis of Rome’s selective wooden literalism one might just as well interpret Jesus to be the garage door for Shropshire sheep. Likewise the parallels between believing/coming and eating/drinking in John 6. But all this goes over your heads and you soldier on, newbs that you are, badgering everyone for an “answer” to your “questions” when all the while they are right in front of you in the Word of God as the Word itself interprets itself as the living Word of God.

    Of course, at this point in the so called discussion, our Roman rationalist, Bryan the Double Crosser would cry “Foul That’s begging the question. You have to assume the paradigm in order to refute it”.

    And I have to believe in little green men in order to know that they don’t exist.

    And because God did it one way in the past, he must continue to do it now.

    And because Don Quixote says there are windmills, he must charge them.

    Like

  1508. Bob,

    I appreciate your candor. The problem is this,
    “Nobody denies that the Word of God at first or at times was oral/orally transmitted.”
    has not been admitted so readily and easily. Will you admit that the created by Christ and the Spirit Church witnessed to in the Scriptures was functioning and baptizing people into its communion completely on Apostolic Tradition received and believed before any New Testament books were written? This should be an easy yes or no question.

    Like

  1509. [Huh? Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!]

    Various biblical quotes demonstrating necessity of Holy Tradition fallacy of overlooked alternatives.

    Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.John 20:30-31

    John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    IOW Scripture is sufficient.
    Neither does the Word tell us these other signs were passed on. That is an unproved assumption.

    Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21:25

    Ditto above. Presumes what needs to be proved.

    I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 (Note: Here Paul makes a reference to a letter written to Corinth before the letter we know today as 1st Corinthians. This letter is unknown to modern scholars.

    So what? Assumes what needs to be proved. From Scripture. [After all, that’s what you are appealing to in the first place, right? [[Duh.]]

    Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 1 Corinthians 11:2

    See 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim 3:17.
    Scripture is sufficient for all good works, even determining what is the true church and gospel. [Sorry Charlie . . . ] Of course, we have yet to see in the internet discussion beginning with Bryan and Jase, anyone willing to honestly wrestle w. 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

    And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. Colossians 4:16 (Note: The “epistle from Laodicea” is not available to us today is [sic] written form.)

    Which is the Epistle to the Ephesians some argue.

    So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

    Again, descending subordinate clauses, the last modifying the middle (the method of teaching), not the first (the traditions themselves). Nor does the Roman take comport with the rest of Scripture regardless of what Romanists assume all the while ignoring other possibilities.

    Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6

    Which regardless of how you received it is the same, the point being it is an apostolic tradition/teaching, not something assumed by papists and parroted as proof for Rome’s non sequiturs.

    Like

  1511. No, Mike. As has been stated repeatedly, you think the same situation obtains today after the ascension of Christ and the death of the apostles.
    Which is why one, Rome is so eager to claim an extraordinary apostolic chrism for its ordinary bishop(s).
    If not two, there are other equally authoritative oral traditions that did not get inscripturated which have been what? passed down orally to us today only in the Roman tradition?
    Never mind that we have yet to get an infallible index/table of contents of those lost apostolic oral traditions which are declared to be such by Christ in his word.

    Whatever. But if you are going to start from Scripture, drive by or no, to make your case you still have a long ways to go to prove the same justifies what Rome claims.

    Better get cracking. The Reformation has had a head start by about a couple of hundred years.

    Like

  1512. Tom,
    Are YOU arguing Augustine against Augustine?

    Please, let’s not descend into that sort of childish behavior. Augustine respected church tradition (to capitalize his term in the quote you adduced is poisoning the well); and a true Protestant, not a radical, also respects certain traditions. So, simply appealing to his respect does not obtain the end of preserving ROME’s favorite traditions.

    Your use of the quote assumed he put tradition on par with Scripture. I pointed out one of many quotes which proves he did not. So no, I actually did not ignore your quote at all, but offered a little context.

    And how do you respond? “Well, Augustine is the church, so HE’s allowed to appeal to Scripture.” Except he’s calling on others who don’t fit that (retroactive) description to make it a common study. Which of us is vapidly dismissing what the Doctor taught?

    Augustine: “Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.” De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput IV, §7, PL 43:395-396.
    Augustine: “Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God.” De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI, §28, PL 43:410-411.

    Like

  1513. Sean,
    No. Never been any if those. Just expect when my position is called oxymoronic. That someone is willing to put some meat on that bone an if some one enters the augment against me that they answer simple questions. It is not hard to see people who heard Paul and Barnabas they would be receiving the Gospel completely by Apostolic Tradition and could be baptized into the Church. Not hard to admit that. Don’t know what the problem with people’s logic is.

    Like

  1514. Kevin,
    A discipline; not a doctrine. But thereby Rome binds men’s consciences (this isn’t simply pious advice); and this dictate contravenes the express inspired dictate of Paul, Col.2:16,21-23; cf. 1Tim.4:3; 1Cor.8:8; Rom.14:17. Jesus was challenged by the very same kind of “subordinate” legislation as you describe (a distinction without a difference). Instead of prohibiting meat on Friday, it was “reaping” on the Sabbath (Lk.6:1), or commanding a ceremonial washing of the hands, Mt.15:2. Which traditions he condemned (quoting Is.29:13), and rubbished v20.

    Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. Listen to the apostles themselves, and the Lord. Or, just listen to your bishops who can assure you that these texts do not condemn them. Impossible.

    When confronted with an appeal from the Bishop of Hippo (now deceased), you dismiss his passionate summons to engage with the Scriptures. You make a specious appeal to his submission to the then-bishop of Rome, from whom he did not (nor would he ever have consented to) receive his Orders or appointment; neither which is allowed by today’s papal oversight. As if his deference to Rome’s eminence undermines my appeal to his doctrine! If Augustine thought any church outside the Western ecclesial demesne owed deference to Rome, he kept that opinion (wisely) to himself.

    I can let Augustine be Augustine. I can allow that he was both the doctrinal father of Calvin (and Jansen and Pascal); and the father of the Inquisition. History is what it is. Venerable men contain both good and bad traits. He asked that his judgments be measured by Scripture, and did not expect only fellow bishops should gauge him.

    Like

  1515. Bruce
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 9:28 pm | Permalink
    Tom,
    Are YOU arguing Augustine against Augustine?

    Please, let’s not descend into that sort of childish behavior.

    But you did argue Augustine against Augustine. And you continue to do so.

    Augustine respected church tradition (to capitalize his term in the quote you adduced is poisoning the well);

    I didn’t do that. It came from wherever. I don’t play that way. The quote is pretty clear without embellishment.

    “But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

    and Michael adds

    Kevin,
    You quite correct about Augustine.

    “In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.”

    St. Augustine: Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith

    So kindly stop charging dishonesty, Bruce, and kindly address the quotes presented instead of googling up other ones. That’s arguing Augustine against Augustine. [Don’t you hate when atheists argue the Bible against the Bible? Same deal.]

    Like

  1516. Bob,
    What I believe about continued believable Apostolic Traditions after the “assention of Christ and the death of the Apostles” has no bearing on you being able to admit inerrant Scriptural witnessed truth of history. You just said, “Nobody denies that the Word of God at first… was oral/orally transmitted.” Now you say “No” because of what I believe about Apostolic traditions after the Apostolic age. Is it easy to admit or not? Was the unbeliever hearing the Gospel and able to enter the Church before inscripturation of any of the NT books or not?

    I thought you said

    Like

  1517. Michael, you’ve been answered by numerous folks at this point. You keep shooting like it might not be dead yet. And this thread is what, 1500 comments deep by now? It’s hard to know where one conversation started and another one ended. But, just to pour salt on that paper cut, Paul was writing to the same people he had ‘completely’ preached the gospel to And they had the complete OT scriptures. I’ve chatted with you about the whole continuity and canon and covenant, right? No? Well,……………………….. and where’s my proof of apostolic authority of the oral tradition your guys, my former guys, like to claim for themselves, but less earnestly since Vat II and some not at all?

    Like

  1518. sean
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
    Michael, you’ve been answered by numerous folks at this point. You keep shooting like it might not be dead yet.

    “Answered” but not refuted. Rock on, Michael. Your arguments remain unmolested. I continue to read with interest.

    Like

  1519. Sean,
    Thank you. You have now final, in clear words, said the Gospel was preached and believed by people before Paul wrote his letters. You are the Sola Scripturist here. Can you please explain to me why I should reject any Apostolic taught and received Tradition that does not contradict what is taught in the Old or New Testament Scriptures? From Scripture please.

    Like

  1520. Michael, we’re known by our friends too. But, which tradition are you speaking of now? Were you there when the apostles were preaching this super secret pointy hatted oral tradition? Did you try to grab the guy who rolled off the window sill? I gave you scripture, then gave you snippets of scripture, then cited you chapter and verse. You’re awfully demanding and I’m already married(no homo). Let’s try Gal 1:8, 2 tim 3:16, 2 peter 1:16-21 , 2 thess 2:15, 1 cor. 14:37-38. The OT scribal tradition-all of it. The gospels. Paul warns of false gospels and false prophets and anti-christs. What more can I tell you? Jesus warns of wolves among the sheep, so does Paul.

    Like

  1521. Sean,
    You can walk away anytime you wish to stop defending Sola Scriptura and allow me to believe Sola Scriptura is a manmade tradition which should be rejected. Just stop defending my position being called “oxymoronic”. I have not been trying to defend any particular Tradition. I have just said I do not believe Sola Scriptura is taught in the Scriptures and is often used to undermine or dismiss the Church. I have already pointed to the weakness of your use of three of those passages of Scripture[2 Thes 2:15,1 Cor 14:37, Gal 1:8],but I will retouch them and look at the others. I agree full hearted in the fact of wolves in sheep’s clothing and false gospels and prophets. Will get back to you on those Scriptures. Thanks again.

    Like

  1522. sean
    Posted July 13, 2015 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Let’s try Gal 1:8, 2 tim 3:16, 2 peter 1:16-21 , 2 thess 2:15, 1 cor. 14:37-38.

    Sola Scripturistas: Why not C&P the verses themselves [with YOUR explanation] instead of rounding up a handful and using them as hand grenades. One would think you’re more interested in winning debates than spreading the Gospel truth.

    Like

  1523. Tom,
    If I’m doing so, then you are doing so. So, that’s a non-starter. You don’t “win” such a back-and-forth, because you made the accusation first. What could be more obvious? That’s why it’s a childish point. I took the time to show how, for my part, I wasn’t even doing what you claimed. And your response was “neener neener.” Very adult of you.

    Anyway, to try raising the level of discourse, let’s take a look at the letter to Januarius, without neglecting the Augustinian corpus; granting the man to be fairly consistent with himself.

    First, here is the end of the sentence which you quote (why cut it off, unless it leads to another conclusion?): “e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established.”

    It was just such practical matters (as opposed to doctrine) on which the Councils (not a pope) proclaimed approved “observance” that Augustine found authoritative.

    From the same letter to Januarius http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/januarius.aspx :
    Augustine refers to the opinion of Ambrose, minimizing Rome’s authority: “‘When I [Ambrose] visit Rome, I fast on Saturday; when I am here, I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence by your conduct, nor to find cause of offence in another’s.’”

    So, Rome’s judgment that fasting on Saturday was important had ZERO weight in Milan. We (not you, Tom… but you aren’t observant anyway) can say the same thing about “no meat on Fridays,” since the Bishop of Rome’s trivial opinions (or Trent’s, or the BC’s) have no weight with us.

    “For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church or by their manifest good influence on manners raise questions, it may be, from some crotchet of their own, or from attachment to the custom followed in one’s own country, or from preference for that which one has seen abroad, supposing that wisdom is increased in proportion to the distance to which men travel from home, and agitate these questions with such keenness, that they think all is wrong except what they do themselves.”

    According to Augustine, Holy Scripture has FINAL authority; the admitted universal tradition of the church has great weight. But despite what he might hope that those alone would settle all minds, some highly influential persons seem bent on making their own views the law of every place.

    “if the authority of Scripture has decided which of these methods is right, there is no room for doubting that we should do according to that which is written; and our discussion must be occupied with a question, not of duty, but of interpretation as to the meaning of the divine institution. In like manner, if the universal Church follows any one of these methods, there is no room for doubt as to our duty; for it would be the height of arrogant madness to discuss whether or not we should comply with it. But the question which you propose is not decided either by Scripture or by universal practice. It must therefore be referred to the third class—as pertaining, namely, to things which are different in different places and countries.”

    If we actually listen to Augustine, he not only puts tradition in the second class (after Scripture); he limits tradition to 1) ordering practice/observance; and 2) only where such is already universally received. I don’t even agree fully with Augustine on the strength of alleged universal practice; but what he admits is significantly less than what Rome claims presently.

    Augustine and the rest of the African bishops vehemently resisted pope Zosimus in the Caelestus/Pelagianism affair. For all his eminence in the West, the bishop of Rome in Augustine’s day was not yet Imperator of the church. Most of us are familiar with an earlier bishop in Carthage, Cyprian, who refused to recognize Rome’s precedence as more than mere honor. The man who bequeathed to the church the expression “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (cf. West.Conf.25.2) did not submit to pope Stephen, “not even for an hour,” cf.Gal.2:5.

    In these confrontation of Rome’s error, Augustine and Cyprian are models, worthy of emulation. Simply by virtue of who she is, Rome is not now–any more than she was then–the sure repository of truth, faith, and morals. Viva the Resistance.

    Like

  1524. All,

    With the chronology in place, I believe we’ve reached an epochal point in discussions- who says progress can’t be made in theology?

    if I can be so bold as to select a few events (this isn’t a work of scholarship, just gleaning dates from the internet- all approximate):

    4bc- Annunciation/Incarnation, Nativity
    27ad- Jesus calls disciples and begins preaching; Sermon on the Mt
    30- Crucifixion and resurrection, Road to Emmaus
    30- Pentecost
    34- Paul’s conversion
    45- Epistle of James
    48- Council of Jerusalem
    51- Thessalonians (Paul’s earliest canonical letter)
    54- Galatians
    50s-70s- Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul’s Letters
    62- Paul in Rome
    70- Fall of Jerusalem
    85-95- Gospel of John
    95- John writes Revelation (traditional last work of NT canon)
    ca. 50-100- Didache (earliest catechism)
    ca. 100 – 1 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna
    after 100 – Shepherd of Hermas
    330- Eusebius lists significant disagreement on what constitutes the canon
    367- Athanasius lists the canon pretty much as we know it
    383- Vulgate fixes canon for the Latin Church (Greek Catholics/future EOs still not sure on Revelation for awhile, Syriac groups other collections)

    (Note the Didache, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and others were considered scriptural by many of the fathers – e.g., Hermas was considered scriptural by Irenaeus)

    “Extrabiblical tradition”

    SDB – “What extrabiblical traditions can be traced to the teaching of the apostles and demonstrated to arrived unchanged?”

    Jeff – “The issue is not the format (oral v written). The issue is the authenticity.” “on the understanding that Catholic Tradition consists of the oral teachings of the apostles, passed down through the ages [… :] How do you know that the traditions of the Catholic Church are, in fact, the traditions Paul passed down?”; “It seems to me that the role of tradition would be spelled out more explicitly in the pastoral epistles if they were so crucial.”

    DG – “an oral handing down of what the apostles taught and what they wrote is very different from an oral tradition that says something additional to Scripture.”; “word includes word incarnate, word inscripturated, and word preached. Doesn’t include encyclicals.”

    Bob S – “Never mind that we have yet to get an infallible index/table of contents of those lost apostolic oral traditions which are declared to be such by Christ in his word.”

    Jeff – “The reason that the Immaculate Conception is a problem is that it makes Mary’s Immaculate Conception a matter of gospel importance, even though that matter is not even hinted at in the Scripture.”

    Like

  1525. Kevin,
    I’m not sure your’r eally that comfortable engaging with me, that’s fine.

    But here is a list of documents (and links to) expressing the mind of ancient believers, touching on what they found authoritative, documentarily speaking. Three documents predate Eusebius. Rather than concentrating on the few and vanishing discrepancies, one could note there is remarkable consistency in the witness regarding where (which pages) the Word of the Lord was detected; and the rubric for determining the reliability (verifiable apostolicity).

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html

    Like

  1526. Bruce, patience. I have a life outside of Oldlife.

    Do me a favor and follow tvd’s advice- cut and paste the scripture you reference, and annotate to express your thoughts. You might also re-read my previous responses and address the several points and questions I responded with.

    I owe tvd a reply on economic issues before I can respond to you, anyway. Everything in its place and time.

    Like

  1527. sean: Michael, were you ever a mormon missionary, JW, altar call minister or campus crusader?

    in the Book of Mormon intro: (paraphrased) the spirit will convince you that what is contained herein is the truth

    Like

  1528. Kevin,
    Thanks for the summary. That’s helpful and I think the summary of our objections to raising (T)radition to the level of scripture is pretty good. I think it might also be helpful to provide some clarity on what we mean by “sola scriptura”, the role of tradition, and the biblical case for adopting this. This is just a brief outline so you know where we are coming from, not a defense of these views:

    1) Sola scriptura means that scripture is the only final authority on questions of faith and morals. It is not the only source of information on faith and morals. As our confession states, not all of scripture is equally plain, teachers are necessary to guide our understanding (hence the one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit), and the basics of gospel message are sufficiently clear in the scriptures for us to believe the gospel. In other words, I may misunderstand what Paul says, but I don’t get to say he was wrong on this or that.

    2) Sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is our only source of information on matters of faith and morality. The Belgic confession points out that there are the so-called “two books”. If you look at the minutes of the drafting of the Westminster Confession of Faith, you’ll see that Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, the ECFs, and other medieval theologians figure in prominently. Tradition is an indispensable teacher.

    3) While tradition is an indispensable teacher, the tradition we receive can err. Here is where Christ’s interaction with the leaders of the OT church is so crucial (and note that in reformed theology, we believe that the church has existed as long as there have been people called out to worship God). While the church leaders were authoritative and the people were commanded to submit to their teaching, these leaders were not infallible. The example that Christ gives us (and forms the principal biblical justification for sola scriptura) is that their traditions were judged in light of scripture. Scripture was always taken as “properly basic”. So while the nation of Israel may have existed prior to inscripturation and that community established which writings counted as “Scripture” (and there was some debate on exactly this issue), Jesus understood the scriptures to be the “controlling authority” on theological disputes. To be sure, the scriptures were not the only source of information, but they were the only standard by which all other sources of information were to be judged – this is sola scriptura.

    A common criticism of sola scriptura is that the written word (what one of the CtC’ers called the dead letter), can not function as an authority as it must be interpreted. The interpreter is the real authority. The protestant fracturing into many sects is evidence that sola scriptura is an impotent standard. My response is that the fracturing wasn’t caused by any theory of authority, but rather by the church’s loss of the sword. Once magistrates felt free to throw off the yoke of the church, you get new sects. Further, once religious freedom is recognized, this is bound to lead to people using that freedom. Couple that with an officially secular state who prides itself in religious tolerance, entrepreneurialism, consumerism, and innovation and you get the situation you see in the US where religious sects multiply (not just Christian ones either…Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc… have all seen growth in heterodox sects in the US when these ancient, relatively unified religious have spawned new movements). Secondly, while the RCC has remained institutionally unified (perhaps), they have people leaving to practice different religions as well. Most of these are the so-called spiritual but not religious types, so it isn’t at all clear that the RCC is better at retaining members than prots are. Just that ours tend to form new sects when they leave. Finally, there are factions among Christians prior to the reformation that persist (Copts, Nestorians, Orthodox, etc…) and others that were brutally wiped out (e.g., Hus the goose who was cooked). Sola scriptura is not the causal agent.

    A second criticism of sola scriptura is related and that is that since the scripture requires interpretation, my submission to the church is submission to the church that agrees with my interpretation, thus I am really only submitting to myself and thus in conflict with scripture. This criticism fails as well. For starters, it assumes that submission that is contingent is not legitimate submission. Scripture calls on us to submit to our church leaders (presbyter, bishop, elder, overseer, etc…), but it also calls on us to submit to one another, wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters, and to the state. While scripture doesn’t always spell it out specifically, it is clear that this submission is contingent. For example, when Peter is told by the authorities to stop preaching the gospel, he responds that he must follow God rather than men. The fact that my submission to the state is contingent on the state not requiring me to violate God’s law (i.e., actively sin) does not mean that I am really just submitting to my conscience. Not everything (perhaps most things?) the state requires are not matters of conscience, so my submission is guaranteed on these things. Other items are beyond my ability to deduce, so I simply submit (I don’t understand all the intricacies of finance, so I blindly submit to the law on stock trades). This is similar to submission to the church – there is much in the scriptures that I don’t really get. Some of these debates here on sanctification and the intricacies of union, various aspects of salvation, the federal vision, etc… really just go right past me. I don’t see what is so special about what N.T. Wright is proposing or why it is so problematic, but in submission to my church I reject it (even if I don’t really get it). However, if my church started to teach that Christ is not the only way to salvation, I could not submit to that. This doesn’t mean that submission is just to myself as Susan and other CtC’ers have asserted anymore than it would for other areas of our life where we are called to submit.

    In summary, sola scriptura is not the throwing away of tradition, it is the recognition that scripture is the only final standard against which everything else must be judged. The biblical foundation for this view is the example of Christ’s use of the scriptures “as it is written”. Since the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of scripture, he is also the only infallible interpreter. He uses the church to keep and teach the scriptures, but churches can fall into error and need reform. Tradition is an important teacher, but as it develops, it can err. Scripture is the plumb line against which all traditions are to be judged.

    It seems to me that the real dividing line today is the extent of church authority and accountability to the laity. In the protestant ideal, the authority of the church is limited to things either explicitly described in scripture or that can be clearly deduced from scripture. Outside of that Christians have liberty of conscience. Since Paul states that the church cannot require observance of festivals, fasts, etc… the church errs when it tries to bind the conscience of believers by defining holy days of obligation or fasts like no meat on Fridays. On the other hand, issues like sabbath observance are more strictly applied. So in one sense, protestants (should) be more strict and in another less so. One the issue of accountability, the idea is that any communicant member can (in principle) bring charges against anyone who is, for example, teaching something false. It is hard to see how this would work in the RC system where the people seem to have no recourse when their bishop goes off the rails (imagine being in the San Jose diocese).

    This is not nearly as brief as I intended…I’m sloppy like that. I hope it is at least somewhat coherent. To be sure, I am just a layman (not even a church officer of any sort), so none of this is the official word on anything. I’ll happily stand corrected if I’ve misstated the reformed understanding of sola scriptura, etc…

    Like

  1529. SDB-

    Mille grazie. I find it difficult to express how pleased and appreciative I am to see your thoughtful response.

    I am busy at work, but will review carefully and reply at my first opportunity.

    Like

  1531. from a VERY liberal (Socinian) mennonite friend—“Some of the same Christians who want to confess that Jesus is Lord, when they are brought face to face with Jesus’ non-violence personally displayed in his life and manner of death, and they affirm that yes he was but that his ethics are not our standard, I find them wishy-washy. They want Jesus’ theology but they do not want his ethics, especially his insistence that a true disciple is non-retaliatory and non-violent. No. Here they play all kinds of mind games, figuring out ways to cop out. They claim a distinction of authority between person and office: Jesus for the personal/private spiritual life, government laws for the public life, that Jesus reigns in our interior life and in our church but that since we are in the world we must find our own way regarding right and wrong. Oh, they offer plenty of justifications for self-defense and protection of the innocent or they create totally unrealistic hypothetical scenarios. However, the reality is that many Christian leaders who claim Jesus as Lord are deceiving themselves when they also find ways to neuter Jesus’ social teaching….”

    http://americanvision.org/12202/dear-trueman-and-horton-heres-where-your-exile-theology-leads/

    Like

  1532. Sean,

    Let me see if I can go through those Scripture passages and put my thoughts on them and maybe we can see if they exclude me believe in Apostolic Traditions that do not contradict what is taught in Scripture, but not found in Scripture. This is what I see you must provide Biblical warrant for. If the Scriptures anywhere teach that I am to reject Apostolic Traditions that I can’t be deduce or explicitly found in Scripture, then Sola Scriptura wins. Remember we both believe no Tradition can be received that contradicts Scripture. You just believe the Church can’t teach as true doctrine and practice what can’t be deduced or explicitly found the Scripture. This is what is in question. That from your Sola Scriptura position you must prove from Scripture Alone, because it is you who are limiting where you get your deduced or explicitly received doctrines from.

    2 Peter 1:16-21Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[a] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

    I am not sure where you are coming from in this passage excluding Apostolic Traditions, because the verse 21 in this passage does not limit itself to the written Word. “…men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. ” The people who heard them would of course require that what they were saying was “in accord” with the Scripture and Covenants, but these men were always saying things that weren’t previously contained in Scripture. Therefor the hearers were not “deducing or explicitly receiving” teachings from Scripture, so if the hearers believed in Sola Scriptura they would have rejected the extra biblical parts of what the one sent from God with a message to give His people. This passage does clearly point out the importance the historic truth of what the Apostles witness. If
    this “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place…” is what you are talking about, those of us who believe in Sacred Traditions believe this to. What it does not say is “only pay attention”. That would make it teach Sola Scriptura.

    2 Timothy 3:16Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

    Quite agreed with everything in this passage. All Scripture absolutely true and is “profitable” or “useful” as some translations put it. It does not say Scripture is the “only” thing inspired by God though which would be also “profitable” or “useful”. In verse ten just before this Paul points out the importance of more than receiving what is written by him, saying “Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico′nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. 12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.” He later in the chp 4 says, “14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. ” This “message” was not completely inscripturated yet, therefore Paul was speaking Ill of this man for not receiving unwritten Apostolic Tradition and fighting against it.

    Galatians 1:8Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

    This is why the Catholic Church has pronounced some Reformed beliefs and adherence outside of the faith. We believe it is outside of the Gospel preached by the Apostles, including Paul. Either way, don’t know how this one teaches Sola Scriptura. You may have to explain. The Gospel wasn’t received by Scripture when those he was writing to first believed it, they received it from Apostolic Tradition. I can’t see Paul condemning how he regularly preached here. He is only pointing out the Gospel he has taught is the only true Gospel. It should be believed.

    1 Corinthians 14:37-38Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    37 If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

    To start with Paul is specifically speaking about his commands the in Corinthians, but of course I have no problem with this applying to all the commands or statements of the NT books or OT for that matter. This still does not exclude believing Apostolic Traditions that aren’t contradicted by any Scripture of the Old or New Testaments. It is also in the next chapter which Paul points out the importance of the fact that he teaches Apostolic Tradition saying, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” Notice Paul has no problem admitting the Church of God existed, and people were even dying now as members of it, before he even knew the Gospel much less had wrote anything down as an Apostle.

    2 Thessalonians 2:15Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

    Really don’t know how you are excluding the possibility of Apostolic Traditions being received and believed with this verse. Should we believe all Apostolic Traditions or just the ones we can find in the NT writings? This verse seem to say we aren’t limited by just what can be found in the NT to me.

    Like

  1533. Bruce
    Posted July 14, 2015 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    According to Augustine, Holy Scripture has FINAL authority;

    No one here or in Rome says otherwise. You and the Old Life hardcore can stop posting quotes to this effect now.

    As for your point about Augustine not fasting outside of Rome, it’s a good one. However, it doesn’t amount to a rejection of Tradition in the context of this discussion.

    Like

  1534. Mark Mcculley
    Posted July 14, 2015 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
    Can somebody explain to me me why Carl Truman is trying to influence the culture by writing for First Things instead of for The Gospel Coalition?

    First Things is the theo-philosophical major leagues, like Eisenhower and the strategists. It’s good that Trueman’s there, not just to represent Reformed thought but to keep the whole thing from getting too Catholic.

    A CHURCH FOR EXILES
    WHY REFORMED CHRISTIANITY PROVIDES THE BEST BASIS FOR FAITH TODAY
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/08/a-church-for-exiles

    The Gospel Coalition is more for troops on the ground, like Gen. Patton. Tactics, hand-to-hand combat if necessary. That’s not Trueman’s gig.

    Like

  1535. Sean,
    I should also mention that 1 Corinthians 15:3 passage:

    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

    The “I delivered to you” has the Greek root παρέλα. This word “παρέδωκα” was translated by St Jerome as tradidi enim(for) vobis(you) in the Vulgate and of course this is the root and origin of our word “tradition”, something handed down or over to someone else. Just a few extra things to think about regarding that passage I quoted.

    Like

  1536. Sean,

    “Jesus seemed sure.”

    Well yeah. That doesn’t mean all Jews were which was the referent in your post.

    “And if I’m remembering correctly, at work, there was a pretty clear ‘canon’ accepted among the jews.I thought Josephus weighed in on this as well, I don’t quite remember.”

    Josephus and Pharisaism was not representative of all Judaism. Michael Barber has a 3-part series examining the nature and development of canon within 2nd Temple Judaism starting at http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html (Josephus is discussed).

    Anyways as I said the Jewish perspective on the canon is besides the point. A “sense of canon” does not entail a rejection or condemnation of binding unwritten tradition; Jews weren’t OT SS’ists. RCs and EOs have a “sense of canon” and do not condemn tradition or not consider it a parallel authority to Scripture – the two are not mutually exclusive.

    “Yes, take the intended shot-man made traditions adherer.”

    I’m still waiting for justification on why SS is not a man-made tradition. You’ve appealed to verses to support it, but you’ve also agreed unwritten tradition was operating in parallel and simultaneously with inscripturation. So you’ve (rightfully) essentially agreed with White that SS was not and could not be operative during apostolic times. Which means none of the verses you cite could support SS since they couldn’t have meant that at the time of writing (and of course how could it since those same writers affirm authoritative unwritten tradition).

    Secondly, you still haven’t demonstrated how you derive the identification of the extent and scope of the canon, that said canon is inspired and inerrant, and that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle according to SS rather than Tradition. Further, you haven’t shown via SS where unwritten tradition you’ve agreed was authoritative and operating in the church before and during inscripturation somehow got converted to “written” or was to then be discarded when the last book was written. You can’t use the ladder of Tradition to get to the roof and then kick the ladder and say “ta da”. If you could demonstrate those 3 doctrines (well 4 if you include SS itself) according to SS, you’d be consistent.

    Like

  1537. @tvd

    According to Augustine, Holy Scripture has FINAL authority”
    No one here or in Rome says otherwise. You and the Old Life hardcore can stop posting quotes to this effect now.

    That’s not quite right. RPs, following sola scriptura, would say that scripture is “the” final authority. The RCC would say that scripture along with (T)radition and the magisterium are together the final authority. A sort of compromise is found in the Anglican/Wesleyan tradition that sees scripture as the “prime” authority.

    Perhaps the best way to see the divide between protestants and rome is over the question of whether (T)radition ever be in error. As Bryan pointed out, if you can show that a dogma changed or was otherwise in error, then his position would be falsified. Of course, RPs say that yes Popes and Councils can and have erred and the tradition can go astray. The only plumb line is scripture. RCs say the teaching authority (magisterium) of the church can not err on matters of faith and morals and that dogma cannot change.

    Here’s where I think it gets dicey for you. The 7th ecumenical council authoritatively taught, as a matter of faith, the historicity of Adam. This authoritative teaching cannot be errant according to the RC scheme. An RP would say that such a teaching could be wrong (though longevity decreases the likelihood that it is). However, if the Bible requires that conclusion, then one must submit to it…the Bible cannot be errant. While our interpretation might be, the longer the interpretation has persisted, the less likely it is to be wrong.

    Perhaps a clearer example comes from the NT. RPs may misinterpret Paul’s instructions about women being silent in church. Perhaps it is a culturally contingent instruction. What we are not free to do is conclude that Paul was just a man of his times and trapped by cultural misogyny. Modernists on the other hand (a different religion from Christianity according to Machen) could say that Paul really did want women to always be silent in church and he was simply wrong to command that.

    So there are at least four classes of understanding the role of scripture:
    1) RP: Scripture is the the final authority. It stands alone and all other authorities are subordinate to it.
    2) A/W: Scripture is a sort of first among equals
    3) RC/EO: Scripture is part of the magisterium (equal to sacred tradition)
    4) Liberal: Scripture is inspired but fallible foundational material for the church (modernism).

    Like

  1538. According to Augustine, Holy Scripture has FINAL authority;

    No one here or in Rome says otherwise. You and the Old Life hardcore can stop posting quotes to this effect now.

    Yup. Right now.
    Because the official Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

    Art.II.II. The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture . . .
    82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44

    Meanwhile one of the real early church fathers, Paul, told Timothy in the NT that Scripture equipped the man of God for every good work:

    2 Tim. 3:16,17  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    So can our implicitly ignorant of their own argument sophists apologists tell us just exactly what good work is left out of the picture? On Paul’s authority?
    Or will they deceitfully insist that determining where the true church is to be found is not a good work?
    And if so, would they be lying and how could we know that?

    Again, if one only had the Scripture, but not the most Holy Lost Apostolic Oral Traditions, what good work would one be precluded from knowing about and then practicing?

    And if one really did have the Traditions, how could they be anything other than redundant of Scripture, i.e. totally unnecessary?

    The takeaway: Rome can only win if she redefines the inspired, sufficient and perspicacious Word of God to include Tradition, as well as Scripture, which is what she does, all the while she wipes her mouth like a whore and says she has done nothing wrong Prov. 30:20

    Maybe it’s time for some of the streetwalkers around here to up their game.

    cheers

    Like

  1539. mtx, but your belief in Sacred Tradition is not so firm that you can have confidence it is the final authority. If the pope says something that contradicts or goes outside Scripture — bodily assumption of Mary — you have to believe something contrary to Scripture. Which makes Scripture sort of like one big epistle of straw.

    Like

  1542. Hey, Just seeing if posting a comment from the earlier pages lets me into to later The Court Gives pages.

    Like

  1543. Can we get Thabiti and Jemar to bring these guys to the Gospel Coalition Seminar on “The Gospel is Social”?

    T. DeWitt Smith Jr., an Atlanta pastor and co-chair of the National African American Clergy Network, said he doesn’t think owners of mom-and-pop establishments should be equated with the segregationists of the past.

    “The smaller groups have to grapple with their own consciences,” said Smith, former president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, noting he was stating his personal opinion.

    While some businesses may make that choice based on religious belief, “I don’t really equate that with the denial of hotel space based on color, ethnicity.”

    Talbert W. Swan II, a Church of God in Christ pastor in Springfield, Massachusetts, agreed that the church-run bakery down the street from his congregation should have the right to deny its services to a gay couple.

    “So if someone walks into the New Hope Bakery and said, ‘We wanted you to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony,’ I think they should have every right to say ‘No, we won’t bake that cake,’” he said. “They should have every right to refuse to bake a product that’s going to be associated with something that violates their religious belief.”

    But he said a for-profit corporation that serves the general public should not have an exemption.

    To Swan, the history of enslavement of African-Americans cannot be compared to LGBT struggles.

    “I don’t think it’s comparing apples to apples,” he said. “The history does not compare and to me it’s quite insulting to try to make that connection.”

    Like

  1544. The church gives and takes away (but what will the fellow with charism and power do?):

    Last Thursday the Philadelphia Inquirer published an op-ed on gay marriage. On the whole, it was blandly predictable, full of the usual tedious pieties and empty of cogent argumentation. Its interest lies not so much in the content as in the identity of the author, Paul F. Morrisey, a Catholic priest, and the context. Philadelphia is home to Archbishop Charles Chaput, one of the most solid and admirable Roman Catholic leaders on the issue of marriage and also the man set to host the World Meeting of Families later this year. . . .

    More interesting, however, than Morrisey’s predictable substitution of sentimental rhetoric for logic and emotive appeals for argument is what this article indicates about the internal problems facing the Catholic Church. Now, as a Presbyterian, I have no personal stake in the doctrinal position or discipline of the Roman Church, beyond the obvious point that, if she were to change on same-sex unions, it would make the fight for religious liberty much more difficult for all of us. But the existence of views such as Morrisey’s within the priesthood raises the practical question of what the Church will do with such clergy. It seems to me that the official teaching of any church is in practice defined by the range of views she permits to be publicly taught by those she appoints to hold office. Thus, the Catechism may say one thing but, if the parish priest says something else, then that is what the people hear the Church saying. And that is then, for all practical purposes, what the Church actually teaches.

    Like

Leave a comment

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