# The offensiveness of Nobles Oblige



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Hi. I have been a member here on the Puritan Forum for about 12 years now. I have been a Presbyterian for about 25 years and have thoroughly benefited from the theology of my adopted tradition. I was raised in an Assemblies of God church, the kind that puts an inordinate emphasis on charismatic manifestations and preaches a dispensationalist eschatology. Some of the abberations of that otherwise orthodox church were the reason I had a rebellion in the first place, and I am glad to have found a home in the reformed tradition. I have gradually come to realize, however, that by espousing the reformed tradition I have espoused the tradition and culture of the old ruling class. I am not preaching that it is a crime to be educated, North European and professional, but... I have encountered resentment to this denomination's old role as the ones in power, the class that called the shots and had all the benefits of schools and a network of coreligionists to help them secure safe and comfortable positions in society. Many of my baptist and lutherin friends are content to just poke a little fun at me for being a doctrine snob, but among working class Catholics I have have been subjected to some cold looks and stiff behavior. I think that some of our efforts at goodwill towards other traditions smack a bit of Nobles Oblige, which to other traditions comes across as offensive. I mean, we mean well, but our unspoken attitude of "ours is best, let us help you" grates on the nerves of other Christians who also have some good things to say and point to about their denominations contributions to society. We have good things to say, excellent things. But let's examine ourselves. Perhaps we need to back off a bit from singing lead and acknowledge that we are supposed to sing harmony with our family.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

My take is a bit different. As someone who aspires to be an aristocrat, I endorse Nobles Oblige. On the other hand, I am well aware of the corruption in power. I've suffered from it. I went hungry some nights as a result. That doesn't negate the superiority of aristocracy, though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Eh.. What?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Eh.. What?


My thoughts too...about this thread...

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 17, 2021)

The lowliest among us, the children of God, are given the very spirit of the royal family of heaven, the true aristocratic heart seen in the Person and bearing of the Lord Jesus. The lowliest street cleaner or washer-woman has the Spirit of the King in him or her, full of gentleness, meekness, compassion, zeal for justice and righteousness — and possessed of an adoration and worship of the triune Glory.

The aristocracies of earth are tawdry affectations compared to heaven's.

Daniel, I suppose it depends on every individual's heart and way. There are wonderful characters in God's children regardless of denomination. Even the well-educated and learned may be humble, approachable, and deep-hearted. One should ourselves seek to model those godly characteristics we see lacking around us. As Paul says, "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" (1 Cor 8:1).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 17, 2021)

Commas, periods, and paragraph breaks go a long way toward making posts legible and intelligible.

Just saying.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Eh.. What?



For starters I had to guess at what you were talking about. If all you are saying is we shouldn't look down on the least of the brothers, then I can't imagine anyone who would disagree with that.

You mentioned the tradition and culture of the old ruling class, but you neither define that nor give examples, so we are just left to guess. Even though I am an aristocrat, I generally dislike "Good Ole Boy" Presbyterianism and I have been hurt by it big time. That didn't ruin aristocracy for me, though.

In any case, the Shorter Catechism mentions our duties towards inferiors, superiors, and equals. One of the duties that superiors owe to their inferiors is Noblesse Oblige.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Don't you see? Good ole' boy presbyterianism is not the necessary alternative to Nobles Oblige. You don't have to check your education or intellectual capacity at the door in order to address someone as a peer, and that's what we are in Christ, peers. In fact, peer is to weak a term for what we are. We are family. The only head we have is Christ himself, the rest of us are subordinate members of the body who are to think of each other as having equal worth. You are right in that I did not offer any specific examples of Reformed snobbery to substantiate my argument. Do I need to? This is our common culture, you know we as a denomination take pride in having a well thought out and scripturely underpinned theology. Is it so hard to believe that this has become an idol to us? It is an inescapable propensity of even regenerate souls to idolize their strengths individually or corporately, we are warned of this many times in the bible. Take some time to examine yourself. Are you using your strengths to build up the body? Has the whole notion of condescending to the less intellectually endowed become so tiresome to you that you are unwilling to use any technique other than sarcasm to make your arguments? You obviously have much to offer by virtue of your standing, but do you have the servants heart?


----------



## Edward (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I have been a member here on the Puritan Forum for about 12 years now.


And are showing 65 posts at the moment.



dnlcnwy said:


> Many of my baptist and lutherin friends are content to just poke a little fun at me for being a doctrine snob, but among working class Catholics I have have been subjected to some cold looks and stiff behavior.


Are you equating Popery and Popery light with the sound truths of the Reformed tradition? Are you well down the path of saying that doctrine doesn't matter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> You are right in that I did not offer any specific examples of Reformed snobbery to substantiate my argument. Do I need to?



Maybe. No one on this thread has the slightest clue what you are talking about.


dnlcnwy said:


> The only head we have is Christ himself, the rest of us are subordinate members of the body who are to think of each other as having equal worth.



You are moving the goal posts. We all have equal worth, but some have superior positions in society. No one is saying one is "more in Christ" than the other.


dnlcnwy said:


> It is an inescapable propensity of even regenerate souls to idolize their strengths individually or corporately, we are warned of this many times in the bible.



Not sure of anyone who ever denied this.


dnlcnwy said:


> but do you have the servants heart?



Yes.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

I am not denigrating the worth of reformed theology. As my post clearly states I celebrate it. But good doctrine does not elevate my status in God's kingdom above those who are wrong on even many points but are still believers. God tolerates even egregious errors in our doctrine if we believe fully in the sinless divine sonship of Christ, his atoning sacrifice at the cross and his resurrection from the dead. I for one will not talk down to a brother who disagrees with me on a non-essential. To do so is to deny the doctrine of Grace, the most essential doctrine of all.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I am not denigrating the worth of reformed theology. As my post clearly states I celebrate it. But good doctrine does not elevate my status in God's kingdom above those who are wrong on even many points but are still believers. God tolerates even egregious errors in our doctrine if we believe fully in the sinless divine sonship of Christ, his atoning sacrifice at the cross and his resurrection from the dead. I for one will not talk down to a brother who disagrees with me on a non-essential. To do so is to deny the doctrine of Grace, the most essential doctrine of all.



Again, I am confused. I'm not aware of anyone here doing that. But maybe you are just making a general observation. It wasn't clear if you were.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 17, 2021)

Does it really matter what the serfs and peasants think? They are fortunate that we deign to better their theology and worship.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Funny 3


----------



## VictorBravo (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I for one will not talk down to a brother who disagrees with me on a non-essential.


Perhaps, but Daniel, it sounds like you are "talking down" to people who you say share your doctrine. I point out that much of your postings on this thread comes across as accusatory. Steady....

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Again, I am confused. I'm not aware of anyone here doing that. But maybe you are just making a general observation. It wasn't clear if you were.


Sorry brother. I should have made clear that I was addressing Edwards concerns that I was denying the illegitimacy of the doctrine of Popery, which I do. The position I was taking was that acknowledging the pope as your ecclesiastical head does not preclude you from being in a saving faith.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Perhaps, but Daniel, it sounds like you are "talking down" to people who you say share your doctrine. I point out that much of your postings on this thread comes across as accusatory. Steady....


OK. My apologies to all who think that I am accusing anyone here in particular of doctrinal idolatry. To take pride in well constructed confessional statements is no sin. The Westminster confessions, among others that came out of the period of the reformation, were glorious and God honoring answers to the gross abuses of the Roman Church. But, but I am only trying to point out that the grace of God is so pervasive that it reaches even those souls who are in relatively deficient confessions and we need to refrain from lording our own overtly superior confessions over them. These are not deficient Christians, only a little confused. Maybe that is the position of this board, but I am speaking to the attitudes I have seen in the churches.


----------



## Ethan (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> These are not deficient Christians, only a little confused.


Not understanding basic tenets of the faith seems like a fairly good reason to believe one is deficient. I'd venture to say I was incredibly deficient in my early walk and still am, as we all are in some ways. However, as I've grown in understanding I have not become more justified before God. An example: If one sees the old testament as a compilation of moralistic stories then I'd have to say they're terribly deficient Christians as their missing out on a wealth of knowledge about God and it would be my duty as a brother to try and lead them out of that and show them the overarching story of redemption. That doesn't necessitate condescending behavior on my part.


----------



## Ethan (May 17, 2021)

I would also add that as one of the least informed, newer members of the board I appreciate everyone taking the time to engage with me when I do post. It is very helpful.


----------



## bookslover (May 17, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Commas, periods, and paragraph breaks go a long way toward making posts legible and intelligible.
> 
> Just saying.



Especially paragraph breaks. Along with writing clearly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Ethan said:


> Not understanding basic tenets of the faith seems like a fairly good reason to believe one is deficient. I'd venture to say I was incredibly deficient in my early walk and still am, as we all are in some ways. However, as I've grown in understanding I have not become more justified before God. An example: If one sees the old testament as a compilation of moralistic stories then I'd have to say they're terribly deficient Christians as their missing out on a wealth of knowledge about God and it would be my duty as a brother to try and lead them out of that and show them the overarching story of redemption. That doesn't necessitate condescending behavior on my part.


I don't think there is any such thing as a deficient christian. Every believer is predestined for an eternity in glory in the presence of God and the heavenly host. If you do not understand the basic tenets of the faith then you are not a Christian, but please, it is critical that you limit the basic tenets of the faith to that which they truly are, the full divinity of Jesus, his sinless life, his atoning death at the cross, and his resurrection from the dead. If you have that, then you are elect. I do not mean by this assertion to minimize the incredibly salutary effects of study of the complete word of God. When you are reading the word of God you are studying God himself and taking on his attributes thereby. I know that everyone here believes that. GLORY! But, let's have some compassion and patience for those who don't have the benefit of a complete grip on all the doctrines contained therein. You are absolutely right, let us not condescend when we presume to correct and instruct.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Maybe I need to rethink my attitudes towards Nobles Oblige. James seems to teach that Nobles Oblige on material matters is a good thing, even a commandment. Let's just make a distinction in Nobles Oblige in material matters, which on reflection appears to be obligatory, and taking the attitude of a superior in spiritual matters, which we are not to do. Maybe that's what BayouHuegonot was saying, and I just wasn't following.


----------



## Ethan (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> the full divinity of Jesus, his sinless life, his atoning death at the cross, and his resurrection from the dead. If you have that, then you are elect.


If you believe all of this you may still have a low view of the body of Christ and neglect the meeting together of believers as some do (Heb. 10:25). To me that would seem like a glaring deficiency but not necessarily a guarantee that one isn't saved.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Ethan said:


> If you believe all of this you may still have a low view of the body of Christ and neglect the meeting together of believers as some do (Heb. 10:25). To me that would seem like a glaring deficiency but not necessarily a guarantee that one isn't saved.


For by grace you are saved through faith. Faith is sufficient. Neglecting the table and the assembly is hurtful, but it does not lead to deficiency in your standing with God. Your behavior may be deficient, but not your standing. That was settled before the foundation of the world and is irrevocable.


----------



## Taylor (May 17, 2021)

Just because somebody is elect, called, justified, etc., does not mean that their theological deficiencies are not true deficiencies, or that those deficiencies ought not be addressed. This is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, spurring others on to better doctrine (i.e., love and good works) is not "lording one's confession over" another.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Just because somebody is elect, called, justified, etc., does not mean that their theological deficiencies are not true deficiencies, or that those deficiencies ought not be addressed. This is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, spurring others on to better doctrine (i.e., love and good works) is not "lording one's confession over" another.


Theologically deficient yes. Behaviorally deficient yes. Deficiency in standing, no. And I think we are in agreement on this point. I repeat, I am not accusing you or anyone here of prideful attitudes when disputing with a non-reformed believer. But I have seen it, and I venture to say you have seen it too. It is a great evil, because it co-mingles idolatry of doctrine with the message of salvation. On a certain level, it is as bad as the idolatries of Rome.


----------



## Ethan (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> it does not lead to deficiency in your standing with God.


I totally agree. Hence why I stated I am no more justified today than when I first believed.


----------



## Tom Hart (May 17, 2021)

The term is _noblesse oblige_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> The term is _noblesse oblige_.


Sorry. I stand corrected.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Does it really matter what the serfs and peasants think? They are fortunate that we deign to better their theology and worship.


I know you are just being funny SolaScriptura, but lets have a care for sensitivities. I suspect that BayouHuguenot has a title and an attendant upbringing and education that makes his interaction here a little more formal than the laity are accustomed to. Hence his disparaging comments about good ole' boy presbyterianism. It didn't help that I opened the thread with a denigrating comment about noblesse oblige. a responsibility that he no doubt considers honorable and obligatory to his class. Referring to those of a less privileged background as serfs and peasants probably stings a bit more to him than you intend. I have already backed off of my position on the material aid to the less endowed as offensive. Lets just be glad he is here instead of on the Anglican board.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I suspect that BayouHuguenot has a title and an attendant upbringing and education that makes his interaction here a little more formal than the laity are accustomed to.



I had a middle class upbringing. Both parents worked insanely hard. I am a school teacher. While I aspire to be a landed gentleman, it's not happening any time soon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Hence his disparaging comments about good ole' boy presbyterianism.



I don't mean the rank and file redneck (of which I am probably one). I mean the halls of power in the PCA. That's what "Good Ole Boy" system means. They are the privileged ones, not me (not that I ultimately care about it).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 17, 2021)

This has to be one of the strangest threads I have ever read through.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 5


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I had a middle class upbringing. Both parents worked insanely hard. I am a school teacher. While I aspire to be a landed gentleman, it's not happening any time soon.


My mistake. You were no doubt following my lead when you referred to yourself as an aristocrat.


----------



## BertMulder (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Hi. I have been a member here on the Puritan Forum for about 12 years now. I have been a Presbyterian for about 25 years and have thoroughly benefited from the theology of my adopted tradition. I was raised in an Assemblies of God church, the kind that puts an inordinate emphasis on charismatic manifestations and preaches a dispensationalist eschatology. Some of the abberations of that otherwise orthodox church were the reason I had a rebellion in the first place, and I am glad to have found a home in the reformed tradition. I have gradually come to realize, however, that by espousing the reformed tradition I have espoused the tradition and culture of the old ruling class. I am not preaching that it is a crime to be educated, North European and professional, but... I have encountered resentment to this denomination's old role as the ones in power, the class that called the shots and had all the benefits of schools and a network of coreligionists to help them secure safe and comfortable positions in society. Many of my baptist and lutherin friends are content to just poke a little fun at me for being a doctrine snob, but among working class Catholics I have have been subjected to some cold looks and stiff behavior. I think that some of our efforts at goodwill towards other traditions smack a bit of Nobles Oblige, which to other traditions comes across as offensive. I mean, we mean well, but our unspoken attitude of "ours is best, let us help you" grates on the nerves of other Christians who also have some good things to say and point to about their denominations contributions to society. We have good things to say, excellent things. But let's examine ourselves. Perhaps we need to back off a bit from singing lead and acknowledge that we are supposed to sing harmony with our fami


My apologies, but you are misspelling, and misinterpreting what 'noblesse oblige' is all about...





__





Noblesse oblige - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





It is all about the obligations that come with the status...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

Ultimately it comes down to this: do you agree with the shorter catechism when it says that there are inferiors and superiors in society and that both have duties towards each other?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> My mistake. You were no doubt following my lead when you referred to yourself as an aristocrat.



I am one in spirit.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 17, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ultimately it comes down to this: do you agree with the shorter catechism when it says that there are inferiors and superiors in society and that both have duties towards each other?


As long as the society allows for the quick and effectual elevation of an inferior to superior status on the basis of merit and performance (and vice versa) I can accept that part of the catechism.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 17, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> As long as the society allows for the quick and effectual elevation of an inferior to superior status on the basis of merit and performance (and vice versa) I can accept that part of the catechism.


Do you think the society in Ephesians 6 allowed for quick and effectual elevation of inferiors? Or in Rome? 

That condition isn't part of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> Do you think the society in Ephesians 6 allowed for quick and effectual elevation of inferiors? Or in Rome?
> 
> That condition isn't part of Scripture.


OK. Let's distinguish between a society that is minimally tolerable and one that is ideal. Any society that allows me the freedom to believe and worship as I and my peers choose is acceptable. That, however, is minimal. Ideally the society would recognize a broad range of rights as innate to mankind and would structure itself accordingly. Among those rights would be the capacity to better my condition based on merit and effort.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> OK. Let's distinguish between a society that is minimally tolerable and one that is ideal. Any society that allows me the freedom to believe and worship as I and my peers choose is acceptable. That, however, is minimal. Ideally the society would recognize a broad range of rights as innate to mankind and would structure itself accordingly. Among those rights would be the capacity to better my condition based on merit and effort.



None of those societies really existed before the modern era, and it isn't clear why we should a priori accept those particular rights (to be sure, I do believe in equity because I think that can be defended. Abstract human rights, while admirable, are often impossible to prove.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> None of those societies really existed before the modern era, and it isn't clear why we should a priori accept those particular rights (to be sure, I do believe in equity because I think that can be defended. Abstract human rights, while admirable, are often impossible to prove.


My status as a man created in the image of God imparts to me rights and prerogatives attendant to my status as the crown of creation. I am entitled to all the freedoms and considerations of God short of those exclusive to him as actual divinity. The only limits to my prerogatives are those imposed on me as a steward of the creation (Noblesse Oblige towards the created order) and consideration for the rights and prerogatives of my fellow men.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I am entitled to all the freedoms and considerations of God short of those exclusive to him as actual divinity.



Are you entitled to be king? Your argument doesn't follow. Are you entitled to be a minister? Not everyone is called to ministry, so that means not everyone is entitled to a particular office or status.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are you entitled to be king? Your argument doesn't follow. Are you entitled to be a minister? Not everyone is called to ministry, so that means not everyone is entitled to a particular office or status.


Consider it all. I must take into consideration the rights and prerogatives of my fellow man. Were I the only man on the planet I would be king, minister, and a holder of every office appropriate for man. But I live in community. For the sake of our common benefit we specialize in roles that our respective talents and standing qualify us for. But we do this to re-enforce each others status as image bearers, not to in any way mitigate it. Consider, as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. The longer we interact with each other in our respective roles the more God-like we become.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> For the sake of our common benefit we specialize in roles that our respective talents and standing qualify us for.



I agree with that, but it cuts against your earlier claim that I am entitled to everything short of divinity.

And to reiterate--nobless oblige is the Reformed understanding of the 5th commandment.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I agree with that, but it cuts against your earlier claim that I am entitled to everything short of divinity.
> 
> And to reiterate--nobless oblige is the Reformed understanding of the 5th commandment.


I qualified that assertion with the condition that we must take into consideration the rights and prerogatives of our fellow men. It would be better to say that we enjoy the benefits of the rights and prerogatives of our fellow man. It is a quality of the believer that we take as much joy in someone else's good fortune as we do in our own. By extension we enjoy the exercise of some one else's God-image prerogatives when done in his role in society as much as if we were doing it ourselves. I am not arguing for the existence of some sort of hive-mind, just the simple pleasure that one takes in membership in a well organized and well run society that extends the respect of image bearing to all it's members.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I qualified that assertion with the condition that we must take into consideration the rights and prerogatives of our fellow men. It would be better to say that we enjoy the benefits of the rights and prerogatives of our fellow man. It is a quality of the believer that we take as much joy in someone else's good fortune as we do in our own. By extension we enjoy the exercise of some one else's God-image prerogatives when done in his role in society as much as if we were doing it ourselves. I am not arguing for the existence of some sort of hive-mind, just the simple pleasure that one takes in membership in a well organized and well run society that extends the respect of image bearing to all it's members.



All of this sounds nice, but why should we believe any of it? This sounds like we are reading modern theories of human rights and social contract theory back into biblical ethics.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All of this sounds nice, but why should we believe any of it? This sounds like we are reading modern theories of human rights and social contract theory back into biblical ethics.


Our standing as created in the image of God is a first principle. I know you believe that. Now we are fallen, and we can no longer have an ideal society. Everyone here acknowledges that. A modern theory of human rights and social contract theory probably espouses the notion of the perfectibility of man through social organizations, which I do not believe. But God does not want for us the society which we deserve, which would be a living hell, but rather a society that enjoys the gradual suffusion of his Grace through the operation of his church. We have to trust in the common graces of God which he extends to all mankind as well as the extraordinary graces which he extends to his church to make a society that allows for the kinds of freedoms to it's members that I have described to function. It won't be perfect, it can't be anymore, but God is good, so we can actually believe in the possibility of a decent society that does not resort to heavy handed restrictions on the prerogatives of individuals to insure order. To put it succinctly, we can have a good society, not because we are good, but because God is.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Our standing as created in the image of God is a first principle. I know you believe that. Now we are fallen, and we can no longer have an ideal society. Everyone here acknowledges that. A modern theory of human rights and social contract theory probably espouses the notion of the perfectibility of man through social organizations, which I do not believe. But God does not want for us the society which we deserve, which would be a living hell, but rather a society that enjoys the gradual suffusion of his Grace through the operation of his church. We have to trust in the common graces of God which he extends to all mankind as well as the extraordinary graces which he extends to his church to make a society that allows for the kinds of freedoms to it's members that I have described to function. It won't be perfect, it can't be anymore, but God is good, so we can actually believe in the possibility of a decent society that does not resort to heavy handed restrictions on the prerogatives of individuals to insure order. To put it succinctly, we can have a good society, not because we are good, but because God is.



Having a good society is nice, but it doesn't prove your point about each person should have equal access to all rights and privileges. That isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't necessarily follow. What you have described is traditional conservatism of the old European variety, but traditional conservatism generally didn't believe in (or at least focus on) equal access for equal rights.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Having a good society is nice, but it doesn't prove your point about each person should have equal access to all rights and privileges. That isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't necessarily follow. What you have described is traditional conservatism of the old European variety, but traditional conservatism generally didn't believe in (or at least focus on) equal access for equal rights.


There are two ways one can cultivate restraint and responsible behavior in a society. You can do it out of fear of retribution (the law) or you can teach acknowledgement of the God image in your neighbor (love). Consider. The desires and needs of representative man are really quite limited under most circumstances. Taking into account the God-image of your neighbor rarely significantly impacts the behavior of an individual who acknowledges the God-image in himself. But when they do I have maintained that the more someone involves his neighbor in his considerations the more God-like he becomes (iron sharpening iron). By this logic one becomes more capable of exercising his rights and privileges the more he operates within the role God has assigned him in society. In short, our respective roles in society are a means God uses to elevate our access and rights, not to restrict them. But, but this is not because of any innate goodness in ourselves, it is entirely an act of grace on God's part. Why do you suppose it is only the modern societies that have begun to entertain notions of social contract theory? It is because of the gradual diffusion of the acknowledgement of the God nature in us (by God's grace) that has come of the activity of the church in the world for the past two millennia. Now secular society is trying to arrogate credit for this development to itself, which secular society is going to do. It is up to the church to step up and say no, this is not something you have done under your own power or because of the social techniques you have promulgated, but it is an act of God working through his church that you have more and more of God's prerogatives in your life. "The earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." and "they shall beat their swords into plowshares." We do not do this by denying that it God's will that we should enjoy freedom and prerogative, but by giving credit where it is due.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> There are two ways one can cultivate restraint and responsible behavior in a society. You can do it out of fear of retribution (the law) or you can teach acknowledgement of the God image in your neighbor (love). Consider. The desires and needs of representative man are really quite limited under most circumstances. Taking into account the God-image of your neighbor rarely significantly impacts the behavior of an individual who acknowledges the God-image in himself. But when they do I have maintained that the more someone involves his neighbor in his considerations the more God-like he becomes (iron sharpening iron). By this logic one becomes more capable of exercising his rights and privileges the more he operates within the role God has assigned him in society. In short, our respective roles in society are a means God uses to elevate our access and rights, not to restrict them. But, but this is not because of any innate goodness in ourselves, it is entirely an act of grace on God's part. Why do you suppose it is only the modern societies that have begun to entertain notions of social contract theory? It is because of the gradual diffusion of the acknowledgement of the God nature in us (by God's grace) that has come of the activity of the church in the world for the past two millennia. Now secular society is trying to arrogate credit for this development to itself, which secular society is going to do. It is up to the church to step up and say no, this is not something you have done under your own power or because of the social techniques you have promulgated, but it is an act of God working through his church that you have more and more of God's prerogatives in your life. "The earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." and "they shall beat their swords into plowshares." We do not do this by denying that it God's will that we should enjoy freedom and prerogative, but by giving credit where it is due.



None of this proves your original point that any given person is entitled to x, y, and z.

But let's go back to the original post. Now that you understand what nobless oblige does and doesn't mean, do you agree that it is not only compatible but demanded by the shorter catechism's interpretation of the 5th commandment?


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> None of this proves your original point that any given person is entitled to x, y, and z.
> 
> But let's go back to the original post. Now that you understand what nobless oblige does and doesn't mean, do you agree that it is not only compatible but demanded by the shorter catechism's interpretation of the 5th commandment?


I concede your position on nobless oblige. But I ask you, what does to take to convince you that we are entitled to any given right or prerogative? Does it have to be explicitly enumerated in the scripture? Jesus himself said that the law and the prophets were encapsulated in the commands to love the Lord God with all your heart mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. Does not the Pauline command to place other's consideration's above your own imply that we are to extend rights and prerogatives to our neighbors (and ourselves) that are limited only insofar as our wants and needs are limited? I know that preaching the primacy of love over all other aspects of God has led to terrible deviations from the will of God, but surely you acknowledge our role of stewards over the teaching of the word. We should not ask for a bit and bridle before we presume to discern God's intent in the bible. We have the spirit and we have the restraining influence of the Church and tradition to keep us from deviating from his intent.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> But I ask you, what does to take to convince you that we are entitled to any given right or prerogative?



First, a discussion of "rights." That is by no means a self-evident term.


dnlcnwy said:


> Does it have to be explicitly enumerated in the scripture? Jesus himself said that the law and the prophets were encapsulated in the commands to love the Lord God with all your heart mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.



Since i hold to natural law, no, it doesn't have to be specified in Scripture.



dnlcnwy said:


> Does not the Pauline command to place other's consideration's above your own imply that we are to extend rights and prerogatives to our neighbors (and ourselves) that are limited only insofar as our wants and needs are limited?



1) Is Paul talking to the church or to humanity in general? 2) Depends on what a right (ius) is.


dnlcnwy said:


> but surely you acknowledge our role of stewards over the teaching of the word



Sure, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.


dnlcnwy said:


> We should not ask for a bit and bridle before we presume to discern God's intent in the bible. We have the spirit and we have the restraining influence of the Church and tradition to keep us from deviating from his intent.



I'm not sure what this part of the discussion has to do with the nature of rights.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Hmm.. You believe in natural rights. That places your arguments on a different footing than mine. Are you of the school that believes we can deduce rights based on a close observation of human behavior?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Hmm.. You believe in natural rights. That places your arguments on a different footing than mine. Are you of the school that believes we can deduce rights based on a close observation of human behavior?



No. I believe, with the larger Christian history, that natural law is a participation in the Divine Reason. Rights, such as they are, can then be deduced from that. Of course, even then, and I believe my position is the right one, it's hard to deduce more than a few rights. Since a "right" can be anything from my property to forcing the government to pay for whatever I want.

I believe there are rights. I just don't think rights-talk is all that useful beyond the initial few deductions. But to bring this back to the OP

I have a right to expect the honors and duties due me by my inferiors and equals. Moreover, my inferiors and superiors have certain rights from which they expect me to perform. Naturally, these rights aren't the same


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. I believe, with the larger Christian history, that natural law is a participation in the Divine Reason. Rights, such as they are, can then be deduced from that. Of course, even then, and I believe my position is the right one, it's hard to deduce more than a few rights. Since a "right" can be anything from my property to forcing the government to pay for whatever I want.
> 
> I believe there are rights. I just don't think rights-talk is all that useful beyond the initial few deductions. But to bring this back to the OP
> 
> I have a right to expect the honors and duties due me by my inferiors and equals. Moreover, my inferiors and superiors have certain rights from which they expect me to perform. Naturally, these rights aren't the same


I don't know, I don't know about that. I mean Christ condescended to wash the feet of his disciples. I guess we have to distinguish between those inside the church and those outside. We are to render all rights and honors to those outside the church for the sake of leading peaceful and inoffensive lives in whatever society we find ourselves, but do we really model Christ like behavior when we insist on rights and prerogatives of our own? I have dwelt a lot on God like prerogatives that are our's due to our status as image bearers, perhaps I need to address the issue of God like behavior. Let's put it bluntly, God doesn't owe us a thing except his wrath as insolent inferiors, but his nature moves him to show us love and grace, to even elevate us to Christ like status in the coming world. Shouldn't we have at least a shadow of that attitude towards the lesser souls in our own society? Didn't Christ choose the foolish things of world to confound the wise? The weak things to overcome the strong? Or how about Paul. He had the rights of an apostle when he ministered to expect food and a stipend from the church but chose to forgo both for the sake of not offending the weak in the church. Let me put it this way, if accepting the honors and duties of an inferior will not negatively impact their concept of your status as a disciple of a sacrificing Christ then OK, accept their honor and duty. But if doing that is going to be in any way off putting to their concept of Christian humility then you are bound to forego your priviliges, even to minister to them if that's what it takes to convince then of truth of the claims of Christ.


----------



## Edward (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I had a middle class upbringing. Both parents worked insanely hard. I am a school teacher. While I aspire to be a landed gentleman, it's not happening any time soon.


I'm more from the Kulak class than the proletariat. It's the attempts by the elites to downgrade me that I object to.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> but do we really model Christ like behavior when we insist on rights and prerogatives of our own?



If true, then that undercuts your whole argument on others' needing rights. When they ask for rights, we can just deny them and say, "You need to be like Jesus and not insist on rights."

I don't consider myself better than anyone else (better at/for what?). Nonetheless, I and others occupy certain stations which either give or receive honor.

I owe honor and respect to the police officer. I can't cuss him out and then say, "You need to be like Christ and not insist on honor."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777 (May 18, 2021)

I come from good lumpen stock. MAGA!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If true, then that undercuts your whole argument on others' needing rights. When they ask for rights, we can just deny them and say, "You need to be like Jesus and not insist on rights."
> 
> I don't consider myself better than anyone else (better at/for what?). Nonetheless, I and others occupy certain stations which either give or receive honor.
> 
> I owe honor and respect to the police officer. I can't cuss him out and then say, "You need to be like Christ and not insist on honor."


There is a distinction between having rights and enforcing them. As believers, nothing takes away our status as the chosen children of God with rights and prerogatives with God the father. The Spirit and the gifts are ours. We can petition the throne at any time and God hears us and responds. All this is ours. You are absolutely correct, we are spiritual aristocrats. Nobody can deny your right to exercise your rights. But we are also servants. Jesus was quite clear, "To him who has been given much, much will be expected." If you go through life insisting on your rights in every situation then you are basically burying your talent instead of putting it to work for the kingdom. If you forego honor from men for the sake of imitating Christ you don't lose anything, you receive great, great honor from God in return. Which would you rather have? The quick and relatively cheap (and probably forced) honor of an inferior or the eternal, rich and elevating honor from God that comes from putting the sensitivities of another before your own?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> There is a distinction between having rights and enforcing them. As believers, nothing takes away our status as the chosen children of God with rights and prerogatives with God the father. The Spirit and the gifts are ours. We can petition the throne at any time and God hears us and responds. All this is ours. You are absolutely correct, we are spiritual aristocrats. Nobody can deny your right to exercise your rights. But we are also servants. Jesus was quite clear, "To him who has been given much, much will be expected." If you go through life insisting on your rights in every situation then you are basically burying your talent instead of putting it to work for the kingdom. If you forego honor from men for the sake of imitating Christ you don't lose anything, you receive great, great honor from God in return. Which would you rather have? The quick and relatively cheap (and probably forced) honor of an inferior or the eternal, rich and elevating honor from God that comes from putting the sensitivities of another before your own?



Let's say I am a police officer. A guy comes up to me in front of others and flips me off. Should I take action? If I don't, I am encouraging this behavior. This is where not enforcing the 5th commandment leads to breaches of the sixth commandment.

I don't "insist on my rights." But I also don't want to create a structure where others sin by not performing the rights and duties due to each one in his several places and relations (that last sentence was a word for word quote from the Shorter Catechism. If you disagree with it, then you disagree with Westminster on this point).


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's say I am a police officer. A guy comes up to me in front of others and flips me off. Should I take action? If I don't, I am encouraging this behavior. This is where not enforcing the 5th commandment leads to breaches of the sixth commandment.


This is absolutely right. The Bible is absolutely clear that there are many people who not only may, but _must_ assert their rights: the magistrate, parents, ministers, masters of slaves, etc. Otherwise, good order, which is foundational for a godly society, is impossible. "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Ecc. 8:11).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's say I am a police officer. A guy comes up to me in front of others and flips me off. Should I take action? If I don't, I am encouraging this behavior. This is where not enforcing the 5th commandment leads to breaches of the sixth commandment.
> 
> I don't "insist on my rights." But I also don't want to create a structure where others sin by not performing the rights and duties due to each one in his several places and relations (that last sentence was a word for word quote from the Shorter Catechism. If you disagree with it, then you disagree with Westminster on this point).


Again, I make a distinction between how those inside the church and those outside respond to breaches of their rights. It is possible to achieve limited behavioral discipline by penalizing breaches of the law, but it does not produce transforming change of the heart that God so desperately wants (and we should want too). To put it another way, you can achieve limited (and embittered) results by penalizing non Christ-like behavior. But what we want to do is to produce permanent, lasting and thoroughgoing transformation by modeling Christ like behavior. Modeling Christ-like behavior means exercising prerogatives only as far as is necessary to insure order in society and showing mercy, compassion and humility whenever possible. Are those outside the church capable of this sort of altruistic behavior? No. BUT WE ARE. It is for those outside our communion to delight in a social order that requires the acknowledgement of superiors and inferiors with the rendering of attendant duties and honors. But this is a concession to the fallen nature of our race. We acknowledge and participate in such a society only insofar as it is necessary to preserve our standing as contributing members of whatever society we are in. We are to delight in transforming our society into something that requires less and less social stratification as the concept and outworking of grace becomes more and more prevalent and we do this by being the exception to demanding honor rather than the rule.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Again, I make a distinction between how those inside the church and those outside respond to breaches of their rights.



For 99% of this debate I have been speaking of those outside the church. Inside the church I am like the most humble person in the world (at the risk of contradiction).

You are talking about people inside the church. Everyone else in this thread is talking about those outside the church, hence my examples of aristocracy and policemen.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is absolutely right. The Bible is absolutely clear that there are many people who not only may, but _must_ assert their rights: the magistrate, parents, ministers, masters of slaves, etc. Otherwise, good order, which is foundational for a godly society, is impossible. "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Ecc. 8:11).


Is good order truly the foundation of a Godly society? Good order is the foundation of an orderly society, but that's all. Christ and Christ like attitudes are the foundation of a Godly society. To teach that good order is the path to a Godly society is almost like teaching that the law is the path to salvation. Do I mean by this that God does not want an orderly society? Or that his church does not know comfort in an orderly society? Of course not. But just don't make law and order an end in and of itself, or even a prerequisite for God's church. If we have to, we can do without it.


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Is good order truly the foundation of a Godly society? Good order is the foundation of an orderly society, but that's all. Christ and Christ like attitudes are the foundation of a Godly society. To teach that good order is the path to a Godly society is almost like teaching that the law is the path to salvation. Do I mean by this that God does not want an orderly society? Or that his church does not know comfort in an orderly society? Of course not. But just don't make law and order an end in and of itself, or even a prerequisite for God's church. If we have to, we can do without it.


Is English your second language? Literally everything I have ever posted in your threads you misread as being an argument for works salvation, and it's getting extremely annoying. I have been quite patient thus far, but at this point, you need to start trying to the read words that are written and stop injecting them with whatever hobby horse you seem to be dealing with in your own life.

I never said that the way we reach a godly society is to teach order. But order _is_ foundational to a godly society, because "God is not a God of disorder" (1 Cor. 14:33). And, as it so happens, God has created the world according to his order, and has given us a law that corresponds with that order, hence the fifth commandment.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For 99% of this debate I have been speaking of those outside the church. Inside the church I am like the most humble person in the world (at the risk of contradiction).
> 
> You are talking about people inside the church. Everyone else in this thread is talking about those outside the church, hence my examples of aristocracy and policemen.


For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 

*8* But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 

To show Christ like love is to show love and self sacrifice for those outside our communion in hopes that they might enter in. We are not commanded to make membership in the Church a condition for this consideration, but rather to hope that by showing this consideration that they might enter in.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
> 
> *8* But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
> 
> To show Christ like love is to show love and self sacrifice for those outside our communion in hopes that they might enter in. We are not commanded to make membership in the Church a condition for this consideration, but rather to hope that by showing this consideration that they might enter in.


You are moving the goalposts. 

A magistrate has a duty to be a terror to evil doers and to use the sword. Should he forebear the use of the sword just in case they might get converted.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> or even a prerequisite for God's church.



Why do you keep bringing this up? Not once has anyone on this thread suggested this.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are moving the goalposts.
> 
> A magistrate has a duty to be a terror to evil doers and to use the sword. Should he forebear the use of the sword just in case they might get converted.


I think we are converging towards agreement. Yes, a magistrate must bear the sword against evil. The bible is clear on that. This is a concession to the fallen state of man. But before he executes judgment, someone in the church is bound to reach out to the perpetrator, perhaps (maybe even ideally) his victim, and tell him that God is prepared to divert his judgment onto his Son if he will believe. Such an act on the part of the church requires a suspension of the prerogatives of the law abiding to leave the entire matter of law enforcement in the hands of the magistrate.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Is English your second language? Literally everything I have ever posted in your threads you misread as being an argument for works salvation, and it's getting extremely annoying. I have been quite patient thus far, but at this point, you need to start trying to the read words that are written and stop injecting them with whatever hobby horse you seem to be dealing with in your own life.
> 
> I never said that the way we reach a godly society is to teach order. But order _is_ foundational to a godly society, because "God is not a God of disorder" (1 Cor. 14:33). And, as it so happens, God has created the world according to his order, and has given us a law that corresponds with that order, hence the fifth commandment.


Right. You did not assert that the law was the path to salvation. What I said was stronger than it needed to be. But you did say that order is the foundation of a Godly society. Please examine that assertion. Christ describes himself as the cornerstone of his Church and that is precisely what he is, the rock and the foundation. I am extremely sensitive to any argument that posits any prerequisite for a saving faith (or even a Godly society) other than Christ. I guess that's my hobby horse. All the other things that we promote on this page, orderly society, respect for authority, sabbath observance, the Westminster confessions, are nice, even God glorifying in their limited capacities, but they are secondary. I am sure you believe that too, so I think your choice of language was a mistake. Maybe you should have said that an orderly society is one of the first results of a Godly society. That would not have set off alarm bells in me.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Such an act on the part of the church requires a suspension of the prerogatives of the law abiding to leave the entire matter of law enforcement in the hands of the magistrate.



The church never had these prerogatives to begin with, so she can't suspend them. And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not.


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Christ describes himself as the cornerstone of his Church and that is precisely what he is, the rock and the foundation.


I'm not talking about the Church; I'm talking about society. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.



dnlcnwy said:


> I am extremely sensitive to any argument that posits any prerequisite for a saving faith (or even a Godly society) other than Christ.


Good, you should be, but that's not even an implication of anything I said. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.



dnlcnwy said:


> I am sure you believe that too, so I think your choice of language was a mistake.


It was not a mistake. I meant every word I said, exactly how I said it. The problem is that you're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.



dnlcnwy said:


> Maybe you should have said that an orderly society is one of the first results of a Godly society.


It makes no difference, because God is a God of order. So to say that order is the foundation of a godly society is saying nothing other than that God is the foundation of a godly society, since anything apart from God is by definition disorderly. This explanation on my part would not have been necessary had you not let your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.

See the pattern here?


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The church never had these prerogatives to begin with, so she can't suspend them. And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not.


I did not say the church had the prerogative to leave law enforcement in the hands of the magistrate, but that the law abiding did. And while reaching out to the perpetrator may not have any impact on whether the magistrate executes or not, it is critical if the magistrate does choose to execute. The bible is clear, we are to take the message of salvation to all the world, even enemies of the State, in hopes that God may spare that individual the fate of the unbeliever. It is the will of God that even the worst offender should repent. That includes our own worst personal enemies.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I'm not talking about the Church; I'm talking about society. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.
> 
> 
> Good, you should be, but that's not even an implication of anything I said. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.
> ...


I assert that God is the foundation of the Church and that the Church is the foundation of a Godly society. The Mormons have an orderly society, but I don't think there is much Christ there. Basically there is such a thing as Godless order, which God permits because of the common graces he extends to all mankind. This is a kind thing that God does, but it is not the foundation of a Godly society. The thing is that here in the West the Church has been integrated into an orderly society for so long that it has come to equate peace, order and prosperity with the favor of God and therefor it equates order with Godliness. That just ain't so. The Roman Empire was an orderly society that got so distressed at the disruptive impact that the church was having on that they tried to stamp us out. The point I am making is that sometimes when God wants to establish his church he will gut an orderly society for the sake of introducing a new society that has his church as it's foundation. This can require a pronounced period of disorder, but if that's what it takes, God does it. I just don't buy your assertion that anything apart from God is disorderly, I assert the existence of orderly evil and I think history backs me up. And that blows up your theory that an orderly society is the foundation of a Godly society.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> The bible is clear, we are to take the message of salvation to all the world, even enemies of the State, in hopes that God may spare that individual the fate of the unbeliever. It is the will of God that even the worst offender should repent. That includes our own worst personal enemies.



No one says otherwise.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one says otherwise.


Well, you did say "And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not." That kind of implies an indifference on the part of the church to the fate of the convicted.


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2021)

Brother, you and your weird threads are impossible to follow. Your posts rarely make sense, even simply from an English perspective, and your theology is at many points not just unbiblical, not just unconfessional, but abjectly _against_ the Bible and the Confession, as Jacob has pointed out. And when anyone deals thusly with things you’ve said, you proceed to assert that they are legalists or some other such nonsense.

Stick a fork in me. I’m done.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Brother, you and your weird threads are impossible to follow. Your posts rarely make sense, even simply from an English perspective, and your theology is at many points not just unbiblical, not just unconfessional, but abjectly _against_ the Bible and the Confession, as Jacob has pointed out. And when anyone deals thusly with things you’ve said, you proceed to assert that they are legalists or some other such nonsense.
> 
> Stick a fork in me. I’m done.


I note that you didn't address the substance of my argument. Name calling does not qualify as rational debate.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Well, you did say "And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not." That kind of implies an indifference on the part of the church to the fate of the convicted.



It's not indifferent. It simply reflects that my reaching out in time isn't relevant to the magistrate's _duties _to the citizens in executing the criminal.


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I note that you didn't address the substance of my argument. Name calling does not qualify as rational debate.


1) I still don’t even know what the substance of your argument is, except that you seem to believe anyone who disagrees with whatever your saying is a legalist.

2) I never called you name. I challenge you to find a name that I called you, or else retract your accusation.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's not indifferent. It simply reflects that my reaching out in time isn't relevant to the magistrate's _duties _to the citizens in executing the criminal.


I don't dispute that duty. And I acknowledge that it does not matter much to the magistrate whether or not the church reaches the convicted in time to reach him, but it is critical to the convicted. I would add as an afterthought that while God honors the role of the magistrate in executing judgment, he takes far more pleasure in the role of the church in attempting to reach the convicted.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> but it is critical to the convicted. I would add as an afterthought that while God honors the role of the magistrate in executing judgment, he takes far more pleasure in the role of the church in attempting to reach the convicted.



No one said otherwise (starting to sound like a refrain on my part). All I've sought to do in this thread is demonstrate the duties that one (dare I say?) class of people have to others. Further, these duties aren't necessarily open to all.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Taylor said:


> 1) I still don’t even know what the substance of your argument is, except that you seem to believe anyone who disagrees with whatever your saying is a legalist.
> 
> 2) I never called you name. I challenge you to find a name that I called you, or else retract your accusation.


Well the substance of my argument was to challenge your assertion that an orderly society was the foundation of a Godly society by citing examples of orderly societies that were in no way Godly (Mormons and the Roman Empire). I took it a step further by citing an example of an orderly society that God swept away to make way for a Godly society (The Roman Empire). I used those examples to justify the existence of orderly evil, and used that point to challenge your assertion that all order was of God. And while you did not call me any names personally, you said some very disparaging things about my arguments and theology.


----------



## Taylor (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Well the substance of my argument was to challenge your assertion that an orderly society was the foundation of a Godly society by citing examples of orderly societies that were in no way Godly (Mormons and the Roman Empire).


There is no such thing as evil order. Order is by definition disorder. All things not of God are by definition born of disorder and only produce disorder. By what standard do you call Mormon and Roman society orderly? Certainly not the Bible. There is nothing orderly about Mormon polygamy or Roman incest and emperor worship.



dnlcnwy said:


> And while you did not call me any names personally, you said some very disparaging things about my arguments and theology.


To speak the truth about error is not disparaging. I and others in this thread have pointed out multiple times where you are out of line with the Standards and Scripture. That you are personally offended is irrelevant.


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one said otherwise (starting to sound like a refrain on my part). All I've sought to do in this thread is demonstrate the duties that one (dare I say?) class of people have to others. Further, these duties aren't necessarily open to all.


I said I thought we were converging towards agreement. Just because I make an assertion doesn't mean that I am taking a position that I believe is in opposition to your philosophies, or anyone here. I agree that division of labor and responsibility is necessary for an orderly society. I just maintain that it can be done in a way that does not abridge our freedoms as image bearers but rather re-enforces them. I also hold that the only factors that should be considered in our assigned role in society is merit, whether or not God has gifted us in that role. I maintain that it is the salutary effect of the church in the world that has permitted the gradual re-introduction of non-divine Godlike roles and responsibilities to men in our society. I also acknowledge that our fallen state will never permit a return to our Adamic state, but that the situation for the Church is tolerable, even pleasant, as we wait upon the redemption of our bodies and world that will come at the second coming.


----------



## JimmyH (May 18, 2021)

The original post reminded me of the term 'woke.' 

John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a falling out over Stott's insistence on ecumenism If I recall correctly. Doctrine matters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Perhaps we need to back off a bit from singing lead and acknowledge that we are supposed to sing harmony with our family.


I'm not sure what to make of this thread, but it is not the topic that I thought it started out to be.

The above quote is from the first post. It's the closest thing to a theme or topic that I've discerned in the thread.

My guess is that your original point was that confessional people come across as arrogant, privileged, and condescending--and that they shouldn't be.

That is the kind of broad-brush criticism that we had to address in other threads. Of course there are arrogant confessional Christians. There are arrogant oneness Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims, too. We all agree they should not be arrogant.

(Except Ben, of course...  )

But, aside from the strange attempts to import a social-justice-but-not-really worldview, the biggest problematic assumption I see is the idea that Reformed are leading the singing. Really? How many powerful and mighty in what we loosely call Christiandom are remotely Reformed?

So this all comes across as a straw-man sort of discussion.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (May 18, 2021)

Taylor said:


> There is no such thing as evil order. Order is by definition disorder. All things not of God are by definition born of disorder and only produce disorder. By what standard do you call Mormon and Roman society orderly? Certainly not the Bible. There is nothing orderly about Mormon polygamy or Roman incest and emperor worship.
> 
> 
> To speak the truth about error is not disparaging. I and others in this thread have pointed out multiple times where you are out of line with the Standards and Scripture. That you are personally offended is irrelevant.



No, there is nothing Godly about Mormon polygamy or Roman incest. Both their societies (particularly the Romans) were orderly enough for them to produce some mighty impressive works. The Bible speaks of the power and knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, they were not Godly, but they had order. The Bible says that God raised them up so that his power might be made manifest to them. Sometimes God raises up orderly evil so that at some date he can show them who is the true God, sometimes he does it out of common graces that he extends to their citizens. God takes no pleasure in the suffering of the reprobate and for their sake he grants them ordered societies. 

As far as my personal theology goes, I acknowledge myself to be a sinner, without hope in this world or the next except by Christ's atoning death at the cross on my behalf and his resurrection from the dead. It is on this that I have pinned all my hope. I hold that the scriptures are inerrant and contain everything I need to know about Christ, his church, and my fate. I remain overwhelmed at the magnitude of God's grace on my behalf, and that is the central tenant of any position I take in my life or on this board. I repeat, I am very particular about maintaining the centrality of Christ and his ministry to my theology and philosophy. I acknowledge that Rome has a lot to answer for in promulgating it's various idolatries as aids to achieving salvation and salute the work of the reformers in drafting the confessions as an answer to Roman errors. But, I do not believe exposure to Roman doctrine precludes one from a saving faith if someone has the same attitude towards Christ and his ministry as that put forth in the Bible. I also believe that we in the reformed church have our own idolatries to answer for and that among them are an inordinate regard for the confessions, our worship style and our culture. I am very secure in my position in Christ and therefor am not easily offended. I believe that my relationship with the Lord has imparted some measure of wisdom to me and that is the principle reason for my slow fuse. If anyone here takes issue with these positions I am open to discussion.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 18, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I also believe that we in the reformed church have our own idolatries to answer for and that among them are an inordinate regard for the confessions, our worship style and our culture. I am very secure in my position in Christ and therefor am not easily offended. I believe that my relationship with the Lord has imparted some measure of wisdom to me and that is the principle reason for my slow fuse. If anyone here takes issue with these positions I am open to discussion.


Daniel, I'm closing the thread now.

It may be that some misguided people make the confessions an idol. But that does not mean that those who hold to the confessions are idolators.

This a confessional board. That is our fundamental distinctive. Arguing against the confessions is a violation of our rules.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------

