# Iron Ink article on WSC's Evangelium



## sastark (Nov 10, 2009)

Very interesting read, and if the author of the article is correct, then there is quite a bit wrong at WSC.

Iron Ink - Some People In The URC Are Waking Up To R2Kt Danger In Their Denomination


----------



## Soonerborn (Nov 10, 2009)

sastark said:


> Very interesting read, and if the author of the article is correct, then there is quite a bit wrong at WSC.
> 
> Iron Ink - Some People In The URC Are Waking Up To R2Kt Danger In Their Denomination




By a quick read, I think its obvious the author is a theonomist, so its not surprising that he has a problem with the 2K view. 

I found this in the HEIDELBLOG archives where it appears the author of this article (Mark Van Der Molen) and Dr. R. Scott Clark chat about this topic. 

Reformed Orthodoxy on the Regnum Christi Heidelblog


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 10, 2009)

Why can't honest Christians disagree on matters of weight, without someone questioning practically their whole Confession?

This is what happens when secondary matters rise to the level of primary matters, in the minds of one faction or another. Their enemies must be reduced to deniers of the gospel.

Well, in this case, it is the defenders of the "maximal-gospel," who are angry at those who are "focused-gospel." To the former, every single aspect of our Confession (and a few things beond it, just to be safe) are turned into "the gospel." Where, if we are not so interested in the _church_ becoming the Engine of culture-change, but rather concentrating on *people-change* (who can and will inevitably influence a culture like leaven or light)--well then, our orthodoxy is in question!

After all, our Confessions were written in an era of "Christian-governments" (even when they were Byzantine or Catholic, as well as Protestant)--therefore (goes the argument) they are only purely endorsed when along with preaching Christ, we also preach Christendom--the earthly paradisical kingdom that re-invents the glories of the 1950s, (or was that the 1850s? I mean the 1650s? er, the 1250s? 450s?).

The Formula of Chalcedon was crafted in an Imperial era, when it was just assumed that the world should have a Christian emperor, a single head to unite the political aspirations and well-being of humanity. Does anyone think we need to go back to that, just to affirm the Hypostatic Union? How about the Nicene Creed? Do we need an Emperor to call a church council?

The interest of WSC, and basic 2K advocates, is to try to _disentangle_ the message of the gospel from the current reigning political ideologies in the hearts of a majority of Christians. There seem to be, in fact, better and worse manners of governance and laws. But the message of secular governance is not the message of the Bible.

The method of secular governance isn't central to the Bible. Scripture shows us God's people ruled mostly by kings. Does this mean we should have one? That certainly has been argued in the past. Nor does the Bible constrain us to one method of education, etc. _And to say it does, is to add to the gospel._ Now THAT would be as serious a charge against the maximalists as ever they have charged against the 2Kers.

However, they usually refrain from so openly charging the maximalists, preferring the more irenic position that the maximalists are flatenning out revelation, and making all matters First-Order. But this is a recipie for disunion, among people who should be able to hang together on Confessional matters, letting the rest of our disagreements rumble along under the banner of brotherhood.

Martin posts here regularly. I'm sure he will get into the discussion. But I wish that folks would refrain from the kind of heated rhetoric that only inflames. Save the "big-trouble" issue for failures on Justification. Or even Creation (as little as I want to see disagreements on that matter blown up too large).

Are the WSC guys really blurring the antithesis? Really? Or are they confining themselves to the central matters, and sharpening the antithesis THERE? While affirming a less-than-sharp divide (but divide nonetheless) on matters of secondary import. Where is the place of wisdom, rather than dictation?

It seems some would say all must be dictated and directed in detail by Heaven, rather than admit the fuzzy, sin-stained reality of human life lived "on the ground" in a fallen world.


----------



## Archlute (Nov 10, 2009)

Seth,

It is obvious that the author has a neo-Kuyperian (well, maybe more theonomic than that) axe to grind. Your statement regarding the state of theological education at WSC is nothing less than trolling. It is more than mere trolling, however, since neither you nor the author have ever attended courses at the institution, and that along with the fact that the class time dedicated to Christian education and discipleship at _any_ seminary is a relatively small portion of the studies, makes it a sweepingly irresponsible and ungrounded accusation, which makes you look a bit foolish.

These debates have a history in Reformed denominations, and it's not as if the WSC faculty are the first to stray outside the narrow bounds of educational "orthodoxy" that have been set up by slavering and rabid advocates of this sort. There are others who would say that the author of that article is wrong too, and that we should only homeschool our children under the authority of their "covenantal head". Then they rant about how people who have their kids in public school have "handed their children over to Moloch" and proceed to discipline them out of the church.

There is such a thing as Christian wisdom and liberty. There is also such a thing as parents not being able to afford the time or money to homeschool their kids or send them to an expensive private Christian school.

Having attended a Christian highschool for several years, I and others with the same experience can tell you that what goes on between kids at Christian schools is not that much different than in public. Kids still mess around sexually, hide their 2 Live Crew tapes from their teachers and parents, and live out other forms of disobedience that comes with unconverted childhoods. 

Dennis Johnson related in class how he has had parents come up to him in frustration that their kid has turned out such a punk after all those years in a Christian school. He wanted us to be clear, as you should also be, that it is not Christian ed that makes the most difference, but the conversion of the heart. Christian ed is valuable, but I can attest, even after having spent most of my time in public schools, that I am still following Christ and raising my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord long after many of my classmates from the Christian highschool have left Christ for their own appetites.

Be more responsible with your statements in the future. That article actually says very little about WSC, and much more about the author's own agenda.


----------



## sastark (Nov 10, 2009)

Soonerborn said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting read, and if the author of the article is correct, then there is quite a bit wrong at WSC.
> ...



I've never read anything on Iron Ink before this article, so I know nothing about the author. However, based only on the article I linked, I can not conclude that the author is a theonomist. The author claims that Christians should be "bringing every thought in captivity to Christ". That's not theonomy. That's being Reformed.

-----Added 11/10/2009 at 04:26:29 EST-----

Adam, first read what I write, then make the ad hominems. I said "*if* the author of the article is correct..."

You may consider being more charitable in the future, brother. I do not appreciate being called foolish, nor irresponsible, nor being accused of trolling. Interact with _the article_ all you want. I fail to see how calling _me_ these things strengthens your position, though.



Archlute said:


> Seth,
> 
> It is obvious that the author has a neo-Kuyperian (well, maybe more theonomic than that) axe to grind. Your statement regarding the state of theological education at WSC is nothing less than trolling. It is more than mere trolling, however, since neither you nor the author have ever attended courses at the institution, and that along with the fact that the class time dedicated to Christian education and discipleship at _any_ seminary is a relatively small portion of the studies, makes it a sweepingly irresponsible and ungrounded accusation, which makes you look a bit foolish.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soonerborn (Nov 10, 2009)

Why Theonomy Is Biblically-Theologically Wrong Green Baggins

Here is another post from our own Greenbaggins which spurs much discussion. The author of the article posted by the OP, makes several comments in the comment section.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 10, 2009)

Soonerborn said:


> Why Theonomy Is Biblically-Theologically Wrong Green Baggins
> 
> Here is another post from our own Greenbaggins which spurs much discussion. The author of the article posted by the OP, makes several comments in the comment section.



Why Biblical Theology is Theonomically-Confessionally Wrong would be a better subject to consider.


----------



## sastark (Nov 10, 2009)

Soonerborn said:


> Why Theonomy Is Biblically-Theologically Wrong Green Baggins
> 
> Here is another post from our own Greenbaggins which spurs much discussion. The author of the article posted by the OP, makes several comments in the comment section.



The article you posted defines Theonomy (which is NOT the point of thread, by the way!) as "a theological viewpoint which sees the Old Testament civil laws as applicable in today’s government."

Where in the article that I posted are Old Testament civil laws referenced? Or is this how defenders of WSC will respond to critiques: by calling anyone who disagrees with them "theonomists"?


----------



## Soonerborn (Nov 10, 2009)

sastark said:


> Soonerborn said:
> 
> 
> > Why Theonomy Is Biblically-Theologically Wrong Green Baggins
> ...



My point in posting that blog post, is to show that clearly the author (Mark Van Der Molen) of the article you posted suscribes to a more "theonomist" position, as evidenced by his comments in the blog, which is at odds with the WSC view. I realize that wasn't the point of your original post. However, you can't seperate those views of theonomy from his crititique of the 2K approach in the article originally posted. His beliefs necessarily lead to his conclusions.


----------



## jetbrane (Nov 10, 2009)

Hey Guys,

You might want to consider that the author of the article is given at the bottom of that article. The fact that nobody has caught that yet may be indicative of the fact that you are posting opinions w/o reading the article. You may be disappointed to learn that the author of the article is someone other than the scurrilous theonomic creature who is the owner of Iron Ink.


----------



## sastark (Nov 10, 2009)

Soonerborn said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Soonerborn said:
> ...



Ah! Sorry that I missed the intent of your posting that article, then. Thanks for the clarification. 

I do still think, however, that even if the author of the article I posted holds to some theonomistic view, it didn't come out in the article I posted. What he seems to be advocating in the Iron Ink article is nothing but the traditional reformed view that the Christian faith affects every are of life, including education, science, etc.


----------



## Soonerborn (Nov 10, 2009)

jetbrane said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> You might want to consider that the author of the article is given at the bottom of that article. The fact that nobody has caught that yet may be indicative of the fact that you are posting opinions w/o reading the article. You may be disappointed to learn that the author of the article is someone other than the scurrilous theonomic creature who is the owner of Iron Ink.



The article states it was written by Mark Van Der Molen. That was the point of my original post including a link to the Heidelblog and subsequent post of the Greenbaggins post. In both blogs under the comment section, Mark Van Der Molen makes comments in the blog which clearly align him in the theonomist camp.

Again my point is that his views of theonomy are at odds with WSC so the original article posted is not surprising. He is defending his agenda.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 10, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Soonerborn said:
> 
> 
> > Why Theonomy Is Biblically-Theologically Wrong Green Baggins
> ...



Is that according to your rather idiosyncratic definition of Biblical Theology, Adam? Or according to the way it is typically used in the Reformed community?


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 10, 2009)

py3ak said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Soonerborn said:
> ...




No, it refers to what Lane does in his blog post.


----------



## jetbrane (Nov 10, 2009)

If Mark Van Der Molen is a Theonomist I'll eat my computer. Once again, his arguments can not be dismissed by simply crying, "Theonomist, Theonomist, Theonomist." For that matter, nobodies arguments can be dismissed that way.

And if Theonomy is Biblically Confessionally wrong then I'll eat your computer. Lots of people have asserted that and yet, because it is imbued with historic Calvinism it yet thrives.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 10, 2009)

OK, so confessionally, (not theonomically-confessionally, as that assumes what must be proven) what was wrong with what Lane did that he was pleased to call Biblical Theology?


----------



## Knoxienne (Nov 10, 2009)

I'd be fine with R2KT if there were two kings. But there's only One, and therefore, one Kingdom.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 10, 2009)

py3ak said:


> OK, so confessionally, (not theonomically-confessionally, as that assumes what must be proven) what was wrong with what Lane did that he was pleased to call Biblical Theology?



Lane argues that a magistrate's duty is to the illusive "law of nature" rather than Sinai. Our Confession teaches that the magistrate _as a magistrate_:



> has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.



As you will note, this power includes the civil sanctions of the mosaic judicials for:

1. Not doing the law of thy God, and the law of the king: let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 

2. Blasphemy: LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. 

3. Seducing to idolary and a false god: DEU 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

4. Refusing God's lawful worship: 2CH 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

He argues from "trajectory" from OT Nation to NT church, contrary to the above, as well as contrary to the binding of all civil bodies politic by the general equity of the judicials. Gillespie refuted such ideas of "trajectory" and typology in the following terms:



> And the text itself is clear, for he put to death the priests of Samaria, who had sacrificed in the high places of idolatry (v. 20), but as for those who sacrificed in the high places of will-worship, because they sacrificed to the Lord only (as the word is [in] 2 Chron. 33:17), therefore Josiah did not put them to death, only he caused them to go out of all the cities of Judah, and to cease from the priest's office, so that they durst not come up to the altar of the Lord at Jerusalem, only they were permitted to eat of the unleavened bread amongst their brethren (v. 8-9), which is parallel to that law [in] Ezek. 44:10-14, a prophecy concerning the Christian Temple, and the times of the New Testament, which _*reaches a blow to another silly and short-sighted evasion*_, used both in the Bloody Tenet, and M.S. to A.S. *that all this coercive power exercised in the Old Testament was typical, and therefore not imitable now in the New Testament*.
> 
> Whereunto I further reply, 1. The *reason of all that coercive severity was moral and perpetual, as was shown from Deut. 13:11. 2*. Next, why did they not prove that it was typical? Shall we take their fancy for a certainty? They have neither Scripture _*nor interpreters *_for it. 3. They confound the judicial laws of Moses with the ceremonial, making judicatories and justice typical no less than the ceremonies. 4. They do utterly overthrow the investiture of Christian Princes and Magistrates with any power at all in matters of religion, from the Old Testament.



Note, this was a common opinion ("they have neither Scripture *nor interpreters*"), so that Gillespie could easily dismiss this as Anabaptist rhetoric (regarding typicalness of the Mosaic judicials). In this regard, he cites Beza, Calvin, Junius and Piscator in favor of the contunity vs. discontinuity of the civil magistrate's coercive power taught in Moses.

The Israel = Jesus theme is overwrought. The Westminster Confession recognizes the multifaceted usage of Israel as a "church under age", and a "civil body politic" whose judicial laws, inspired by God, bind all civil bodies politic according to their marrow, or general equity. Or, in utilizing Leviticus 26 as showing the curses of God upon sin in this life.

Also, the conclusion that rebellious sons should not be executed by magistrates is clearly contrary to the judicial law's marrow, and to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, who stated that the 5th Commandment entails both the personal and civil application, and called His opponents hypocrites and holders to man-made traditions, offering vain worship by rejecting the 5th Commandment (cf. Matthew 15:3 - 7 and Mark 7).

Those are a few instances, but I think this is far off of topic, so I will stop.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## mvdm (Nov 10, 2009)

sastark said:


> Where in the article that I posted are Old Testament civil laws referenced? Or is this how defenders of WSC will respond to critiques: by calling anyone who disagrees with them "theonomists"?



That is the unfortunate pattern. Rather than engaging the substance of the argument, challenges are responded to by labeling {e.g. theonomist, theocrat, wacko!}. I knew the liklihood in undertaking the review I could be subjected to such again. If one reads the review article carefully, they will see that what I advocate is mirrored in the positive Reformed affirmations I quoted from Drs. Johnson, Godfrey, and Kim in the first section of the review. Should we suggest that these WSC professors are theonomists/theocrats/wackos for embracing the necessity of Christian education, shaped and governed by BIBLICAL norms and worlview? Of course not. 

I am glad for the posting of the Greenbaggins thread, though. No fair reading will find me advocating "Theonomy" as defined there. But what you will find is my repeated effort to measure R2KT against certain confessional provisions, and Dr. Hart's eventual acknowledgement that it does not square with Belgic 36.(see in particular comment #339). 

So if what I argued in my review article is correct-- that what is at the root is the role of God's Word in norming life outside the church in the civil realm-- then this implicates more than than just Belgic 36. Defending R2k by declaring it a "secondary" matter does not make it so.

If officebearers are serious about their subscription, we do not have the choice of staying silent over confessional matters out of fear of being called theocrats, theonomists, or wackos. These matters should be discussed, substantively, and where positions are found wanting, we should work with humility and diligence for repentance and reform.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 11, 2009)

Bruce and Adam -


I read the article and I don't see where he states or implies that anyone is a heretic on their way to hell nor do find him arguing that anyone should be ostracized for not being a foam-at-the-mouth style homeschooler.

I am not a theonomist - I think it is wrong at a number of levels - and while I do homeschool (actually, my wife homeschools... I just administer spankings when the kids didn't do a good job for mommy that day...)... while we do homeschool, I don't think that it is required for Christian faithfulness and I repudiate those who have shunned Christian public school teachers in their midst. (I have literally seen that happen once.) You would have thought that the teacher worked at a brothel. It was nauseating. But anyway...

Maybe I'm reading him wrong, but I see him warning against a notion that a Christian worldview has no bearing on a significant number of academic disciplines or vocations. 

Personally, I find that notion odious. I find it unfortunate and suspect that we could, in the name of confessionalism, adopt a way of thinking that functionally relegates the importance or significance of one's faith to the margins of our life. The way I read Scripture, our faith should influence every facet of our being, including our perspective on matters as allegedly trivial as how we approach the subject of history. (That a Christian professor like Hart would allegedly fail to see, based upon the quote in the article, how one's presuppositional stance would affect how we think about, interpret and communicate both the events and significance of history is mind blowing.)

The way I see it, the functional irrelevancy of Christianity to many facets of life could only be maintained if we think that Christianity is just about affirming a handful of propositional statements. But if we understand that the Kingdom of God is about a way of thinking, understanding, valuing, prioritizing, living, believing, articulating the Truth, then I think we have a more difficult time maintaining that we can legitimately do something as significant as education with literally no import from our Christian faith along the way.

Anyway, perhaps I'm not reading into the article all that I should. Perhaps he is a theonomist or a foam-at-the-mouth style homeschooler. I don't know. But as far as the words written, I do think that his concern about Christian perspective having import and relevency in every sphere of academic and vocational endeavor is valid. That said, I know not what is being taught at WSC, so the question of what is happening there is another matter.


----------



## itsreed (Nov 11, 2009)

A critical distinction often missed in the discussion of 2K theology is that it eeks to distinguish the proper roles of the Church as the Church and the State as the State. 

Following from this, 2K criticism is not directed at the individual Christian whose Christianity influences (directs, determines) his civil behavior. That is a given. Rather the criticism is directed at the Church -as the Church "institutional" - exercising itself in the civil realm in a manner which violates the biblical distinctions (at least as understood by 2K interpretation of Scripture).

This is not radical or defective from accepted reformed convictions:

"The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)." (PCA BCO 3-4.)

Often, as some comments here appear to suggest, misunderstanding the distinction between the Church institutional and the individual Christian lead to misunderstanding the target of 2K criticism.

E.., the quote in this article concerning Dr. Hart's suposed defect from a biblically consistent view of history-education is not all Darryl has said on this topic, nor is it in any manner typical so as to serve as a fair short-hand. While I recognize Mr. Van der Molen believes his quote is fair for his usage, I would counter that this is not the full context of Dr. Hart's convictions on this subject. Whhile I do not have counter-quotes at hand, I do maintain that Mr. Van der Molen is failing to present the whole picture. (I'm not suggesting anything as to why, just merely that he has not.)

It may be that Mr. Van der Molen is right in his criticism of Hart (and 2K theololgy). I demure, thinking his brush is quite too big. I think this article insufficient to prove his point.

I think some disagreement can be readily seen as non-existent if the distinction between Church and individual is kept in view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 11, 2009)

Reed,

It would be ironic to be accused of being a Theonomist myself but I think Bruce makes a good point in how we need to be careful on how we paint with caricature. I agree with him that the criticism of WSC theology tends to overstate the case quite often, which only serves to discredit whatever criticisms might be warranted.

In another thread, I wholly agreed with Matthew Winzer who notes that Mike Horton et al are important voices in proclaiming the objectivity of the Gospel against an ever growing tidal wave of selfish seekers who drive the Gospel to the interior of individual experience.

That said, when I see criticisms against Christian Churches' attempts to affect culture around them, I believe the criticism being too broad brush in the other direction. The 99% case of those Christians who are pushing for social activism today arise out of the dispensational Fundamentalist camp, which has no real historical sense of how the Church would ever historically be salt and light but, rather, saw the Church as a life raft to rescue people from a sinking ship. Strangely, however, they ventured into social activism with this poor theology and have no way to get a true sense of bearing. This is understood and articulated on one level but the clumsy attempts of Christians today who are inheritors of this theology is sometimes presented as if that it's either that or the WSC approach. I believe that to be a false dilemma.

Consequently, I believe the critiques against attempts to regain political power by the "social conservatives" of the Republican party ought to be more surgical rather than simply criticizing any other view that would see the Church as more than a "spiritual kingdom" since, in my estimation, that tends toward a gnostic view of man. Insofar as the Church deals with men it deals with them body and soul and redeems the whole man and not simply the "spirit". Insofar as men and women are hungry, naked, and in prison it even deals with their physical needs.

I also believe that love of neighbor demands that we admit that the light of nature is not always "obeyed" by a culture that is dead in its sins and trespasses and that the Church, while not its primary vocation, has a prophetic role in decrying evil.

I consistently see parties in this debate sort of jumping off of either side of where I see the historic Reformed Church on the issue. On the one hand the Reformed have always respected the image of God that remains in man in a broad sense, which allows men to wisely govern (some with great integrity) even when they are not Christians and consulting the Mosaic Law for every jot and tittle of civil code. On the other hand, however, there is just as well a frank acknowledgment that reason and morality are darkened in fallen men and to simply point to the light of nature as sufficient to wisely and justly govern in all cases goes farther than the Reformed have historically acknowledged. 

Van Til wrote an excellent article about Natural Theology in which he maintained, in the Reformed tradition, that Natural Revelation is only perspicuous to the Redeemed and I believe we have every right and duty to remind Magistrates of what they suppress when they do not govern according to what has been revealed to every man. In other words, I'm not arguing that natural revelation fails to reveal that what they do is wicked but it's not enough to simply assume that every Magistrate equally acts according to that light and the Scriptures are replete with examples of men who have served the wicked and reminded kings when they are acting against the light of nature.


----------



## jetbrane (Nov 11, 2009)

<blockquote>A critical distinction often missed in the discussion of 2K theology is that it eeks to distinguish the proper roles of the Church as the Church and the State as the State.</blockquote>

And in doing so it seeks to put the State beyond the reach of a "Thus saith The Lord." What R2K does is to make the State autonomous and such an action insures that the State will become "God walking on the Earth" in the common realm. Even now, in our own country we see the State's attempt to be God coming to ever fuller bloom.

<blockquote>Following from this, 2K criticism is not directed at the individual Christian whose Christianity influences (directs, determines) his civil behavior. That is a given. Rather the criticism is directed at the Church -as the Church "institutional" - exercising itself in the civil realm in a manner which violates the biblical distinctions (at least as understood by 2K interpretation of Scripture).</blockquote>

Yes ... Yes, R2K does allow for the individual Christian's individual Christianity to influence their civil behavior <b>HOWEVER</b> R2K will not speak a word as to which individual Christians individual Christianity is Biblical Christianity. In other words, R2K concedes individual Christian action in the civil sphere but, theoretically it could be the individual Christians individual Christianity that teaches the individual to show Christ's compassion to women by voting for abortion or it could be the individual Christians individual Christianity that teaches that the individual must be against abortion because it is murder? Both prove their position from their version of Natural Law. Which one of those individual Christians and Christianities are right? According to R2Kt ... who knows? It is wrong for the Church to weigh in on those civil matters and whats more, "The Bible is about redemption and it is not about things like abortion." In the common realm each Christian must do what is right in his own eyes.

Is Homosexual marriages to be tolerated? Well good individual Christians like Lee and Misty Irons say, "yes." Other good individual Christians say, "no." Both might appeal to their version of Natural law. Where do we find a sure word to answer this? Not from the Church according to R2K because according to R2K the Church can not speak to these issues and after all, "The Bible is about redemption and it is not about things like the rightness or wrongness of homosexual marriage." In the common realm each Christian must do what is right in his own eyes.

Should we send our children to government schools? Well some good individual Christians "yes." Other good individual Christians say, "no." Where do we find a sure word to answer this? Not from the Church according to R2K because according to R2K the Church can not speak to these issues and after all, "The Bible is about redemption and it is not about things like the rightness or wrongness of government schools that exclude the reality that God is from education." In the common realm each Christian must do what is right in his own eyes.

So, yes, the individual Christian is allowed to be influenced by their individual Christianity but in the R2Kt scheme this quickly reduces to cultural and even Christian relativism.

<blockquote>This is not radical or defective from accepted reformed convictions:

"The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events. The Church has no right to construct or modify a government for the State, and the State has no right to frame a creed or polity for the Church. They are as planets moving in concentric orbits: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21)." (PCA BCO 3-4.)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Belgic Confession #6 reads,

We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.

For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.

And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God's law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God's Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.</blockquote>

Please notice with that last paragraph that the Belgic does teach there may be a time when a government might be modified. Contrary to the PCA BCO the BCF disallows Christians supporting collectivism as a form of Government.

<blockquote>Often, as some comments here appear to suggest, misunderstanding the distinction between the Church institutional and the individual Christian lead to misunderstanding the target of 2K criticism.</blockquote>

Nobody here, that I can see has missed that distinction. The problem is that R2K criticism just doesn't work.

<blockquote>"E.., the quote in this article concerning Dr. Hart's suposed defect from a biblically consistent view of history-education is not all Darryl has said on this topic, nor is it in any manner typical so as to serve as a fair short-hand. While I recognize Mr. Van der Molen believes his quote is fair for his usage, I would counter that this is not the full context of Dr. Hart's convictions on this subject. Whhile I do not have counter-quotes at hand, I do maintain that Mr. Van der Molen is failing to present the whole picture. (I'm not suggesting anything as to why, just merely that he has not.)</blockquote>

Well, if one wants a full context all one has to do is read a give and take between Dr. Hart and Rev. McAtee. A simple googling of "Hart McAtee History Dabney" will reveal a exchange that clearly sets forth that Mr. Van Der Molen's quote is exactly accurate, all the special pleading from Mr. Redd notwithstanding.

<blockquote>I think some disagreement can be readily seen as non-existent if the distinction between Church and individual is kept in view.</blockquote>

The disagreement is as wide as the chasm of the Grand Canyon.


----------



## itsreed (Nov 11, 2009)

Rich: I find Bruce's comments helpful as well.

Not sure if you're making your comments to distinguish against anything you see in mine. I agree that a broad brush can and has been held by folks on both sides. As this thread is about one side, I've only directed my criticism that side's brush wielding.

I agree with your observation concerning the broader evangelical church as the primary location of the entanglement of the gospel ministry with social transformation. The question on this thread seems to be a critique that WSC's efforts in one area (education) in this regard are wrong. I don't see the case being made.

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 03:18:57 EST-----

Brett: you said ,

"Contrary to the PCA BCO the BCF disallows Christians supporting collectivism as a form of Government."

and then quote me, 

"Often, as some comments here appear to suggest, misunderstanding the distinction between the Church institutional and the individual Christian lead to misunderstanding the target of 2K criticism."

To which you respond, 

"Nobody here, that I can see has missed that distinction."

To which I say your first quote demonstrates that you yourself have just missed the distinction. 

PCA BCO i3-4 is talking about the Church-institutional, not the individual Christian. Nothing in it is a refusal to tell the Christian waht forms civil government to support. That is not the focus of the matter. To fault the PCA BCO in this manner is like a PETA member faulting it for not speaking up against fur coats. It is just not in the purview of the subject matter.

As a pastor, I'm very comfortable discipling the flock under my care that the 8th commandment forbids collectivist forms of civil government (i.e., any form which denies private property). With the PCA's BCO here, I believe the Bible disallows me to exercise my role as pastor, my functions as a representative of the Church-institutional in applying these convictions in the civil realm. That does not therefore mean I do not, in my role as citizen of the civil realm, bear a responsibility as God's child, to argue for and support civil rule informed by Scripture.

Were I more skilled, I would follow Machen's example of carefully distinguishing these roles, and arguing as an individual for a biblically informed civil realm. I've not read anything from Hart-Horton-Clark (a representative "gaggle" of 2K theology) that would tell me I am not consistent with the kinds of arguments they are making.

My point then, is that you do indeed miss the distinction, and to that degree your criticism is off the mark.


----------



## jetbrane (Nov 11, 2009)

Reed,

So all Christians should be opposed to collectivist government as taught by faithful pastors as yourself from the Scripture but the Church, where all those Christians are taught that Christians should oppose collectivist government, shouldn't, as the Church, speak against collectivist government?

Say what?

If I'm missing a distinction in there I can only thank God.


----------



## itsreed (Nov 11, 2009)

Bret: say what?

Its taken me a while to follow your logic here. It appears you are assuming the validity of your argument against mine - and on that basis arguing you are correct.

Won't work Bret. You indeed are missing the distinction (or maybe are you refusing to acknowledge it) and so failing to move on to prove it wrong.

I understand your position is that the Church-institutional is to speak to the Civil Magistrate in a way more or less consistent with the methods used by the Broader Evangelical Church (Rich's Dispensational-fundamentalist distinction). You'll not prove 2K's challenge is wrong by simply assuming it is.

There is a distinction in view. Address that if you wish.


----------



## jetbrane (Nov 11, 2009)

itsreed said:


> Bret: say what?
> 
> Its taken me a while to follow your logic here. It appears you are assuming the validity of your argument against mine - and on that basis arguing you are correct.
> 
> ...



Imagine that Redd ... I see you doing the same thing that you accuse me of. You assume your position and then you act as if mine is obviously wrong. Won't work Redd. You must get outside your fundamentalist mindset and see its fundie nature for what it is. You'll not prove R2Kt is right simply by assuming it.

Tell me Redd, was Calvin a broader Church Dispensational fundie?

Quote:
John Calvin 1509-1564
But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

[Deut 13:6-10].
” Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories.”

Quoted in P.Schaff; History of the Christian Church vol 8 :791f.(Eerdmans 1981). The context is the defence of the execution of Servetus

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 04:52:40 EST-----

Here is one by A-Brakel I like

Quote:
Wilhelmus A Brakel - (1635-1711)

Question:

Does the civil government exercise any authority at all with regard to the church?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church, but it does have authority with regard to the church.

We thus most strenuously oppose the Erastians and Arminians who posit all authority and government with the civil government, subordinating all ecclesiastical authority and government to the civil government, from which it is in turn delegated to the church. We have contradicted this notion in the foregoing and shall shortly do so again. We are likewise opposed to the view of the papists who remove all who belong to the church from governmental jurisdiction. At the same time, they maintain that the civil government may not render judgment at all in the realm of religion, and that the civil government must merely follow blindly and execute whatever the church has deemed and judged to be correct. We are also opposed to the view of the Libertines who insist that the government may not be involved with religion at all, but must permit every religion in its territory to proclaim whatever it wishes. We declare that the civil government does indeed have authority with regard to the church and is obligated to make use of this, which is a matter we subsequently shall demonstrate to be so.


Hmmm ... It seems that according to A-Brakel R2K is Libertine.


----------



## itsreed (Nov 11, 2009)

Bret: I did no such thing. I made a point of a distinction, and then demonstrated how you missed it. I've not moved on to any argument proving my distinction, as the discussion was whether or not you ignored it.

I'll not bother responding to anything else you've written, as it is not helpful to future clarification when past confusion is not addressed.

Thanks again.


----------



## jetbrane (Nov 11, 2009)

Reed,

You are the one that is confusing as you have not yet made perspicuous the distinction that you are trying to make. Actually, I am utterly confused by what you have written. So here is your opportunity ... make it so clear that even an idiot like me can get it. Give examples. Provide applications. Demonstrate how it works.

I've provided a few quotes that reveal that just a couple of Reformed guys in history saw that there is a relationship between grace and nature. Please give your proof that grace and nature are divorced from one another.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 11, 2009)

I've lost track of what the discussion was supposed to be about, but it private critiques of style should be done elsewhere.

Closed.


----------

