Dr Denny Burk wrote a very insightful article. Regardless of what the future holds, the Church (yes, the church) needs to stand against the tide and be that prophetic voice calling upon all to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.dennyburk.com/time-is-running-out-on-religious-liberty-roddreher/
Showing posts with label Theonomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theonomy. Show all posts
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
If there were any doubt that Van Til was a transformationalist....
Van Til was not a theonomist in the Bahnsen (American Reconstruction) sense of the word. This much is actually pretty clear. However, this is not to say that he was not a transformationalist.
"Is it not true that Christianity was meant to conquer the whole world for Christ? Yes it is. We have already said that we think of Christian theism, when we think of Christianity. That covers the whole earth. If we can successfully defend the fortress of Christian theism we have the whole world to ourselves. There is then no standing room left for the enemy. We wage offensive as well as defensive warfare. The two cannot be separated. But we need not leave the fort in order to wage offensive warfare."
Ref: Apologetics by CVT.
Reformed folks who claim to abide by Van Tillian presuppositionalism either clearly do not understand the dominion mindset that is a ***logical*** result of his apologetic, or they refuse to see it.
"Is it not true that Christianity was meant to conquer the whole world for Christ? Yes it is. We have already said that we think of Christian theism, when we think of Christianity. That covers the whole earth. If we can successfully defend the fortress of Christian theism we have the whole world to ourselves. There is then no standing room left for the enemy. We wage offensive as well as defensive warfare. The two cannot be separated. But we need not leave the fort in order to wage offensive warfare."
Ref: Apologetics by CVT.
Reformed folks who claim to abide by Van Tillian presuppositionalism either clearly do not understand the dominion mindset that is a ***logical*** result of his apologetic, or they refuse to see it.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
All Christians should be transformationalists.
A lot of times within the reformed polemical debates concerning the law of God, I think that sometimes, things get lost within the carpet bombing about the logical implications regarding the respective viewpoints or what the logical implications should be.
Typically, theonomists tend to be the most obvious example of Christian activism along with Neo-Calvinists/Kuyperians. Also, typically, but not exclusively, (R)2K advocates tend to be very neutered in their approach, or even have a refusal or general reluctance at all to be an activist. And then you have folks who are presuppositional, not really theonomists, not Kuyperian, and not really (R)2K, and these folks are all over the map when it comes to activism. John Frame would be an example of this fourth category in that he seems generally pretty vocal (at least in his "Doctrine of the Christian Life"), while some others who are generally in this fourth camp tend to let their "pessimistic" eschatology justify their refusal to be involved, even through their presuppositionalism should belie this attitude of refusal.
All this to say that even if you are a presuppositionalist (as in the fourth category), this does not necessarily mean that you are a (reformed) transformationalist as a theonomist or a neo-calvinist/kuyperian is.
Transformationalism in this sense means as the gospel goes forth, people will be changed in their hearts and minds, and thus culture, politics, economics etc... will gradually conform the moral standards of law of Christ. Transformationalism can (and should) be used to focus externals such as changing legislation. However, it must properly be understood that changing legislation or changing culture isn't an ends to itself but those changes are for the purpose of reflecting God's law publicly as a context to call people to repentance and believe and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
It bears repeating: it is important for transformationalists to understand that true transformation comes from the gospel changing hearts. Changed legislation or changed culture can be one of the means by which this is done (law driving to the gospel), but it can also be a result of the gospel changing hearts and behavior (gospel driving people to the law). Additionally, it should again be mentioned that any attempts to change culture or legislation are not the ends to themselves.
With this definition of transformationalism in mind, it is difficult for me to understand why all Christians are not transformationalist. Some Christians who are anti-transformationalist will say that there is an over-emphasis on worldviews, as if that somehow properly provides a rebuttal against a theonomic or neo-calvinist transformational methodology.
An overemphasis on worldviews? This is an absolutely strange statement that is being made given what the Bible says concerning the differences between those who belong in Christ and those of the world. A simple reading of 1, 2, 3 John will clearly reveal that John clearly understood that this spiritual conflict between Christians and pagans is reflected by a difference in their respective masters, worldviews (among other things) and subsequent behaviors.
First, at what point does an emphasis on worldviews become an over-emphasis? And how can we assume that that anti-transformationalist standard for over-emphasis is correct, while the theonomists' isn't? Clearly, this involves a lot of question begging and is logically absurd.
3 John 7: "It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans."
3 John 11: "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God."
2 John 7-9: Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. -Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
1 John 2:9-11: "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them."
1 John 2: 15-17: "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."
1 John 3: 9, 10: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister."
1 John 4: 2,3: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
1 John 5:18, 19: "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."
Even just a cursory glance should show that John labors to tell his audience that there is in fact a distinct contrast between those who are in Christ, and those who are in the world. This difference is due to our union with Christ, while those in the world do what is evil and has not seen God (2 John 9), are still in darkness (1 John 2: 9-11) etc... All of these verses that I quoted can be thought of as differences in worldview and one's subsequent actions/behavior based on his worldview. So, to disparage someone for an "over-emphasis" on contrasting the Christian worldview to the secular worldview should be really be seen as quite inconsistent with the sharp contrasts that John works hard to delineate.
Of course, as you pull the logic train backwards and forwards, this delves into other issues involving the ontological Trinity as the true theological axiom of presuppositionalism, and the derivative concept (yet still foundational in certain ways) of the worldview.
Different situations call for different emphasis in your apologetical methodology. In John's letters, the ontological Trinity is of course assumed but not directly dealt with, and so what is emphasized in the letters is the derivative contrast between a man who has union with Christ (1 John 4:2,3), his resulting worldview based on Christ (1 John 5:19) and his subsequent actions that he commits based that worldview (1 John 3:9, 10) vs. a man who is not of God.
What does this have to do with (reformed) transformationalism?
We clearly can see from this that there is a sharp spiritual (1 John 3:9, 10), moral (1 John 5:18, 19), and ethical (1 John 2:15-17) antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian.
We clearly can see that the God-hating (Rom 1:30) presuppositions of natural man lead him to sin. We know that sin is breaking of the law of God (1 John 3:4).
We know that it is the law that provides the proper context for the gospel (and vice versa). We are saved from the curse of the law and God commands us to repent of our disobedience to Him and the law and to submit to him (Acts 2:38). By implication, when in Christ, we submit to his law for our sanctification (Jas 2:8).
We also know that God commands his people to believe in His Son. 1 John 3:23: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."
Now then, does God call only on Christians to believe in Him and to repent of their sins (law-breaking)? Or by extension, is He calling on the entire world to believe and repent?
We should clearly understand that it is the latter. If He is commanding the church to believe in Jesus, He is also commanding the rest of humanity to believe in Christ as well.
So, as we Christians go out and evangelize, we not only tell people about Christ, but we also tell them about the need to repent of their sins (1 John 3:4) because they have broken His law and to sin no more. On a large scale, as more and more people become converted, they would repent of their sins and change their behavior personally, and their extended behavior as it delves into other areas such as the legislative process and through the arts and general culture.
This is what true gopsel centered transformationalism should entail and one that every Christian, no matter what polemical stripe he is, should be praying for. Sadly, we know that this isn't the case. But even through this, I know that God will accomplish His will, even with the obstinate and ignorant sheep that we all are.
Jesus, may your will be done and please come back soon!
Typically, theonomists tend to be the most obvious example of Christian activism along with Neo-Calvinists/Kuyperians. Also, typically, but not exclusively, (R)2K advocates tend to be very neutered in their approach, or even have a refusal or general reluctance at all to be an activist. And then you have folks who are presuppositional, not really theonomists, not Kuyperian, and not really (R)2K, and these folks are all over the map when it comes to activism. John Frame would be an example of this fourth category in that he seems generally pretty vocal (at least in his "Doctrine of the Christian Life"), while some others who are generally in this fourth camp tend to let their "pessimistic" eschatology justify their refusal to be involved, even through their presuppositionalism should belie this attitude of refusal.
All this to say that even if you are a presuppositionalist (as in the fourth category), this does not necessarily mean that you are a (reformed) transformationalist as a theonomist or a neo-calvinist/kuyperian is.
Transformationalism in this sense means as the gospel goes forth, people will be changed in their hearts and minds, and thus culture, politics, economics etc... will gradually conform the moral standards of law of Christ. Transformationalism can (and should) be used to focus externals such as changing legislation. However, it must properly be understood that changing legislation or changing culture isn't an ends to itself but those changes are for the purpose of reflecting God's law publicly as a context to call people to repentance and believe and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It bears repeating: it is important for transformationalists to understand that true transformation comes from the gospel changing hearts. Changed legislation or changed culture can be one of the means by which this is done (law driving to the gospel), but it can also be a result of the gospel changing hearts and behavior (gospel driving people to the law). Additionally, it should again be mentioned that any attempts to change culture or legislation are not the ends to themselves.
With this definition of transformationalism in mind, it is difficult for me to understand why all Christians are not transformationalist. Some Christians who are anti-transformationalist will say that there is an over-emphasis on worldviews, as if that somehow properly provides a rebuttal against a theonomic or neo-calvinist transformational methodology.
An overemphasis on worldviews? This is an absolutely strange statement that is being made given what the Bible says concerning the differences between those who belong in Christ and those of the world. A simple reading of 1, 2, 3 John will clearly reveal that John clearly understood that this spiritual conflict between Christians and pagans is reflected by a difference in their respective masters, worldviews (among other things) and subsequent behaviors.
First, at what point does an emphasis on worldviews become an over-emphasis? And how can we assume that that anti-transformationalist standard for over-emphasis is correct, while the theonomists' isn't? Clearly, this involves a lot of question begging and is logically absurd.
3 John 7: "It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans."
3 John 11: "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God."
2 John 7-9: Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. -Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
1 John 2:9-11: "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them."
1 John 2: 15-17: "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."
1 John 3: 9, 10: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister."
1 John 4: 2,3: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
1 John 5:18, 19: "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them. We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."
Even just a cursory glance should show that John labors to tell his audience that there is in fact a distinct contrast between those who are in Christ, and those who are in the world. This difference is due to our union with Christ, while those in the world do what is evil and has not seen God (2 John 9), are still in darkness (1 John 2: 9-11) etc... All of these verses that I quoted can be thought of as differences in worldview and one's subsequent actions/behavior based on his worldview. So, to disparage someone for an "over-emphasis" on contrasting the Christian worldview to the secular worldview should be really be seen as quite inconsistent with the sharp contrasts that John works hard to delineate. Of course, as you pull the logic train backwards and forwards, this delves into other issues involving the ontological Trinity as the true theological axiom of presuppositionalism, and the derivative concept (yet still foundational in certain ways) of the worldview.Different situations call for different emphasis in your apologetical methodology. In John's letters, the ontological Trinity is of course assumed but not directly dealt with, and so what is emphasized in the letters is the derivative contrast between a man who has union with Christ (1 John 4:2,3), his resulting worldview based on Christ (1 John 5:19) and his subsequent actions that he commits based that worldview (1 John 3:9, 10) vs. a man who is not of God.
What does this have to do with (reformed) transformationalism?
We clearly can see from this that there is a sharp spiritual (1 John 3:9, 10), moral (1 John 5:18, 19), and ethical (1 John 2:15-17) antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian.
We clearly can see that the God-hating (Rom 1:30) presuppositions of natural man lead him to sin. We know that sin is breaking of the law of God (1 John 3:4).
We know that it is the law that provides the proper context for the gospel (and vice versa). We are saved from the curse of the law and God commands us to repent of our disobedience to Him and the law and to submit to him (Acts 2:38). By implication, when in Christ, we submit to his law for our sanctification (Jas 2:8).
We also know that God commands his people to believe in His Son. 1 John 3:23: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."
Now then, does God call only on Christians to believe in Him and to repent of their sins (law-breaking)? Or by extension, is He calling on the entire world to believe and repent?
We should clearly understand that it is the latter. If He is commanding the church to believe in Jesus, He is also commanding the rest of humanity to believe in Christ as well.
So, as we Christians go out and evangelize, we not only tell people about Christ, but we also tell them about the need to repent of their sins (1 John 3:4) because they have broken His law and to sin no more. On a large scale, as more and more people become converted, they would repent of their sins and change their behavior personally, and their extended behavior as it delves into other areas such as the legislative process and through the arts and general culture.
This is what true gopsel centered transformationalism should entail and one that every Christian, no matter what polemical stripe he is, should be praying for. Sadly, we know that this isn't the case. But even through this, I know that God will accomplish His will, even with the obstinate and ignorant sheep that we all are.
Jesus, may your will be done and please come back soon!
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Is murder a crime against man or against God?
One of the common arguments against having civil government enforce the first table of the decalogue, in addition to the second table is that the first table involves our duty towards God while the second table involves duty towards man. The idea is that govt was made for man and that it isn't the govt's place to "enforce" religion by enforcing the first table of the law.
The reasoning goes that civil government is obligated to enforce the second table of the Decalogue because this is what is reflected in nature and "common" to all man.
Predictably, this type of reasoning is full of flaws and sloppy reasoning. I will focus on a few points.
Most people would recognize that murder is wrong, whether Christian or non-Christian., it is "common" among both. The reasoning then goes on to say that therefore, this is an acceptable crime for the government to address, and it certainly isn't a "religious" crime, since it is a "common" crime. Before I go on, unfortunately, it is not as "common" as people think to say that murder is wrong.. Why do we still have abortion then? And we have top abortion advocates finally admitting that the "fetus" is a human being and yet they still advocate abortion!
While we can certainly understand that killing without justifiable provocation (murder) is wrong, the ultimate normative basis behind why murder is wrong is that it is an assault on the image of God. In Gen 9:6, we read: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."
The entire reason that death penalty for murder is instituted is that murder is wrong because that man was made in the image of God, and that image is being destroyed when one is being murdered.
This point is an important one that seems to be overlooked so often. This is exactly why there is a fundamental difference between killing an ant when it is eating our food versus killing a human being because he looked at you in a grumpy way.
Atheists will say that murder is wrong because it is wrong to harm another person. This is certainly true. But ***why*** is it wrong to harm another person? The atheist at this point has no answer. If it were wrong to kill another person simply because it is wrong, that is question begging and it's his word against another atheist's. Who is to say that Atheist A is correct while Atheist B is not? Without the normative standard of God's law as revealed to us in the Bible, we would never properly know.
At this point, many R2K-ers will also say that we don't need the Bible to tell us that murder is wrong because of Gen 9:6 and how this is something that was naturally placed in our hearts to understand and know. This line of reasoning is fallacious.
It seems ironic to me that an R2K-er will tell me that we cannot use the Bible to say that murder is wrong to the non-Christian and he will cite justification for doing so ***using the Bible***. How can one use the Bible to justify not using the Bible? That is like trying to prove that I dont know how to speak English by using all of my reasoning in the English language.
Secondly, I wrote above that the ultimate reason that murder is wrong is because of Gen 9:6 (the image of God). R2K arguments, which refuse to actually use the Bible in the public square, would have a hard time informing the atheist that murder is wrong when they refuse to actually give the non-Christian the primary and ultimate reason as to why it is wrong in the first place.
Thirdly, how would the R2K-er have even known the proper concept that there actually is such a thing as things being revealed in nature if it weren't for the Bible? Consistent atheism does not understand that anything is revealed in nature. All they see is that nature is what it is.. Christians do understand that things are revealed in nature, because of what they read in the Bible (Rom 1). R2K attempts to prove revelation in nature without using the Bible when the only way that we could possibly know that there is revelation in nature is because the Bible says so! And yet, R2K refuses to acknowledge the very reason for the very concept of revelation in nature.
It concerns me that R2K refuses to understand the utter incoherence of its theological methodology.
Remember when Saul was murdering Christians in Acts. From a "purely civil" perspective, this would generally be seen as a crime against another human. However, if you notice in Acts 9:4, when Jesus is talking to Saul, the first thing that Jesus says isnt, "Why are you persecuting my people?", the first and actually the only thing that Jesus says is: "Why are you persecuting ME?". Jesus reiterates this when he responds to Saul's question about who He is. Jesus repeats his assertion that Saul was persecuting him by responding "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.".
It is interesting to note that Jesus is implying that every time Saul had killed Christians, he was actually and ultimately persecuting Jesus. Of course, Jesus understood that Saul was directly hurting His followers, and yet, it is noteworthy that Jesus never mentions to Saul about persecuting his followers, but that Saul was persecuting Him!
This is noteworthy because although murder and persecution are commonly seen today as crimes primarily against the individual from a temporal perspective, we see that the Bible doesnt view these crimes first and foremost from the temporal perspective.
We see that the Bible views the sins of murder and persecution FIRST AND FOREMOST as heinous acts against the Triune God. Notice how in Gen 9:6, and in Acts 9:4, what is mentioned is that these sins are against God (image of God: Gen, and Jesus: Acts), and there is no justification mentioned for these crimes being wrong because of their effect on man.
In other words, when we are talking about murder, the standard as to why it is wrong is that it is an assault on the image of God. Through the secondary means of murdering a fellow man, this assault on the image of God is brought to bear. God clearly understands that murder is an assault on a fellow human, but He doesnt mention that as the reason for why murder is wrong in Gen 9:6. Yes, murdering someone is wrong.. (secondary means)... But why is it wrong? Because it destroys the image of God (primary).
If man were the first and foremost reason as to why murder is wrong, Gen 9:6 would have been stated differently and focused on the harm done to man, and not the harm done to God.
And more specifically, when talking about the state or any person persecuting Christians, they are in fact persecuting Jesus, through the secondary means of harming his followers.
I am hoping that through this example of murder, we can see that it isn't simply a "civil" crime that has no religious significance, but in fact has as much religious significance as idol worship or blasphemy. (I also seem to remember certain non-Israelite nations (who did not directly have the law of Moses) being blotted out for their idolatry even though they were not specifically told that idolatry is wrong.........).. We can see implications of this on not just murder in general, but on other issues such as abortion. With this in mind, we should never grow cold towards abortion.
Finally, for the persecution example, we see that there is murder or other hateful actions being done towards Christians, but our Lord looks at this persecution FIRST AND FOREMOST not as an assault on his followers, but on HIM.
It really does concern me, and to be honest, it angers me, when I see Christians and church leaders refusing to speak out and take practical steps towards fighting against this persecution through prayer, and loving Christian action towards calling people to repent and believe in the Lord.. and other non-traditional things such as blogging and other forms of information transmission through various other media.
In effect, the message that is being said when churches refuse to speak out and take action is: We find it acceptable for you the state, other people etc.. to continue to persecute Jesus by passing laws and bullying Christians to be silent, compromise our faith, and ultimately make us sin against our Lord.
It is unfortunate that people don't see that the implications of refusing to speak out is that we are allowing the persecution not just Jesus' followers but persecution of JESUS himself to be accepted.
How is it that a Christian is now somehow regarded as being orthodox (R2K) by refusing to speak out and ultimately therefore allowing Jesus to be persecuted as opposed to not allowing him to be persecuted but honored and feared (theonomic, or at least Kuiperian)?
When did Christendom and supposed bastions of the reformed faith become so terribly backwards?
The reasoning goes that civil government is obligated to enforce the second table of the Decalogue because this is what is reflected in nature and "common" to all man.
Predictably, this type of reasoning is full of flaws and sloppy reasoning. I will focus on a few points.
Most people would recognize that murder is wrong, whether Christian or non-Christian., it is "common" among both. The reasoning then goes on to say that therefore, this is an acceptable crime for the government to address, and it certainly isn't a "religious" crime, since it is a "common" crime. Before I go on, unfortunately, it is not as "common" as people think to say that murder is wrong.. Why do we still have abortion then? And we have top abortion advocates finally admitting that the "fetus" is a human being and yet they still advocate abortion!
While we can certainly understand that killing without justifiable provocation (murder) is wrong, the ultimate normative basis behind why murder is wrong is that it is an assault on the image of God. In Gen 9:6, we read: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."
The entire reason that death penalty for murder is instituted is that murder is wrong because that man was made in the image of God, and that image is being destroyed when one is being murdered.
This point is an important one that seems to be overlooked so often. This is exactly why there is a fundamental difference between killing an ant when it is eating our food versus killing a human being because he looked at you in a grumpy way.
Atheists will say that murder is wrong because it is wrong to harm another person. This is certainly true. But ***why*** is it wrong to harm another person? The atheist at this point has no answer. If it were wrong to kill another person simply because it is wrong, that is question begging and it's his word against another atheist's. Who is to say that Atheist A is correct while Atheist B is not? Without the normative standard of God's law as revealed to us in the Bible, we would never properly know.
At this point, many R2K-ers will also say that we don't need the Bible to tell us that murder is wrong because of Gen 9:6 and how this is something that was naturally placed in our hearts to understand and know. This line of reasoning is fallacious.
It seems ironic to me that an R2K-er will tell me that we cannot use the Bible to say that murder is wrong to the non-Christian and he will cite justification for doing so ***using the Bible***. How can one use the Bible to justify not using the Bible? That is like trying to prove that I dont know how to speak English by using all of my reasoning in the English language.
Secondly, I wrote above that the ultimate reason that murder is wrong is because of Gen 9:6 (the image of God). R2K arguments, which refuse to actually use the Bible in the public square, would have a hard time informing the atheist that murder is wrong when they refuse to actually give the non-Christian the primary and ultimate reason as to why it is wrong in the first place.
Thirdly, how would the R2K-er have even known the proper concept that there actually is such a thing as things being revealed in nature if it weren't for the Bible? Consistent atheism does not understand that anything is revealed in nature. All they see is that nature is what it is.. Christians do understand that things are revealed in nature, because of what they read in the Bible (Rom 1). R2K attempts to prove revelation in nature without using the Bible when the only way that we could possibly know that there is revelation in nature is because the Bible says so! And yet, R2K refuses to acknowledge the very reason for the very concept of revelation in nature.
It concerns me that R2K refuses to understand the utter incoherence of its theological methodology.
Remember when Saul was murdering Christians in Acts. From a "purely civil" perspective, this would generally be seen as a crime against another human. However, if you notice in Acts 9:4, when Jesus is talking to Saul, the first thing that Jesus says isnt, "Why are you persecuting my people?", the first and actually the only thing that Jesus says is: "Why are you persecuting ME?". Jesus reiterates this when he responds to Saul's question about who He is. Jesus repeats his assertion that Saul was persecuting him by responding "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.".
It is interesting to note that Jesus is implying that every time Saul had killed Christians, he was actually and ultimately persecuting Jesus. Of course, Jesus understood that Saul was directly hurting His followers, and yet, it is noteworthy that Jesus never mentions to Saul about persecuting his followers, but that Saul was persecuting Him!
This is noteworthy because although murder and persecution are commonly seen today as crimes primarily against the individual from a temporal perspective, we see that the Bible doesnt view these crimes first and foremost from the temporal perspective.
We see that the Bible views the sins of murder and persecution FIRST AND FOREMOST as heinous acts against the Triune God. Notice how in Gen 9:6, and in Acts 9:4, what is mentioned is that these sins are against God (image of God: Gen, and Jesus: Acts), and there is no justification mentioned for these crimes being wrong because of their effect on man.
In other words, when we are talking about murder, the standard as to why it is wrong is that it is an assault on the image of God. Through the secondary means of murdering a fellow man, this assault on the image of God is brought to bear. God clearly understands that murder is an assault on a fellow human, but He doesnt mention that as the reason for why murder is wrong in Gen 9:6. Yes, murdering someone is wrong.. (secondary means)... But why is it wrong? Because it destroys the image of God (primary).
If man were the first and foremost reason as to why murder is wrong, Gen 9:6 would have been stated differently and focused on the harm done to man, and not the harm done to God.
And more specifically, when talking about the state or any person persecuting Christians, they are in fact persecuting Jesus, through the secondary means of harming his followers.
I am hoping that through this example of murder, we can see that it isn't simply a "civil" crime that has no religious significance, but in fact has as much religious significance as idol worship or blasphemy. (I also seem to remember certain non-Israelite nations (who did not directly have the law of Moses) being blotted out for their idolatry even though they were not specifically told that idolatry is wrong.........).. We can see implications of this on not just murder in general, but on other issues such as abortion. With this in mind, we should never grow cold towards abortion.
Finally, for the persecution example, we see that there is murder or other hateful actions being done towards Christians, but our Lord looks at this persecution FIRST AND FOREMOST not as an assault on his followers, but on HIM.
It really does concern me, and to be honest, it angers me, when I see Christians and church leaders refusing to speak out and take practical steps towards fighting against this persecution through prayer, and loving Christian action towards calling people to repent and believe in the Lord.. and other non-traditional things such as blogging and other forms of information transmission through various other media.
In effect, the message that is being said when churches refuse to speak out and take action is: We find it acceptable for you the state, other people etc.. to continue to persecute Jesus by passing laws and bullying Christians to be silent, compromise our faith, and ultimately make us sin against our Lord.
It is unfortunate that people don't see that the implications of refusing to speak out is that we are allowing the persecution not just Jesus' followers but persecution of JESUS himself to be accepted.
How is it that a Christian is now somehow regarded as being orthodox (R2K) by refusing to speak out and ultimately therefore allowing Jesus to be persecuted as opposed to not allowing him to be persecuted but honored and feared (theonomic, or at least Kuiperian)?
When did Christendom and supposed bastions of the reformed faith become so terribly backwards?
Monday, July 8, 2013
The thought police
The church has nothing to say about this issue to the police or in the public square. We must willingly let the state run over Christians and their faith. We must intentionally be cowardly and not bold, and not speak out for justice. The church cannot speak out against these kinds of acts against preachers.
Christianity has not authority over politics. It is entirely acceptable for atheists to tell us how to think, yet it is entirely rude and unloving for Christians to tell others how to think, even though we have normative truth and a fully epistemologically consistent worldview while the atheists cannot account for their knowledge or ethics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html
Christianity has not authority over politics. It is entirely acceptable for atheists to tell us how to think, yet it is entirely rude and unloving for Christians to tell others how to think, even though we have normative truth and a fully epistemologically consistent worldview while the atheists cannot account for their knowledge or ethics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Speaking boldly from the pulpit.
Over the years, even before I became a theonomist, I have occasionally asked my pastors at the various churches that I have attended to pray about certain issues... (So, I guess I wasn't always a consistent (R)2K advocate but I was still positive that theonomy was "clearly" wrong... How did that one turn out?).
In the past 10 years, due to job moves and not whimsical moves such as I didn't like the new carpet at church, I have attended 6 different churches. In three of them, I have asked the pastors to pray issues that I felt were very pressing. I didn't even ask them to preach on them, just to do some sort of supplicational congregrational prayer. And I didnt even ask that often: I asked one time each at two separate churches, and two times at another. Given the number of months that I attended each church, that amounts to less than 1% of the time.
-Right as my business trip to Kuwait ended, I asked one of the local chaplains to befriend a local Bengladeshi dry cleaner guy that I had befriended in hopes that the chaplain could share Christ with him. Over email, he told me that he would not share Christ with my dry cleaner friend because of the regional policy on no proseltyzing in the region.
Would my dry cleaner friend really have reported him to the law enforcement if the chaplain shared Christ with him?
-I once asked a pastor to pray against a particular legislation that was being generated that would ***make it illegal*** to bring up any future legislation against abortion in any way, restrict it, make it more difficult to get one etc...
Legislation that would make murdering babies legal all the time without opposition??? Surely this was something that would garner an important and specific prayer topic for congregation prayer. The response I got was that he wouldn't pray against this specific legislation, but he would pray for abortion generally. When I asked him about it afterwards, he told me that he didn't want to lose his tax exempt status, and that it was a "political" matter and it wasn't appropriate to bring up politics from the pulpit, even if that meant talking about forever allowing "doctors" and mothers to be able to murder babies without any fear of further legislation to prevent them from exercising their "right".
-I once asked another pastor to pray for the German family that is currently potentially going to be deported back to Germany. They left Germany because they were going to be arrested for taking their kids out of public school and attempting to homeschool them. He never prayed about them specifically, but to be fair, he at least prayed a very general prayer about govt persecution and control. Another time, I asked the same pastor to pray for the DOD move that would attempt to court-martial military members for "prosiletyzing" to others. Same response. A general prayer, and no specifics.
As I reflect back on these requests being either ignored, shot down, or answered in a very vague way, this seems to be a large swath of the church that is either afraid, or unwilling to preach God's law to every area of life, even in the face of seemingly strict government restrictions.
Esp. now with homosexual marriage having the great potential to be "upheld", our churches will have to deal with this and there will be a lot of legal maneuvering and suing going on. The church is being actively persecuted and yet no one is able to speak out against these things, and in fact is unwilling to face the facts that the church is being persecuted by outside forces.
Where are our ministers boldly preaching the law and driving people to the gospel? Why is it that Glenn Beck, a conservative talk show host and a Mormon, is rebuking pastors for something that Christians should understand better than a Mormon does?
This has been going on for years, and not just pastors, but Christians in general refuse to become involved. Greg Bahnsen said in a lecture about 25 years ago that the church is being punished for its cowardice and apathy. I mentioned my feelings to my friend that I felt that with all of these things going on in our society today (abortion, marriage, marginalization of the church in the public square etc...) that the church was being punished and judged by God. He then told me about the Bahnsen lecture which I was unaware of until he told me.
I don't know how long it is going to take before we wake from our slumber, and I don't know if our country will be able to last the next 50 years, given the moral decay in our society in general.
Please continue to pray for boldness and loving action in your own life and for the church and her officers. If our country isnt around in the next 50 years because of our unwillingness to speak out and become involved, there won't be any more church to pray for and that will be further (temporal) judgement from God that we rightfully deserve.
In the past 10 years, due to job moves and not whimsical moves such as I didn't like the new carpet at church, I have attended 6 different churches. In three of them, I have asked the pastors to pray issues that I felt were very pressing. I didn't even ask them to preach on them, just to do some sort of supplicational congregrational prayer. And I didnt even ask that often: I asked one time each at two separate churches, and two times at another. Given the number of months that I attended each church, that amounts to less than 1% of the time.
-Right as my business trip to Kuwait ended, I asked one of the local chaplains to befriend a local Bengladeshi dry cleaner guy that I had befriended in hopes that the chaplain could share Christ with him. Over email, he told me that he would not share Christ with my dry cleaner friend because of the regional policy on no proseltyzing in the region.
Would my dry cleaner friend really have reported him to the law enforcement if the chaplain shared Christ with him?
-I once asked a pastor to pray against a particular legislation that was being generated that would ***make it illegal*** to bring up any future legislation against abortion in any way, restrict it, make it more difficult to get one etc...
Legislation that would make murdering babies legal all the time without opposition??? Surely this was something that would garner an important and specific prayer topic for congregation prayer. The response I got was that he wouldn't pray against this specific legislation, but he would pray for abortion generally. When I asked him about it afterwards, he told me that he didn't want to lose his tax exempt status, and that it was a "political" matter and it wasn't appropriate to bring up politics from the pulpit, even if that meant talking about forever allowing "doctors" and mothers to be able to murder babies without any fear of further legislation to prevent them from exercising their "right".
-I once asked another pastor to pray for the German family that is currently potentially going to be deported back to Germany. They left Germany because they were going to be arrested for taking their kids out of public school and attempting to homeschool them. He never prayed about them specifically, but to be fair, he at least prayed a very general prayer about govt persecution and control. Another time, I asked the same pastor to pray for the DOD move that would attempt to court-martial military members for "prosiletyzing" to others. Same response. A general prayer, and no specifics.
As I reflect back on these requests being either ignored, shot down, or answered in a very vague way, this seems to be a large swath of the church that is either afraid, or unwilling to preach God's law to every area of life, even in the face of seemingly strict government restrictions.
Esp. now with homosexual marriage having the great potential to be "upheld", our churches will have to deal with this and there will be a lot of legal maneuvering and suing going on. The church is being actively persecuted and yet no one is able to speak out against these things, and in fact is unwilling to face the facts that the church is being persecuted by outside forces.
Where are our ministers boldly preaching the law and driving people to the gospel? Why is it that Glenn Beck, a conservative talk show host and a Mormon, is rebuking pastors for something that Christians should understand better than a Mormon does?
This has been going on for years, and not just pastors, but Christians in general refuse to become involved. Greg Bahnsen said in a lecture about 25 years ago that the church is being punished for its cowardice and apathy. I mentioned my feelings to my friend that I felt that with all of these things going on in our society today (abortion, marriage, marginalization of the church in the public square etc...) that the church was being punished and judged by God. He then told me about the Bahnsen lecture which I was unaware of until he told me.
I don't know how long it is going to take before we wake from our slumber, and I don't know if our country will be able to last the next 50 years, given the moral decay in our society in general.
Please continue to pray for boldness and loving action in your own life and for the church and her officers. If our country isnt around in the next 50 years because of our unwillingness to speak out and become involved, there won't be any more church to pray for and that will be further (temporal) judgement from God that we rightfully deserve.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Political conservatism is not enough.
I have been a Christian since Dec1996. During the first ~3-4 years of my Christian life, I really had no real concept or clue about the the debates concerning the law of God (theonomy, (R)2K, Kuyperianism etc...). I was eventually exposed to Lee Irons' teaching. As I continued to study more and more of Lee Irons' stuff, I got more and more immersed into the whole "Klinean" way of looking at redemptive history and the law of God. The more I studied, the more I became convinced that his view of the law was correct. This was before the (R)2K movement really crystallized at WSCAL, but of course, with Kline on the faculty, (R)2K was there at the school. After several years of reading a bunch of WSCAL and Lee Irons' material, I was probably (R)2K in the same vein as Dr Clark or Matt Tuininga. I drank deep from the (R)2K fountain and was probably just as anti-theonomic as Dr Clark and Matt Tuininga.
Around the time of about 2008, I started listening to conservative talk radio in my car. Before this time, I was very politically very ignorant and grossly uninformed. As I started listening to conservative radio, I began to really see just how uninformed I was and just what exactly was going on in the political realm.
I continued to listen to conservative radio, and during this time, I continued to attend (R)2K churches. During the times that I listened to conservative radio, I would always feel very upset at some story about how the liberals were doing something ridiculous, or republicans were doing something dumb or this or that happening etc... But, during all this time, I never made the connection between how the things that I hear on the radio should be influenced by my Christian beliefs in that how I as a ***Christian*** should respond, not simply how I as a ***citizen*** should respond. And at every (R)2K church that I attended, there was never any mention of cultural or social issues, no mention of anything outside the four corners of the church building... So, this continued to contribute to my lack of logical connection of my political conservatism with my Christian convictions.
In early 2012, I picked up and finished reading Van Til's Defense of the Faith. Embarrassingly, this was really the first time that I had read anything about presuppositional apologetics and its relation to the Christian faith and the gospel. I honestly think that it was at that time that my theonomic beliefs really started to form. My eyes were opened when it came to all facts, knowledge, logic, ethics, etc... came from God, and that we must presuppose God in order to make sense of anything etc...
I started to think about how my political beliefs were to merge with my Christian convictions, but it was still a little foggy, to be honest. In the middle of 2012, I began to read Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which I had actually bought back in 2004, but really hadn't gone past the first 50 pages. I finally finished that book in late 2012, and during the next month or two of various readings on-line and reflection, I came to be a full fledged theonomist in the Bahnsen tradition.
As I look back on my previous beliefs, I am struck by how I never thought through the logical implications of my (R)2K beliefs, and how it was only through a careful examination of presuppositionalism and Theonomy, that I come to understand that what I previously believed about (R)2K was inconsistent with the logical conclusions of presuppositionalism. Additionally, through Theonomy, I came to see how other nations were still under the Mosaic law, and how we as NT Christians are to obey the Mosaic law as fulfilled/confirmed/completed etc... by Christ.
All of this boring biographical background as context, the point behind this is that I came to realize that the political conservatism of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck etc.. to fight against liberalism and the ridiculous things going on in our society is not enough. Political conservatism is not enough, and never will be enough to help bring about the change that our society needs (politically speaking). These talk show hosts think that it is enough.
Yes, conservatism has many values that overlap with the (theonomic) Christian worldview, and yet the (theonomic) Christian worldview goes much deeper than political conservatism ever could. In the end, political conservatism is simply another idea that is "equal" in the marketplace of multiple ideas because it ultimately does not consistently rely upon the revealed standard of God. There are many atheists who are politically conservative, and may be Christian or Jewish friendly, but ultimately, they are still sinners in a depraved state who are just as lost and without hope as the non Christian politically liberal.
Only through the (theonomic) Christian worldview can we ever really hope to provide any sort of real and fundamental and lasting change in our society as Christ commanded in the Great Commission. Conservatives come with very good principles (which in some cases is identical to the law of God, and this can be expected due to natural law) that they try to pass into law etc... However, in the end, that is all they are.. "Good" principles... with no real power behind them because those principles are not fully recognized as the law of God and not backed up and supported by the gospel.
It is only when we as Christians stand up as Christians (not merely as citizens), proclaim the law of God through our neighborhoods, churches and the public square and the legislative process that we can ever hope to be real salt and light as Christ commanded. Not through some talk show host. But through the Word of God.
And as we proclaim the law of God, we drive people to the gospel as well to repent of their sins, just as Jonah did to Ninevah and as Daniel did to Belshazzar.
Conservatism has brought about many great benefits, and I still am a big fan of conservative talk radio. However, with a very firm and crystallized theonomic conviction, I now realize that conservatism has never been enough, and can never bring about the "dominion" that God commands of us. I never understood or even made these kinds of connections when I was (R)2K... I never realized and never saw by not having a Christ centered view of EVERYTHING (instead of having only a "conservative" view of things, such as politics), that I was not putting my Lord in his proper place. When I was R2K, I never realized just how disobedient our churches have been to the Great Commission when they actively refused to discuss anything cultural or "political" at the pulpit through a Christ centered way.
I do now. And with my renewed and corrected conviction, I have better clarity to encourage my pastors to speak the entire counsel of God and to encourage my fellow members to take action for Christ through his gospel and law.
Around the time of about 2008, I started listening to conservative talk radio in my car. Before this time, I was very politically very ignorant and grossly uninformed. As I started listening to conservative radio, I began to really see just how uninformed I was and just what exactly was going on in the political realm.
I continued to listen to conservative radio, and during this time, I continued to attend (R)2K churches. During the times that I listened to conservative radio, I would always feel very upset at some story about how the liberals were doing something ridiculous, or republicans were doing something dumb or this or that happening etc... But, during all this time, I never made the connection between how the things that I hear on the radio should be influenced by my Christian beliefs in that how I as a ***Christian*** should respond, not simply how I as a ***citizen*** should respond. And at every (R)2K church that I attended, there was never any mention of cultural or social issues, no mention of anything outside the four corners of the church building... So, this continued to contribute to my lack of logical connection of my political conservatism with my Christian convictions.
In early 2012, I picked up and finished reading Van Til's Defense of the Faith. Embarrassingly, this was really the first time that I had read anything about presuppositional apologetics and its relation to the Christian faith and the gospel. I honestly think that it was at that time that my theonomic beliefs really started to form. My eyes were opened when it came to all facts, knowledge, logic, ethics, etc... came from God, and that we must presuppose God in order to make sense of anything etc...
I started to think about how my political beliefs were to merge with my Christian convictions, but it was still a little foggy, to be honest. In the middle of 2012, I began to read Theonomy in Christian Ethics, which I had actually bought back in 2004, but really hadn't gone past the first 50 pages. I finally finished that book in late 2012, and during the next month or two of various readings on-line and reflection, I came to be a full fledged theonomist in the Bahnsen tradition.
As I look back on my previous beliefs, I am struck by how I never thought through the logical implications of my (R)2K beliefs, and how it was only through a careful examination of presuppositionalism and Theonomy, that I come to understand that what I previously believed about (R)2K was inconsistent with the logical conclusions of presuppositionalism. Additionally, through Theonomy, I came to see how other nations were still under the Mosaic law, and how we as NT Christians are to obey the Mosaic law as fulfilled/confirmed/completed etc... by Christ.
All of this boring biographical background as context, the point behind this is that I came to realize that the political conservatism of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck etc.. to fight against liberalism and the ridiculous things going on in our society is not enough. Political conservatism is not enough, and never will be enough to help bring about the change that our society needs (politically speaking). These talk show hosts think that it is enough.
Yes, conservatism has many values that overlap with the (theonomic) Christian worldview, and yet the (theonomic) Christian worldview goes much deeper than political conservatism ever could. In the end, political conservatism is simply another idea that is "equal" in the marketplace of multiple ideas because it ultimately does not consistently rely upon the revealed standard of God. There are many atheists who are politically conservative, and may be Christian or Jewish friendly, but ultimately, they are still sinners in a depraved state who are just as lost and without hope as the non Christian politically liberal.
Only through the (theonomic) Christian worldview can we ever really hope to provide any sort of real and fundamental and lasting change in our society as Christ commanded in the Great Commission. Conservatives come with very good principles (which in some cases is identical to the law of God, and this can be expected due to natural law) that they try to pass into law etc... However, in the end, that is all they are.. "Good" principles... with no real power behind them because those principles are not fully recognized as the law of God and not backed up and supported by the gospel.
It is only when we as Christians stand up as Christians (not merely as citizens), proclaim the law of God through our neighborhoods, churches and the public square and the legislative process that we can ever hope to be real salt and light as Christ commanded. Not through some talk show host. But through the Word of God.
And as we proclaim the law of God, we drive people to the gospel as well to repent of their sins, just as Jonah did to Ninevah and as Daniel did to Belshazzar.
Conservatism has brought about many great benefits, and I still am a big fan of conservative talk radio. However, with a very firm and crystallized theonomic conviction, I now realize that conservatism has never been enough, and can never bring about the "dominion" that God commands of us. I never understood or even made these kinds of connections when I was (R)2K... I never realized and never saw by not having a Christ centered view of EVERYTHING (instead of having only a "conservative" view of things, such as politics), that I was not putting my Lord in his proper place. When I was R2K, I never realized just how disobedient our churches have been to the Great Commission when they actively refused to discuss anything cultural or "political" at the pulpit through a Christ centered way.
I do now. And with my renewed and corrected conviction, I have better clarity to encourage my pastors to speak the entire counsel of God and to encourage my fellow members to take action for Christ through his gospel and law.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I have been watching with some interest concerning the debate that has been becoming very charged within the URC about the (R)2K doctrine.
Matthew Tuininga (PhD student at Emory) has posted about this issue, here, and here. This was started in part by some posts by Mark Van Der Molen (elder in the URC), here, PDF version here and there are some additional articles by Dr Kloosterman (former prof at Mid America Seminary), here and here.
And, if there is any doubt on where WSCAL lies in this debate, you can find it here.
Both in Matt Tuininga's blog and in the advertisement of that particular blog post on the WSCAL site, the main point behind this is about properly representing your "opponent", you must be responsible in presenting him accurately: "It is time for serious Reformed people to step up and demand that whatever concerns people may have about two kingdoms theology, they raise them in a responsible way." (Tuininga blog)
On the WSCAL site, it says "(1) when we critique another position, how accurate is our representation? And, (2) how accurate is our theological engagement of the issues?'
In and of themselves, I appreciate the statements that both Mr. Tuininga and WSCAL are making regarding the need to be academically and intellecually honest when looking at another's position.
I simply wish that they actually realized that they not only need to be preaching this to others who do not agree with them, but they need to apply it to themselves as well.
To say that WSCAL is anti-theonomic is probably an understatement, but part of the problem that the school has is that they are not understanding theonomy correctly, and so what they are attempting to refute has nothing to do with the actual theonomic position.
For instance, Dr Clark has recently wrote a blog series on "We Are Not Polishing Brass On A Sinking Ship" in several parts. In part 2, here, he goes on to talk about the so-called errors associated with the theonomic movement. It seems that Dr Clark is not listening to his employer's own advice when attempting accurately represent opposing views:
-RSC: "Supported by their postmillennialism, theonomy/reconstructionism looked forward to a future Christian “dominion“ through the gradual leavening of the culture by Christian cultural and political influence"
-CSL: This particular quote is very subtle and most people will miss the fallacy of association here. It is no secret that WSCAL is militantly amillenial. The problem comes about because Dr Clark as well as Dr Gaffin (former prof at WTS PA) have both associated theonomy with postmilleniliasm in a fallacious manner. One of their many anti-theonomic contentions is that since postmillenialism is wrong (and amil is correct), and since theonomy means postmillenialism or theonomy is associated with postmillenialism, therefore, theonomy is wrong.
This is fallacious reasoning. While certainly many theonomists are postmillenial, theonomy itself does not **automatically equate** to postmillenilaism. Theonomy is what should be. Postmillenialism states what will be. People can agree on what should be without actually agreeing on what will be. And by intentionally and subtly (and fallaciously) associating postmil with theonomy, Dr Clark seeks to discredit theonomy in this sentence on that fallacious basis.
You can't prove your conclusion true by using a fallacious argument, which he attempts to do here.
Dr Clark assumes that his readers will see the connection between post mil and theonomy and make the fallacious association as he does that therefore theonomy is wrong (since his premise is that amil is true).
-RSC: "Even the true believers, the theonomists/reconstructionists seem to have given up their original program of cultural transformation through direct political action (Rushdoony’s followers). Instead, they’ve turned to a program of cultural transformation through sacerdotalism, via their theology of baptismal election-union-justification etc ostentatiously self-glossed as “The Federal Vision.”
-CSL: It is amazing to me how uninformed, misleading and/or misinformed, and not clear Dr Clark is being when he writes statements like these. Again notice the fallacy of association and now also the fallacy of misrepresentation that he brings to bear when attempting to connect theonomy with federal vision. Any person who is not extremely familiar with this on-going debate will then conclude from Dr Clark's post that theonomy now (by definition) equals federal vision.
To be fair, there are many well known theonomists who have gone the federal vision route such as Doug Wilson and James Jordan. However, I could also easily conclude that (R)2K leads to Roman Catholicism due to Jason Stellman's defection to Rome after having prosecuted the cases against Peter Leithart (FV advocate in the PCA). And Mr Stellman was a hard core (R)2K advocate, even writing a book about it, Dual Citizens. Even the church that he planted has a (R)2K name: Exile Presbysterian Church. I have read enough of the (R)2K position to know that while there are blatant and gross inconsistencies in this doctrine, if it is faithfully followed in accordance to how Dr Van Drunen espouses it in such books as Living in God's Two Kingdoms, (R)2K will NOT lead to Roman Catholicism.
Dr Clark's statements commit the fallacy of association by linking theonomy with FV in such a way that is similar to theonomy and postmil.
He commits the fallacy of misrepresentation also because he is representing theonomy as if it logically means FV, which a faithful adherence to theonomy will not. The RPCUS, which is a proudly theonomic presbysterian denomination, recently generated an open letter to those who are FV to publicly repent here. And the website Theonomy Resources is a theonomic webiste that calls FV a heresy. Both the RPCUS and Theonomy Resources logically and faithfully adhere to theonomy. For Dr Clark to say that theonomy automatically logically equals FV or that all theonomists (as he seems to suggest in his post) are FV is wrong and goes against reality. If he doesn't mean that all theonomists are FV, he certainly didn't make that very clear in his blog post.
In other blog posts of his, Dr Clark has claimed to read theonomic literature such as Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, and has claimed to think very deeply about theonomy in years past, but either he read it such a long time ago that he forgot what Bahnsen's book says, or he didn't read it carefully enough because even a cursory glance at any theonomic literature by Bahsnen will clearly reveal that he understood that law and gospel are clearly separate in that the law can never save.
From these two points above, it should be obvious that WSCAL needs to be very careful to follow its own advice on properly representing those who disagree with them.
It really concerns me that legions of students and laymen are so heavily influenced by WSCAL, and while a good portion of what WSCAL does is godly (focusing on Christ centered preaching etc..), it is also mixed in with flat out wrong and grossly misrepresented views on what exactly theonomy is. And since many people are so influenced by WSCAL, they will take anything that the school says as "gospel"... even gross misreprentations of theonomy because other things that WSCAL espouses is godly.
I remember my friend having a discussion with a WSCAL student about 10 years ago about theonomy, and the WSCAL student said that theonomy was bad and wrong. When my friend pressed him, the student couldn't come up with any real reason other than saying "Well, because Dr Van Drunen said so in class." (a wonderfully fallacious appeal to authority).
Everyone has disagreements, and that is simply a fact of life. But, to simply disagree based on a gross caricature of theonomy or simply because WSCAL says so, or because a certain professor says so is the height of theological, academic and intelletcual dishonesty. It is deeply concerning to me that this kind of thing is coming out of a seminary that is highly regarded and very influential in the reformed world.
Monday, June 3, 2013
The logical implications of homosexual activity.
In Oct 2012, a Columbia political science professor was charged with incest committed with his 24 year old daughter. The original article is here. As disgusting as that is, what he ended up saying in response to his charge was very interesting:
"It's ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?
'We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.'"
I have come across many people who do not see the implications of their support for homosexual activity and marriage. What this political science professor said was logically correct.
When we as a society wrongly acknowledge that there is any acceptable sexual activity beyond husband and wife and extend that to anything beyond this, we end up with situations like this. What the professor mentions about figuring out why some behavior is acceptable and other behavior is not is very significant. Only a fully consistent Christian worldview would be able to properly articulate and comprehend what behavior is acceptable and which is not.
Also, any reference that simply stops at "natural law" is (as I have said many times) epistemologically deficient and also not fully sufficient from a normative (standard for right and wrong), motivational (why we should right things) or consequential (the effects of our behavior) perspectives of ethical behavior. And as we preach the law and stand for moral truth to those in the public square, at the same time, we also must wisely integrate this with preaching the gospel so that we can offer the lost a way for ethics and ultimately the law of God to not be their condemnation but to be their joy as they worship God.
Challenge any non-married "couple" why extra marital sex is wrong, and any reason that they give will at best from a consequential ethical standpoint, and weak from the motivational standpoint. However, they will never be able to understand why from a normative standpoint extra marital sex is wrong.
In order for ethics to be understood properly, by anyone whether Christian or non-Christian, all three aspects of ethics must be discussed and examined through the lens of the Christian worldview and the gospel.
This can never be done going no higher than natural law as espoused by the (R)2K doctrine.
This cannot be done when reformed Christians absolutely refuse to CONSISTENTLY understand that God's law as reflected in the Word of God is the basis for the normative perspective, it is the loving reason for the motivational perspective and it is the true lens by which we can examine the consequences of ethical actions.
Only through a gospel infused and proper Christian worldview can we understand all of these perspectives on ethics and be able to provide an epistemologically consistent answer to the political science professor as to why his behavior is wrong and what other non-marriage sexual behavior is wrong and how we can know that that other behavior it is wrong.
Reference: "By This Standard", Greg Bahnsen.
"It's ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?
'We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.'"
I have come across many people who do not see the implications of their support for homosexual activity and marriage. What this political science professor said was logically correct.
When we as a society wrongly acknowledge that there is any acceptable sexual activity beyond husband and wife and extend that to anything beyond this, we end up with situations like this. What the professor mentions about figuring out why some behavior is acceptable and other behavior is not is very significant. Only a fully consistent Christian worldview would be able to properly articulate and comprehend what behavior is acceptable and which is not.
Also, any reference that simply stops at "natural law" is (as I have said many times) epistemologically deficient and also not fully sufficient from a normative (standard for right and wrong), motivational (why we should right things) or consequential (the effects of our behavior) perspectives of ethical behavior. And as we preach the law and stand for moral truth to those in the public square, at the same time, we also must wisely integrate this with preaching the gospel so that we can offer the lost a way for ethics and ultimately the law of God to not be their condemnation but to be their joy as they worship God.
Challenge any non-married "couple" why extra marital sex is wrong, and any reason that they give will at best from a consequential ethical standpoint, and weak from the motivational standpoint. However, they will never be able to understand why from a normative standpoint extra marital sex is wrong.
In order for ethics to be understood properly, by anyone whether Christian or non-Christian, all three aspects of ethics must be discussed and examined through the lens of the Christian worldview and the gospel.
This can never be done going no higher than natural law as espoused by the (R)2K doctrine.
This cannot be done when reformed Christians absolutely refuse to CONSISTENTLY understand that God's law as reflected in the Word of God is the basis for the normative perspective, it is the loving reason for the motivational perspective and it is the true lens by which we can examine the consequences of ethical actions.
Only through a gospel infused and proper Christian worldview can we understand all of these perspectives on ethics and be able to provide an epistemologically consistent answer to the political science professor as to why his behavior is wrong and what other non-marriage sexual behavior is wrong and how we can know that that other behavior it is wrong.
Reference: "By This Standard", Greg Bahnsen.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
General Equity of the "Civil" Law
I find attending presbytery meetings to be very enjoyable. In the past, I have heard many pastors bemoan how it is "that time again" when they have to muddle through yet another boring presbytery meeting. Perhaps because they feel that they are so busy with their own local church stuff. For me, I like big picture stuff, I like top level interactions and the 30,000 ft view.. And this is what presbytery does (well, at least at the 30,000 ft regional view... GA would be the 100,000 ft view)... About a year ago, I had attended two South Coast Presbytery (PCA) meetings in San Diego. The various sub-committees would stand up and give their updates on what happened since the last meeting etc... One of my favorites is the Candidates and Credentials sub-committee. This is the group that is responsible for licensure and ordination of licentiate and ministerial candidates, respectively.
During both meetings, there were licensure and ordination exams that were conducted. As expected, since the South Coast Presbytery is in San Diego, you get a lot of candidates that are from Westminster Seminary in Escondido. One licensure exam that was conducted on the floor was of particular interest. For most of the exam, the licensure candidate did reasonably well. When the questioning got to this candidate's exceptions to the Westminster standards, this is when things got to be a little controversial. He took the almost automatic exception of WCF XXI:VIII that nearly all candidates seem to be taking nowadays, concerning the prohibition of recreation on the Sabbath.
My observations have been that most people don't really understand this particular part of the confession and they take this exception without really understanding that the "recreation" that the candidates are thinking of (e.g. walking on the beach, admiring God's creation) is NOT what the confession is talking about. Or, it is that the candidate has the very bleeding edge and very novel Klinean view of the Sabbath in which "common" activities do not need to be ceased on the Sabbath since this is a "profane" activity that is not under "faith-norms." The former is a silly misunderstanding, the latter is just a very exegetically unwarranted view of what exactly the "common kingdom" and what "cultural activities" are. Another post for another time.
The second exception that he took is somewhat related to the recreation on the Sabbath exception in that he felt that (but wasn't quite sure) there was actually no such thing as an official Christian sabbath, therefore, taking exception to WCF XXI:VII. I could only imagine the alarm bells that were raging inside all of the ministers' heads as he said this. The digging and even harder digging began to ensue. It actually almost looked like he would not be passed based on this exception. As the candidate expressed this particular exception, they drilled him for about 20-30 min. He then had to step out of the room, and the entire presbytery discussed this for about 45 min. He was then called back in and they counseled him a little bit more on the implications of his exceptions. He then re-iterated that he hadn't studied this issue much and then withdrew his exception and then he passed his licensure exam.
To many, the WCF exception on the Sabbath may seem like a minor thing (it isn't by the way, it is a big deal), and it may have seemed rather extreme for the entire presbytery to discuss this for 45 min after the candidate was excused. However, it is a big deal, and the presbytery was focused on it like a laser.
As I reflected upon this incident, I think that an equally significant issue regarding the WCF involves XIX:IV, IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
However, it is rather unfortunate that this issue is never addressed directly. More below.
Especially with this whole Escondido theology (R2K) being pushed by WSCAL, many people have not taken the time to really see whether or not this R2K doctrine is even aligned with the confessions. I know many WSCAL grads who are hard advocates of R2K and they simply gloss over this particular part of the confession without ever giving it a second thought or seeing whether or not they need to take exceptions to this.
What exactly does "general equity" mean anyway? Pastor McAtee explains it deftly here, and it is copied below:
As I understand it, the General Equity answers the question as to how the Old Testament civil law is to be applied in the Nations today and perhaps the best analogy for understanding it is the metaphor of kernel and husk. The general equity advocates the idea that the husk of the Old Testament civil law is discarded but the kernel of the matter remains. So, in the classic example, the requirement of fences being built around roof tops in the OT finds the husk of the requirement expired while the kernel of protecting your neighbor remains in a law, for example, that insists on building a fence around your pool. So, “general equity” means to find valid and obligatory the principle articulated in the civil law, keeping in mind that the civil law was nothing but God incarnating His moral law into every day life.
Remember, the conviction is that the civil law was merely the case law of the moral law. Much as our Supreme Court makes decisions applying the Constitution to the cases that comes before it, God’s given civil law was God applying His Constitution (i.e.– The moral law — Decalogue), in concrete ways, to the society in which His people lived. Now, obviously we no longer live in an agrarian B.C. culture, and so much of the husk of the civil law remains behind, however, what the case law was aiming at in principle remains… and it remains only because it was a true flowering of God’s Moral Law. When we advocate for the general equity we are advocating for God’s own application of the moral law, as He revealed it in the OT Civil Law, for our era.Just speaking from a confessional standpoint, R2K advocates really need to start thinking very hard as to what exactly general equity means. R2K folks are quick to say that the civil laws have "expired" and therefore, we CANNOT use the Mosaic law as a "pattern" for civil govt. But they never go past that word "expired" and never address what exactly "general equity" means.
Additionally, the confession doesnt say abrogated (as it does with the "ceremonial" law), it says expired. And in WCF 20:1, "But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected."
Notice how there is no mention of the "civil" law in WCF 20:1, yet it is clear about the ceremonial law and how we are free from it.
R2K will say that it is exclusively natural law that governs the "common kingdom" and that Scriptural norms are inappropriate for use in the "common kingdom". And from this, they could possibly say that the general equity refers to natural law.
Pastor McAtee also talks about natural law and moral law here.
R2K will agree that for the Reformed Scholastics the natural law is synonymous with the moral law.
The natural law is rooted in the being of God consistent with by His intellect and His will. It is not just naked authority but eternal moral truth. This natural moral law was written upon the heart of Adam at the creation and on every man's heart thereafter. (Rom 2).
They will agree that nature and grace are not in conflict. Therefore, the moral law given in nature and the moral law given Scripture are the same law (as to general equity, i.e. the Ten Commandments).
However, even though they affirm this, they want to say that the pagan, who is ruled by this Natural law, is not ruled by the imperatives of Scripture. Those very same imperatives of Scripture that they earlier insisted were consistently articulated in Natural law.
“Biblical morality is characterized by an indicative-imperative structure. That is, all of its imperatives (moral commands) are proceeded (sic) by and grounded in indicatives (statements of fact), either explicitly or implicitly. The most important indicative that grounds the imperatives in Scripture is that the recipients of Scripture are the covenant people, that is, members of the community of the covenant of grace. (39)For R2K, the imperatives of Scripture are not directly applicable to non-Christians and yet, Natural law, which is perfectly consistent with God’s Moral law (and yes, the 10 Commandments are included in NL) would seem to force us to conclude that the imperatives of Scripture, as communicated via Natural Law, would be directly applicable to non Christians.
Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers, the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These imperatives are not ‘directly applicable to non-Christians’” (40). David Van Drunen
Natural law is the same as revealed law. Therefore, it is not only acceptable, but imperative that we use the Bible to help interpret natural law properly and also to understand its relation to revealed law.
Through the Bible, we not only understand that they are the same, but also that natural revelation (and law) and supernatural revelation (and law) presuppose and complement each other.
You cannot have one without the other.
(One wonders how you can expect people to understand NL correctly such as the 10 commandments, if you never give them the Bible to even tell them what the 10 commandments are.)
So, back to general equity. Because natural law and revealed law are the same, as I discussed above, we can make the case that general equity could refer to natural law (yet at the same time, we have to remember that it is the same as revealed law, something that R2K likes to not really emphasize).
Therefore, how can natural man (unaided by Scripture) possibly know exactly what the general equity needs to be to order the government properly if he doesn't have Scripture?
How can natural man possibly know what punishments to dish out for various crimes if he is prevented from using the Bible to understand what general equity actually requires? His own interpretation of natural law without any aid will never reveal to him the proper answers.
For instance, how will he know that executing murderers is morally correct and yet executing one who steals a loaf of bread is not OK?
How can he know this if he is prevented from using the one standard that will clearly tell him?
R2K will say that the natural man can know because the law is in his heart. Yes, it is true that the law is in his heart, but just like his belief in God, natural man's knowledge is suppressed and he therefore, cannot properly account for his knowledge and cannot always properly understand "natural" law without a proper guide.
This is the entire reason why we have presuppositional apologetics in the first place! If natural man can account for things on his own, and also know things properly all the time, there is no need for presuppositional apologetics. How someone can account for something is very closely connected to how he can properly understand what exactly is correct in terms of civil laws and sanctions.
How can natural man possibly know what general equity must be used when governing the civil society if he is not allowed to even be introduced to the Bible (which tells him what is required in general equity) by the R2K doctrine?
How is natural man expected to use general equity when he doesn't even have a clear concept of what it is, where it comes from and by what authority general equity comes from?
Biblically speaking, R2K cannot answer these questions at all.
Francis Cheynell, a Westminster Divine, said says of the universal, moral nature of the civil law: “All divine laws which concern the punishment of Moral transgressions, are of perpetual obligation and therefore still remain in force according to their substance and general equity, abstracted from special circumstances, Typical Accessories, and the old form of Mosaicall Politie, For 1. These divine Laws are not expired in their own nature. 2. They are not repealed by God. 3. The authority of the Law-giver is the same under both administrations, old and new… 4. The matter of the Laws is Moral… 5. The reason of these divine Laws is immutable… 6. These divine Laws are Independent on the will of Man…”
From a confessional view point, R2K has some serious issues and is in direct conflict with how the Confessions understand the law of God, and also R2K's understanding and application of general equity (if the particular advocate believes in general equity at all) is severely deficient and is not consistent with the original theonomic intent of the confessions. (And I have not even begun to talk about the original 1646 version. This general equity is still in the 1789 revisions. Even through these revisions, it should be clear that the confessions should still be interpreted theonomically).
The Divines certainly didn't think at all the general equity meant that civil society was unaided in understanding how ethics in the public square or govt. are to be directed, and the above quote (there are many) should be proof enough that the original intent behind the Confessions was ultimately a theonomic one.
This issue of what exactly general equity means needs to be discussed within the reformed church because this issue has largely been forgotten. And related to this, the reformed church needs to clearly examine and understand how R2K goes against the original intent of "general equity" and therefore this doctrine should not be considered confessional.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Like Rams Butting Heads (Part 4)
Like Rams Butting Heads (Part 3)
Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.
--------------------------------
Pastor Bayly interjected: "mikelmann, you said:
Leaving logic to the side, I don't see how you could disagree biblically with what he said. Speaking of civil authorities, Romans 13:4 says, "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." God is explicit that the government's purpose is moral. Good and bad are respectively to be rewarded and punished by it. This is inherently moral. There is no other way to describe the purpose of the government is there?'
(Mikelmann never actually responded to Pastor Bayly's comments.)
CL says: "Pastor Bayly,
--------------------------------
Pastor Bayly interjected: "mikelmann, you said:
'Now, if the purpose of government was inherently moral, it would be regulating all of that moral law except insofar as it applies to the condition of the heart'So far as I can tell, Christopher Lee didn't say that the purpose of government was to enforce the moral law. He did say its purpose is "inherently moral", and also:
'We have to understand that the purpose of govt is not to make morality or their own morals. but to ***reflect*** that moral law (natural law) that was given to them by God.'It does not actually follow logically that it would therefore "regulate all of that moral law..." as you stated and then described as a growing government.
Leaving logic to the side, I don't see how you could disagree biblically with what he said. Speaking of civil authorities, Romans 13:4 says, "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." God is explicit that the government's purpose is moral. Good and bad are respectively to be rewarded and punished by it. This is inherently moral. There is no other way to describe the purpose of the government is there?'
(Mikelmann never actually responded to Pastor Bayly's comments.)
CL says: "Pastor Bayly,
Thank you for the support.. It is most appreciated.. :-)
mikelmann,
I appreciate the dialog as well. You mention that you "depart" from my statement that the purpose of govt is inherently moral.
1) I dont see where in the WLC writings of the moral law that contradict anything that I have said.
Could you please provide an argument?
You said "The idea here seems to be that the magistrate should provide a structure in which there is freedom for the individual to go about his business in peace. It's implied that there should be religious freedom for the church to do what it is called to do."
2) Above is your idea of what the magistrate should provide and should do. This function is inherently moral. If the govt is to provide the freedom for the individual to do etc..., this is a moral function.
Could you please provide an argument as to why you feel that your assertion is not moral?
3) I appreciate the background and historical context. Context is always important. However, even with this information, I still feel that my arguments have not been engaged.
Here are my questions below based on the arguments that I have given in my responses.. You dont have to answer all of them if you dont have time or something like that..
-Could you please provide an argument that refutes my original proposition that affirming civil arrangements for homosexuals is logically affirming homosexual activity?
-Could you please provide an argument that refutes my proposition that a government's duty is to reflect moral law (in relation to Rom 13 as Pastor Bayly quoted, and the example of Pilate (authority from God))?
-Could you please provide an argument that refutes my proposition that a government's legal affirmation of something is in fact then a moral affirmation that that same thing?
-Please provide an argument as to why not using the Bible will logically lead to the govt NOT concluding that they are in fact the moral authority that decides what is moral or not.
-Is there any context where it is acceptable for a govt to think that their moral authority is inherent and not derivative from God? (If not, then how are we to inform them that it isnt acceptable with NL2K arguments?)
Is it ever acceptable for a govt to decide for themselves (without using any transcendent standard and **only** using NL2K/(R)2K arguments) what is morally right or wrong?
Thanks.. Have a blessed Lord's day to all!!!!!"
(This is where it gets disappointing, below.)
Mikelmann says: "Actually, Chris, no: I'm not going to spend the next week answering 47 questions about the topic. What I have done is challenge a position of yours that logically precedes the latter 46 questions. That is to say, the resolution of that issue is necessary before the following questions are engaged.
mikelmann,
I appreciate the dialog as well. You mention that you "depart" from my statement that the purpose of govt is inherently moral.
1) I dont see where in the WLC writings of the moral law that contradict anything that I have said.
Could you please provide an argument?
You said "The idea here seems to be that the magistrate should provide a structure in which there is freedom for the individual to go about his business in peace. It's implied that there should be religious freedom for the church to do what it is called to do."
2) Above is your idea of what the magistrate should provide and should do. This function is inherently moral. If the govt is to provide the freedom for the individual to do etc..., this is a moral function.
Could you please provide an argument as to why you feel that your assertion is not moral?
3) I appreciate the background and historical context. Context is always important. However, even with this information, I still feel that my arguments have not been engaged.
Here are my questions below based on the arguments that I have given in my responses.. You dont have to answer all of them if you dont have time or something like that..
-Could you please provide an argument that refutes my original proposition that affirming civil arrangements for homosexuals is logically affirming homosexual activity?
-Could you please provide an argument that refutes my proposition that a government's duty is to reflect moral law (in relation to Rom 13 as Pastor Bayly quoted, and the example of Pilate (authority from God))?
-Could you please provide an argument that refutes my proposition that a government's legal affirmation of something is in fact then a moral affirmation that that same thing?
-Please provide an argument as to why not using the Bible will logically lead to the govt NOT concluding that they are in fact the moral authority that decides what is moral or not.
-Is there any context where it is acceptable for a govt to think that their moral authority is inherent and not derivative from God? (If not, then how are we to inform them that it isnt acceptable with NL2K arguments?)
Is it ever acceptable for a govt to decide for themselves (without using any transcendent standard and **only** using NL2K/(R)2K arguments) what is morally right or wrong?
Thanks.. Have a blessed Lord's day to all!!!!!"
(This is where it gets disappointing, below.)
Mikelmann says: "Actually, Chris, no: I'm not going to spend the next week answering 47 questions about the topic. What I have done is challenge a position of yours that logically precedes the latter 46 questions. That is to say, the resolution of that issue is necessary before the following questions are engaged.
Your position that the law is inherently about morals is really the
presupposition on which you base your position. But what about "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Are you saying those are
inherently moral? They seem to be about a government that creates a
space for citizens to live their lives, not about extensive moral
coercion. BTW I don't deny that a good number of laws have moral
underpinnings; my challenge is to your more sweeping statement.
BTW, I don't know whether you are actually saying civil laws "ought" to be moral or if they "are" moral. The current situation is that the two are by no means identical, and you can get that point of view from a man (Justice Scalia) who is in a pretty good position to know. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/the-constitution-and-legislated-morality/
I'll try to add a bit more later today."
---------------------------
Part 4 coming up.
BTW, I don't know whether you are actually saying civil laws "ought" to be moral or if they "are" moral. The current situation is that the two are by no means identical, and you can get that point of view from a man (Justice Scalia) who is in a pretty good position to know. http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/the-constitution-and-legislated-morality/
I'll try to add a bit more later today."
---------------------------
Part 4 coming up.
Like Rams Butting Heads (Part 2)
Part 1 is here.
------------------
CL says:
"Mikelman, You said "We are not talking about the legalization of homosexual behavior...As for gay rights in general ... I don't think ...those are being affected either. ... We aren't talking about gay behavior or marriage within the church..... If one pauses to digest what we are not talking about it may be easier to talk about in a rational way."
------------------
CL says:
"Mikelman, You said "We are not talking about the legalization of homosexual behavior...As for gay rights in general ... I don't think ...those are being affected either. ... We aren't talking about gay behavior or marriage within the church..... If one pauses to digest what we are not talking about it may be easier to talk about in a rational way."
CL: Ok. This is getting very complicated very fast! =) So, my
specific focus in my post was not on the specific legality of homosexual
relationships. Correct, we also are not talking about marriage.
MM: "The current case before the SCOTUS on the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, boils down to whether a lesbian will be heavily taxed on what she will inherit from her gay spouse."
CL: I have found it helpful to be very careful here. That may be the immediate issue in certain respects, but the larger issue is forcing the agenda down people's throats, and normalizing this behavior in society. We shouldnt forget how the lobby groups are using these SCOTUS cases.
Anyway, the particular topic that we are talking about concerning Dr Horton is his statement about possibly seeing justification for affirming some sort of civil arrangement.
This actually is a very significant issue, and shouldn't be ignored. (Not saying that you are ignoring it, but just making a general statement).
The intent of civil arrangement (for economic purposes) seems like it is a construct that does not address behavior. But, in an implicit (and explicit) way, it actually does. A civil arrangement in and of itself can be used for "good" purposes and "immoral" immoral purposes. So, by itself, it isnt *necessarily* a sin.
When two people are in a "civil arrangement" (whatever that means), the government is acknowledging that this relationship as a valid relationship to meet the govt criteria for that arrangement. We can argue that in one sense it is an implicit acknowledgement, but with cases like this, there would most likely be statutes which define the relationship. So, there could be strong justification for saying that the govt **explicitly** acknowledges a homosexual relationship as being acceptable from a legal standpoint. Anyway, it doesnt really matter whether it is implicit or explicit.
If the govt does recognize homosexual relationships as acceptable from a legal standpoint, there are making a de facto statement on the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships as well.
I think that perhaps a lot of people will disagree with this next point (maybe not on this blog though), but the purpose of govt is in ***inherently*** moral. Laws that are passed are moral in nature, and executed through circumstantial and legislative means. This in no way affects the inherent nature that "civil" laws is moral.
For WCF purposes, while the tri-fold distinction is useful, I tend to want to emphasize more so that the civil law is in fact part of the moral law for these types of discussions. (This is another whole discussion which we can get into at another time)..
So, with this in mind, it should be re-iterated, following the logic, that if the government is de facto making a legal, and therefore a moral judgement on homosexual relationships through the medium of civil arrangements, the govt is making a moral claim that homosexual relationships are morally acceptable.
Therefore, when Dr Horton is perhaps open to affirming these arrangements for homosexuals, although he ***explicitly*** says that he is against homosexuality and HS marriage etc..., he doesn't realize that his potential support for civil arrangements logically leads to morally accepting homosexual behavior.
We have to understand that the purpose of govt is not to make morality or their own morals. but to ***reflect*** that moral law (natural law) that was given to them by God.
If the govt can take it upon itself to use ***itself*** as the standard for making laws (using the premise that they in fact are defining for themselves what is moral) (and hence the reason for this entire (R)2K / kuyp/theonomy/neo-cal debate), this logically means that the govt recognizes itself as the ultimate authority for morality and not God.
If this is the case, the state is then able to define what is "right" and "wrong" in their own eyes.
That is a lot of power that govt was never meant to have.(among many other powers that the govt today is simply abusing and taking)..
Even in Rom 13, Paul always understood that the power and authority of the civil magistrate is always derivative.. It is never inherent within the magistrate himself. Even Jesus rebuked Pilate in saying that Pilate had no authority except what God gave him.
It is significant to note that Jesus specifically instructs Pilate from whom Pilate gets his authority to remind him that he is not an authority unto himself. Of course, Pilate doesnt get it. (This also delves into other issues of is/ought etc... more hours on the keyboard....)
But, when we capitulate and simply refuse to acknowledge the Bible as the standard of morality, yes, in the public square, this gives the local govt the allowance and understanding that it is in fact the authority to decide what is moral and what is not. And to then make laws based on that self-created morality.
I am hoping that you can see why I feel that it is critical that we ***wisely*** apply the Bible to our actions and thoughts in reference to the civil govt. (among other reasons).
By not doing so means that we are implicitly (or explicitly) acknowledging that the state has authority in and of himself to make laws.. Laws which are reflective of a particular morality.. If we leave the state to itself, that morality will be whatever the state likes to see it as at that particular moment.
Yes, sometimes, because of natural law, the govt get its right, but not always. But even in this case, that point is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is, even in this case, we would still be allowing the state to define its own morality to make statutes.
That they got it "right" is of course a reflection of natural law, but it still is not addressing the significant issue of the state making its own moral standard and also not acknowledging where they get their authority from.. (Rom 13, Pilate, epistemological issues... )
This also deals with issues about the relation between natural law and revealed law. I am currently working through this issue in my personal studies. And I need to refine my arguments more, but my basic position is that natural law is ***identical*** to ***revealed law*** in the sense of moral content and nature, but of course the differences lie in the mode of revelation etc...
All of this to say that, in a humble and honest quest for understanding the truth more clearly, I really believe that Dr Horton is not thinking through the logical implications of what he is saying in regards to civil arrangements.
This has other logical implications for a wide variety of things if you follow the rabbit trail to its cold and hard logical conclusions...
Mikelmann says: "Chris, for now I'm going to respond to one point that has broad signficance.
MM: "The current case before the SCOTUS on the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, boils down to whether a lesbian will be heavily taxed on what she will inherit from her gay spouse."
CL: I have found it helpful to be very careful here. That may be the immediate issue in certain respects, but the larger issue is forcing the agenda down people's throats, and normalizing this behavior in society. We shouldnt forget how the lobby groups are using these SCOTUS cases.
Anyway, the particular topic that we are talking about concerning Dr Horton is his statement about possibly seeing justification for affirming some sort of civil arrangement.
This actually is a very significant issue, and shouldn't be ignored. (Not saying that you are ignoring it, but just making a general statement).
The intent of civil arrangement (for economic purposes) seems like it is a construct that does not address behavior. But, in an implicit (and explicit) way, it actually does. A civil arrangement in and of itself can be used for "good" purposes and "immoral" immoral purposes. So, by itself, it isnt *necessarily* a sin.
When two people are in a "civil arrangement" (whatever that means), the government is acknowledging that this relationship as a valid relationship to meet the govt criteria for that arrangement. We can argue that in one sense it is an implicit acknowledgement, but with cases like this, there would most likely be statutes which define the relationship. So, there could be strong justification for saying that the govt **explicitly** acknowledges a homosexual relationship as being acceptable from a legal standpoint. Anyway, it doesnt really matter whether it is implicit or explicit.
If the govt does recognize homosexual relationships as acceptable from a legal standpoint, there are making a de facto statement on the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships as well.
I think that perhaps a lot of people will disagree with this next point (maybe not on this blog though), but the purpose of govt is in ***inherently*** moral. Laws that are passed are moral in nature, and executed through circumstantial and legislative means. This in no way affects the inherent nature that "civil" laws is moral.
For WCF purposes, while the tri-fold distinction is useful, I tend to want to emphasize more so that the civil law is in fact part of the moral law for these types of discussions. (This is another whole discussion which we can get into at another time)..
So, with this in mind, it should be re-iterated, following the logic, that if the government is de facto making a legal, and therefore a moral judgement on homosexual relationships through the medium of civil arrangements, the govt is making a moral claim that homosexual relationships are morally acceptable.
Therefore, when Dr Horton is perhaps open to affirming these arrangements for homosexuals, although he ***explicitly*** says that he is against homosexuality and HS marriage etc..., he doesn't realize that his potential support for civil arrangements logically leads to morally accepting homosexual behavior.
We have to understand that the purpose of govt is not to make morality or their own morals. but to ***reflect*** that moral law (natural law) that was given to them by God.
If the govt can take it upon itself to use ***itself*** as the standard for making laws (using the premise that they in fact are defining for themselves what is moral) (and hence the reason for this entire (R)2K / kuyp/theonomy/neo-cal debate), this logically means that the govt recognizes itself as the ultimate authority for morality and not God.
If this is the case, the state is then able to define what is "right" and "wrong" in their own eyes.
That is a lot of power that govt was never meant to have.(among many other powers that the govt today is simply abusing and taking)..
Even in Rom 13, Paul always understood that the power and authority of the civil magistrate is always derivative.. It is never inherent within the magistrate himself. Even Jesus rebuked Pilate in saying that Pilate had no authority except what God gave him.
It is significant to note that Jesus specifically instructs Pilate from whom Pilate gets his authority to remind him that he is not an authority unto himself. Of course, Pilate doesnt get it. (This also delves into other issues of is/ought etc... more hours on the keyboard....)
But, when we capitulate and simply refuse to acknowledge the Bible as the standard of morality, yes, in the public square, this gives the local govt the allowance and understanding that it is in fact the authority to decide what is moral and what is not. And to then make laws based on that self-created morality.
I am hoping that you can see why I feel that it is critical that we ***wisely*** apply the Bible to our actions and thoughts in reference to the civil govt. (among other reasons).
By not doing so means that we are implicitly (or explicitly) acknowledging that the state has authority in and of himself to make laws.. Laws which are reflective of a particular morality.. If we leave the state to itself, that morality will be whatever the state likes to see it as at that particular moment.
Yes, sometimes, because of natural law, the govt get its right, but not always. But even in this case, that point is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is, even in this case, we would still be allowing the state to define its own morality to make statutes.
That they got it "right" is of course a reflection of natural law, but it still is not addressing the significant issue of the state making its own moral standard and also not acknowledging where they get their authority from.. (Rom 13, Pilate, epistemological issues... )
This also deals with issues about the relation between natural law and revealed law. I am currently working through this issue in my personal studies. And I need to refine my arguments more, but my basic position is that natural law is ***identical*** to ***revealed law*** in the sense of moral content and nature, but of course the differences lie in the mode of revelation etc...
All of this to say that, in a humble and honest quest for understanding the truth more clearly, I really believe that Dr Horton is not thinking through the logical implications of what he is saying in regards to civil arrangements.
This has other logical implications for a wide variety of things if you follow the rabbit trail to its cold and hard logical conclusions...
Mikelmann says: "Chris, for now I'm going to respond to one point that has broad signficance.
You said "I think that perhaps a lot of people will disagree with
this next point (maybe not on this blog though), but the purpose of govt
is in ***inherently*** moral."
Here I must depart. And again I will refer to the WLC's explanation of the moral law. If you have read it, you know it is fairly detailed. Well, lets take that as an accurate representation of the moral law. Now, if the purpose of government was inherently moral, it would be regulating all of that moral law except insofar as it applies to the condition of the heart with no outward acts that can be regulated. Given your position, it seems there should be law - normally criminal law - about all that, with a larger police force, more judges, and more government peering into our day to do lives.
Paul's advice to Timothy on how to pray for the magistrate is instructive: "“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (I Tim. 1-2)
The idea here seems to be that the magistrate should provide a structure in which there is freedom for the individual to go about his business in peace. It's implied that there should be religious freedom for the church to do what it is called to do.
One other point for now is that we live in a certain historical situation. We are living in the USA, with founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Under the former we have agreed that the natural law has a prominent place in how we are to structure our society. The latter guarantees religious freedom and forbids establishment. Both were meant to be inclusive of men like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, neither of which were Christian.
Now certainly have a right to say our country was built on faulty and false principles and a different system should prevail; just be straight-forward about doing so and don't talk of recovering something from our country's past. And then look at all the different attempts to regulate society from a detailed application of the moral law in history and make a case that we should replicate them or that we can somehow do better. But, on this side of cross, to have a magistrate that is certain that he is doing the Will of God in detail is to have a tyrant."
Part 3 upcoming.
Here I must depart. And again I will refer to the WLC's explanation of the moral law. If you have read it, you know it is fairly detailed. Well, lets take that as an accurate representation of the moral law. Now, if the purpose of government was inherently moral, it would be regulating all of that moral law except insofar as it applies to the condition of the heart with no outward acts that can be regulated. Given your position, it seems there should be law - normally criminal law - about all that, with a larger police force, more judges, and more government peering into our day to do lives.
Paul's advice to Timothy on how to pray for the magistrate is instructive: "“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (I Tim. 1-2)
The idea here seems to be that the magistrate should provide a structure in which there is freedom for the individual to go about his business in peace. It's implied that there should be religious freedom for the church to do what it is called to do.
One other point for now is that we live in a certain historical situation. We are living in the USA, with founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Under the former we have agreed that the natural law has a prominent place in how we are to structure our society. The latter guarantees religious freedom and forbids establishment. Both were meant to be inclusive of men like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, neither of which were Christian.
Now certainly have a right to say our country was built on faulty and false principles and a different system should prevail; just be straight-forward about doing so and don't talk of recovering something from our country's past. And then look at all the different attempts to regulate society from a detailed application of the moral law in history and make a case that we should replicate them or that we can somehow do better. But, on this side of cross, to have a magistrate that is certain that he is doing the Will of God in detail is to have a tyrant."
Part 3 upcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.”
CL says: "Mikelmann,
Of course, it is a little difficult in some sense through the Internet, but in another way, it should actually be more convenient because one can actually sit and think of a response instead of talking on the fly.
The reason that I was asking you these questions is that you are not engaging with my arguments. I specifically brought up this issue in my previous response to make it easier for both of us by asking you point blank questions.
My questions have not posed any new challenge to your positions. I asked you these questions based on my arguments that I already gave you which you never addressed.
You still have yet to engage any of my arguments. I do appreciate that you want to engage. But, that still doesn't mean that you have addressed any of my points at all.
I don't want to see you quoting Justice Scalia or even the Constitution as if that somehow settles the matter.
This is an epistemological and theological discussion that you and I and the rest of Bayly blog are conducting.
I honestly do value this discussion with you and this is why I am stressing so much that I want to hear ***YOUR*** arguments, and not quotes from SCOTUS or from the Constitution.
Please provide an argument against my overall position in reference to Romans 13 and the (derivative) authority that God gives every civil magistrate.
In addition to my "47" questions, you also still have yet to engage my question to you as to why your understanding of the function of govt is not moral. I agree with you on this particular point that govt does "create" space etc... (among other things that it is called to do).. This is an inherently moral function.
If we are to understand that something being moral is pertaining to the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong, how can your understanding of the function of govt NOT be moral?
If you feel that it is "right" to provide this space, (which I do too), then as I asked you previously, how can this not be moral?
Also, moral coercion is inherent within the purpose of government!
I have already addressed this in my arguments about how govt reflects moral law (or at least, their "understanding" of it) and makes statutes based on this.
If govt cannot coerce anything, then govt has absolutely no power to do what it is intended to do. So, if one man wants to murder another, but the govt has no moral coercive power, then it has no ethical and logical basis to punish that murderer.
Also, it concerns me that you still don't understand what my positions are. The fact that you are asking me whether I think that laws *ought* to be moral or *are* moral really concerns me because I have addressed this rather clearly in my previous posts.
Of course, we could spend days (as we already have) on this thread and I can give you more epistemological and theological arguments and support, but at this point, I think that there is really nothing more that I can add to this discussion that will help you understand what I am trying to say.
I cannot continue to do this exchange with you if you are not making a serious attempt to understand my positions.
For now, it really does pain me to do this, but with my competing priorities that I have, I am done with responding to you until you can provide me (and the audience in this blog) cogent arguments against my positions. Notwithstanding my disappointment with certain aspects of our discussions, I do appreciate our exchange. May God continue to sharpen both of us."
Mikelmann says: "Yeah, this isn't really working out. I've had dialogues in various blogs and there are plenty who are able to recognize central principles and work through them. But David is a good example of what happens here. Lewis writes about contrasting two forms of government and David says "Lewis is wrong on the psalms!" Er, OK, David. Chris talks as if moral coercion is the essence of the moral law but doesn't see the relevance of discussing whether the WLC should then be enforced.
I will thank DTM who can very frequently recognize and discuss core issues even if we sometimes reach different conclusions. I think the Bayly commenters on the whole need to interact with more folks outside your circle to get better at it."
----------------------
It is disappointing that mikelmann absolutely refused to engaged with any of my arguments and proceeded to devolve into name calling, when he knows that he could not refute anything that I have said.
I don't mind if other people are being aggressive and calling people out (properly) in exchanges like this. However, if one does not have any argument, and therefore simply refuses to engage and thinking that name calling or blatant insults constitute a meaningful exchange, this is intellectual dishonesty at its highest. And the implications are ruinous, especially when having discussions about the church's role (or lack thereof) in larger society.