# God of the Mundane, my Heidelblog review



## RamistThomist

In the summer of 2021, the evangelical world discussed the “Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” Embedded in that narrative was a reference to John Piper’s famous “seashells” sermon. Many of us who came to Calvinism during that time remember this sermon. The message was that people should not waste their lives on hobbies like collecting seashells. Rather, they should invest their time in missions or something equally radical and dangerous. The discussion reminded many of us that the Reformed faith was more than just Calvinism. It is also a specific way of viewing the Christian life. The proper response to a message like that, as one Reformed author pointed out, is not how radical I can be for Jesus, but what God in Christ has done...









Review: Redmond, God of the Mundane: Reflections On Life For Ordinary People


In the summer of 2021, the evangelical world discussed the “Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” Embedded in that narrative was a reference to John Piper’s famous “seashells” sermon. Many of us who came to…




heidelblog.net

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner

RamistThomist said:


> In the summer of 2021, the evangelical world discussed the “Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” Embedded in that narrative was a reference to John Piper’s famous “seashells” sermon. Many of us who came to Calvinism during that time remember this sermon. The message was that people should not waste their lives on hobbies like collecting seashells. Rather, they should invest their time in missions or something equally radical and dangerous. The discussion reminded many of us that the Reformed faith was more than just Calvinism. It is also a specific way of viewing the Christian life. The proper response to a message like that, as one Reformed author pointed out, is not how radical I can be for Jesus, but what God in Christ has done...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Review: Redmond, God of the Mundane: Reflections On Life For Ordinary People
> 
> 
> In the summer of 2021, the evangelical world discussed the “Rise and Fall of Mars Hill.” Embedded in that narrative was a reference to John Piper’s famous “seashells” sermon. Many of us who came to…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heidelblog.net


Interesting Jacob. I made the connection as I was reading your review that this is my neighbor. I sent him a friend request after we moved up here because I saw some of his comments on community pages that made me look at his profile, and I ascertained he was a Christian. I read his fb posts and responses with interest from time to time. I notice that he never speaks about holiness, sin, or anything else some might find controversial; he does Christian counseling in the area, so perhaps wants to maintain a more neutral social media presence. However, though he has some thoughtful and interesting things to say, some of his statements are questionable. A recent one had him apologizing for criticizing, in the past, the music of Bethel church, Hillsong etc., since they "do preach Jesus" (per Paul, he is saying, in Phillipians 1:12-20). A FB friend of his pushed back strenuously at this with a good argument against his claim, which garnered the sort of response that is no real response.

Anyway, a well-written review on your part.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

Is it possible that Piper's words have been exaggerated? Unless I am misremembering, collecting seashells is actually one of Piper's hobbies. Rather, he criticizes a couple who, in retirement, spends every day collecting seashells, as if they have nothing left to accomplish in life. Or to say it another way, he is criticizing excessive leisure. Excessive leisure sure seems to be a common sin. Years ago I remember hearing that the average American watched three hours of tv a night. Today social media and video games seem to occupy more time, but if anything Americans are less committed to a meaningful use of their hours.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## SolaScriptura

Charles Johnson said:


> Is it possible that Piper's words have been exaggerated? Unless I am misremembering, collecting seashells is actually one of Piper's hobbies. Rather, he criticizes a couple who, in retirement, spends every day collecting seashells, as if they have nothing left to accomplish in life. Or to say it another way, he is criticizing excessive leisure. Excessive leisure sure seems to be a common sin. Years ago I remember hearing that the average American watched three hours of tv a night. Today social media and video games seem to occupy more time, but if anything Americans are less committed to a meaningful use of their hours.


Yeah, Piper was criticizing the temptation and pull to live a self-absorbed life consumed principally with the pursuits of leisure and ease, contra the uniform teaching of Scripture that we are to live for Jesus, and not ourselves. 

All I hear when I hear critiques (usually masked in the language of praising the so-called ordinary or mundane) are “hush now, don’t let your feathers be ruffled oh worldly one whose faith is just the garnish on an otherwise self-oriented life, don’t worry, your nominalism is not only ok, but actually praise worthy. In fact, YOU are a real hero of the faith!”

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## alexanderjames

I’m just commenting to defend there being some value in Piper’s sermon, though I do not speak directly to this critique..

Admittedly I don’t think I have seen the whole sermon, nor was I there (I was 5 in 2000), but I did watch some of what Mr Piper said on YouTube a couple of years ago. And I was struck about how he exposed the foolishness of the wisdom of this world. Like in the parable of the rich fool, this world says “earn good money in your early life so that you can retire, hopefully in your 50s, then relax and take your fill”.

..
“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I can quote part of that sermon from memory, including voice inflections. He followed that story with "Don't waste your life. Don't waste it." I get that Piper probably exaggerated to make a point. He is often notorious for that. Still, the essence of the critique applies.


SolaScriptura said:


> Yeah, Piper was criticizing the temptation and pull to live a self-absorbed life consumed principally with the pursuits of leisure and ease, contra the uniform teaching of Scripture that we are to live for Jesus, and not ourselves.
> 
> All I hear when I hear critiques (usually masked in the language of praising the so-called ordinary or mundane) are “hush now, don’t let your feathers be ruffled oh worldly one whose faith is just the garnish on an otherwise self-oriented life, don’t worry, your nominalism is not only ok, but actually praise worthy. In fact, YOU are a real hero of the faith!”



Nothing in the book or my review said "live for yourselves." The point--and I admit the author of the book didn't do a great job with his thesis--is that it is okay to have a boring life. To be sure, he could have strengthened it with language about the Supper and God's promises. You don't have to die of dysentery in the jungle to be a good Christian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexanderjames said:


> I’m just commenting to defend there being some value in Piper’s sermon, though I do not speak directly to your critique sir..
> 
> Admittedly I don’t think I have seen the whole sermon, nor was I there (I was 5 in 2000), but I did watch some of what Mr Piper said on YouTube a couple of years ago. And I was struck about how he exposed the foolishness of the wisdom of this world. Like in the parable of the rich fool, this world says “earn good money in your early life so that you can retire, hopefully in your 50s, then relax and take your fill”.
> 
> ..
> “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
> “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”



I get that. In the aforementioned book, everyone was poor. I am a school teacher. I'm not rolling in money. I work in the inner city.


----------



## alexanderjames

RamistThomist said:


> I get that. In the aforementioned book, everyone was poor. I am a school teacher. I'm not rolling in money. I work in the inner city.


Noted. My comment was more with the aim of encouraging/reminding anyone perusing the board not to live for this world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I'm an amillennialist. My whole outlook is "this world is not my home."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

"For example, he says our common labors “push back” against sin in the world.11 He is correct in using the category of “common” in the Christian life. Common does not mean bad or neutral. It means distinct from the church. What is not clear, though, is how our common labors push back against the sin in the world. "

I think you misunderstood this, although to be fair, he threw in that one line on page 29 of my 2012 book about pushing back against the insurrection of sin. But in four other sentences about that one, he is crystal clear that we are pushing back against the effects of the fall, not just sin or specifically sin. In fact for the most part he talks more about the fall in terms of work being hard, and decay and failures and things that leak and break, and the repetitious monotony of many callings. 

I LOVED that book. I knew Reformed theology enough to know in my head that every calling is holy and there is no secular/sacred distinction. I was blessed to love being a mother and then grandmother, and to have a full and busy life, and to not wish I could traipse all over to go to conferences and foreign missions trips and "do exciting things for God". But still, even with all that, after I read that book, for months, literally months, I would pick something off the floor and think "I am pushing back the fall". Or do dishes or cook dinner or pull weeds and be flooded with those words from the book that "I am pushing back the fall". I've known women too busy with "ministry" and church to make dinner for the family or clean up the house or have time to go for a walk or read a book. But for me, there was a flood of joy in the ordinary things of life after I read it; it affected me so deeply. It wasn't something intellectually new, but, for whatever reason it affected my heart and created much joy. 

I better read it again, what with getting older and tired and helping with energetic little grandkids. Lol.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

lynnie said:


> "For example, he says our common labors “push back” against sin in the world.11 He is correct in using the category of “common” in the Christian life. Common does not mean bad or neutral. It means distinct from the church. What is not clear, though, is how our common labors push back against the sin in the world. "
> 
> I think you misunderstood this, although to be fair, he threw in that one line on page 29 of my 2012 book about pushing back against the insurrection of sin. But in four other sentences about that one, he is crystal clear that we are pushing back against the effects of the fall, not just sin or specifically sin. In fact for the most part he talks more about the fall in terms of work being hard, and decay and failures and things that leak and break, and the repetitious monotony of many callings.
> 
> I LOVED that book. I knew Reformed theology enough to know in my head that every calling is holy and there is no secular/sacred distinction. I was blessed to love being a mother and then grandmother, and to have a full and busy life, and to not wish I could traipse all over to go to conferences and foreign missions trips and "do exciting things for God". But still, even with all that, after I read that book, for months, literally months, I would pick something off the floor and think "I am pushing back the fall". Or do dishes or cook dinner or pull weeds and be flooded with those words from the book that "I am pushing back the fall". I've known women too busy with "ministry" and church to make dinner for the family or clean up the house or have time to go for a walk or read a book. But for me, there was a flood of joy in the ordinary things of life after I read it; it affected me so deeply. It wasn't something intellectually new, but, for whatever reason it affected my heart and created much joy.
> 
> I better read it again, what with getting older and tired and helping with energetic little grandkids. Lol.



Fair enough. I might have misread him on that point.

I love the idea of the book and I agree with where he is going. Give me this book over all the "Radical" books. I just thought Horton's was better.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

It isn't really fair, in regards to precise Theological writing or thinking, to compare anybody to Horton. 

I wonder if Horton had written his book sooner, if MBR might not have felt the need to speak up about the subject. 

The way the economy is going may end all the conferences with big names telling us how to be radical and passionate and hyped up for Jesus. We may be hard pressed just to eat and keep warm. I pray a lot for the younger folks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos

I think the bigger problem in the American Church is nominalism and something rarely addressed. My read was that Piper was addressing that. Not that he doesn't have his issues with justification. 

Hard to convince me that most Christians today are pressured into being too radical. Most cannot even get themselves out of bed to go to Church.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Tychicus

Dr. Joe Rigney, the current President of Bethlehem College and Seminary has an excellent article addressing this:








Ungodly Ambition: How to Test Our Motivations


Ambition can be a wonderful servant, and a cruel master. How do you discern when a holy ambition has become an oppressive one?




www.desiringgod.org




"I can look back over the last twenty years and see times when these exhortations have become distorted or twisted in my soul. "

He is balanced and precise. I admire that. The fact that he is the President of BC&S goes to show that Piper's ministry and theology being pinpointed and needled-down to that one message (or particular doctrine) is quite misleading. His book _When I Don't Desire God _is a great book on the ordinary life and waiting on the Lord. I remember Steven Wedgeworth mentioning (on some platform) another book of his; _When Darkness Will Not Lift,_ which pushes back on the whole "Christian life is always a bliss. joy, etc" jargon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C4MERON

I think someone should create a graphic and print it on a T with a slogan such as ‘Punta Gorda Yachting and Seashell Conservation Club’. He could wear it while he’s out jogging. See if anybody gets it!

But no, really timely sermon. I was 18 and just left high school at that time and it would have been exactly what I needed to hear back then.


----------



## Von

RamistThomist said:


> I just thought Horton's was better.


Which one was that?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Piper is not speaking to nominalists. He is speaking to people who go to Passion conferences and have upraised hands during the worship segment. I heard him speak in Glorietta, NM in 2002. His sermon was "Life is War and God is Sovereign." His message to college kids: pool your resources into renting one apartment, take out extra jobs delivering pizza, and send all the money you make to missions. (Although I am severely critical of Piper and I think his message was wrong, he was easily the best speaker there). I grant that there might be a place for that. I also argue there is a category called "common" or "nature." Piper, having a somewhat anabaptist view of nature and grace, especially in ethics, can't really address that reality.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Von said:


> Which one was that?








Amazon - Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World: Horton, Michael: 9780310517375: Books


Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World [Horton, Michael] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World



www.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus

RamistThomist said:


> He is speaking to people who go to Passion conferences and have upraised hands during the worship segment.


A little push back; these are the nominalists. Their Christianity is CCM and Joel Osteen. The nominalists come in various forms. They come with lifted hands to these conferences and go back to living their nominal life. Christ as Lord has no implications on their living. Eternity has no pace in their thinking. It's about being cool. And raisin' hands is cool.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## MChase

You don’t have to be around the Passion or Bethel crowd that long to see how much of their liveliness fades out rather quickly after college. 

I really don’t get what is so harsh about telling people that retiring at 60 to collect sea shells or some other useless endeavor is a waste of time. My 58 year old dad just retired and is more or less playing pickle ball every day. It’s wasteful. Hobbies are fine, but we’ve become so obsessed with them such that our lives revolve around them. Even our daily labor has turned into “do you find value out of your career?”

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## kodos

RamistThomist said:


> Piper is not speaking to nominalists. He is speaking to people who go to Passion conferences and have upraised hands during the worship segment. I heard him speak in Glorietta, NM in 2002. His sermon was "Life is War and God is Sovereign." His message to college kids: pool your resources into renting one apartment, take out extra jobs delivering pizza, and send all the money you make to missions. (Although I am severely critical of Piper and I think his message was wrong, he was easily the best speaker there). I grant that there might be a place for that. I also argue there is a category called "common" or "nature." Piper, having a somewhat anabaptist view of nature and grace, especially in ethics, can't really address that reality.



Well, certainly, that is an extreme and legalistic message if so - never heard it, don't really listen to John Piper and he has his issues as noted. But in terms of his critique of the retired couple who want to spend all day on a boat and collecting seashells after attaining the "American Dream"? That is a *much-needed critique*. And youth, especially, need to hear it before they orient their lives towards that as their aim for this side of eternity. 

I know many, even stalwart, Reformed people who neglect the first things for the sake of the love of this present world. They are like Demas. They claim the kingdom is important and then will find themselves ensnared with the love of the world as Lot's wife did.

There are many warnings in the Scripture regarding it, and sad to say, very few men preach it.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## MChase

I am re-listening to the 'Sea Shells' Sermon (Boasting Only in the Cross). I am hard pressed to find much objectionable in the sermon. In our day we need more pushback against the 'American dream', not less. Yes, there can be legalistic excesses in counting the square feet in a house or the like, but that is not what Piper is arguing for. We have close family members, reformed folk, who aren't sure if they are going to have kids. Talk about a self centeredness. Or others who think since drinking wine is lawful, that spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on wine is fine. In my own life, I am far too prone to excess and using 'lawfulness' as an excuse for too much. We need to redeem the time and be more tactical about what we are spending our money on.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## NM_Presby

MChase said:


> I am re-listening to the 'Sea Shells' Sermon (Boasting Only in the Cross). I am hard pressed to find much objectionable in the sermon. In our day we need more pushback against the 'American dream', not less. Yes, there can be legalistic excesses in counting the square feet in a house or the like, but that is not what Piper is arguing for. We have close family members, reformed folk, who aren't sure if they are going to have kids. Talk about a self centeredness. Or others who think since drinking wine is lawful, that spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on wine is fine. In my own life, I am far too prone to excess and using 'lawfulness' as an excuse for too much. We need to redeem the time and be more tactical about what we are spending our money on.


I'm inclined to agree with you. There is a fine line, and different groups need different correctives, but there is a real problem in America of comfortable Christianity which simply sanctifies the American dream. We do need to be content with the "ordinariness" of the Christian faith, but we also need to be called to place Christ over the comforts of this life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h

kodos said:


> Hard to convince me that most Christians today are pressured into being too radical. Most cannot even get themselves out of bed to go to Church.



I think the issues are actually connected. In my experience, I have worked with folks who refuse to regularly exercise the ordinary means. Because of this, they (rightly) perceive their situation as troubled. But they (wrongly) perceive that the solution to their troubles is something radical and singular, not something ordinary and regular. The problem of not attending to the ordinary means is the prompt for the temptation to supplant them with extraordinary things. Maybe our modern impatience is thrown in there as an aggravating factor.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Some thoughts:

1) I get that Christians who are going to retire and watch Stepford Wives for the rest of their lives might need to hear Piper's message.
2) Those are *not* the people to whom he is speaking. He is speaking to 19 year olds, not to the Rotary Club.
3) As to "nominal" Christians, they probably need to hear Law and Gospel, not more manmade rules
4) Remember, Piper believes in Final Justification and he rejects the Reformed teaching of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. I bet that plays into his appeals.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SolaScriptura

RamistThomist said:


> Some thoughts:
> 
> 1) I get that Christians who are going to retire and watch Stepford Wives for the rest of their lives might need to hear Piper's message.
> 2) Those are *not* the people to whom he is speaking. He is speaking to 19 year olds, not to the Rotary Club.


But Jakob - This is where you're being myopic. By the time people are retired, it's too late. A person gets to a point where they're basically calcified into their way of thinking and prioritizing. To prevent people from getting to that self-absorbed final destination, they need to intentionally chart a course while still in the course charting stage of life. Hence the value of Piper's sermon to them.
BTW - telling people to live for Jesus is not giving "man made rules."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

SolaScriptura said:


> But Jakob - This is where you're being myopic. By the time people are retired, it's too late. A person gets to a point where they're basically calcified into their way of thinking and prioritizing. To prevent people from getting to that self-absorbed final destination, they need to intentionally chart a course while still in the course charting stage of life. Hence the value of Piper's sermon to them.
> BTW - telling people to live for Jesus is not giving "man made rules."



Perhaps on being calcified in habits. I might grant that.

Living for Jesus is great. As it stands, though, that saying is abstract and it can mean anything from hearing Law/Gospel and receiving the sacraments to following x, y, and z.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> I'm an amillennialist. My whole outlook is "this world is not my home."


Jacob, I love the fact that you are well read. I learn a lot from you. But there is the issue of a lot of vacillation doctrinally when that happens. I too am an Amil but that term is loaded with a lot of baggage and is relatively new. I don't know a Premil, Progressive Premil, Dispensational Premil, Conditional Immoralists nor Postmil who would say any different. Even the Antinomian would say the same thing. My point is that there is a lot of growing to do when a lot of knowledge is crammed into a soul. I have seen many like you who have fallen away into a poor view of scripture and false doctrine of soteriology. So what, you are an amil. Means nothing in this statement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> Some thoughts:
> 
> 1) I get that Christians who are going to retire and watch Stepford Wives for the rest of their lives might need to hear Piper's message.
> 2) Those are *not* the people to whom he is speaking. He is speaking to 19 year olds, not to the Rotary Club.
> 3) As to "nominal" Christians, they probably need to hear Law and Gospel, not more manmade rules
> 4) Remember, Piper believes in Final Justification and he rejects the Reformed teaching of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. I bet that plays into his appeals.



The end for which we work is important. It is important to get ingrained into christian college kids' heads that they are working for Christ, not for themselves. The primary end of their labor is not to stock their 401k early and often, it is for Christ. That means everything. That means you tithe before you buy the new 3 series.

I don't really know what man-made rules were given. I fail to see how exhorting folks to glory only in the Cross and make all other glorying subservient is 'man-made legalism'. I also fail to see how it is in any way controversial to tell adolescents that the primary thing we have to look forward too is not retirement and hobbying around; rather it is hearing on that final day "well done good and faithful servant". 

This is where the hard core law/gospel folks out west get so confusing. They'll emphasize law/gospel so much and then when a command is actually preached with more force than "don't worry you can't do this" everything is written off as legalism. Commands in scripture aren't merely abstract, they stung then and they are supposed to sting now.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

MChase said:


> The end for which we work is important. It is important to get ingrained into christian college kids' heads that they are working for Christ, not for themselves. The primary end of their labor is not to stock their 401k early and often, it is for Christ. That means everything. That means you tithe before you buy the new 3 series.
> 
> I don't really know what man-made rules were given. I fail to see how exhorting folks to glory only in the Cross and make all other glorying subservient is 'man-made legalism'. I also fail to see how it is in any way controversial to tell adolescents that the primary thing we have to look forward too is not retirement and hobbying around; rather it is hearing on that final day "well done good and faithful servant".
> 
> This is where the hard core law/gospel folks out west get so confusing. They'll emphasize law/gospel so much and then when a command is actually preached with more force than "don't worry you can't do this" everything is written off as legalism. Commands in scripture aren't merely abstract, they stung then and they are supposed to sting now.


Exactly. For well over 12 years I've had exactly ZERO use for the White Horse Inn/Horton/WSCAL bastardization of Reformed theology with Lutheranism. I haven't argued it here because some love it and find it profound, or whatever, and at least I've been able to successfully warn those in my circle. Again, ZERO use. 

Behold, Tullian Tchividjian... the ignoble love child of that movement.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 2 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> The end for which we work is important. It is important to get ingrained into christian college kids' heads that they are working for Christ, not for themselves. The primary end of their labor is not to stock their 401k early and often, it is for Christ. That means everything. That means you tithe before you buy the new 3 series.



It's possible most people will land in between. Proverbs also says a godly man leaves an inheritance for his grandkids. No one here is saying we should buy all this cool stuff before we tithe. I am simply saying a good Christian life doesn't have to be on the extremes like Piper and Chan make it out to be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

SolaScriptura said:


> Behold, Tullian Tchividjian... the ignoble love child of that movement.



If we want to commit the genetic fallacy, I can play, too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> It's possible most people will land in between. Proverbs also says a godly man leaves an inheritance for his grandkids. No one here is saying we should buy all this cool stuff before we tithe. I am simply saying a good Christian life doesn't have to be on the extremes like Piper and Chan make it out to be.



I still think you're caricaturing Piper. As far as I can remember, the man lived in a rather nice house in downtown Minneapolis. If you want to critique the excesses of Chan go for it. But you've lit a rather large Piper looking straw man here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jacob, I love the fact that you are well read. I learn a lot from you. But there is the issue of a lot of vacillation doctrinally when that happens. I too am an Amil but that term is loaded with a lot of baggage and is relatively new. I don't know a Premil, Progressive Premil, Dispensational Premil, Conditional Immoralists nor Postmil who would say any different. Even the Antinomian would say the same thing. My point is that there is a lot of growing to do when a lot of knowledge is crammed into a soul. I have seen many like you who have fallen away into a poor view of scripture and false doctrine of soteriology. So what, you are an amil. Means nothing in this statement.



It was implied because of my critique of Piper that I was worldly. No one said that, of course, but they all chose anecdotal examples and extreme scenarios, none of which I mentioned.

And I know many postmils who specifically attack the idea of "this world is not my home."


----------



## SolaScriptura

RamistThomist said:


> If we want to commit the genetic fallacy, I can play, too.


Sure you can!

But what sophists call "genetic fallacy" us realists call: concrete example.

Come on! I wanna see you do a tap dance like Richard Gere in Chicago!


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> I still think you're caricaturing Piper. As far as I can remember, the man lived in a rather nice house in downtown Minneapolis. If you want to critique the excesses of Chan go for it. But you've lit a rather large Piper looking straw man here.



I didn't say anything about Piper's house. I have no idea what kind of house he lives in or what he drives (I drive a broken Honda CRV. Don't get those kind of cars).


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> I didn't say anything about Piper's house. I have no idea what kind of house he lives in or what he drives (I drive a broken Honda CRV. Don't get those kind of cars).



Then what exactly is extreme about Piper then?


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But there is the issue of a lot of vacillation doctrinally when that happens. .... My point is that there is a lot of growing to do when a lot of knowledge is crammed into a soul. I have seen many like you who have fallen away into a poor view of scripture and false doctrine of soteriology. So what, you are an amil. Means nothing in this statement.



With all due respect, this comes across as patronizing. I only had one moment of vacillation and that was when the La. Presbytery imploded because of the Federal Vision heresy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MChase said:


> My 58 year old dad just retired and is more or less playing pickle ball every day. It’s wasteful. Hobbies are fine, but we’ve become so obsessed with them such that our lives revolve around them. Even our daily labor has turned into “do you find value out of your career?”


Brother. I am in my 59th year. I have basically been retired for 22 years now due to health. I find myself delving into my past and the things I use to be involved in. It is a struggle to just stay connected to people outside of the Church. I despise the Holy Huddle mentality. The importance of being involved with other humans is so important for us and them. So if playing Pickle Ball places me in a place to develop true friendships and expand my concentric circles then so be it. Judge things the way you want to. But believe me, you haven't been where your Dad has been and you are not where he is. He might be right where he is to win that one person Christ is saving whether they be regenerate already or not. My kids have no idea about the fulness of my life. It isn't theirs. I imagine you don't know the fulness of your father's life either. 

BTW, Ecclesiastes does say we are to enjoy life. Even in the harshness of it. Trouble and hard times are promised. So is perseverance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Then what exactly is extreme about Piper then?



Telling a bunch of college kids to live together in a cramped apartment, work multiple jobs, and put ALL the extra money into missions. If that's what you want to do, great, but it came across as "do this."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

SolaScriptura said:


> Sure you can!
> 
> But what sophists call "genetic fallacy" us realists call: concrete example.
> 
> Come on! I wanna see you do a tap dance like Richard Gere in Chicago!



Yep. Tullian is far from the only example too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> With all due respect, this comes across as patronizing. I only had one moment of vacillation and that was when the La. Presbytery imploded because of the Federal Vision heresy.


Not true brother. Think about it. It might have been Patronizing. What is wrong with that?


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Yep. Tullian is far from the only example too.



http://theonomists.blogspot.com/

https://store.americanvision.org/collections/gary-north/products/lone-gunners-for-Jesus

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Brother. I am in my 59th year. I have basically been retired for 22 years now due to health. I find myself delving into my past and the things I use to be involved in. It is a struggle to just stay connected to people outside of the Church. I despise the Holy Huddle mentality. The importance of being involved with other humans is so important for us and them. So if playing Pickle Ball places me in a place to develop true friendships and expand my concentric circles then so be it. Judge things the way you want to. But believe me, you haven't been where your Dad has been and you are not where he is. He might be right where he is to win that one person Christ is saving whether they be regenerate already or not. My kids have no idea about the fulness of my life. It isn't theirs. I imagine you don't fulness of your father's life either.
> 
> BTW, Ecclesiastes does say we are to enjoy life. Even in the harshness of it. Trouble and hard times are promised. So is perseverance.



Your situation is not at all what I am speaking of. I am not going to air dirty laundry on the internet, but if the sole purpose of one's existence is recreation something is massively wrong. Recreation is what makes many Americans get out of bed in the morning and that is exactly what Piper is speaking of.


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> http://theonomists.blogspot.com/
> 
> https://store.americanvision.org/collections/gary-north/products/lone-gunners-for-Jesus



Dude, I am in the PRC. Do you think I have time for theonomists? The AV crowd is more antinomian than the Escondido one.


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Dude, I am in the PRC. Do you think I have time for theonomists? The AV crowd is more antinomian than the Escondido one.



I agree with you on AV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MChase said:


> Your situation is not at all what I am speaking of.


I am just asking you to be a bit more understanding of your father.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

kodos said:


> That is a *much-needed critique*. And youth, especially, need to hear it before they orient their lives towards that as their aim for this side of eternity.
> 
> I know many, even stalwart, Reformed people who neglect the first things for the sake of the love of this present world. They are like Demas. They claim the kingdom is important and then will find themselves ensnared with the love of the world as Lot's wife did.
> 
> There are many warnings in the Scripture regarding it, and sad to say, very few men preach it.


Beeke's book 'A Radical Comprehensive Call to Holiness emphasises these truths. It has done my soul much good.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tychicus

Tychicus said:


> Dr. Joe Rigney, the current President of Bethlehem College and Seminary has an excellent article addressing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ungodly Ambition: How to Test Our Motivations
> 
> 
> Ambition can be a wonderful servant, and a cruel master. How do you discern when a holy ambition has become an oppressive one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.desiringgod.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I can look back over the last twenty years and see times when these exhortations have become distorted or twisted in my soul. "
> 
> He is balanced and precise. I admire that. The fact that he is the President of BC&S goes to show that Piper's ministry and theology being pinpointed and needled-down to that one message (or particular doctrine) is quite misleading. His book _When I Don't Desire God _is a great book on the ordinary life and waiting on the Lord. I remember Steven Wedgeworth mentioning (on some platform) another book of his; _When Darkness Will Not Lift,_ which pushes back on the whole "Christian life is always a bliss. joy, etc" jargon.


I was trying to get this across: Piper's work is not the extreme "don't buy costly cars because people die of hunger". He is much more nuanced if one takes the time to read him closely. 

Your critique may fit certain other folks (you mentioned Chan, I agree), but not Piper. I think he is balanced. His other works are testament to that. Joe Rigney is testament to that. He's written two books on enjoying the good world that God has created. Contrary to "things of the world will grow *strangely dim,* in the light of His glory and grace", he's titled his work _Strangely Bright. _(a good review here). The article I linked is where he directly talks of how Piper's message can be twisted into an unhealthy obsession. All this to say, your concerns are being addressed. By Piper himself and the people who will be carrying forward his legacy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Tychicus said:


> I was trying to get this across: Piper's work is not the extreme "don't buy costly cars because people die of hunger". He is much more nuanced if one takes the time to read him closely.
> 
> Your critique may fit certain other folks (you mentioned Chan, I agree), but not Piper. I think he is balanced. His other works are testament to that. Joe Rigney is testament to that. He's written two books on enjoying the good world that God has created. Contrary to "things of the world will grow *strangely dim,* in the light of His glory and grace", he's titled his work _Strangely Bright. _(a good review here). The article I linked is where he directly talks of how Piper's message can be twisted into an unhealthy obsession. All this to say, your concerns are being addressed. By Piper himself and the people who will be carrying forward his legacy.



I know Piper isn't saying _that._ He is not balanced, though, nor is he a reliable guide to the Reformed faith. He believes in final justification and rejects the doctrine of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. His statements on political ethics have been incoherent (at best).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> I know Piper isn't saying _that._ He is not balanced, though, nor is he a reliable guide to the Reformed faith. He believes in final justification and rejects the doctrine of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. His statements on political ethics have been incoherent (at best).



Escondido isn’t a reliable guide to the reformed faith either. Recover only the parts of the confession that I like. Mike Horton’s political ethics are arguably worse than Piper’s.

Piper has his problems to be sure. No one is denying that.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tychicus

RamistThomist said:


> I know Piper isn't saying _that._ He is not balanced, though, nor is he a reliable guide to the Reformed faith. He believes in final justification and rejects the doctrine of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. His statements on political ethics have been incoherent (at best).


This could derail this thread, but here goes: I do not go to Piper for public theology. I almost never do that. Like you have noted, his political ethics is not the most coherent

About final justification, I beg to differ, though I think Piper's exaggeration was unwarranted (but the foreword to the Matthew Barrett Five Sola series was good). Mark Jones has done a better and more careful work on this, he's better at articulating justification and works with scholastic distinctions and sources. I didn't want to comment on this because the thread would get derailed but I think I owe you the courtesy to clarify on this.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## MChase

This all has gotten far afield thanks in large portion to myself. I do want to clarify something though. I am not suggesting that pickle ball, collecting sea shells, having a nice lake house, or any combination of nice luxuries is unlawful. Not in the least. However, to act like there is no temptation towards a worldliness and covetousness of ease and luxury is naive and blind. Wordliness is in fact a real threat, particularly to broke college students who can't wait to have their white picket fence and BMW. We are all so prone to covet the next stage of life. For the single college student its marriage, for the married couple its kids, for the couple with young kids its when they will have more independent children, and so on.. This is my annoyance with it all. You can call covetousness idolatry in the abstract, but the second you apply it to a flesh and blood example it becomes legalism. 

This is also why the overemphasis on the law/gospel distinction can be tiresome. The distinction is real and we need to make it lest we swim the clearwater river on our way to the murky theological waters of Moscow. But for the Christian, the law and gospel sweetly comply. Telling the Christian not to idolize stuff and the modern view of retirement isn't legalism; its something that should make his soul shout 'AMEN!!'

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Tychicus

MChase said:


> But for the Christian, the law and gospel sweetly comply.


Kevin DeYoung is excellent on this: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/a-conversation-about-the-law/



MChase said:


> The distinction is real


Dr. Mark Garcia makes the same point in the exchange that he had with Dr. Horton in the _Confessional Presbyterian Journal. _He distinguishes between the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic(LGH) and the Law-Gospel Distinction (LGD). All Protestants must hold to the latter. But the former, he finds issue with, as do many of the critics of Escondido.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## bookish_Basset

Appreciate seeing this review.

Maybe this is another area where my husband and I are outliers; I don't know. He came of age in Francis Chan's church and in a Christian college environment that was constantly calling kids to recommit their lives to doing something radical for Christ. After a time, it basically became about getting his conscience beaten up over and over. 

We both came into the Reformed world feeling burnt out and like failures as Christians. I can't tell you how freeing it's been to learn the Reformed doctrine of vocation and that God is pleased with my efforts to live a quiet life of serving my family and attending to the ordinary means of grace (which is a daily battle in itself).

I'm sure people caricature what Piper said and that the above is maybe not what Piper et al. are critiquing, and also I'm sure many people do need to be jolted into realizing that this is our one chance to live our lives for Christ. There will always be a few people who will walk away with the wrong message and be crushed by it, though.

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> I am not suggesting that pickle ball



At the risk of utterly killing the thread, I just have to ask. What is pickle ball?

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> At the risk of utterly killing the thread, I just have to ask. What is pickle ball?


It is like Racket Ball played on a small tennis court. In other words it is a small version of Old Peoples Tennis. LOL.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would acknowledge that this is a balanced look at the call to be "dangerous" or "Sold Out". I came from a Navigator Group that radically called for scripture memory and we all lived in homes or the barracks together at NAS Oceana. It was probably the happiest and most hard time of my life. It has born great benefit in my life and the lives of others. There is a need for and understanding of God's call upon individuals as they participate under the authority of the Church. It can be most wonderfully dangerous and sold out.

The Hiedelblog.... What a mess.
oops, misspelled Heidelblog

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oh, One more thing. As a Navy Airman and then a College Student I was single. That is prime time to grow in knowledge and love for the Lord as St. Paul noted when he spoke on Marriage. Life has its times and seasons. We are called to act differently in each station and stage of life. 

1Co 7:29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 
1Co 7:30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 
1Co 7:31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 
1Co 7:32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 
1Co 7:33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 
1Co 7:34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 
1Co 7:35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 

Maybe this is radical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

Here is the text of the sermon in question. I am baffled that a reformed minister thinks that this is the reason that we need a new reformation.








Boasting Only in the Cross


When you die, only what you do for Christ will last. You have one life. Don’t waste it on insignificant comforts.




www.desiringgod.org





I think we need a recovery of previous reformations. Ones in which the law was preached without apology. Holiness of life was emphasized. Psalms were sung with grace in the heart. The magistrate was told they were accountable to God and that "Same-sex unions" weren't dandy.

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 2


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> I think we need a recovery of previous reformations. Ones in which the law was preached without apology. Holiness of life was emphasized. Psalms were sung with grace in the heart. The magistrate was told they were accountable to God and that "Same-sex unions" weren't dandy.



Clark and I are on the same page on politics. Telling the magistrate he is accountable to God is ambiguous. What I think you are saying is that the magistrate should enforce the first table of the law. I think that is problematic, but that's for another thread. Both Clark and I reject same sex unions. Not sure why that even entered the discussion.


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> Clark and I are on the same page on politics. Telling the magistrate he is accountable to God is ambiguous. What I think you are saying is that the magistrate should enforce the first table of the law. I think that is problematic, but that's for another thread. Both Clark and I reject same sex unions. Not sure why that even entered the discussion.



Horton was arguing for same-sex unions before it was on the democratic platform. It is not entirely out of left field. 

Fair enough to say that the magistrate shouldn't enforce the first table. But in that case not even the American revisions can save the "recover the reformed confession" line.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Logically the second table is nothing without the first. There is no basis for the second if isn't attached to the first. Natural Law is another problem. I am not looking for Eutopia on earth. I am just praying what the Lord said to pray, "Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven." I don't understand what God is doing but I am sure it will be good.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## MChase

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Logically the second table is nothing without the first. There is no basis for the second if isn't attached to the first. Natural Law is another problem. I am not looking for Eutopia on earth. I am just praying what the Lord said to pray, "Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven." I don't understand what God is doing but I am sure it will be good.



The push for the recovery for natural law is ironic. I’m all for natural law. Natural law teaches that blasphemers and idolators are to be restrained and punished.

Anyway, I know another thread…

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I find it amazing how polarizing some of these issues are. Historically Recovering the Reformed Confessions won't look the same for each generation as our Standards are attacked. The Standards do a good job teaching and influencing us in our regeneration. Little foxes.


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Horton was arguing for same-sex unions before it was on the democratic platform. It is not entirely out of left field.
> 
> Fair enough to say that the magistrate shouldn't enforce the first table. But in that case not even the American revisions can save the "recover the reformed confession" line.



And Horton is wrong on that. And Clark has come out repeatedly against homosexuality. I don't really know what else to say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos

*Matthew 11:12:* "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

_Watson_: "The earth is inherited by the meek, Matt. 5:5. Heaven is inherited by the violent. Our life is military, Christ is our captain, the gospel is the banner, the graces are our spiritual artillery, and Heaven is only taken in a forcible way."
Thomas Watson, The Christian Soldier, or Heaven Taken by Storm, ed. Armstrong, Second American Edition. (New York: Robert Moore, 1816), 12–13.

I think some modern Reformed men would have a heart-attack to hear that. But this is how the Puritans wrote. They saw Christian spirituality as all-consuming. Going to war with your sin and seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, preaching to you that without holiness no man can expect to see the Lord, etc. 

But all by the grace of God. They would call us to be spiritually exercised and to have vital religion.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

kodos said:


> *Matthew 11:12:* "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."
> 
> _Watson_: "The earth is inherited by the meek, Matt. 5:5. Heaven is inherited by the violent. Our life is military, Christ is our captain, the gospel is the banner, the graces are our spiritual artillery, and Heaven is only taken in a forcible way."
> Thomas Watson, The Christian Soldier, or Heaven Taken by Storm, ed. Armstrong, Second American Edition. (New York: Robert Moore, 1816), 12–13.
> 
> I think some modern Reformed men would have a heart-attack to hear that. But this is how the Puritans wrote. They saw Christian spirituality as all-consuming. Going to war with your sin and seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, preaching to you that without holiness no man can expect to see the Lord, etc.
> 
> But all by the grace of God. They would call us to be spiritually exercised and to have vital religion.



All of that I agree with. That's not what the "radical" camp within evangelicalism is saying. They, not having good Reformed categories, are often adding to God's word.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## darrellmaurina

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I find it amazing how polarizing some of these issues are. Historically Recovering the Reformed Confessions won't look the same for each generation as our Standards are attacked. The Standards do a good job teaching and influencing us in our regeneration. Little foxes.


Nice to see your comments again, Randy. I haven't been on the Puritan Board for many years but saw this link on Dr. Clark's Heidelblog and decided to click it.

I read Piper's sermon long ago and didn't have a serious problem with it. I've since read Dr. Clark's repeated criticisms of the sermon, not only this one but earlier ones, and I think he may have something of a point. However, we do have a serious problem in the American church world with lukewarmness, and I think the Puritans had better solutions for the problem than Piper.

I also think Piper would be among the very first to say he is a tiny candle flickering in the wind compared to the fiery wrath of the Puritans against the half-hearted Christian.

Perhaps Piper has the wrong approach to the problem in the modern church of backsliding and half-heartedness. Perhaps he's more Baptist than Reformed when it comes to how we should live our lives. Grant all the criticisms against Piper. 

The problems of lukewarmness, half-heartedness, and backsliding remain. If Piper is the wrong medicine, fine.

But let's not pretend the problems don't exist.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookish_Basset

I wonder if some are reacting to different things when they hear the Piper sermon (which admittedly shocked me, though I admit I didn't hear the entire thing, just clips) and language like it. I think I might be, at any rate.

I don't hear the criticisms of the Piper sermon, etc., as being criticisms of a Puritan view of holiness and the soul's warfare at all. If only more preached like the Puritans. 

I think I'm reacting against an attitude in broader evangelicalism that talks about such warfare in what sounds like almost worldly terms to my ears -- that the outward things of a Christian's life _necessarily _indicate how sold out they are. That what's going on in their heart is obvious almost at a glance. To me, the daily fight for holiness is so often subtle and quiet amid the ordinary things of life. That doesn't mean it isn't warfare, and the outward ordinariness of life shouldn't be equated with lukewarmness -- something I've always taken to be key to a Reformed view of these things.

I'm also not a church officer, of course, and I'm very limited in what I actually see week by week.


----------



## LilyG

MChase said:


> Horton was arguing for same-sex unions before it was on the democratic platform. It is not entirely out of left field.
> 
> Fair enough to say that the magistrate shouldn't enforce the first table. But in that case not even the American revisions can save the "recover the reformed confession" line.



You mean Michael Horton?


----------



## arapahoepark

LilyG said:


> You mean Michael Horton?


Yes.


----------



## kodos

LilyG said:


> You mean Michael Horton?



Yes. He wrote, "I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security."

It might have been scrubbed off of the current WH Inn / Modern Reformation site (at least, I could not find it again). But it is preserved on archive.org:





__





Should We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage? - White Horse Inn Blog






web.archive.org

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

kodos said:


> Yes. He wrote, "I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security."
> 
> It might have been scrubbed off of the current WH Inn / Modern Reformation site (at least, I could not find it again). But it is preserved on archive.org:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage? - White Horse Inn Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> web.archive.org


Yeah, he wrote that. I was a palled when he did, but it was strangely consistent with his lutheran two kingdoms perspective.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

A point of clarification: so-called Lutheran twokingdoms is not the same as the Reformed twofold kingdom. 








The Language Of A “Twofold Kingdom” Has Deep Roots In Reformed Orthodoxy


Once more: it was John Calvin (1509–64) who distinguished between the two spheres on God’s kingdom:




heidelblog.net





Both Dr Clark and I endorse, albeit with some qualification, Althusius's model in _Politica_.








Malthus or Althusius? An Introduction To A Pioneering Reformed Social Theorist


We seem to live in a Malthusian age, i.e., an age of increasing scarcity or perhaps fear of scarcity, where concern over how to divide an economic (and environmental) pie of limited size (called a …




heidelblog.net





I outlined Althusius here. 








Outline Althusius Politica


Thesis 1: The rights of sovereignty are proper to the realm, not the magistrate (7). The general elements of politics Polity Politics is the art of associating men for the purpose of establishing, …




tentsofshem.wordpress.com


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

RamistThomist said:


> And I know many postmils who specifically attack the idea of "this world is not my home."


Any examples?


----------



## RamistThomist

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Any examples?



Andrew Sandlin at the Ezra Institute.
Almost every Gary North book on eschatology.
Most of Gary Demar's stuff at American Vision.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

RamistThomist said:


> Andrew Sandlin at the Ezra Institute.
> Almost every Gary North book on eschatology.
> Most of Gary Demar's stuff at American Vision.


Thanks, I'm not overly familiar with present day postmillennialism in the US - seems to be rooted in different theology to the postmillennialism of the Scottish Reformation, the Puritans and their successors.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## danekristjan

RamistThomist said:


> A point of clarification: so-called Lutheran twokingdoms is not the same as the Reformed twofold kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Language Of A “Twofold Kingdom” Has Deep Roots In Reformed Orthodoxy
> 
> 
> Once more: it was John Calvin (1509–64) who distinguished between the two spheres on God’s kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heidelblog.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Dr Clark and I endorse, albeit with some qualification, Althusius's model in _Politica_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malthus or Althusius? An Introduction To A Pioneering Reformed Social Theorist
> 
> 
> We seem to live in a Malthusian age, i.e., an age of increasing scarcity or perhaps fear of scarcity, where concern over how to divide an economic (and environmental) pie of limited size (called a …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heidelblog.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I outlined Althusius here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outline Althusius Politica
> 
> 
> Thesis 1: The rights of sovereignty are proper to the realm, not the magistrate (7). The general elements of politics Polity Politics is the art of associating men for the purpose of establishing, …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tentsofshem.wordpress.com


The language of two kingdoms is certainly not unique in the reformed tradition. The issue I think people are pointing to is the modern interpretation and application of that language. The reformed spoke of two kingdoms, both ruled by and subject to the same Christ, and therefore saw the church and the magistrate as partners in the same goal, bringing all things into subjection of Christ Jesus. Some modern men appear to see a radical distinction and separation between church and state that the reformed did not see.

"God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good; and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath 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 ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."
WCF 22.1 & 3

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan

Notice, in 22.3, the magistrate may not rule the church (just as the church does not rule the magistrate), but nonetheless, the magistrate is subject to the same Christ as the church and it is it's duty to uphold and support the propagation of the gospel through the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan

This quote from AA Hodge's lecture on the kingdom of Christ sums up the classically reformed view well.


----------



## RamistThomist

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Thanks, I'm not overly familiar with present day postmillennialism in the US - seems to be rooted in different theology to the postmillennialism of the Scottish Reformation, the Puritans and their successors.



That is correct. They are almost entirely preterist and if not theonomic, close to it.


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> This quote from AA Hodge's lecture on the kingdom of Christ sums up the classically reformed view well.
> 
> View attachment 9115



I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan

It is therefore the duty of the church to speak "prophetically" to the magistrate, calling them to repentance when necessary, and reminding them of their duty to uphold the law of God, who is their rightful King. I.e., the quote Clark gives in that blog post, "James, you are the subject of Christ's kingdom."


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> A point of clarification: so-called Lutheran twokingdoms is not the same as the Reformed twofold kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Language Of A “Twofold Kingdom” Has Deep Roots In Reformed Orthodoxy
> 
> 
> Once more: it was John Calvin (1509–64) who distinguished between the two spheres on God’s kingdom:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heidelblog.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Dr Clark and I endorse, albeit with some qualification, Althusius's model in _Politica_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malthus or Althusius? An Introduction To A Pioneering Reformed Social Theorist
> 
> 
> We seem to live in a Malthusian age, i.e., an age of increasing scarcity or perhaps fear of scarcity, where concern over how to divide an economic (and environmental) pie of limited size (called a …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> heidelblog.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I outlined Althusius here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Outline Althusius Politica
> 
> 
> Thesis 1: The rights of sovereignty are proper to the realm, not the magistrate (7). The general elements of politics Polity Politics is the art of associating men for the purpose of establishing, …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tentsofshem.wordpress.com



Hardly anyone denies that there is a twofold kingdom, so the quotes here aren't really helpful. Even if you grant that the extent of Christ's mediatorial reign is only over the church, you end up with Gillespie and Boston not Van Drunen and Horton. Contra the NCTers, the Law of Christ and the Law of God are coextensive - first table and all. Recovering the language of 'two kingdoms' as some sort of reformed shell without the substance of what they taught was the magistrate's duty circa sacra is almost entirely pointless.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.



The free church upheld the establishment principle and disavowed persecution principles. So you're gonna get different answers on that. All agreed that some sort of all encompassing religious free for all was not it though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Hardly anyone denies that there is a twofold kingdom, so the quotes here aren't really helpful. Even if you grant that the extent of Christ's mediatorial reign is only over the church, you end up with Gillespie and Boston not Van Drunen and Horton. Contra the NCTers, the Law of Christ and the Law of God are coextensive - first table and all. Recovering the language of 'two kingdoms' as some sort of reformed shell without the substance of what they taught was the magistrate's duty circa sacra is almost entirely pointless.



We're putting a bunch of issues into one. I'm not NCT, so I don't know why that was brought up. Yes, I know Gillespie upheld the establishment principle. But I don't see how you can have the establishment principle without some form of religious proscribing, if not outright persecuting.

I'm not on the same page as Horton on this point.


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> It is therefore the duty of the church to speak "prophetically" to the magistrate, calling them to repentance when necessary, and reminding them of their duty to uphold the law of God, who is their rightful King. I.e., the quote Clark gives in that blog post, "James, you are the subject of Christ's kingdom."



I agree. The only problem with ambiguous phrases like "uphold the law of God" is that it can mean anything from Christian Reconstructionism to only upholding the second table.


----------



## danekristjan

RamistThomist said:


> I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.


That's a great question, which as was pointed out, you will get many different answers to.


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> I agree. The only problem with ambiguous phrases like "uphold the law of God" is that it can mean anything from Christian Reconstructionism to only upholding the second table.



Not really. It's a rather strange idea to suggest that you can have all out idolatry and expect to preserve marriage and the family.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.


I think I have tried to answer that in the long distant past Jacob. I don't think so. Yes, I see major issues when it comes to implementation in this debased environment but it is our fault. SMH, we have problems even deciding which Confessional Standard we choose along with revisions. I am reminded of the Article 36 issue. Even Strimple disagrees with Clark on Chapter 19. Not so sure how reliable of a Reformed Guide we have in Clark. As a plus, at least Robert believes and defends the Pre-lapsarian Covenant. 

How does the following Confessional point factor in? Is this a Confessional issue? How does the RPW factor in? How does Clark intend to hand the sword back to the Civil Government concerning Homosexuality? 
Clark is about as Reformed as Johannes Cocceius. Ursinus and Cocceius have little in Common when it comes to Covenant Theology in the Reformed Tradition. As has been noted before, Clark held to Dichotomous views as opposed to distinctions between Grace and Law. I am not sure where he ended up after the OPC Study but... 

How does Robert say he would implement the Confessional Standards when he has no basis for implementing the Law in the Civil Government? How would he confessionally address gross violations and perversions of the second table of the Decalogue and Civil responsibility? 

WCF Chapter Twenty
1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; a and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, b from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; c as also in their free access to God, d and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind .e All which were common also to believers under the law; f but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; g and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, h and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. i

a. Gal 3:13; 1 Thes 1:10; Titus 2:14. • b. Acts 26:18; Rom 6:14; Gal 1:4; Col 1:13. • c. Psa 119:71; Rom 8:1, 28; 1 Cor 15:54-57. • d. Rom 5:1-2. • e. Rom 8:14-15; 1 John 4:18. • f. Gal 3:9, 14. • g. Acts 15:10-11; Gal 4:1-3, 6-7; 5:1. • h. Heb 4:14, 16; 10:19-22. • i. John 7:38-39; 2 Cor 3:13, 17-18.

2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, a and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. b So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; c and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. d

a. Rom 14:4; James 4:12. • b. Mat 15:9; 23:8-10; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor 7:23; 2 Cor 1:24. • c. Psa 5:1; Gal 1:10; 2:4-5; 5:1; Col 2:20-23. • d. Isa 8:20; Jer 8:9; Hosea 5:11; John 4:22; Acts 17:11; Rom 10:17; 14:23; Rev 13:12, 16-17.

3. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. a

a. Luke 1:74-75; John 8:34; Gal 5:13; 1 Pet 2:16; 2 Pet 2:19.

4. And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. a And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, b and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate. c

a. Mat 12:25; Rom 13:1-8; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 2:13-14, 16. • b. Rom 1:32 with 1 Cor 5:1, 5, 11, 13; 2 John 1:10-11 and 2 Thes 3:14 and 1 Tim 6:3-5 and Titus 1:10-11, 13 and Titus 3:10 with Mat 18:15-17; 1 Tim 1:19-20; Rev 2:2, 14-15, 20; 3:9. • c. Deut 13:6-12; 2 Kings 23:5-6, 9, 20-21; 2 Chron 15:12-13, 16; 34:33; Neh 13:15, 17, 21-22, 25, 30; Isa 49:23; Dan 3:29; Zec 13:2-3; Rom 13:3-4 with 2 John 1:10-11; 1 Tim 2:2; Rev 17:12, 16-17.

We are not where we want to be but who knows where we will end up? 

Well, we have devolved into the Polarizing Westminster West problem. Time for a new thread maybe?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> We're putting a bunch of issues into one. I'm not NCT, so I don't know why that was brought up. Yes, I know Gillespie upheld the establishment principle. But I don't see how you can have the establishment principle without some form of religious proscribing, if not outright persecuting.
> 
> I'm not on the same page as Horton on this point.



I didn't say you were NCT. But it is rather strange to use the different scopes of the Son's reign according to his natures as a basis for which laws would be upheld.

You can have proscription without persecution. I'm not entirely sure that is always the best path forward, but the first principles are the same for those who disagree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan

RamistThomist said:


> I agree. The only problem with ambiguous phrases like "uphold the law of God" is that it can mean anything from Christian Reconstructionism to only upholding the second table.


I don't think it's as ambiguous. Uphold both tables. Labor to propagate and defend sound doctrine. WCF 22 and how those men attempted to see it implemented gives us a pretty good idea of what it can look like.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

darrellmaurina said:


> Nice to see your comments again, Randy. I haven't been on the Puritan Board for many years but saw this link on Dr. Clark's Heidelblog and decided to click it.


Hey old buddy. Long time no communicate with. I dropped out of life for a while till I could have some heart surgery. I was in a medical research study for 4 years that literally extended my life. I would be gone now. My heart valve was toast. It is doing much much much much better now. I have blood flow again.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> I don't think it's as ambiguous. Uphold both tables. Labor to propagate and defend sound doctrine. WCF 22 and how those men attempted to see it implemented gives us a pretty good idea of what it can look like.



Which raises the inevitable question: will this Christian commwealth be a lowest common denominator ala Cromwell, or will it be a specific, confessional commonwealth?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NM_Presby

RamistThomist said:


> Which raises the inevitable question: will this Christian commwealth be a lowest common denominator ala Cromwell, or will it be a specific, confessional commonwealth?


And, most importantly, will sea-shell collecting be legal?

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## kodos

MChase said:


> I didn't say you were NCT. But it is rather strange to use the different scopes of the Son's reign according to his natures as a basis for which laws would be upheld.
> 
> You can have proscription without persecution. I'm not entirely sure that is always the best path forward, but the first principles are the same for those who disagree.



This is precisely the thing - when Providence brings us to this point - the Lord will bring the right men to discuss and debate and He will give them wisdom. But, first principles remain the same: the establishment of the Christian religion and Christ's rule acknowledged is required by Jehovah upon the commonwealth and not just the church - _"Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."_

Horton of course, in that very article that is cited on archive.org disputes this and incredibly states his doctrine like this:
_"…in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state."_

That shocking statement, of course, leads him to his view that civil unions between homosexuals and lesbians as being acceptable.

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 1


----------



## MChase

kodos said:


> This is precisely the thing - when Providence brings us to this point - the Lord will bring the right men to discuss and debate and He will give them wisdom. But, first principles remain the same: the establishment of the Christian religion and Christ's rule acknowledged is required by Jehovah upon the commonwealth and not just the church - _"Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."_
> 
> Horton of course, in that very article that is cited on archive.org disputes this and incredibly states his doctrine like this:
> _"…in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state."_
> 
> That shocking statement, of course, leads him to his view that civil unions between homosexuals and lesbians as being acceptable.



This is the bit that is the most shocking and saddening to me - Christians seriously considering that the magistrates _Christian_ duty is to provide a level playing field amongst all view points as equally valid. It is one thing to disagree on the path forward in certain circumstances or to disagree about certain policies or procedures. It is entirely different to suggest that having a Christian magistrate enforce both tables of the law would be immoral and outside of his purview. So someone like Darryl Hart can suggest that killing Christians was within Nero's God-ordained purview, but it is not good if a Christian magistrate were to establish Sabbath laws.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 2


----------



## kodos

MChase said:


> This is the bit that is the most shocking and saddening to me - Christians seriously considering that the magistrates _Christian_ duty is to provide a level playing field amongst all view points as equally valid. It is one thing to disagree on the path forward in certain circumstances or to disagree about certain policies or procedures. It is entirely different to suggest that having a Christian magistrate enforce both tables of the law would be immoral and outside of his purview. So someone like Darryl Hart can suggest that killing Christians was within Nero's God-ordained purview, but it is not good if a Christian magistrate were to establish Sabbath laws.



Do you have a source on the Hart quote? I try to keep a tally of this kind of absurdity that is prevalent in the R2K crowd.


----------



## RamistThomist

kodos said:


> Do you have a source on the Hart quote? I try to keep a tally of this kind of absurdity that is prevalent in the R2K crowd.



It was an old blog post he did. It was in the context of a Socratic dialogue discussing what it means to obey "the law" in the abstract vs. concrete. It was meant to generate critical thinking.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MChase

kodos said:


> Do you have a source on the Hart quote? I try to keep a tally of this kind of absurdity that is prevalent in the R2K crowd.



This isn't the original place, but it is in a few places here: https://oldlife.org/2019/01/07/eschatology-matters/

"Nero did not violate God’s law IF Nero executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to
do..."

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> It was an old blog post he did. It was in the context of a Socratic dialogue discussing what it means to obey "the law" in the abstract vs. concrete. It was meant to generate critical thinking.



It generated some thinking in my mind that was quite critical of Hart's absurd views.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jacob, Have you become the apologist for Hart and those who hold to a deficient Radical Two Kingdom view?


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jacob, Have you become the apologist for Hart and those who hold to a deficient Radical Two Kingdom view?



No, I am not an apologist for Hart. I was just reframing the context of his question (and Nero was wrong for what he did).

I hold to two kingdoms view, yet I do not see how demanding the magistrate enforce a particular confession/denomination is feasible or realistic today. Sure, we might hope for that, but it has zero practical relevance for tomorrow. And then there is the question, whether it was sufficiently answered or not, on what to do with our stubborn Baptist brethren.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> No, I am not an apologist for Hart. I was just reframing the context of his question (and Nero was wrong for what he did).
> 
> I hold to two kingdoms view, yet I do not see how demanding the magistrate enforce a particular confession/denomination is feasible or realistic today. Sure, we might hope for that, but it has zero practical relevance for tomorrow. And then there is the question, whether it was sufficiently answered or not, on what to do with our stubborn Baptist brethren.


I would like to see the context but it evidently is not available. That is problematic. It is referenced in a few places but I can't confirm nor deny your claim of context. I vaguely remember when he posted that but he was so off the wall back then and wrote so much Radical Two Kingdom and Grace / Law dichotomy stuff that it just seemed to all coagulate into.... well, you call it. It wasn't worth discussing after the OPC Study. 
My old RPCNA mentor emphasized the importance of the Decalogue for the Church and Civil Kingdom. Forget about even considering what to do about the Lutherans, Anglicans or Baptists. The first thing that is needed is a recognition of the Decalogue. We need a starting point. First Things First.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> No, I am not an apologist for Hart. I was just reframing the context of his question (and Nero was wrong for what he did).
> 
> I hold to two kingdoms view, yet I do not see how demanding the magistrate enforce a particular confession/denomination is feasible or realistic today. Sure, we might hope for that, but it has zero practical relevance for tomorrow. And then there is the question, whether it was sufficiently answered or not, on what to do with our stubborn Baptist brethren.



I might be in the minority on this, but I firmly think the establishment principle has practical relevance for tomorrow. For one, it is important to know the duties one has even if one isn't in the position to carry out those duties. It is helpful to have a general idea of what is required of a parent or a spouse even before one is such. Arguably more important is the duty towards organic and outward ecclesiastical unity. I for one, don't wish NAPARC to remain a discussion table forever. We ought to put off our respective sins and all confess the same things. I do not get the feeling that many of my non-establishmentarian brethren really see the scandal of schism and desire a singular visible church in a nation.

Still it is sort of side stepping the point. We can figure out the babdists once we agree that it is good to have sabbath, blasphemy, and idolatry laws.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos

RamistThomist said:


> No, I am not an apologist for Hart. I was just reframing the context of his question (and Nero was wrong for what he did).
> 
> I hold to two kingdoms view, yet I do not see how demanding the magistrate enforce a particular confession/denomination is feasible or realistic today. Sure, we might hope for that, but it has zero practical relevance for tomorrow. And then there is the question, whether it was sufficiently answered or not, on what to do with our stubborn Baptist brethren.



Its practical relevance? It is knowing Jesus Christ has prayed that the Church will be one (John 17) and that kings and queens will nurse the church (Isaiah 49:23). To keep pleading with the Spirit to blow upon the churches and revive her to give her the same unified mind in doctrine and practice and to seek it out - many stubborn Baptists have become Presbyterians (myself included). Practically, go and preach the gospel uncompromisingly so that souls are brought from death to life until the time comes where converted souls will demand the kings of their lands to give them Jesus and not Barabbas.

In other words, we do not see the 16th and 17th centuries as a historical anomaly, but a foretaste of greater blessings to come as our prayers for "thy kingdom come" is answered as the fullness of the Gentiles come in and the Jews ingathered.

Some see the present declension and evils around us as the irreversible trend of history. Others of us see it the way so many of us have individually experienced in our personal conversion - the Lord bringing nations so low that we cry out to Him after we see the futility of "doing what is right in our own eyes".

The "stubborn Baptist" question is often a dodge to make us think such things are impossible, but what is impossible for man is possible with God. To convince a "stubborn" Baptist to Presbyterianism is a lesser work than converting a stubborn sinner from death to life.

The time will come to deal with those particulars, but we must know the goal and what the Lord has asked us to pray for, fast for, and labor for, so we are readied for that time, as Simeon and Anna were to receive their King.

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 2 | Amen 2


----------



## danekristjan

I agree with Kudos above, but additionally, the problem posed "what to do about Baptists", which of the 10 commandments are they violating by their existence? Our 1689 brothers can and do uphold at 10 commandments. The magistrate would not have to act upon them at all in that regard. Also as Rev Romesh pointed out, let's start with the law and then we can deal with the nitty gritty.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> I agree with Kudos above, but additionally, the problem posed "what to do about Baptists", which of the 10 commandments are they violating by their existence? Our 1689 brothers can and do uphold at 10 commandments. The magistrate would not have to act upon them at all in that regard. Also as Rev Romesh pointed out, let's start with the law and then we can deal with the nitty gritty.



That's where the debate starts to trade on ambiguities. God's law can mean anything from the 10 commandments to all the civil penalties. But to the question: the Regulative Principle of Worship has rightly been seen as an application of the 2nd Commandment. Most Baptist churches probably don't hold to the RPW. That means they (and all Lutherans and most Anglicans) are violating the 2nd Commandment. I return to my question.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## 83r17h

danekristjan said:


> the problem posed "what to do about Baptists", which of the 10 commandments are they violating by their existence?



By denying infant baptism and church authority beyond the congregation, do they not violate the 2nd commandment and the 5th commandment?

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Still it is sort of side stepping the point. We can figure out the babdists once we agree that it is good to have sabbath, blasphemy, and idolatry laws.



Think of how many non-Sabbatarians are in America (probably over 100 million). Will you execute them? I know it sounds extreme, but those are the issues that have to be worked out before hand. If we say, "But the Spirit of God will change the hearts before that happens," then the whole issue of social ethics is now moot.


----------



## RamistThomist

83r17h said:


> By denying infant baptism and church authority beyond the congregation, do they not violate the 2nd commandment and the 5th commandment?



Bingo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> My old RPCNA mentor emphasized the importance of the Decalogue for the Church and Civil Kingdom. Forget about even considering what to do about the Lutherans, Anglicans or Baptists. The first thing that is needed is a recognition of the Decalogue. We need a starting point. First Things First.



That's great and I don't disagree, but neither is that the Establishmentarian principle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> Think of how many non-Sabbatarians are in America (probably over 100 million). Will you execute them? I know it sounds extreme, but those are the issues that have to be worked out before hand. If we say, "But the Spirit of God will change the hearts before that happens," then the whole issue of social ethics is now moot.



You don't get to sidestep the same kind of questions with the second table. Say tomorrow we had a converted president and they establish the escondido view of a 'righteous government' if there is such a thing. Do you put the adulterers all to death? These sorts of lame objections would lead a civil magistrate to sit on his hands and never do anything.

I really am at a loss at what your civil ethic is. In this thread you've argued against first table laws and now you have just said you agree with first table laws.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## 83r17h

MChase said:


> You don't get to sidestep the same kind of questions with the second table. Say tomorrow we had a converted president and they establish the escondido view of a 'righteous government' if there is such a thing. Do you put the adulterers all to death? These sorts of lame objections would lead a civil magistrate to sit on his hands and never do anything.



On the Escondido view (as I understand it), probably not. But I don't think anyone in this discussion holds the Escondido view. 

I think the problem that Jacob is highlighting is that everyone claims that the state should enforce God's law. Of course, there is disagreement about what that looks like, which is why the statement "the state should enforce God's law" is not precise enough to be helpful. The better question is _how _the state should enforce God's law. 

Maybe I'm not tracking though. What is your answer to your own inquiry about adulterers? In your view, _how_ should the state enforce God's law?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

RamistThomist said:


> Think of how many non-Sabbatarians are in America (probably over 100 million). Will you execute them? I know it sounds extreme, but those are the issues that have to be worked out before hand. If we say, "But the Spirit of God will change the hearts before that happens," then the whole issue of social ethics is now moot.


But changing people's hearts is what happens in times of reformation. That's what reformation is-- it's spiritual revival and a willling return to the old paths. "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power."

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## 83r17h

Jeri Tanner said:


> But changing people's hearts is what happens in times of reformation. That's what reformation is-- it's spiritual revival and a willling return to the old paths. "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power."


Do you interpret this to mean that reformation in the rulers is preceded by reformation in the people?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> On the Escondido view (as I understand it), probably not. But I don't think anyone in this discussion holds the Escondido view.
> 
> I think the problem that Jacob is highlighting is that everyone claims that the state should enforce God's law. Of course, there is disagreement about what that looks like, which is why the statement "the state should enforce God's law" is not precise enough to be helpful. The better question is _how _the state should enforce God's law.
> 
> Maybe I'm not tracking though. What is your answer to your own inquiry about adulterers? In your view, _how_ should the state enforce God's law?



Jacob has pretty much said he agrees with the Escondido view. He said he is on the same page as Clark.

No one has gotten to the details of specific punishments. I'm no reconstructionist and those are matters of disagreement. Jacob seems to think that Sabbath laws are always immoral and wrong as he has said first table laws are 'problematic'. That is until he just contradicted himself in post 113.

The issue in play is not what to do with Baptists - that is a red herring. The issue in play is if it is in the purview of the state to suppress heresy and idolatry. The specific punishment can come later.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jeri Tanner

83r17h said:


> Do you interpret this to mean that reformation in the rulers is preceded by reformation in the people?


I think the biblical accounts of reformation in the OT are instructive, and so is church history in showing how God has brought about reforming times. In the reformation under Calvin and John Knox, it was like a wind sweeping through-- how could we outline and map out what God will do, and when? It's a work of the Spirit.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## 83r17h

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think the biblical accounts of reformation in the OT are instructive, and so is church history in showing how God has brought about reforming times. In the reformation under Calvin and John Knox, it was like a wind sweeping through-- how could we outline and map out what God will do, and when? It's a work of the Spirit.


Thanks Jeri. So if I can rephrase: many of the difficulties of 'mass punishment' are only hypothetical (and therefore possible), but you believe will not be actual during a reforming time. Is that accurate? And would it be accurate that you believe that should reformation occur within the government but not in the people at large, that more large-scale punishment would be biblical? 



MChase said:


> Jacob seems to think that Sabbath laws are always immoral and wrong as he has said first table laws are 'problematic'. That is until he just contradicted himself in post 113.



I think the issue for Jacob is less about the first table, than _how_ it is enforced. (Jacob, correct me if I'm wrong on this) It seems like Jacob has consistently agreed that the first table is normative for civil government, but he disagrees that the first table looks like the establishment principle. The quotes below seem to demonstrate that the issue is specifically establishment. 



RamistThomist said:


> I hold to two kingdoms view, yet I do not see how demanding the magistrate enforce a particular confession/denomination is feasible or realistic today.





RamistThomist said:


> I don't disagree, but neither is that the Establishmentarian principle.





RamistThomist said:


> I don't see how you can have the establishment principle without some form of religious proscribing, if not outright persecuting.





MChase said:


> The issue in play is if it is in the purview of the state to suppress heresy and idolatry.


Do you believe that the state has this authority? If so, what in your mind qualifies as heresy that requires state punishment? 

For example, if a child during a sermon discussion says that the persons of the Trinity are three gods, is that heresy? Should it be punished by the state? I ask not to draw away from the question about the state's authority, but to clarify just what that authority is. If it has the authority to suppress heresy, then it needs a definition of heresy. Where does it get this definition from? Or more specifically, where in Scripture do you see God providing the state the power to decide doctrine? It seems like if you agree that the state and church wield different authorities, the power of doctrine is an authority held by the church (ministerially) and not the state. So, the state not being competent to define heresy, how can it judge heresy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> I think the issue for Jacob is less about the first table, than _how_ it is enforced. (Jacob, correct me if I'm wrong on this) It seems like Jacob has consistently agreed that the first table is normative for civil government, but he disagrees that the first table looks like the establishment principle. The quotes below seem to demonstrate that the issue is specifically establishment.


He said in post 61 that first table laws are 'problematic'. He said he was on the same page as Clark.


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> Do you believe that the state has this authority? If so, what in your mind qualifies as heresy that requires state punishment?
> 
> For example, if a child during a sermon discussion says that the persons of the Trinity are three gods, is that heresy? Should it be punished by the state? I ask not to draw away from the question about the state's authority, but to clarify just what that authority is. If it has the authority to suppress heresy, then it needs a definition of heresy. Where does it get this definition from? Or more specifically, where in Scripture do you see God providing the state the power to decide doctrine? It seems like if you agree that the state and church wield different authorities, the power of doctrine is an authority held by the church (ministerially) and not the state. So, the state not being competent to define heresy, how can it judge heresy?



There is a lot here. The entire OT example is that kings and rulers are to enforce God's law - both tables. Even pagan kings recognized this. 

No, you don't punish a child that is learning - that's absurd. Obstinante and egregious heresy is to be punished, but again this is downstream of where we are at currently. The discussion is primarily around the _legitimacy_ of first table laws, not the specifics. 

The state doesn't decide doctrine. No one is suggesting that. Rather, the issue is if the state can establish laws in keeping with the religious beliefs of the nation. The primary issue here is the assumption that the church and state are like two ships passing in the night; rather the church should and must speak prophetically to the state and the state should use its proper power to ensure the peace and safety of the church.

WCF 23.3
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath 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 ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

*Q. *191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
*A. *In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrates; *that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## 83r17h

MChase said:


> He said in post 61 that first table laws are 'problematic'. He said he was on the same page as Clark.



I think that based on the examples he gives, that he is referring to establishment. I happen to think that Sabbath is outside of establishment, and so I would disagree with Jacob there if he finds Sabbath laws specifically problematic. 



MChase said:


> Obstinante and egregious heresy is to be punished


Thanks, this helps characterize punishable heresy. But I still have the question: what is heresy? 



MChase said:


> Rather, the issue is if the state can establish laws in keeping with the religious beliefs of the nation.


This is a clearer question, thank you. I think it is a distinct question from "the _legitimacy_ of first table laws" though. I agree with the legitimacy of first table laws for example, but first table laws certainly do not keep with the religious beliefs of the nation. I think that the state's first table duties are met in ways other than establishment. 



MChase said:


> the church


Which church? This becomes the epistemological question that I think hangs up establishment. How does the civil magistrate recognize (and thus listen to) the church? In order to recognize and distinguish the church which it should listen to from others, the civil magistrate must make a judgment about doctrine. But it can't make a judgment about doctrine without first listening to the church. So it's caught in an impossible situation. I think also that if we acknowledge that the church is both visible and invisible, and not constrained to any one denomination, then you face a worse difficulty. Is the PCA a false church or a true church which should be listened to? If true (I think it is, despite its sufferings), then you face the problem of the fact that the PCA says "don't punish heresy." 

I think also that heresy and idolatry are distinct things. Heresy is within the church, and as such seems to fall outside of the state's purview. Idolatry is a separate question. 



MChase said:


> WCF 23.3


Even the RPCNA rejects the bolded part of the paragraph in their testimony, and other denominations I'm aware of have revisions to that paragraph. In fact, the RPCNA Testimony 23.19 and 23.20 are rather different than the bolded portion. Church and state maintain "their separate jurisdictions" and the state "should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the us of force or by persecution," but should "restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions _which fall under its jurisdiction." _

Here's my more specific question (affirming the legitimacy of first table laws): where in Scripture do you see the state given the jurisdiction over heresy?


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Jacob seems to think that Sabbath laws are always immoral and wrong as he has said first table laws are 'problematic'.



I didn't say that. I just want to know if the establishment types are going to enforce sabbath laws on over 100 million sabbath breakers.


MChase said:


> Jacob has pretty much said he agrees with the Escondido view. He said he is on the same page as Clark.



I am on the same page as Clark, but to collapse it into an entire "Escondido" view goes beyond the evidence.



MChase said:


> The issue in play is not what to do with Baptists - that is a red herring. The issue in play is if it is in the purview of the state to suppress heresy and idolatry. The specific punishment can come later.



Given that Baptists are the largest non-Catholic group in America, it's not a red herring. It's the elephant in the room.


----------



## RamistThomist

83r17h said:


> Thanks, this helps characterize punishable heresy. But I still have the question: what is heresy?



That's the key question. This is where the distinction between church and state breaks down.

Note: I have not said this is immoral. I am simply pressing establishment types on ambiguities.


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> I didn't say that. I just want to know if the establishment types are going to enforce sabbath laws on over 100 million sabbath breakers.
> 
> 
> I am on the same page as Clark, but to collapse it into an entire "Escondido" view goes beyond the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Baptists are the largest non-Catholic group in America, it's not a red herring. It's the elephant in the room.



I'm at a bit of a loss. You keep asking these questions which don't matter and act as if they are silver bullets against the establishment principle or first table laws. It is the same level of question as "what are you going to do with all of the adulterers that are put to death?"

I guess it is a bit much to collapse Clark into the Escondido view. Up until relatively recently Robert Godfrey was the president; he was far better than Van Drunen, Horton and Clark.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> Even the RPCNA rejects the bolded part of the paragraph in their testimony, and other denominations I'm aware of have revisions to that paragraph. In fact, the RPCNA Testimony 23.19 and 23.20 are rather different than the bolded portion. Church and state maintain "their separate jurisdictions" and the state "should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the us of force or by persecution," but should "restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions _which fall under its jurisdiction." _


The RPCNA is wrong on this. I am in the PRC and our officers hold to the original confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h

MChase said:


> The RPCNA is wrong on this. I am in the PRC and our officers hold to the original confession.


That's fine. I thought that was the case, which is why I asked specifically about where in Scripture you see such things, rather than just the confessional documents. Citing (versions of) confessional documents that I disagree with* isn't exactly convincing.

*note: I do subscribe the Westminster Standards in the version published by the OPC without exception, hence the parenthetical


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> That's fine. I thought that was the case, which is why I asked specifically about where in Scripture you see such things, rather than just the confessional documents. Citing (versions of) confessional documents that I disagree with* isn't exactly convincing.
> 
> *note: I do subscribe the Westminster Standards in the version published by the OPC without exception, hence the parenthetical



Hezekiah tore down the high places.

2 Kings 18.4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan

The pagan Nebuchadnezzar made blasphemy laws.

Dan. 3.29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> You keep asking these questions which don't matter and act as if they are silver bullets against the establishment principle or first table laws. It is the same level of question as "what are you going to do with all of the adulterers that are put to death?



It's not the same level of question: the latter is a natural law question. The first is a denominational/confessional question.


----------



## RamistThomist

MChase said:


> Hezekiah tore down the high places.
> 
> 2 Kings 18.4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan
> 
> The pagan Nebuchadnezzar made blasphemy laws.
> 
> Dan. 3.29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.



That's still not quite analogous to the American situation. Forbidding blasphemy in the Old Covenant doesn't really address denominational violations of the 2nd commandment in America today. If it does address it, then we have to figure out what to do with baptists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> That's still not quite analogous to the American situation. Forbidding blasphemy in the Old Covenant doesn't really address denominational violations of the 2nd commandment in America today. If it does address it, then we have to figure out what to do with baptists.



True. America is still not quite as bad as Babylon, even if we are close. The Nebuchadnezzar example proves far more than it needs to.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

83r17h said:


> Thanks Jeri. So if I can rephrase: many of the difficulties of 'mass punishment' are only hypothetical (and therefore possible), but you believe will not be actual during a reforming time. Is that accurate? And would it be accurate that you believe that should reformation occur within the government but not in the people at large, that more large-scale punishment would be biblical?


I didn't address or say anything about any of that, so... 
I've noticed that when discussions veer into hypotheticals about what governments might or might not do, the spiritual aspect of reformation and revival seems to take a back seat (possibly way back on the 30th row). 
It's a spiritual matter, is all I can say. We are to pant for and long to see God's glory fill the earth, as waters cover the sea. He has promised that kings and queens will be nursing fathers and mothers to the church. We have seen glimpses of that from the Scripture and from church history. It's a matter for prayer; what is impossible for man is possible with God. Christ prayed that his church would be one, even as he and the father are one. In that, the godly magistrate has a role. We should beseech the Lord that it comes to pass.
That's about all I've got.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## 83r17h

MChase said:


> Hezekiah tore down the high places.
> 
> 2 Kings 18.4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan
> 
> The pagan Nebuchadnezzar made blasphemy laws.
> 
> Dan. 3.219 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.



Thank you. The former is idolatry. Do you see the latter as punishing heresy? It seems also to warrant more specifically religious war - do you think that we should go to war and destroy the nations of the Middle East which are Islamic? 

How would you show that Nebuchadnezzar's decree is normative for us today? And if it is, how do you still deal with the epistemological questions that we face in the New Covenant situation, where there is no unified visible church?


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> Thank you. The former is idolatry. Do you see the latter as punishing heresy? It seems also to warrant more specifically religious war - do you think that we should go to war and destroy the nations of the Middle East which are Islamic?
> 
> How would you show that Nebuchadnezzar's decree is normative for us today? And if it is, how do you still deal with the epistemological questions that we face in the New Covenant situation, where there is no unified visible church?



It is a law to punish blasphemy, which shows first table laws ought to be published. 

No, of course we should not do that.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MChase

Difficulties in carrying duties out don't negate the duty. Kings are to kiss the Son lest he dash them in pieces. Kissing the Son logically necessitates not giving Christ the same footing as every other false religion. He deserves and demands more.

The fact is that all of these things will require a thoroughgoing reformation in the Church first and foremost. judgment begins in the house of Jehovah and the establishment principle in large part presupposes a Christian populace. No one is suggesting coercive force to convert a nation of Muslims to Christ. No one is suggesting drowning all the Baptists for that matter. For these things to take place a massive reformation needs to happen. Even if you are the most pessimistic amillennialist in the world, it doesn't make duties to Christ irrelevant.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor

MChase said:


> "Nero did not violate God’s law IF Nero executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do..."


This is of the devil.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## 83r17h

Taylor said:


> This is of the devil.


Indeed. I am reminded of a point in James Durham's lectures on the ten commandments. An oath cannot bind you to do something immoral.


----------



## 83r17h

MChase said:


> first table laws ought to be published.


I think that you and I are in agreement there. My contention is that such state jurisdiction 1) does not extend to heresy, and 2) looks different in the New Covenant era. 



MChase said:


> Difficulties in carrying duties out don't negate the duty. Kings are to kiss the Son lest he dash them in pieces. Kissing the Son logically necessitates not giving Christ the same footing as every other false religion. He deserves and demands more.


Amen. I reference Psalm 2 often in discussions with broad evangelicals who think that the state is not held to acknowledge Christ. My contention is that this does not imply establishment, nor the state persecution of heresy. 



MChase said:


> The fact is that all of these things will require a thoroughgoing reformation in the Church first and foremost.


Again, Amen. I have made this point to friends in the PCA. If some of the most conservative PCA churches obstinately reject Psalm-singing entirely (which should be the easiest and most obvious command for NT worship), how can they reform either the progressive PCA churches, or the society at large? 



MChase said:


> No, of course we should not do that.





MChase said:


> No one is suggesting coercive force to convert a nation of Muslims to Christ.


Here is where I will challenge your interpretation of the verse in Daniel. The clearest implication (actually stated: "every...nation") is that nations not confessing Christ should be destroyed. The less clear implication is that the state should persecute heresy. If you reject the clearer implication upon which the unclear one is founded, how can you sustain the unclear one? 

But at this point, I need to bow out for dinner and then a Bible study. Thanks for the discussion!


----------



## MChase

83r17h said:


> I think that you and I are in agreement there. My contention is that such state jurisdiction 1) does not extend to heresy, and 2) looks different in the New Covenant era.
> 
> 
> Amen. I reference Psalm 2 often in discussions with broad evangelicals who think that the state is not held to acknowledge Christ. My contention is that this does not imply establishment, nor the state persecution of heresy.
> 
> 
> Again, Amen. I have made this point to friends in the PCA. If some of the most conservative PCA churches obstinately reject Psalm-singing entirely (which should be the easiest and most obvious command for NT worship), how can they reform either the progressive PCA churches, or the society at large?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I will challenge your interpretation of the verse in Daniel. The clearest implication (actually stated: "every...nation") is that nations not confessing Christ should be destroyed. The less clear implication is that the state should persecute heresy. If you reject the clearer implication upon which the unclear one is founded, how can you sustain the unclear one?
> 
> But at this point, I need to bow out for dinner and then a Bible study. Thanks for the discussion!



A magistrate doesn’t have authority outside of his domain. All of us have duties according to place and calling. The statement isn’t to be taken as a universal statement of a declaration of war against all other nations.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SolaScriptura



Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## VictorBravo

MChase said:


> Still it is sort of side stepping the point. We can figure out the babdists once we agree that it is good to have sabbath, blasphemy, and idolatry laws.


I guess that’s somewhat reassuring, but what is a “babdist?”

Meanwhile, as we try to figure out how to do top-down legislation, I recall that my own bubble of sphere sovereignty has effects: after timely words, either gentle or harsh depending on circumstances, I’m finding overt blasphemy seems to decrease and respect for the Sabbath increases.

But that’s only in my little bubble. Maybe we can make more bubbles.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## arapahoepark

RamistThomist said:


> 4) Remember, Piper believes in Final Justification and he rejects the Reformed teaching of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. I bet that plays into his appeals.


Perhaps a review in his new book is in order?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> Perhaps a review in his new book is in order?



Are you talking about _What is Saving Faith_? I'm listening to it right now. Harrison Perkins had a fairly critical review of it. I realize I am linking to the Gospel Coalition. I apologize for that. There's just no way around it.








Engaging Piper’s New Book: Are Affections Part of Saving Faith?


Faith certainly has a necessary connection to our affections, at least as fruit and evidence. But John Piper claims affections are constitutive of faith and make faith saving.




www.thegospelcoalition.org

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> No, I am not an apologist for Hart. I was just reframing the context of his question (and Nero was wrong for what he did).
> 
> I hold to two kingdoms view, yet I do not see how demanding the magistrate enforce a particular confession/denomination is feasible or realistic today. Sure, we might hope for that, but it has zero practical relevance for tomorrow. And then there is the question, whether it was sufficiently answered or not, on what to do with our stubborn Baptist brethren.


Let me back up a bit here Jacob. 

You stated the following in your last review, "Thank you, and I just want the HB to get more readers." 

The origional question was, "Jacob, Have you become the apologist for Hart and those who hold to a deficient Radical Two Kingdom view?"

There were a lot of issues hammered out in the OPC report. Names were not named that should have probably been named in the report but I believe the reason for that was to give time for these deficiently informed Professors time to consider the report. My question to you since you have a closer relationship with Robert and his ilk is have they become confessionally Reformed concerning Covenant Theology? I ask that because Clark definitelty was not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You stated the following in your last review, "Thank you, and I just want the HB to get more readers."
> 
> The origional question was, "Jacob, Have you become the apologist for Hart and those who hold to a deficient Radical Two Kingdom view?"
> 
> There were a lot of issues hammered out in the OPC report. Names were not named that should have probably been named in the report but I believe the reason for that was to give time for these deficiently informed Professors time to consider the report. My question to you since you have a closer relationship with Robert and his ilk is have they become confessionally Reformed concerning Covenant Theology? I ask that because Clark definitelty was not.



The way you phrased your question, "radical two kingdom" view, poisons the well. By answering that question I would be tacitly agreeing with the presupposition behind it. Whatever "radical deficient" means, I'm sure it's not me. 

I think their views concerning covenant are within the bounds of the confessions. I realize that's a controversial statement, but I can find guys from Edwards to Boston to Vos affirming the republication of the covenant of works in one form or another.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> The way you phrased your question, "radical two kingdom" view, poisons the well. By answering that question I would be tacitly agreeing with the presupposition behind it. Whatever "radical deficient" means, I'm sure it's not me.
> 
> I think their views concerning covenant are within the bounds of the confessions. I realize that's a controversial statement, but I can find guys from Edwards to Boston to Vos affirming the republication of the covenant of works in one form or another.


Understood. Yes, the term was used and yes it has various definitions and applications. The report noted that. I specifically have pointed out where Robert fails for the past decade. Has his view become more in line with the confession? Even Strimple piped up.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Understood. Yes, the term was used and yes it has various definitions and applications. The report noted that. I specifically have pointed out where Robert fails for the past decade. Has his view become more in line with the confession? Even Strimple piped up.


Who is Robert?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oh yeah Jacob, R2K is a direct result of their herneneutic concerning Covenant theology.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Who is Robert?


Robert Scott Clark.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

He goes by Scott; at least I have always addressed him that way since I've known him; hence my confusion. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Robert Scott Clark.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Jeri Tanner said:


> I didn't address or say anything about any of that, so...
> I've noticed that when discussions veer into hypotheticals about what governments might or might not do, the spiritual aspect of reformation and revival seems to take a back seat (possibly way back on the 30th row).
> It's a spiritual matter, is all I can say. We are to pant for and long to see God's glory fill the earth, as waters cover the sea. He has promised that kings and queens will be nursing fathers and mothers to the church. We have seen glimpses of that from the Scripture and from church history. It's a matter for prayer; what is impossible for man is possible with God. Christ prayed that his church would be one, even as he and the father are one. In that, the godly magistrate has a role. We should beseech the Lord that it comes to pass.
> That's about all I've got.


It’s also interesting to view God’s never changing natural order of things from today’s dim light. I’m not saying things haven’t always been dim, but today it’s a particular kind of dim mired in moral relativism, maybe not as redeemable as barbarism and the like of former times and places for example.

Presuppositional thought has its place. Calvin’s concept of natural law doesn’t resemble Jefferson’s.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> He goes by Scott; at least I have always addressed him that way since I've known him; hence my confusion.


I hear you Chris. He calls me Randy, I will call him Robert.


----------



## A.Joseph

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Oh yeah Jacob, R2K is a direct result of their herneneutic concerning Covenant theology.


Can you give me a quick bullet point summary regarding the OPC-republication-covenant theology-2KT doctrines? and what exceptions you take with related thought? I know these things have been posted repeatedly, I’m just trying to tie it all together….. thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> It’s also interesting to view God’s never changing natural order of things from today’s dim light. I’m not saying things haven’t always been dim, but today it’s a particular kind of dim mired in moral relativism, maybe not as redeemable as barbarism and the like of former times and places for example.
> 
> Presuppositional thought has its place. Calvin’s concept of natural law doesn’t resemble Jefferson’s.



No natural law theorist today that I am aware of agrees with Jefferson's take. Clark has an article on Aquinas, Calvin, and Natural Law. You can probably find it around.

Whether today's light is dim or not is irrelevant to the truth claims of natural law. I might start a thread on Reformed natural law.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

As to so-called "R2K" politics, read Clark's twitter account and then read the Kuyperian transformationalist Tim Keller, and then get back to me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor

RamistThomist said:


> As to so-called "R2K" politics, read Clark's twitter account and then read the Kuyperian transformationalist Tim Keller, and then get back to me.


The problem is not that Keller is a transformationalist. The problem is that he is a bad transformationalist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> The problem is not that Keller is a transformationalist. The problem is that he is a bad transformationalist.



I certainly won't dispute that point. But by parity of reasoning, we can say the same thing about Hart or Horton, if one deems them problematic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

As to natural law, and I am working on getting my thoughts in order, this is the bare bones minimum.








Outline Thomas Aquinas Treatise on Law


Question 90: Of the essence of law law is a rule and measure of acts The principal and object in practical matters is the last end, beatitude. Question 91: Of the various kinds of law There is an e…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

RamistThomist said:


> I certainly won't dispute that point. But by parity of reasoning, we can say the same thing about Hart or Horton, if one deems them problematic.


That makes sense, and I can respect that. My quibble would be, though, that the social non-engagement (and, in Horton's case, the advocation of social wickedness) is inherent to Escondido's system of political thought, whereas Keller's Marxist error is not at all inherent to transformationalism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> That makes sense, and I can respect that. My quibble would be, though, that the social non-engagement (and, in Horton's case, the advocation of social wickedness) is inherent to Escondido's system of political thought, whereas Keller's Marxist error is not at all inherent to transformationalism.



Again, I wonder why people always choose Horton's more extreme statements than Clark's conservative articles. Natural law provides me with the rationale, perhaps even the obligation of engagement.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor

RamistThomist said:


> Again, I wonder why people always choose Horton's more extreme statements than Clark's conservative articles. Natural law provides me with the rationale, perhaps even the obligation of engagement.


I confess I’m speaking broadly. It's just my personal assessment, to be taken or left on its own merit, if it has any.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off you have to define Transformationalist. Tim Keller is not a good resource nor does he look like Bavinck nor the Prime Minister. Hart, DVD, Estelle, Chris Gordan or any of the other Radical Two Kingdom guys who hold to a distinct dichotomous view of Law and Grace have serious problems Jacob. Their view of Natural Law is a descendant of their hermeneutic as other doctrines that emanate from that.

I will note that DVD's desire is to...

Van Drunen on Kuyper

In a 2002 review of a book on the life and work of Abraham Kuyper, Dr. Van Drunen stated: “Readers who do not assume that there is a distinctively "Christian" cultural-political task, or that the kingdom of God is the measure for all earthly kingdoms, or that the present social order is supposed to be transformed, or that Reformed Christianity is a Calvinism consisting of a "life-principle" or worldview, will probably come away having eaten much but not finally satisfied. The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.” (Modern Reformation (November/December 2002, pages 48-49).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> First off you have to define Transformationalist. Tim Keller is not a good resource nor does he look like Bavinck nor the Prime Minister. Hart, DVD, Estelle, Chris Gordan or any of the other Radical Two Kingdom guys who hold to a distinct dichotomous view of Law and Grace have serious problems Jacob. Their view of Natural Law is a descendant of their hermeneutic as other doctrines that emanate from that.



I haven't seen any ethical or social problems with DVD. Hart I'm aware of. I can't speak for the others. I've read through Thomas's Summa, outlined above. I've outlined Rutherford and Althusius. I have a fairly good working grasp of natural law theory. With the exception of the magistrate imprisoning Baptists, I'm not sure where Clark and DVD disagree

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

And here is an analysis of Book 19 of City of God. This is basically required reading for any discussion of social ethics. If you haven't read Book 19 City of God in-depth, then we are talking past each other. Background reading in Cicero probably also good.








City of God, Book 19


From Bonds of Imperfection A thing’s end is its perfection. The summum bonum is that object for which other objects are sought, but which is sought only for itself. Book 2 flashback: traditiona…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am speaking of a hermeneutical problem Jacob. It is great you have read a lot. I admire that. We are discussing Confessional issues and I have specifically asked over and over again about that topic since their Law / Grace dichotomous view is not Reformed. It effects most of their thinking and doctrine since all passes through their grid of Law / Gospel Dichotomy.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am speaking of a hermeneutical problem Jacob. It is great you have read a lot. I admire that. We are discussing Confessional issues and I have specifically asked over and over again about that topic since their Law / Grace dichotomous view is not Reformed. It effects most of their thinking and doctrine since all passes through their grid of Law / Gospel Dichotomy.



I understand you have asked about that topic. I've given my response. You say their view is not Reformed. I say you can find it in Reformed writers. That's about where we are at the present. 

As to whether it affects *all* their thinking, I don't buy that claim. I have not seen it demonstrated in Clark's political writings. Quite the opposite, in fact. I can make the same assertion--for that's all it is--that Keller's Marxism is consistent with his transformationalism, or Joel McDurmond's wokism is tied with his theonomy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> read Clark's twitter account


I quit paying attention


RamistThomist said:


> I understand you have asked about that topic. I've given my response. You say their view is not Reformed. I say you can find it in Reformed writers. That's about where we are at the present.
> 
> As to whether it affects *all* their thinking, I don't buy that claim. I have not seen it demonstrated in Clark's political writings. Quite the opposite, in fact. I can make the same assertion--for that's all it is--that Keller's Marxism is consistent with his transformationalism, or Joel McDurmond's wokism is tied with his theonomy.


That is a dodge. You know that. Attaching Strawmen and outcomes of bad theology to sources that don't represent their biblical counterparts is bad form.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I quit paying attention



You don't have to read it. I'm just pointing it out so to rebut any claims that he is a liberal.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is a dodge. You know that. Attaching Strawmen and outcomes of bad theology to sources that don't represent their biblical counterparts is bad form.



That is literally what people have been doing to Clark et al for the past four pages. I'm simply playing by the same rules.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RamistThomist said:


> You don't have to read it. I'm just pointing it out so to rebut any claims that he is a liberal.


Who accused him of being a Liberal?


RamistThomist said:


> That is literally what people have been doing to Clark et al for the past four pages. I'm simply playing by the same rules.


Not me. 
So you admit you are doing what i said. okay. Well, as an old friend please just deal honestly with me. I try my best.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Who accused him of being a Liberal?


 Everyone who tied him in with the "Escondido" theology and then identified that with Horton's more outlandish statements.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> So you admit you are doing what i said. okay. Well, as an old friend please just deal honestly with me. I try my best.



I simply used a reductio ad absurdum. You said many times in this thread that R2K's hermeneutics leads to consequences x, y, and z. For one, that's almost always logically fallacious. Secondly, it's not true. In order to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim, I brought in Keller and McDurmon. That's a standard trope in rhetorical and logical discussions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> No natural law theorist today that I am aware of agrees with Jefferson's take. Clark has an article on Aquinas, Calvin, and Natural Law. You can probably find it around.
> 
> Whether today's light is dim or not is irrelevant to the truth claims of natural law. I might start a thread on Reformed natural law.


Is natural law a theological and spiritual concept/doctrine or an ideological and political concept? I always thought it had more do with the latter - although I recognize overlap in everything as per God’s domain obviously.

There are certain distinctions but at the end of the day all men are accountable for their deeds (and more importantly if they are covered by the blood of Jesus).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Their Law Grace hermeneutic does effect other doctrines. It has been written about quite a bit. If they land on a topic and get it correct it may be by accident. That happens. We all do that. I am not making false claims. You should know that Jacob. The hermeneutic is the problem. 

Just interested.... What do you make of the following statement brother? 

"The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.” (Modern Reformation (November/December 2002, pages 48-49). David Van Drunen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> I certainly won't dispute that point. But by parity of reasoning, we can say the same thing about Hart or Horton, if one deems them problematic.


From my limited knowledge base, I can’t tell what Hart is….. cynic-satirist first and foremost


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Is natural law a theological and spiritual concept/doctrine or an ideological and political concept? I always thought it had more do with the latter - although I recognize overlap in everything as per God’s domain obviously.
> 
> There are certain distinctions but at the end of the day all men are accountable for their deeds (and more importantly if they are covered by the blood of Jesus).



It's theological. Natural law participates in the Divine Ratio, the mind of God. I understand that makes it sound like it can't function in the "naked public square." That does not matter, though. A fully worked out natural law system can address those concerns.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> From my limited knowledge base, I can’t tell what Hart is….. cynic-satirist first and foremost



He is what he is. His refutations of Catholicism and YRR make him A-ok in my book.


----------



## MChase

How about we all agree that R2K and Transformationalism are both bad.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MChase said:


> How about we all agree that R2K and Transformationalism are both bad.


What is meant by Transformationalism? Sorry, I just want to understand what others thinking. I have seen it defined differently in various ways. Strawmen arguments like Jacob made above don't help.


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> He is what he is. His refutations of Catholicism and YRR make him A-ok in my book.


Oh sure, he’s ok in mine too! He’d probably take it as somewhat of a compliment but obviously he is much more thoughtful and useful than just that! I’m mostly talking about his Twitter….


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry guys, I gotta bail out. Joshua Caleb's Thritieth is today and we are heading out soon to eat and drink and be merry. Will check in tomorrow.


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> It's theological. Natural law participates in the Divine Ratio, the mind of God. I understand that makes it sound like it can't function in the "naked public square." That does not matter, though. A fully worked out natural law system can address those concerns.


Would you say that system is somewhat presuppositional? As usual, sin is the problem…. At least from fallen man’s side, not what is existentially accurate or true. Hence, Jefferson’s conception of natural law is stunted.


----------



## MChase

RamistThomist said:


> Everyone who tied him in with the "Escondido" theology and then identified that with Horton's more outlandish statements.



No one said he nor Horton were liberals. Abysmal on political theory, but not a lib.

It is also hard not to tie Clark, Horton and Hart together. I randomly stumbled upon two Clark articles in which Hart was referenced. It is not like they are in different arenas.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MChase

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What is meant by Transformationalism? Sorry, I just want to understand what others thinking. I have seen it defined differently in various ways. Strawmen arguments like Jacob made above don't help.



Politics is downstream of Culture which is downstream of Religion. I have no interest in flipping that order. The problem with transformationalism is that religion largely becomes transformed by the culture rather than the other way around. The Church's mission isn't to win culture wars. Where R2K gets it wrong is they pretty much end up thinking it is the Church's job to lose them, because you know Christians shouldn't want a Christian populace or Christian laws.. 

A state church and enforcement of the first table are downstream of a Christian populace. This is why Jacob's questions are largely irrelevant. The establishment of religion can only come about if the church has half a sense of what is going on in her own midst. For instance, you can't have Sabbath laws when 80% of NAPARC thinks the Sabbath is optional at best.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph

@PuritanCovenanter @RamistThomist you guys would make for a great live debate. Helps me get up to speed…. good stuff, from my limited perspective there are excellent points from both sides in which there appears some overlap.


----------



## kodos

Well, this is what Clark's R2K teaches him - right off of his Twitter. He also uses the liberal Episcopal Church as an example of why the institutional church cannot speak about what the government is doing with abortion...

So...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Their Law Grace hermeneutic does effect other doctrines. It has been written about quite a bit. If they land on a topic and get it correct it may be by accident. That happens. We all do that. I am not making false claims. You should know that Jacob. The hermeneutic is the problem.
> 
> Just interested.... What do you make of the following statement brother?
> 
> "The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.” (Modern Reformation (November/December 2002, pages 48-49). David Van Drunen.


Just curious, when you come back, your take on this…. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/
What, do you argue, is a proper Law Grace hermeneutic? Are you relating this to theology, the civil sphere, or most probably it’s all interconnected, correct? National? Individual? …. Covenant in a National or individual sense? Distinctions between grace and group covenants are tripping me up. Grace is required throughout the ages, but how far it extends and is administered is whats trips me up from an Old vs New Testament covenantal
perspective and how it is to be applied within the Church and Civil communities. That’s why I think natural law systems/theory are vitally important.

_“The Law-considered as a national covenant, by which their continued possession of the land of Canaan, and of all their privileges under the Theocracy, was left to depend on their external obedience to it,- might be called a national Covenant of Works, since their temporal welfare was suspended on the condition of their continued adherence to it; but, in that aspect of it, it had no relation to the spiritual salvation of individuals, otherwise than as this might be affected by their retaining, or forfeiting, their outward privileges and means of grace. It may be considered, however, in another light, as a re-exhibition of the original Covenant of Works, for the instruction of individual Jews in the principles of divine truth; for in some such light it is evidently presented in the writings of Paul (Justification, BoT edition, pp. 38-39).” James Buchanan, in his monumental work on justification https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/_


----------



## A.Joseph

This is pretty interesting….

_“Being fully committed to the Protestant Reformed tradition--especially as it is represented at Westminster Theological Seminary--I have developed a basic understanding of natural law theories over the years. If by "natural law" we mean a moral order that is (a) revealed by God in nature, (b) stands behind conscience, (c) obligates all people to worship and obey Him, and (d) is sufficient to leave all without excuse and liable to divine judgment for sin, then I affirm it. However, one standard theistic account of natural law (NL) as a moral theory goes further. This account claims that all people can not only apprehend certain moral truths by unaided reason - apart from biblical revelation - but that people can, in principle, espouse and properly act upon those truths, again, apart from saving grace. It's this feature of NL theory--perhaps the critical feature, it seems to me--that allegedly opens up "common ground" for Christians to cooperate with people of other faiths (or of no faith at all) on issues pertaining to the "common good.

Now, I have learned to leave the majority of negative assessments to my colleague and resident pessimist, Carl Trueman. But I must say that, from a Reformed perspective, this additional claim by many Natural Law theorists runs into a number of obstacles. I wish to briefly mention two.…. https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/natural-law-and-the-public-squ.php_


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> @PuritanCovenanter @RamistThomist you guys would make for a great live debate. Helps me get up to speed…. good stuff, from my limited perspective there are excellent points from both sides in which there appears some overlap.



I appreciate the offer, but debates convince no one. The only thing one may reasonably expect from a debate is a clarification of issues.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> I appreciate the offer, but debates convince no one. The only thing one may reasonably expect from a debate is a clarification of issues.


I thought you’d find this interesting….










Why Protestant Christianity Needs a Theology of Natural Law - The Davenant Institute


Natural law is an idea of perennial importance and controversy in the Western world, and now in other places too. This idea didn’t die in twentieth-century Protestant thought, but it fell on hard times. During the opening decades of the twenty-first century, interest in natural law has suddenly...




davenantinstitute.org


----------



## TheInquirer

MChase said:


> I still think you're caricaturing Piper. As far as I can remember, the man lived in a rather nice house in downtown Minneapolis.



When I walked by his house in 2003 he lived in a corner lot, elevated above the freeway, in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the state. From my understanding, all his book royalties went into a fund that he didn't have access to. For all his faults, I don't believe hypocritical extravagance is one of them.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Tychicus said:


> A little push back; these are the nominalists. Their Christianity is CCM and Joel Osteen. The nominalists come in various forms. They come with lifted hands to these conferences and go back to living their nominal life. Christ as Lord has no implications on their living. Eternity has no pace in their thinking. It's about being cool. And raisin' hands is cool.



There was a time in my Christian life early on that Passion Conferences were attractive to me because that is all I knew. None of those other things you say were true about me - I just wasn't mature and didn't know how to parse the wheat from the chafe. Joel Osteen would have had no appeal to me but John Piper did. I would recommend caution pronouncing such judgments upon motives of people you do not know.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheInquirer

The bigger question is, once you dealt with us Baptists, then what would you do? Probably turn on one another until you had a denomination of exactly 1 individual singing psalms and preaching to himself out of the KJV while falling into an existential crisis regarding which version of the WCF is the right one.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Wow 2


----------



## Taylor

TheInquirer said:


> The bigger question is, once you dealt with us Baptists, then what would you do? Probably turn on one another until you had a denomination of exactly 1 individual singing psalms and preaching to himself out of the KJV while falling into an existential crisis regarding which version of the WCF is the right one.


Why is establishment always spoken of in this fashion? Do we have this little respect for our forbears in the faith? That some disagree is acceptable, but the frequent descent into this type of mockery I find to be distasteful.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Tychicus

TheInquirer said:


> There was a time in my Christian life early on that Passion Conferences were attractive to me because that is all I knew. None of those other things you say were true about me - I just wasn't mature and didn't know how to parse the wheat from the chafe. Joel Osteen would have had no appeal to me but John Piper did. I would recommend caution pronouncing such judgments upon motives of people you do not know.


Others defended Piper saying that the message was apt to the nominalists. Jacob replied that these folks are not the nominalists as they have some lively worship sessions. I was merely pushing back and saying that raising hands and being alive at those conferences doesn't necessarily imply that they're not nominalists.

Your point still is noted. I should've may be been more clear and cautious with my words.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos

Taylor said:


> Why is establishment always spoken of in this fashion? Do we have this little respect for our forbears in the faith? That some disagree is acceptable, but the frequent descent into this type of mockery I find to be distasteful.



In addition, it reflects poorly on what such men think the Holy Spirit is able to do in Christ's Church. That the saints are always going to war with each other. May the Lord's prayer that we be one be answered. The Father loves the Son and I believe He will answer when the set time comes.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist

Tychicus said:


> Others defended Piper saying that the message was apt to the nominalists. Jacob replied that these folks are not the nominalists as they have some lively worship sessions. I was merely pushing back and saying that raising hands and being alive at those conferences doesn't necessarily imply that they're not nominalists.
> 
> Your point still is noted. I should've may be been more clear and cautious with my words.



I should have been clearer. They were faithful Christians who didn't understand that God meets us in the promises in His Word and at the Table.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> Why is establishment always spoken of in this fashion? Do we have this little respect for our forbears in the faith? That some disagree is acceptable, but the frequent descent into this type of mockery I find to be distasteful.



It might have been phrased in a caustic manner, but it represents a historical fact. The Covenanters almost immediately turned on each other (and I am not saying the Protestors were wrong). I used to go to church with first generation theonomists. They frankly admitted that theonomists will often split churches. Research Tyler, Texas.









My Infamous Covenanter Post


Somebody at Real Life Prebyterians posted this from my old blog, which got some guys mad at Covenanter Theonomists group. So if I am going to get all that traffic, might as well get it here. Thurs…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com


----------



## kodos

RamistThomist said:


> It might have been phrased in a caustic manner, but it represents a historical fact. The Covenanters almost immediately turned on each other (and I am not saying the Protestors were wrong). I used to go to church with first generation theonomists. They frankly admitted that theonomists will often split churches. Research Tyler, Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Infamous Covenanter Post
> 
> 
> Somebody at Real Life Prebyterians posted this from my old blog, which got some guys mad at Covenanter Theonomists group. So if I am going to get all that traffic, might as well get it here. Thurs…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tentsofshem.wordpress.com



You are confusing theonomists for those in the Covenanter tradition. And that group has been reformed and purged over time and now has a policy against theonomy. As you well know as you are a member of it.

The critique must remain Biblical. We can also speak of the failure of denominationalism and rule by elder and all other setbacks in Church history too.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

kodos said:


> You are confusing theonomists for those in the Covenanter tradition. And that group has been reformed and purged over time and now has a policy against theonomy. As you well know as you are a member of it.
> 
> The critique must remain Biblical. We can also speak of the failure of denominationalism and rule by elder and all other setbacks in Church history too.



I'm still a member of that group? I totally forgot about that. Yes, covenanters are MUCH better than theonomists. I grant that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

RamistThomist said:


> It might have been phrased in a caustic manner, but it represents a historical fact. The Covenanters almost immediately turned on each other (and I am not saying the Protestors were wrong). I used to go to church with first generation theonomists. They frankly admitted that theonomists will often split churches. Research Tyler, Texas.


I can certainly grant the historical accounts, in many cases with sadness. But I’m sure you know that the misuse of a thing does not invalidate it. Besides, while I can’t necessarily speak to the Covenanters’ history, I can say that I know personally many theonomists who have _not_ split churches, as well as anti-theonomists who _have_. Let us deal with substance and not anecdote.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## MChase

Taylor said:


> I can certainly grant the historical accounts, in many cases with sadness. But I’m sure you know that the misuse of a thing does not invalidate it. Besides, while I can’t necessarily speak to the Covenanters’ history, I can say that I know personally many theonomists who have _not_ split churches, as well as anti-theonomists who _have_. Let us deal with substance and not anecdote.



I’m not the biggest fan of the societies and those who didn’t accept the revolution settlement and much Covenanter history in the US. However, the history of the RPCNA is remarkable. The Lord really has blessed their faithfulness in so many ways and unlike so many American denominations they have not split and continue to be a wonderful light for good historic Presbyterian practice. Particularly in areas many Americans are woefully deficient: psalm singing and the sabbath.

Reactions: Like 3 | Praying 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A.Joseph said:


> Just curious, when you come back, your take on this…. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/
> What, do you argue, is a proper Law Grace hermeneutic?


I am going to check in a few times during the ay Joseph. Busy day. We are getting ready for the Month of May. It is Pagan Month here. The Indianapolis 500, Roundy Round Races and a Points meet at the Drag Strip. I have a full Month. A lot of gardening and cleaning up to do. I also have to fix my Camaro. I will sleep all June. 
I agreed with a lot of what Lane wrote. He is not addressing me or my positions as far as I can tell. As you know I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years and after discussing the issues with Clark and other R2K advocates I became Reformed over a decade ago. I have posted this a lot in the past years. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
I have some posts on Natural Law also and how it was defined by Rutherford. As these guys can pull up what others say concerning republication or reinstatement of the moral Law I can pull up those like Rutherford, Ball, Durham, Antony Burgess... Sure there were people that differed. It was the Westminster Assembly. Samuel Bolton was admitted as a Commissioner after Chapter 7 was complete and his views were not in line with Chapter 7. I have to work through what Lane said about Chapter 7 because I think he may get it wrong a bit by his emphasis without the context of the whole. Clark does the same thing with Chapter 19 as Stimple points to what it says as opposed to what Clark's position is. Clark and his ilk are wrong. Oh well.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## kodos

MChase said:


> I’m not the biggest fan of the societies and those who didn’t accept the revolution settlement and much Covenanter history in the US. However, the history of the RPCNA is remarkable. The Lord really has blessed their faithfulness in so many ways and unlike so many American denominations they have not split and continue to be a wonderful light for good historic Presbyterian practice. Particularly in areas many Americans are woefully deficient: psalm singing and the sabbath.



I praise the Lord for His kindness to us and that the Lord would deal with our many areas where we are unfaithful. But that was very kind of you to say, brother. We have a deep affection for our brethren in the PRC and are very thankful we are both part of NAPARC in the hopes that we might receive that unity we long for in Presbyterian and Reformed churches in Christ's set time.

The world needs to see this caricature painted of Establishmentarians is untrue. We can and must labor shoulder to shoulder to resolve our differences - which are all a matter of our sinfulness. Yes, we are still afar afield from Establishment of National Religion in the United States - for now we must labor for Reformation and ask for Revival as we proclaim the biblical gospel and search out the Biblical truths concerning worship, and Christ's kingship over both commonwealth and church.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 2


----------



## A.Joseph

A few thoughts/considerations:
_“The reason we do not see great periods of revival today is that the glory of God in all things is been largely forgotten by the contemporary church. 

We talk about revival but it is not the glory of God we have in mind… what we have in mind is somehow moving to make things nicer for us.. to solve our problems ..somehow cut down on the crime in our neighborhoods.. we’re not considering the glory of God. …we’re not likely to see revival again until the truths that exalt and glorify God and salvation are recovered … How can we expect God to move among us greatly again until we can truthfully say as the reformers did that for God alone be the glory forever.” https://www.truthnetwork.com/show/the-bible-study-hour-james-boice/21604/_

I guess we would all be in agreement with this as per Calvin (on The Threefold Use of the Law) which ultimately appears to cover all the bases:
_“Its first function is to be a mirror reflecting to us both the perfect righteousness of God and our own sinfulness and shortcomings. As Augustine wrote, "the law bids us, as we try to fulfill its requirements, and become wearied in our weakness under it, to know how to ask the help of grace." The law is meant to give knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:7-11), and by showing us our need of pardon and our danger of damnation to lead us in repentance and faith to Christ (Gal. 3:19-24).

A second function, the "civil use," is to restrain evil. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut. 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom. 13:3, 4). Thus it secures civil order, and serves to protect the righteous from the unjust.

Its third function is to guide the regenerate into the good works that God has planned for them (Eph. 2:10). The law tells God's children what will please their heavenly Father. It could be called their family code. Christ was speaking of this third use of the law when He said that those who become His disciples must be taught to do all that He had commanded (Matt. 28:20), and that obedience to His commands will prove the reality of one's love for Him (John 14:15). The Christian is free from the law as a system of salvation (Rom. 6:14; 7:4, 6; 1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 2:15-19, 3:25), but is "under the law of Christ" as a rule of life (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2)."_


----------



## A.Joseph

MChase said:


> This is the bit that is the most shocking and saddening to me - Christians seriously considering that the magistrates _Christian_ duty is to provide a level playing field amongst all view points as equally valid. It is one thing to disagree on the path forward in certain circumstances or to disagree about certain policies or procedures. It is entirely different to suggest that having a Christian magistrate enforce both tables of the law would be immoral and outside of his purview. *So someone like Darryl Hart can suggest that killing Christians was within Nero's God-ordained purview, but it is not good if a Christian magistrate were to establish Sabbath laws.*


I think his schtick is “gotten” old….. at the very least, blue laws, would be much more honoring to God in helping to establish an environment in which First Things are cherished or at least valued and promoted.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> I appreciate the offer, but debates convince no one. The only thing one may reasonably expect from a debate is a clarification of issues.



I learned a lot and made up my mind a lot from debates. I think you are only referring to your opponent and forgetting the audience. Also, why would you minimize clarification of issues as if that was all that could be attained, it would not even be worth the effort?


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> I learned a lot and made up my mind a lot from debates. I think you are only referring to your opponent and forgetting the audience. Also, why would you minimize clarification of issues as if that was all that could be attained, it would not even be worth the effort?



Those who want to learn all the issues will devote the hard, often painful efforts in independent research with top scholarship. There is no substitute for that. Debates are often seen as a way to short-cut the issue, and it doesn't usually work. Some of my thoughts on debates here:








On debates and dialogue


I’m fairly good on not blogging about the latest blow up on social media. This post isn’t important in the grand scheme, though it may serve as the “Suburban Agrarian Manifesto.&…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> Those who want to learn all the issues will devote the hard, often painful efforts in independent research with top scholarship. There is no substitute for that. Debates are often seen as a way to short-cut the issue, and it doesn't usually work. Some of my thoughts on debates here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On debates and dialogue
> 
> 
> I’m fairly good on not blogging about the latest blow up on social media. This post isn’t important in the grand scheme, though it may serve as the “Suburban Agrarian Manifesto.&…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tentsofshem.wordpress.com



Very well-witten and reasoned piece for *not debating Day Jyer*. This didn't show why debates are not worthwhile in themselves; more so, this did a great job of showing why having debates with someone who does not fully engage *all necessary parameters of a topic* are certainly not worthwhile.

It didn't answer my original point though since debates often help guide to where top scholarship is in order to begin said hard and painful research.

If you don't formally debate, fine, but you do a lot of *informal* debating here (and I love it) and please don't act like it is isn't a valid format when you yourself give credit to Bahnsen-Stein etc in the piece you wrote.

I don't understand why "clarification of issues" is such a low endeavor as to make debates unwarranted in the whole?


----------



## Taylor

Anti-Babylon said:


> Very well-witten and reasoned piece for *not debating Day Jyer*. This didn't show why debates are not worthwhile in themselves; more so, this did a great job of showing why having debates with someone who does not fully engage *all necessary parameters of a topic* are certainly not worthwhile.
> 
> It didn't answer my original point though since debates often help guide to where top scholarship is in order to begin said hard and painful research.
> 
> If you don't formally debate, fine, but you do a lot of *informal* debating here (and I love it) and please don't act like it is isn't a valid format when you yourself give credit to Bahnsen-Stein etc in the piece you wrote.
> 
> I don't understand why "clarification of issues" is such a low endeavor as to make debates unwarranted in the whole?


To be fair, I think all Jacob was saying is that debates never _convince_ anyone. Obviously that’s hyperbolic, but in today’s low-attention-span culture, it’s not far from the truth. Most people go to “debates” (most “debates” hardly deserve the name) just to see the other side get beat up.

As for me, the debate between Bahnsen and Stein convinced me not of Christianity, but of presuppositional apologetics.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Taylor said:


> To be fair, I think all Jacob was saying is that debates never _convince_ anyone. Obviously that’s hyperbolic, but in today’s low-attention-span culture, it’s not far from the truth. Most people go to “debates” (most “debates” hardly deserve the name) just to see the other side get beat up.
> 
> As for me, the debate between Bahnsen and Stein convinced me not of Christianity, but of presuppositional apologetics.



Ugh, I realize I myself wrote "debates convinced me" when I actually meant "debates sparked the flames that led to my newer conviction" and I unfairly gave more credit to the ultimate beginning of the path (debate moment) and not the research that followed it up. But otherwise, I think Jacob is extending an issue with debating this guy who will not engage with the Biblical languages (a perfectly legitimate reason to refrain from accepting a debate challenge) to all potential debates

Unless I am misreading his article and his point, I am saying that is unwarranted.

Further, his lack of importance to "clarification of issues" as to why debates are not worthwhile is curious to me. I guess I am wondering if that is merely a personal preference he has (not to debate solely for clarification of issues to others while he has such clarification for himself) or if he sees every one who participates in debates as performing such a low endeavor that one day they may "grow out of" as he himself has done? 

Thanks in advance, Jacob. I really am a fan of your posting here by the way.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> Very well-witten and reasoned piece for *not debating Day Jyer*. This didn't show why debates are not worthwhile in themselves; more so, this did a great job of showing why having debates with someone who does not fully engage *all necessary parameters of a topic* are certainly not worthwhile.
> 
> It didn't answer my original point though since debates often help guide to where top scholarship is in order to begin said hard and painful research.
> 
> If you don't formally debate, fine, but you do a lot of *informal* debating here (and I love it) and please don't act like it is isn't a valid format when you yourself give credit to Bahnsen-Stein etc in the piece you wrote.
> 
> I don't understand why "clarification of issues" is such a low endeavor as to make debates unwarranted in the whole?



Informal debating via writing is one thing. Formal, spoken debates require more preparation. I don't have that time and I doubt Randy does as well. I don't think the topic warrants that amount of preparation (and I am not even sure what the topic is).

There are good formal debates. The TEDS debate on the Subordination of the Son was a good one.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am not nearly as well read as Jacob and I use Seminary Profs and reputable people to help me learn and grow. I have been very fortunate to have access to many good theologians and 3 Seminary Presidents who have helped me develop a good understanding of the issues that I had with Westminster West over the past decade. I focused more on the hermeneutical problem more so then the Historical aspect. I was able to learn a bit about the Natural Law issue and some of how the Enlightenment also effected the views concerning the Reformed view of Natural Law. 

Debates do convince others. The problem with debates sometimes is that they usually only expose both sides to things unanswered which can divert from the real issues. I would prefer to focus on one topic. The hermeneutical issue of Law and Grace is the most problematic in my estimation. I also have an issue with the Mosaic having an subservient covenant within a covenant. That is a debatable topic since it appears there is only one subservient covenant issue that I find. At the same time that is a result of their Hermeneutic which I find very problematic. If the topic would be focused on that from a biblical discussion then maybe it could stay more focused.

I personally can sit down and think and write better than I can debate in public. I don't even like teaching Bible Studies. I do love participating and watching in the discussions but I try to leave the teaching to ordained guys when it comes to formal stuff. I have the best people surrounding me. I am blessed. They try to keep me in between the lines. LOL. I think the Leadership on the board will back me up when I say I try very hard to listen to my Elders. Even the guys who run the board.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oh yeah, I do know that Coloquhoun and Vos had Covenanter heritage but I am not necessarily a fan of those guys. I prefer Durham, Ball, Rutherford and many others. I have blogs on those guys and their writings. Read Bavinck.


----------



## A.Joseph

PuritanCovenanter said:


> . I would prefer to focus on one topic. The hermeneutical issue of Law and Grace is the most problematic in my estimation. I also have an issue with the Mosaic having an subservient covenant within a covenant. That is a debatable topic since it appears there is only one subservient covenant issue that I find. At the same time that is a result of their Hermeneutic which I find very problematic. If the topic would be focused on that from a biblical discussion then maybe it could stay more focused.


I read your blog post, it was good. I’m assuming your ‘targets’ would be defensive of your charge. Not that your charge comes from an ill will.

(My pastor is pretty high on Vos).

Just stumbling on to all this in a deeper way and it’s hard to see what all the fuss is about, but on further reflection I could also see how folks get tripped up and the inter-connectedness /possible unintended consequences of it all.

If you aren’t a natural law guy (I’m assuming you feel it compromises too much), what is your theology on the church’s influence and domain as far as the state/civil matters? You probably already answered that so sorry if I missed it…. if you have a blog link expressing that I’m interested…


----------



## ZackF

Debating is a genre and a tool. It has benefits for some by those good at it. I found, among other things, debates in the mid 00s helpful in my leaving RCism and coming to faith. The Latin named, ridiculous and gassy FV/NPP blogs of that time period were a bridge OUT of Catholicism for me while others went the other way.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

ZackF said:


> The Latin named, ridiculous and gassy FV/NPP blogs of that time period





That brought back so many memories.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A.Joseph said:


> If you aren’t a natural law guy (I’m assuming you feel it compromises too much), what is your theology on the church’s influence and domain as far as the state/civil matters? You probably already answered that so sorry if I missed it…. if you have a blog link expressing that I’m interested…


Oh, I believe in Natural Law. It matters what is meant by it though. I asked Dr. Guy Richard about Samuel Rutherford's view and this is what he said.

"Regarding your questions, let me first say that the passage you found in Pretended Liberty is a very good representation of what Rutherford believed regarding natural law. He clearly believed that the whole of the ten commandments were written upon the hearts of all men “in deep letters.” But, apart from Christ and apart from God’s Word and the Holy Spirit, “the ink is dim and old, and therefore this light is like the Moon swimming through watery clouds, often under a shadow, and yet still in the firmament.” Natural law is real. There is no such thing as an atheist, no one who ought to be able to plead ”not guilty” to breaking any of the 10 commandments. It is ”still in the firmament.” But it is oftentimes ”under a shadow.”

How this applies in the case of a person living within England or Scotland (or any other “Christian” nation) will be different many times than in the case of a “heathen” who does not have the same “Christian influences” around him/her. The one who lives within a Christian nation will have certain Christian influences (i.e., God’s Word, Christians themselves, the church, civil laws derived from the Christian ethic, etc). These things would serve to reinforce natural law in the case of the one living in a “Christian nation.” But the heathen would not have these influences. All he/she would have is natural law, which is the ten commandments written upon his/her heart “in deep letters” but with “ink [that] is dim and old” and “often under a shadow.”

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...-and-natural-law-question-for-dr-guy-richard/

Here are a few posts on your other question. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-part-1/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-parts-2-4/

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## A.Joseph

@PuritanCovenanter
I like what Pastor Tipton highlights here (on Vos) regarding the natural focus of theocracy and the lack of blueprint applicability to the various areas in Vos' day and subsequently our own.... It's interesting, that if you think about the powers that be, how their social order is founded almost entirely on a post-industrial technocratic system.... What would it take to get our priorities back to a purer theocratic system? Probably something cataclysmic. ....


----------



## A.Joseph

How much theological truth and biblical reality must us Calvinists ignore for this to be true via the comment section of the YouTube video:
_
“RIP Gary North. Yes, we postmill types would rather not have the unbelievers secretly establish a centralized counterfeit monetary scheme that lines the pockets of their regime, disincentivizes productivity, and encourages debt accumulation. *Instead we look forward to a world where a general equity of law is followed, and understood as common sense, among believer and unbeliever alike. North is not seeking for nominal Christians to outwardly follow the law in the flesh. He’s seeking a dominant Christian influence in culture that results in less wickedness in the lives of unbelievers. The rampant pietism of the churchmen causes this position to be a fringe one.”*_

…. the bolded section of the comment is seen as a prioritized vision for the prevention and annihilation of the non-bolded portion. But can this really be our focus and concentration? An exercise in distracted futility that ranks up there with Twitter wars. Eventually the wicked take over and change and circumvent laws accordingly. That doesn’t mean we hide or bury the truth of the gospel or the 2nd use of the law. It just means we can’t change hearts by persuasion or coercion - it’s just where we are. It’s where we always wind up. Even now punishments are not equally distributed, nor is the law equally enforced, until such time that laws and standards are abolished all together. Maybe then men and women will cry out.


----------



## A.Joseph

I can’t really argue with much of this. It’s worth noting. …. Celebrity culture, whether we are a leader or a follower, can be pretty seducing.

_“Evangelicals flocked to Driscoll and Piper, in part, because those preachers told them exactly what God wanted them to do with every moment of their lives. The control that people ceded to Piper, Driscoll, MacDonald et al. over their lives was an abdication of the Reformation doctrine of Christian liberty.
Piper is entitled to his opinion about when you should retire and what you should do with those years. He is not entitled to bind your conscience and say, “Thus says the Lord” about what you should do with your retirement. The preacher does not have that authority. Should we be critical of American materialism? Certainly but when I stand before God I will not be presenting to him the last thing I did with my life. I will be presenting to him the last thing Jesus did with his life for me. If you think that Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works does not have practical implications you are not listening carefully enough. His doctrine of final salvation through works gives him the leverage he needs to tell you what you must do with your retirement. Driscoll was going to take back and transform Seattle so he got to tell the Gen-Xers who followed him when to marry and who could work and not work and how many children to have.
Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works is not the gospel and it is most certainly not a Reformation doctrine and it underpins the sort of control that he, MacDonald, Driscoll, et al. in the YRR movement sought (and seek) to exercise over Christian laity. If the Reformation doctrine of Christian liberty is new to you, welcome. It was a great deliverance from the tyrannical control exercised by the clergy over the daily lives of medieval Christians. It went hand in glove with the Reformation recovery of the salvation by grace alone, through faith alone and the Scripture as the alone final standard for the Christian faith and the Christian life.” https://heidelblog.net/2021/08/pipe...ar-the-yrr-movement-was-from-the-reformation/_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> I can’t really argue with much of this. It’s worth noting. …. Celebrity culture, whether we are a leader or a follower, can be pretty seducing.
> 
> _“Evangelicals flocked to Driscoll and Piper, in part, because those preachers told them exactly what God wanted them to do with every moment of their lives. The control that people ceded to Piper, Driscoll, MacDonald et al. over their lives was an abdication of the Reformation doctrine of Christian liberty.
> Piper is entitled to his opinion about when you should retire and what you should do with those years. He is not entitled to bind your conscience and say, “Thus says the Lord” about what you should do with your retirement. The preacher does not have that authority. Should we be critical of American materialism? Certainly but when I stand before God I will not be presenting to him the last thing I did with my life. I will be presenting to him the last thing Jesus did with his life for me. If you think that Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works does not have practical implications you are not listening carefully enough. His doctrine of final salvation through works gives him the leverage he needs to tell you what you must do with your retirement. Driscoll was going to take back and transform Seattle so he got to tell the Gen-Xers who followed him when to marry and who could work and not work and how many children to have.
> Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works is not the gospel and it is most certainly not a Reformation doctrine and it underpins the sort of control that he, MacDonald, Driscoll, et al. in the YRR movement sought (and seek) to exercise over Christian laity. If the Reformation doctrine of Christian liberty is new to you, welcome. It was a great deliverance from the tyrannical control exercised by the clergy over the daily lives of medieval Christians. It went hand in glove with the Reformation recovery of the salvation by grace alone, through faith alone and the Scripture as the alone final standard for the Christian faith and the Christian life.” https://heidelblog.net/2021/08/pipe...ar-the-yrr-movement-was-from-the-reformation/_



That's all I was getting at. Ironically, I'm actually quite close to Piper on things like hating American stupidity, materialism, etc. I live a somewhat Spartan existence.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

_Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works_

Huh? I haven't followed this thread closely so I am sorry if this was discussed and I missed it. 

I've paid little attention to Piper for the last 20 years or so since he hooked up so closely with Mahaney. ( Having been in an SGM church for a while in the 90s, and having loved the Piper audios I'd listened to like all those biographies, Hebrews, etc, well, it was hard to watch). 

So you are saying that the guy who preached the definitive sermon on "this man went down to his house justified", dealing the death blow to any justification by works, is now into final salvation by works?

So, uh, is this true or some knee jerk reaction to quotes from James or the end of the sermon on the Mount or what? Is this a far right Reformed hyper anti FV position that freaks out when you talk about "grace alone faith that produces fruit" type of statements?

I have no idea, please do not think I am arguing with this because I don't know what has been going on : _Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works
_
I'm just a bit shocked to hear that said. Anybody have links other than an RSC blog? I'm more of a John Framer on the subject of WSC. When I've read RSC criticizing so badly Edwards, Iain Murray, Lloyd Jones, etc, well, he isn't somebody I respect.

It sounds slanderous based on my pre 2000 AD love affair with Piper sermons ( I'm over that, sigh). Thanks for any explanation.


----------



## RamistThomist

lynnie said:


> So you are saying that the guy who preached the definitive sermon on "this man went down to his house justified", dealing the death blow to any justification by works, is now into final salvation by works?



He's always taught this. He rejected the Heidelberg understanding of Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude 20 years ago in _Future Grace_.








John Piper, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God, rev. ed. (New York: Multnomah, 2012)—A Thorough Review


Pastor John Piper is well-known for his role in sparking the “young, restless, and Reformed” movement, mainly through his emphases on God’s sovereignty and serious expository preaching. There are n…




heidelblog.net

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Charles Johnson

Jacob, do you believe in the doctrine of the judgment according to works? If so, how would you say your understanding differs from Piper's?


----------



## A.Joseph

lynnie said:


> _Piper’s doctrine of final salvation through works_


That’s the only part I was unsure of. I never followed him too closely. That sounds like a charge that would be laid at Washer. But in the context of the rest of the article it all seemed problematic.

And from reading that review of *Future Grace The Purifying Power of the Promises of God*
it does appear Piper uses many emotional elements and terms to express the realities and experiences of faith. That can get a little dicey….

This is also concerning:
“There are places where Piper causes some tensions with the two sound premises noted above. First, he makes perseverance in faith a condition for justification. After quoting Jonathan Edwards to this effect, he stated in his own words “Thus it is proper to speak of the moral effectiveness of justifying faith not merely because it brings us into a right standing with God at the first moment of its exercise, but also because it is a persevering sort of faith, whose effectiveness resides in its daily embrace of all that God is for us in Jesus.” (pg. 25; emphasis added) We should all affirm that true faith is persevering faith, so Piper is correct on that point. On the other hand, to say that “justifying faith” – which I take to refer to faith’s role in respect to justification – has “effectiveness” – which I take to mean truly bringing about its corresponding result of justification – in a daily renewal seems obviously to shift justification from one definitive and punctiliar act of God in permanently declaring a sinner righteous upon their taking hold of Christ for salvation to a grant that is always in question. Some might object that it is obvious that if we hypothetically were to lose faith, we would no longer be justified. Apart from the only hypothetical nature of that thought experiment, which I suppose has a valid conclusion from an unreal premise, Piper’s definition of faith fosters an understanding that true faith can ebb and flow, perhaps suggesting it might ebb so low as not to be effective anymore. I will treat the issue of Piper’s understanding of faith in the next section, but it is worth flagging here. *Piper does seemingly have a construction that undermines the sure permanency of justification and makes it contingent upon our perseverance in good works. In this sense, works are no longer simply evidence as he stated elsewhere in Future Grace.*”


----------



## RamistThomist

Charles Johnson said:


> Jacob, do you believe in the doctrine of the judgment according to works? If so, how would you say your understanding differs from Piper's?



Yes. In p.25 of the revised version of _Future Grace_, Piper speaks of a "moral effectiveness" of justifying faith. He also speaks of the covenant of grace as conditional--if we don't keep it we won't get to heaven. I understand how that language has been glossed in the past, but Piper isn't taking any of those precautions.

I'm willing to grant him a charitable reading, but if I were a ministerial candidate and said the above on the floor of presbytery, it's not hard to imagine how people would react.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> Yes. In p.25 of the revised version of _Future Grace_, Piper speaks of a "moral effectiveness" of justifying faith. He also speaks of the covenant of grace as conditional--if we don't keep it we won't get to heaven. I understand how that language has been glossed in the past, but Piper isn't taking any of those precautions.
> 
> I'm willing to grant him a charitable reading, but if I were a ministerial candidate and said the above on the floor of presbytery, it's not hard to imagine how people would react.


And when you tie this to his influence on the YRR movement you can see how things can get pretty mixed up. The Reformed faith is an active faith but if we are trying to constantly prove our faith our faith is ultimately dependent on us…. and the preachers who are calling us to act in various ways under various circumstances. Too much application, too far removed from the text, may not always be a good thing…. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Charles Johnson

I grant that Piper could be clearer and more precise in distinctions, but I think he's essentially orthodox on this point. A couple years ago I took Clark to task on my blog for his treatment of Piper on the matter. The reader will have to forgive the pretentious tone I wrote with as a hot-headed 22 year old, but I still think my points were basically correct.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## kodos

Dr. Mark Jones also wrote a piece defending Piper. https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/in-defense-of-piper.php
But I have yet to read it through. Just putting it here as I have not read Piper thoroughly either. But typically, Mark Jones is a reliable guide.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus

Turretin:








Five Questions about Faith and Works


Good works are necessary to salvation, but not in order to effect salvation or acquire it by right.




www.thegospelcoalition.org





Michael Lynch translated a portion of Louis le Blanc on good works. He cites Pareus and Ames against Bellarmine.





Louis Le Blanc on the Relationship between Good Works and Eternal Life Theses 1-6


Theses Theologicae [...] (London, 1683), pgs. 588-89




michaellynch.substack.com





Mark Jones (Twisse, Zanchi, Witsius, Mastricht):








John Piper Compromising Sola Fide?


John Piper John Piper wrote a post some time ago on justification, good works, and salvation. Most Reformed folks agree with his basic position, but there is a vocal minority who accuse him of comp…



web.archive.org












Is Salvation a Reward or a Gift? Yes.


Between the “already” of justification and the “not yet” of glorification lies a path that must be strewn with good works.




www.thegospelcoalition.org












Judgment According to Works







www.reformation21.org





John Davenant contra Bellarmine's misconception of the Protestant view of good works:








John Davenant: Good Works


Patrick Ramsey takes up one of the key criticisms by Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of justification was that it nullified the necessity of and the incentive to do good works. Turning to the work of John Davenant we see that good works are indeed conditionally necessary for...




www.reformation21.org





Someone more contemporary, Sinclair Ferguson:
"In order to experience final salvation, sanctification is as necessary as justification."

GK Beale:








G.K. Beale on the Doctrine of Justification and Future Judgment


A recent article on the Aquila Report alleges that a number of scholars, including John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Greg Beale, propagate “an erroneous, heterox interpretation of justification/fin…




faithpresdicksoncity.wordpress.com

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus

This is a great collection of historical sources on good works:









The Necessity of Good Works


“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Eph. 2:10 “Follow… holiness, without whic…




reformedbooksonline.com

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I absolutely think we need to make our calling and election sure! I’m glad I’m accountable to my SAVIOR for what HE’S DONE for me…. for HIS SAKE ALONE and GOD’s GLORY.

This is an interesting video


----------



## Pilgrim

danekristjan said:


> This quote from AA Hodge's lecture on the kingdom of Christ sums up the classically reformed view well.
> 
> View attachment 9115


What book is this essay in? "Evangelical Theology?"

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I don’t know if we need to even listen to what happened at Mars Hill Church (the Rise & Fall). At what point is it just a pile on. Let’s pray that the man can be restored as well as those who were badly affected by his ministry.


----------



## ZackF

@RamistThomist, is there going to be a part 2 thread since this one has been such a success?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Taylor

Pilgrim said:


> What book is this essay in? "Evangelical Theology?"


It’s from his _Popular Lectures on Theological Themes_.


----------



## Pilgrim

RamistThomist said:


> That's where the debate starts to trade on ambiguities. God's law can mean anything from the 10 commandments to all the civil penalties. But to the question: the Regulative Principle of Worship has rightly been seen as an application of the 2nd Commandment. Most Baptist churches probably don't hold to the RPW. That means they (and all Lutherans and most Anglicans) are violating the 2nd Commandment. I return to my question.


Forget about the Baptists and others. Most Presbyterian churches probably don’t hold to even the watered down Hart/Muether version of the RPW, and are also generally anti-sabbatarian.


----------



## Pilgrim

RamistThomist said:


> Think of how many non-Sabbatarians are in America (probably over 100 million). Will you execute them? I know it sounds extreme, but those are the issues that have to be worked out before hand. If we say, "But the Spirit of God will change the hearts before that happens," then the whole issue of social ethics is now moot.


There are estimated to be over 332 million people in the country. Are more than a million of them Sabbatarian? I doubt it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> There are estimated to be over 332 million people in the country. Are more than a million of them Sabbatarian? I doubt it.


I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell amongst men of unclean lips. I will go. It aint easy either. Definitely an uphill battle but who knows what God will do. Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. I don't care about all the. "we are too pagan now to recover." God is able to do what he wants when he wants. I am called to go.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pilgrim said:


> Most Presbyterian churches probably don’t hold to even the watered down Hart/Muether version of the RPW, and are also generally anti-sabbatarian.


Maybe I know and have forgotten but what makes you call it a watered down version of the rpw?


----------



## RamistThomist

Tychicus said:


> Turretin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five Questions about Faith and Works
> 
> 
> Good works are necessary to salvation, but not in order to effect salvation or acquire it by right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thegospelcoalition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Lynch translated a portion of Louis le Blanc on good works. He cites Pareus and Ames against Bellarmine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Louis Le Blanc on the Relationship between Good Works and Eternal Life Theses 1-6
> 
> 
> Theses Theologicae [...] (London, 1683), pgs. 588-89
> 
> 
> 
> 
> michaellynch.substack.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Jones (Twisse, Zanchi, Witsius, Mastricht):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Piper Compromising Sola Fide?
> 
> 
> John Piper John Piper wrote a post some time ago on justification, good works, and salvation. Most Reformed folks agree with his basic position, but there is a vocal minority who accuse him of comp…
> 
> 
> 
> web.archive.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Salvation a Reward or a Gift? Yes.
> 
> 
> Between the “already” of justification and the “not yet” of glorification lies a path that must be strewn with good works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thegospelcoalition.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judgment According to Works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reformation21.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Davenant contra Bellarmine's misconception of the Protestant view of good works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Davenant: Good Works
> 
> 
> Patrick Ramsey takes up one of the key criticisms by Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of justification was that it nullified the necessity of and the incentive to do good works. Turning to the work of John Davenant we see that good works are indeed conditionally necessary for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reformation21.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone more contemporary, Sinclair Ferguson:
> "In order to experience final salvation, sanctification is as necessary as justification."
> 
> GK Beale:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.K. Beale on the Doctrine of Justification and Future Judgment
> 
> 
> A recent article on the Aquila Report alleges that a number of scholars, including John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Greg Beale, propagate “an erroneous, heterox interpretation of justification/fin…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> faithpresdicksoncity.wordpress.com


No one disputes the necessity of good works. The problem is when we speak of justifying faith as "morally effective."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

ZackF said:


> @RamistThomist, is there going to be a part 2 thread since this one has been such a success?


Man, we are brutal to each other. It was a good read. People get sentimental about Piper but he’s not above some healthy criticism. Who is he accountable to? This was a good discussion. …. No need to pick a side.


----------



## Pilgrim

NaphtaliPress said:


> Maybe I know and have forgotten but what makes you call it a watered down version of the rpw?


Well, it’s not EP for one thing. I haven’t been around here much in the past few years. But my sense has been that some EP advocates would not grant that what might be termed the “OPC version” of the RPW is really the RPW although they would appreciate some aspects of it as opposed to the typical evangelical worship today. Hart and Muether are strong on images from what I recall. But beyond the prohibition of images, how different is it from what Andy Webb has referred to as “Episcoterian” worship, which is the kind of thing that you would have seen in most “traditional” Protestant churches in the mid 20th Century regardless of denomination: 4 hymns, the Gloria Patri, the Doxology, the Lord’s Prayer and maybe the recitation of a creed. I think Hart and Muether probably don’t like choirs and soloists. So that would be a difference. But otherwise? Well, the Trinity Hymnal did Calvinize Fanny Crosby and Charles Wesley. Plus, unlike John Frame, I am sure they are a hard “No” on liturgical dancing.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell amongst men of unclean lips. I will go. It aint easy either. Definitely an uphill battle but who knows what God will do. Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. I don't care about all the. "we are too pagan now to recover." God is able to do what he wants when he wants. I am called to go.


Did you watch the Tipton video? What’s the template and how is it applied? The relationship between Israel and Jehovah was very unique. We all know murder is wrong and it is good not to do it…. Then what? This place is going down in flames. Don’t mean we need to keep our mouths shut. Point out the contrast boldly.


----------



## Pilgrim

A.Joseph said:


> Man, we are brutal to each other. It was a good read. People get sentimental about Piper but he’s not above some healthy criticism. Who is he accountable to? This was a good discussion. …. No need to pick a side.


This is the kind of thread we used to have here all the time.

EDIT: Except that, for what it’s worth, some of us seem to be taking positions that are more or less the opposite of what we took 10-15 years ago.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pilgrim said:


> Well, it’s not EP for one thing. I haven’t been around here much in the past few years. But my sense has been that some EP advocates would not grant that what might be termed the “OPC version” of the RPW is really the RPW although they would appreciate some aspects of it as opposed to the typical evangelical worship today. Hart and Muether are strong on images from what I recall. But beyond the prohibition of images, how different is it from what Andy Webb has referred to as “Episcoterian” worship, which is the kind of thing that you would have seen in most “traditional” Protestant churches in the mid 20th Century regardless of denomination: 4 hymns, the Gloria Patri, the Doxology, the Lord’s Prayer and maybe the recitation of a creed. I think Hart and Muether probably don’t like choirs and soloists. So that would be a difference. But otherwise? Well, the Trinity Hymnal did Calvinize Fanny Crosby and Charles Wesley. Plus, unlike John Frame, I am sure they are a hard “No” on liturgical dancing.


I would not be so uncharitable and would want to reserve to note that until someone actually reverts to "but, it's not forbidden". And that does happen in some exchanges I do grant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Pilgrim said:


> EDIT: Except that, for what it’s worth, some of us seem to be taking positions that are more or less the opposite of what we took 10-15 years ago.


I think I can say "speak for yourself."  I do think I've refined my views but the basic stances have remained the same far as I can recall, at least as far as the subjects of worship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> This is the kind of thread we used to have here all the time.
> 
> EDIT: Except that, for what it’s worth, some of us seem to be taking positions that are more or less the opposite of what we took 10-15 years ago.



Truest words spoken all day.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Luther'sHammer

Anthony,

I am quoting you twice below and would like to ask a clarifying question following up with each. Actually, it's the same question. Before I do that, understand that I am attempting to exercise humility and teachability. Regarding the points below, I don't see how you could possibly be correct 
but I'm willing to learn.



A.Joseph said:


> How much theological truth and biblical reality must us Calvinists ignore for this to be true via the comment section of the YouTube video:
> 
> _“RIP Gary North. Yes, we postmill types would rather not have the unbelievers secretly establish a centralized counterfeit monetary scheme that lines the pockets of their regime, disincentivizes productivity, and encourages debt accumulation. *Instead we look forward to a world where a general equity of law is followed, and understood as common sense, among believer and unbeliever alike. North is not seeking for nominal Christians to outwardly follow the law in the flesh. He’s seeking a dominant Christian influence in culture that results in less wickedness in the lives of unbelievers. The rampant pietism of the churchmen causes this position to be a fringe one.”*_
> 
> …. the bolded section of the comment is seen as a prioritized vision for the prevention and annihilation of the non-bolded portion. But can this really be our focus and concentration? An exercise in distracted futility that ranks up there with Twitter wars. Eventually the wicked take over and change and circumvent laws accordingly. That doesn’t mean we hide or bury the truth of the gospel or the 2nd use of the law. It just means we can’t change hearts by persuasion or coercion - it’s just where we are. It’s where we always wind up. Even now punishments are not equally distributed, nor is the law equally enforced, until such time that laws and standards are abolished all together. Maybe then men and women will cry out.



"How much theological truth and biblical reality" - can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess the truth and reality you reference, specifically that would rebut the Youtube comment you called out?




A.Joseph said:


> Did you watch the Tipton video? What’s the template and how is it applied? The relationship between Israel and Jehovah was very unique. We all know murder is wrong and it is good not to do it…. Then what? This place is going down in flames. Don’t mean we need to keep our mouths shut. Point out the contrast boldly.



"This place is going down in flames" - again, can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess this?


----------



## danekristjan

Pilgrim said:


> What book is this essay in? "Evangelical Theology?"


Yes


----------



## A.Joseph

Luther'sHammer said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I am quoting you twice below and would like to ask a clarifying question following up with each. Actually, it's the same question. Before I do that, understand that I am attempting to exercise humility and teachability. Regarding the points below, I don't see how you could possibly be correct
> but I'm willing to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> "How much theological truth and biblical reality" - can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess the truth and reality you reference, specifically that would rebut the Youtube comment you called out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This place is going down in flames" - again, can you cite any Reformed confessions that teach or confess this?


Fair enough. I think civil morality is dependent on God's law but good luck trying to institute it at this point in our rigged system.* (I'm more of a Benedict Option guy at this point but I'd be willing to get behind a common sense moral system/foundation of law). I don't know any real life example to follow that's been sustained. American government was faulty almost from the start. .... See Jefferson's conception of natural law.

_“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams *_

“Going down in flames” is just a figure of speech. A better way to put it? See Romans 8

@Luther'sHammer - if you’re interested check out those two videos I linked which touches on how North may have crossed the line to over-prioritize civil affairs, applications and earthly comforts for both the saved and the unsaved alike.


----------



## Pilgrim

NaphtaliPress said:


> I would not be so uncharitable and would want to reserve to note that until someone actually reverts to "but, it's not forbidden". And that does happen in some exchanges I do grant.


Its been a long time since I read that book. Basically, what I was getting at was that the OPC will say it follows the RPW but it doesn't look like what the RPCNA does (or doesn't do) for example. I'm not even taking a position about which one is right, although I'll grant that "watered down" makes it look that way. It might have been a poor choice of words, but what I had in mind is the idea that EP seems to be more prevalent here than it was 15 years ago.


----------



## Pilgrim

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think I can say "speak for yourself."  I do think I've refined my views but the basic stances have remained the same far as I can recall, at least as far as the subjects of worship.


I was mostly thinking about the views that Jacob and Randy have expressed here as opposed to what positions they would have taken in 2006.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> I was mostly thinking about the views that Jacob and Randy have expressed here as opposed to what positions they would have taken in 2006.



I won't speak for Randy, but that's true for me. And those savage, bloody threads back in the day--I was involved in most of them. It was Van Tillian vs. Clarkian vs. everyone else.


----------



## Pilgrim

RamistThomist said:


> I won't speak for Randy, but that's true for me. And those savage, bloody threads back in the day--I was involved in most of them. It was Van Tillian vs. Clarkian vs. everyone else.


Vanilla Westminsterian vs Van Til vs Clark vs Kline vs FV vs. Baptist, with the Baptist category including 1689er, NCT and a few that were at least mildly Dispensational way back in the beginning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Going back to Piper on page 8, I've been thinking it is a lot like the great Norm Shepherd controversy at WTS. Some guys at WSC had him labeled as a heretic on justification; Frame and Gaffin were defending him. My husband had loved him as a prof and was adamant that he was being slandered and never denied justification by faith as the Reformed Confessions state it. WTS let him go amid the furor. 

Eventually the Prez Ed Clowney put out a thoughtful and detailed paper on it, exonerating NS on justification, but explaining how his beliefs on perseverance were not Reformed, and while he was a good brother and beloved teacher, you have to hold to P in TULIP to teach at WTS. 

What my husband finally said though, was that while NS was teaching truth on our initial justification vs the role of works and obedience, when it came to all that he was reading about WTS grads getting examined for ordination, they were saying heretical things and claiming it was what Dr. Shepherd taught them. And that was a problem. 

Now hub was a math minor in college, and is very successful in his IT job and debugging and if/then logic. He has an analytical mind. And I think he was able to put together what NS taught and come away from it biblical, even if it may have been hard to grasp this complex subject.

But, if so many students came away with a different, works salvation justification, while you can say maybe they just didn't have such high IQs or good ability to grasp the complexity of theology at times, you have to conclude that there was a real problem with NS' teaching. Hub didn't see it at the time, but he had to finally admit that when so many students end up flunking ordination and referring it back to NS, NS had a problem as a teacher, and it was understandable to let him go for that reason ( even if he hadn't denied Reformed Perseverance).

I've concluded Piper is OK and he gets the truth. But in trying so hard to explain the end of the sermon on the mount and all kinds of verses on obedience and works and justifying faith bearing fruit and so forth, he maybe does not realize what young zealous believers are hearing and coming away thinking, and he is confusing them into heretical ideas. 

I could be wrong. We stopped listening to him a while ago after 2000 when his tone began to get harsh and he seemed to change from tender to something harder. But maybe it is just one more Norm Shepherd type of situation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------

