tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242717762024-03-07T08:56:26.667-05:00Reformed Apologist“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear..." 1 Peter 3:15Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comBlogger163125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-7393323104671754612020-07-23T22:32:00.001-04:002021-10-02T08:24:53.103-04:00Philosophical Theology blog Come see me at my new blog <div><a href="https://philosophical-theology.com/">https://philosophical-theology.com/</a></div>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-2056677411792249042020-01-03T21:30:00.002-05:002020-01-03T21:30:13.777-05:00Loving God....<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); color: #404040; font-family: "Open Sans", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
A young man was struggling with whether he loved God. Truly loved God. After all, what does it feel like to love God? Is it fair to unleash simplicity simplistically? </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); color: #404040; font-family: "Open Sans", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
If God is his attributes, then to love true holiness (for instance) is to love God. Added to that, God’s law is a reflection of His attributes. So, for instance, to truly love the sixth commandment – on God’s authority alone and not because it suits us – is to love God. </div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); color: #404040; font-family: "Open Sans", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Where the love of God often breaks down is when we don’t love the true equity of God’s case laws, which too are his law and, therefore, a reflection of his attributes and, therefore, himself. We tend to love God, but only so far</div>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-38146504142892122382018-09-12T19:25:00.000-04:002018-09-13T11:15:56.914-04:00Michael Horton's Recent Critque of Evangelicals<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The title of Michael Horton’s <em>Christless Christianity: The
Alternative Gospel of the American Church</em> is emblematic of <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/august-web-only/evangelicals-trump-elections-losing-everything.html" target="_blank">this </a> piece, which appeared in <em>Christianity Today</em> (CT) last month. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">First, the title of the book. Is there such a thing as a
Christless Christianity? For that matter, is there an alternative gospel? A
Christless Christianity is no Christianity. (1 Corinthians 1:23) Christianity
has a way of being binary in that regard. And as for the gospel, if it’s “another”
gospel, then it’s “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">really </i>not another”
but rather a contrary gospel that is to be accursed by the
church. (Galatians 1:7-8)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">So, obviously, Horton does not think there is<em> literally</em> a
"Christless Christianity" or an alternative gospel in the Christian church, let
alone the American church. Indeed, he wrote so much just a few pages into the
book. “Second, I am not arguing in this book that we have arrived at Christless
Christianity but that we are well on our way.”</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This sort of walking back harsh and alarming rhetoric has
come to be expected from Horton. The recent CT article is no different.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Horton announces that President Trump said, we’re “one
election away from losing everything.”</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Horton is correct here. “As evangelicals, we would do well
to correct the president on this point. If an election can cause us to lose
everything, what is it exactly that we have in the first place?” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But is he really correct? Horton is definitely
<em>not</em> correct if we recognize that Trump didn’t mean our eternal soul (or even Mar-a-Lago for that matter). Obviously,
Trump didn’t mean<em> literally</em> (in an <i>exhaustive</i> sense) “everything.” A context of political momentum places boundaries around “everything.” But to acknowledge that would have
left no reason to have written this particular article. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But let’s see what else he says.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Surely we can be grateful for any public servant who upholds
the First Amendment. And we should applaud fellow believers who ply their
education and experience as lawyers to defend religious freedom (as long as
they don’t seek to privilege Christianity legally above other religions).</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I’m not sure what Horton has in mind by “privilege,” but I
have no problem seeking Christian privilege over some of the privileges that might
be sought by adherents of other world religions. I know of one religion that condones
polygamy. How about one that offers celestial reward for flying airplanes into
buildings? I have no reason to believe that orthodox Mormons and Muslims would
not want to gain equal protection under the law, like the privilege Christians enjoy
in partaking sacramental bread and wine without fear of molestation. Should
Rastafarianism, with its sacrament of ganja (or “wisdom weed”), get a seat at the
table of the religious privileged? How about the occult?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Something tremendous is at stake here: whether evangelical
Christians place their faith more in Caesar and his kingdom than in Christ and
his reign. On that one, we do have everything to lose—this November and every
other election cycle. When we seek special political favors for the church, we
communicate to the masses that Christ’s kingdom is just another demographic in
the US electorate.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Let’s take a closer look at whether evangelicals place their
faith <em>more</em> in Caesar than Christ. If one trusts government for eternal life,
they’re not an evangelical. So, when Horton refers to one who would “place
their faith more in x than y,” what is he saying? Surely the Christian, by definition, places that which is <em>most</em> valuable in the hands of the right Person.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The word “more” is in this instance Horton’s free pass. In one very qualified sense, I have more hope in government to curtail policy than I do in God. But that’s
because I believe in the Christian doctrine of decree and second causes. God is
the <em>ultimate</em> cause of all things, but he accomplishes his decree through <em>means</em> –
even government. (That's why I don't hope that God picks me up at the airport. I hope that Lisa does.) So, it’s not un-Christian to “hope” that legal abortion ends
through legislation, or if need be from the bench. To place my hope in God
without acting is fatalism. To act without prayer is humanism. It’s difficult to
say much more on the matter given the vague rhetoric that permeates the
article.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Let’s face it. Liberal and conservative, Catholic and
Protestant, have courted political power and happily allowed themselves to be
used by it. This always happens when the church confuses the kingdom of Christ
with the kingdoms of this present age.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If to <em>court "</em>political power" means to lobby for better laws,
then there’s nothing contrary to the gospel about it. To be “happily… used by
it” certainly sounds sinful; so I’ll concede on that to make a
simple point. The former does not imply the latter! </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As for, “this always
happens when the church…” – that is such a nebulous remark it’s difficult to
comment.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">“Jesus came not to jump-start the theocracy in Israel, much
less to be the founding father of any other nation.”</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">No, Jesus came to make disciples of <em>all </em>nations. Horton’s
problem is that Christ’s offices of Prophet and Priest have seemed to eclipse
his appreciation for <em>Christ as King</em>.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">“Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem
and a long period afterward that would be marked simultaneously by persecution
and expansion of his kingdom. How? Armed with nothing more than his gospel,
baptism, and the Supper, fueled by the freedom of grace and love of all people,
the low and the high, who need to hear this saving message.”</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That’s terribly simplistic. First off, the gospel is
meaningless apart from law. Any good Lutheran (or Presbyterian) knows that. Secondly,
the erosion of cultural norms, which were shaped by natural law and the Bible,
has done much to distort the moral backdrop against which the gospel is intended to be
understood. Consequently, (i) resurrecting just laws, (ii) calling abortion murder and homosexuality an abomination, and (iii) courting
political power - all, in their proper place, <em>complements </em>the gospel mission. It does not detract from it when done properly before God.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If one wants to talk about real violence against Christians,
surely the persecution of the early Christians should count. Yet every New
Testament command on the subject calls us to love and pray for our enemies with
the confidence that Christ is still building his church.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Does admonishment and rebuke; a clarion call to repentance; the
warning of imminent judgment; shaking the dust off one’s feet; and imprecatory
prayer – in any way undermine one’s confidence that Christ is building his
church? Given the passivity Horton seems to describe,
I’m not sure the church would ever get persecuted (after having given
up its place in the world).</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Now for the dialing back of harsh words:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This is not to say we should have no concern at all about
the state of our nation. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to
avoid the responsibilities of our temporary citizenship, even though our
ultimate citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). However, many of us sound like
we’ve staked everything not only on constitutional freedoms but also on social
respect, acceptance, and even power. But that comes at the cost of confusing
the gospel with Christian nationalism.</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Well maybe Horton is wanting people to sound the same way
in all conversations. When speaking about politics, one needn't insert
at every turn his hope in Christ. Secondly, if Horton does not recognize what is at stake in this country, there’s not much more one can say.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In his Great Commission, Jesus gave authority to the church
to make disciples, not citizens; to proclaim the gospel, not political
opinions;</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That’s a bit equivocal. The church as an institution is one
thing. The church comprised of individual professing believers is another.
Certainly, the citizens of heaven, as sojourners on this earth, may proclaim
political opinions. Or as Horton put is elsewhere, “Nowhere in
the New Testament are Christians called to avoid the responsibilities of our
temporary citizenship…” Is Horton's issue with Christian pulpits, or is it with politically minded Christians who don't share his sense of balance? Let's not forget - God created both the heavens and the earth.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Anyone who believes, much less preaches, that evangelical
Christians are “one election away from losing everything” in November has
forgotten how to sing the psalmist’s warning, “Do not put your trust in
princes, in human beings, who cannot save” (Ps. 146:3).</span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Remember, it was not a pastor, nor a layman known for his
theological acumen, who made the statement from which Horton launches into his critique
of Evangelicals. No, it was President Donald Trump who is known for hyperbolic
tweets and pithy sound bites that people tend to remember. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As a final thought, "Losing everything” on an election is antithetical to
true Christianity. So, either the statement was not intended to be taken literally or it’s
the conviction of an unbeliever. Either way, Horton's critique becomes irrelevant. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-49499119511551626022018-09-06T18:40:00.000-04:002018-09-10T18:17:50.465-04:00Rick Phillips on Civil LawTaken from <a href="https://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/which-old-testament-laws-must-i-obey" target="_blank">here.</a> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">The Westminster Confession describes them as “</span><em style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;">sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require</em><span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">” (XIX. 4). In other words, these laws were for regulating the nation of Israel, which was then but no longer is the particular people of God. While there is an undisputed wisdom contained in this civil law it can not be made applicable to any nation today, since there are no biblically sanctioned theocracies now.</span></blockquote>
How can “undisputed wisdom... not be made applicable...”? Wisdom not relevant? Something seems intuitively false about such a postulate. Is Proverbs no longer applicable because there are no theocracies today? How about the Ten Commandments?<br />
<br />
The Confession does not teach that the civil law “can not be made applicable to any nation today...” Rather, it teaches the very opposite. It teaches that nations are obliged to implement the civil law <em>as the general equity may require.</em><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">The civil codes have lost their context now that salvation is in Christ, in a spiritual kingdom, and not in Israel, a temporal nation. </span></blockquote>
Aside from a false disjunction that would arbitrarily stipulate that a civil code and a spiritual kingdom are somehow mutually exclusive - the Reformed tradition has always maintained that salvation was always spiritual. As Paul reminded his hearers in Romans 9, “...they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but ‘through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Romans 9:6-8<br />
<br />
Moreover, it would have been interesting to read why the general equity of the civil code may not be a model for all nations just because it was a model for God's covenant nation. Why, in other words, would we think God's wisdom, as it relates to civil government, could lose its applicability upon King Jesus' commissioning the church to disciple <i>all</i> the nations? How could the cross make foolish civil laws that were suitable for a nation that would seek after God’s wisdom and justice? Isn’t the Son of God no less King over the nations than he is Lord over the church?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline.</span></blockquote>
The author must go here because he cannot ignore that <em>General Equity</em> clause of the Divines. So, where does the Confession teach that the penalty for murder under the older economy is now "transformed" into church discipline? The Confession teaches no such thing. In fact, such would be an outright abrogation of the civil law, thereby not preserving its general equity. <br />
<br />
If that weren’t enough, WCF 19.4, as it relates to the general equity of the law, calls us to compare Genesis 49:10 with 1 Peter 2:13-14. These verses have nothing to do with church discipline but rather everything to do with civil magistrate.<br />
<br />
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and to him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10<br />
<br />
Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that to well. 1 Peter 2:13-14<br />
<br />
The 1 Peter 2:13-14 proof-text pertains to punishing evildoers, not ecclesiastical censure. So, both the <i>prima facie </i>reading of 19.4 and the cited footnotes opppose the fanciful claim that the civil code now pertains to church discipline.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">Another objection comes from the theonomists, a word that means “law of God.” Theonomists agree that the ceremonial law is exhausted, but insist on the direct application of the civil law. They say that God obliges all nations to live according to the laws established for Old Testament Israel. Such people sincerely advocate, therefore, the stoning of sexual sinners and the taking of an eye for an eye. </span></blockquote>
The author will have a difficult time citing a single theonomist who advocates stoning, or that<i> “</i>an eye for an eye" is <em>law</em> (as opposed to a<em> </em>biblical <em>principle</em> that teaches just penalty for crimes).<br />
<br />
Regarding “sexual sinners,” the author would have us believe that theonomy doesn’t distinguish between seduction and rape, an adulterous thought and beasteality. Which are crimes and what should be the penalties? How would we justify our answers? At the very least, the antinomian will have a difficult time arguing for or against any particular penalty.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">The law is not over us, to condemn us, but under our feet, to be a guide for our path. In saying that, it is the moral law, as reflected in the Ten Commandments, to which I refer, which we have the pleasure of obeying to the glory of God and out of gratitude for our salvation.</span></blockquote>
That we might take pleasure in obeying God’s law with gratitude does not imply that the moral law is somehow “under our feet” merely to guide us. At the very least, that’s to ignore two of the three uses of the moral law. The demands of the law reveal God’s holiness and condemn us daily. It’s the condemning aspect of the moral law that drives the believer to Christ. <em>That</em> is not a one time use of the law but a daily discipline. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-53153956768246607822018-08-18T19:53:00.002-04:002019-03-06T09:34:09.360-05:00Todd Pruitt on Homosexuality and the PCA<a href="https://www.theaquilareport.com/for-the-love-of-those-fighting-against-homosexuality/" target="_blank">For the Love of Those Fighting Against Homosexuality - The Aquila Report</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So, to those wondering if the PCA is in the process of embracing homosexuality let me say that <em>to my knowledge</em> there are no pastors within our denomination promoting the acceptance of homosexual acts or homosexual marriage. </blockquote>
This is a troublesome statement made by a PCA minister. By "embracing homosexuality," presumably he must mean "promoting the acceptance of homosexual acts or homosexual marriage." In other words, he seems to have defined for us what it would be for the PCA to embrace homosexuality. For this servant, embracing homosexuality not just entails but reduces to promoting the acceptance of homosexual <em>acts</em> or homosexual <em>marriage</em>.<br />
<br />
Before dealing with the heart of the premise, I'd like to tease out from that <em>complex</em> statement a less obvious concern - but a serious concern just the same. <br />
<br />
Why should we believe that the "process of embracing homosexuality" has not already begun in the PCA? At the very least, is the <em>process</em> of having begun moving from any point A to any point B ever a matter of actually <em>arriving</em> at point B? For example, even had the United Methodist Church and PCUSA repented and stopped short of where they are today (point B), prior to doing so wouldn't the <em>process </em>of having moved<em> </em>toward embracing homosexuality already begun? After all, what does it mean to be stopped in one's tracks? Or, is the <em>process</em> of getting to a full blown acceptance of homosexual acts or homosexual marriage dependent upon a <em>final acceptance</em> of homosexual acts or homosexual marriage? If so, then there's no true process of getting anywhere until after we get there, which is a denial of the rational order of things. <br />
<br />
No, we must face the facts. That same sex attraction (SSA) advocates have gained a seat at the table in the PCA is a sure indicator that "the PCA is in the process of embracing homosexuality." The only question is, will the denomination take a firm stance and resist the urge, now that it has unwittingly begun a process of embracing homosexuality? (For various reasons I think my denomination will get this right and without cutting a half-way covenant.)<br />
<br />
But all that is incidental to my main concern.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
However, the organizers and speakers of Revoice profess fidelity to the biblical position on sexual intimacy – that sexual intimacy is a gift of God legitimately experienced in marriage between a man and woman.</blockquote>
Remember, at the very beginning what defined embracing homosexuality was the acceptance of homosexual acts or homosexual marriage. Accordingly, affirming a traditional position on sexual intimacy (marriage) would seem to be the same thing as rejecting homosexuality. I find that woefully inadequate for the simple reason that one can affirm the biblical view of physical intimacy as it relates to marriage while yet affirming SSA! Revoice-advocates do just that. They defend the legitimacy of celibate homosexuality. They believe that homosexuals need not repent of <em>homosexual</em> attraction, <em>which presupposes that these folks indeed are homosexuals!</em> So, not to reject the legitimacy of SSA<em> is</em> to embrace the legitimacy of homosexuality - regardless if one will "profess fidelity to the biblical position on sexual intimacy.” <u>One is not a homosexual because he practices homosexuality anymore than one is heterosexual because he engages in any sort of physical conduct.</u> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Rather, the debate in the PCA is over the moral status of homosexual <em>desires</em>. The debate extends to the legitimacy of sexual orientation as a category and whether homosexuality is a fixed albeit broken marker of human identity. There are some in the PCA who are comfortable with using terms like Gay Christian to describe Christians who have homosexual desires but choose in obedience to Scripture to remain celibate. However, there are others who believe it is vital that terms like Gay Christian or Queer Christian must not be used in the PCA; that we must not adopt the world’s understanding of sexual orientation and identity...</blockquote>
This much is correct. The debate is over SSA. It is also correct that conservatives in the PCA resist terms like Gay Christian. What the pastor seems to miss is that the fundamental objection is not a question of whether we "adopt the world’s understanding of sexual orientation and identity." Rather, the issue chiefly lies with the fact that the term Gay Christian is an oxymoron. There are none. <u>Those who <em>refuse </em>to turn from SSA (i.e. repent!) and instead merely strive to abstain from acting on such desires <em>are </em>homosexuals.</u> Their identity is not Christian in any sense but rather Gay. They're quasi-moralists, not repentant sinners. The <em>decidedly </em>unrepentant (effeminate included) will not inherent the kingdom of God, regardless of whether they act on their dispositions or not.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But I am deeply dismayed at their insistence on using worldly and ungodly categories and language to describe human identity and sexuality. For instance, the category of sexual orientation is deceptive. </blockquote>
The category of Gay is accurate if it fits. The point is it has no place in the church, not because Christians should identify themselves in some other way (of course they should), but because the label isn't appropriate for the penitent. Christians are penitent. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Then of course there is the language of Gay Christian, LGBTQ Christian, Queer Christian, and sexual minority. Is it possible that the PCA hosts, organizers, and speakers of Revoice were unaware that such language would vex and confuse a great number of their brothers and sisters in Christ? It stretches credulity to believe the present controversy surprised them.</blockquote>
Who is confusing whom?<br />
<br />
<strong>Romans 1:24-27</strong> teaches that certain shameless acts proceed from <em>dishonorable passions</em> (i.e. SSA). Also note that this particular sin is construed here as <em>punishment</em> for idolatry. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Therefore <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27939A" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27939A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27939B" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27939B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, <span class="text Rom-1-25" id="en-ESV-27940">because they exchanged the truth about God for <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27940C" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27940C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></sup>a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27940D" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27940D" title="See cross-reference D">D</a>)"></sup>who is blessed forever! Amen. </span><span class="text Rom-1-26" id="en-ESV-27941">For this reason <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27941E" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27941E" title="See cross-reference E">E</a>)"></sup>God gave them up to <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27941F" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27941F" title="See cross-reference F">F</a>)"></sup><strong>dishonorable passions</strong>. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;</span> <span class="text Rom-1-27" id="en-ESV-27942">and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with <strong>passion </strong>for one another, <sup class="crossreference" data-cr="#cen-ESV-27942G" data-link="(<a href="#cen-ESV-27942G" title="See cross-reference G">G</a>)"></sup>men <strong>committing shameless acts</strong> with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.</span></blockquote>
The passage goes on to teach that God turns some over to a "reprobate <em>mind, </em>to do those things which are not fitting." SSA attraction is in the mind, from which flows shameless acts. To strive <em>merely </em>toward "chaste" behavior is not just foolish but disobedient. Homosexuals must agree with God. They must confess and cry out to be delivered from unnatural and deviant attraction toward the same sex. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-39560249432034341782017-10-30T09:47:00.001-04:002017-10-30T09:50:14.164-04:00Free Offer Of The Gospel<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;">Q. What is effectual calling?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;">A. Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;">Canons of Dort 2.5:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small;">Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
The free offer of the gospel (abbreviated “free offer”) has meant different things at different times. From a confessional standpoint, it can only mean that God sincerely offers salvation to all who repent and believe. The meaning is at best narrow. The confessions do not speak in terms of God’s <i>desire </i>for all men to be saved; they merely teach that God promises the gift of everlasting life to all who would turn from self to Christ. This promise of life through faith is <i>sincere</i>. It is a <i>genuine </i>offer. If you believe, you will be saved. This gospel is to go out to <i>all men everywhere</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Arminians are often quick to point out that the free offer is inconsistent with Calvinism. They reason that if the offer of the gospel is sincere and to go out to all people without exception, then God must <i>desire</i> the salvation of all people without exception. Otherwise, they say, the offer isn’t sincere. How can God desire the salvation of all men without exception if God as the ultimate decider of man’s salvation chooses to pass over some? In other words, Arminians reason that unless God desires to save all men, which they observe does not comport with Calvinism, the free offer of life through faith is insincere when given to the reprobate. Their axiom is that <i>a sincere gospel offer implies a sincere desire to see the offer accepted, a well-meant offer</i>. More on that in a moment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), representative of possibly most Calvinists today on the matter of the free offer, under the leadership of John Murray and Ned Stonehouse, adopted as a majority position the Arminian view that God desires the salvation of all men. While still holding fast to the Reformed view of predestination, the OPC affirmed the view that that the free offer cannot adequately be disassociated from a divine desire of salvation for all men without exception. In other words, such Calvinists assert that the genuineness of the gospel offer presupposes God's desire that all embrace Christ.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Subsequently, the free offer has taken on the <i>additional </i>meaning of a well-meant offer, or desire, that the reprobate turn and be saved. Accordingly, a major difference between Arminians and such Calvinists as these is on the question of consistency. Arminians find the free offer inconsistent with unconditional election, whereas these sorts of Calvinists (who hold to an expanded view of “free offer”) do not.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Back to first principles. What makes an offer genuine or sincere?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Can we judge whether an offer is genuine or sincere simply based on whether it is true or not? If God intends to keep his promise, then isn't the offer genuine? With respect to the gospel, if one meets the condition of faith, he will one day enter the joy of Lord. Isn't that enough to make the offer of salvation sincere? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
What was introduced in this discussion is what we might call the “well meant” offer of the gospel, that when God sincerely promises life on the condition of faith, the genuineness of the promise is predicated upon a sincere desire to see all men meet the condition. An indiscriminate call supposedly implies a desire for salvific fulfillment. Yet does a desire to keep one’s promise suggest an <i>additional </i>desire to see all meet the condition upon which the promise is based? Or does a sincere free offer merely require that the promise is truthful?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Well-meant offer; genuine offer; free offer; universal offer... (i.e. any offer!) now somehow implies the same thing – God desires all men without exception to exercise faith in Christ and be saved. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Let’s do some basic theology…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
What does it mean that God desires the salvation of the reprobate? Are we to believe that God desires the reprobate to do something he cannot do, namely regenerate himself and grant himself union with Christ? Or, is that to check our Calvinism at the door? Isn't it Jesus who saves? Isn't salvation of God after all? At best, if we are to remain consistent with our Calvinism, then wouldn't it follow that to argue for a well-meant offer of the gospel we'd have to posit that God desires that <i>he himself</i> would regenerate the reprobate unto union with Christ and salvation? Simply stated, since Calvinism affirms total depravity, wouldn't it stand to reason from a Calvinistic perspective that if God desires someone's salvation, God must desire that he save that person?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Accordingly, the question that should be considered in this regard is either (a) "Does God desire the reprobate to turn himself and live?" Or (b), "Does God desire that he himself turn the reprobate so that he can live?" Given that man is blind and deaf to spiritual things and cannot do anything to atone for his sins, how are we not strictly dealing with the theological plausibility of (b), that God desires to turn the reprobate contrary to what he has already decreed? If TULIP is true, then (a) is a non-starter lest God desires what is impossible to occur.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Now then, is it reasonable to think that the Holy Spirit desires to turn the reprobate Godward when the Father, in eternity, did not choose the reprobate in Christ? Moreover, if Christ did not die for the reprobate and does not pray that the efficacy of the cross would be applied to the reprobate, then in what sense does God desire the reprobate’s salvation? Does God desire that for which Christ does not pray? Does the Trinity desire that persons of the Godhead work at cross purposes? Does God desire true contradictions after all? Or is this a matter of mystery? Does God have multiple wills, let alone multiple wills that are at cross-purposes? Or is this a matter of two truths that we should accept by faith? Apparent contradiction or true contradiction?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Not only can God not save the reprobate whom he did not elect in Christ; 2000 years ago didn't God act in time sealing that inability by securing salvation only for the elect? If so, then does it not follow that for God to desire the salvation of the reprobate, we should be willing to say that God, <i>today</i>, desires that Jesus would have died for the reprobate 2000 years ago? Or is there a third way of living looking at this? Does God live with a sense of regret or un-fulfillment? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
The OPC is quick to point out that they are not advocating a position entailing God both desiring and not desiring his decree. Fine, but then what does it mean for God to desire that men act contrary to his decree? Can God desire his decree while also desiring men to act in such a way that would thwart it? Moreover, aside from the question of whether God desires that man act contrary to God's decree, what does it mean for God to desire that he himself act contrary to how he decreed he would act? (Of course, I know no Calvinist who affirms the well-meant offer of the gospel who would also say that God desires that he elected more unto salvation, or anything like that. Yet if man cannot turn himself, as Calvinism clearly affirms, then isn't the <i>implication</i> of a well-meant offer that God desires to save those he has determined not to save?)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Indeed, God delights in his elect turning to Christ, but does such delight require that he also desires all men to turn to Christ, especially given that he has not seen fit to save all men?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">
Calling such a contra-Murray view a form of hyper-Calvinism or rationalistic appears insupportable until shown otherwise.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-71789552534750218122017-10-13T20:04:00.002-04:002017-10-13T20:04:30.090-04:00New Blog <a href="https://theologicalfiresidechats.blogspot.com/?m=1" target="_blank">Theological Fireside Chats</a> was created for the young men at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Once per month it will be updated with the topic for the following month's discussion group.The kickoff for this fellowship was Friday night, September 15. 14 young bucks attended. Our next meeting is scheduled for one week from today: Friday night, October 20th. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The comments box is closed. It is used for footnotes as well as summaries of all past discussions. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Take a peak and please pray for fruitful discussion and warm fellowship.<br /><br /></div>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-66015419747509683652017-10-13T18:54:00.000-04:002017-10-13T18:54:58.775-04:00Gloating <blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<div aria-describedby="qtip-3" class="passage-text" data-hasqtip="3" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="passage-wrap" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 30px; padding: 0px 30px; word-break: break-word;">
<div class="passage-content passage-class-0" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 70px;">
<div class="version-ESV result-text-style-normal text-html " style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div class="poetry top-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div>
<h1 class="passage-display" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 20px;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="passage-display-bcv" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin-right: 10px;">Proverbs 24:17-18</span><span class="passage-display-version" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;">New King James Version (NKJV)</span></span></span></h1>
<span class="indent-1" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="text Prov-24-18" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box; position: relative;"></span></span><br />
<div class="poetry top-1" style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 2.6em; position: relative;">
<div class="line" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span class="text Prov-24-17" id="en-NKJV-17097" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: block; font-weight: bold; left: -4.4em; line-height: 22px; position: absolute; vertical-align: top;">17 </span>Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,</span><br /><span class="text Prov-24-17" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; position: relative;">And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles;</span><br /><span class="text Prov-24-18" id="en-NKJV-17098" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; position: relative;"><span class="versenum" style="display: block; font-weight: bold; left: -4.4em; line-height: 22px; position: absolute; vertical-align: top;">18 </span>Lest the <span class="small-caps" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal;">Lord</span> see <i>it,</i> and it displease Him,</span><br /><span class="text Prov-24-18" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; position: relative;">And He turn away His wrath from him.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">God is more concerned with our attitude than with his temporal dealings with the unjust. If we want God's preceptive will to be carried out on earth as it is in heaven, we should not gloat lest we provoke God to withdrawal his justice in order that his higher priority obtains, ridding us of gloating in this instance.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;"></span>
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody";"><span style="font-size: 17px;"><i>Obs</i>.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;"></span><br style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;" />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">1. Our greatest desire should be that God's glory be on display. In this case, his just anger, which implies his temporal retribution. Our participation in that endeavor is something other than gloating, whatever that might look like.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;"></span><br style="font-family: UICTFontTextStyleBody; font-size: 17px;" />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 17px;">2. We become culpable of God's justice not being meted out on earth. (That has serious implications in the political realm when parties gloat over the moral failings of their enemies.)</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-81705658861533375422017-10-13T09:36:00.002-04:002017-10-13T22:27:03.350-04:00My first (and probably last) abortion discussion on Facebook<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I had an enlightening exchange on Facebook last night with a
liberal. There’s no thread to produce because this person deleted it after
their non-arguments for abortion were exposed as arbitrary and inconsistent. I pointed out only a sampling of informal fallacies - one false disjunction, one red herring, an argument from
silence, all in a very brief discussion. Question begging abounded. There were also isolated instances of equivocation and ad hominem. (This is not intended to be a praise of my refutations. Far from it. It merely serves to highlight what is typical of liberals. It's not that liberals aren't intelligent. It's just that liberal ideologies are rationally indefensible.)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">They deleted the posts in stages. Once I noticed what was
happening I posted that I can understand why the record had been deleted given
the bad showing on behalf of an unargued pro-abortion position. They strikingly
responded with “showing?” as if no exchange had taken place. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Some of the highlights and observations. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The discussion did not begin with abortion. It began by my pointing out that when one is unwilling to acknowledge the faults
of their own party affiliation, a tension can ensue. Rather than live in tension,
those disagreements can be rationalized away by minimalizing them. Even worse,
one can eventually surrender to the void and end up embracing those positions
they otherwise wouldn’t so to relieve the uncomfortable tension that comes
with covertly disagreeing with one's own peers. (Peer pressure isn’t something just for teens. For adults, too, resistance can give way to non-resistance. Non-resistance to embracing.)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Assuming this high school friend was still Roman Catholic (Catholic upbringing with devout mother), I simply
wrote “the unborn?” (I wanted to see if they'd voice what I hoped would be a disagreement with a fundamental position of the Democratic Party.) Their coy response was that they didn’t mix religion with politics.
Well, I was happy to change gears into a religious discussion, but instead I
pointed out that abortion is a political matter as well as a religious matter; abortion
is fair game in either arena. It was said since abortion was law it wasn’t
political. Really? Then why during presidential debates do moderators ask
questions pertaining to Roe v. Wade? Why do nominees to the Court suffer under
congressional scrutiny on this matter? Obviously, this person’s stated reason
for not wanting to discuss the matter was disingenuous.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">After a bit of back-and-forth this person simply volunteered they were “comfy” with their pro-abortion position. Assuming they disagreed with other types of murder, I asked what
conditions necessary for murder are not met by abortion. Crickets.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">They immediately changed the subject, impugning hypocrisy to those
who are pro-life yet don’t support social programs for the born. This person called
these sorts "not pro-life but anti-abortion." (Implication being, if they were
pro-life they’d care about the born too.) </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Note the equivocation. Pro-life has a distinct meaning that pertains
to the question of whether abortion entails taking innocent life. It does not
pertain to one’s concern for the<em> quality
of life after birth</em>. One might dare consider granting a revision to the label “pro-life”
if persuasive statistics could be offered that would suggest pro-lifers are in favor of
assisted suicide or genocide. But even then, all that might show is that
pro-life people are inconsistent on the matter of sanctity of life. It would
not prove a pro-life position is wrong. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">When I suggested that it is happily consistent to be pro-life
while believing that giving toward social concerns should primarily be left up to individuals
and ecclesiastical organizations, I was met with the insufficiency of those means.
So, for this person, it’s fair to conclude that people who are traditionally
considered pro-life and, also, give large sums of money to the poor are not truly
pro-life but rather just anti-abortion. To be pro-life, one must not only be
concerned for the poor, they must also agree with the insufficiency of giving
toward those causes through other means other than government mediation. Only a big government liberal can be pro-life. False premises lead to silly conclusions, like that one.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span></div>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-28653084385443222732017-10-12T08:28:00.001-04:002017-10-14T04:51:18.258-04:00Trump, grammar, partisanship and hypocrisy....""I will tell you," Trump told Hannity, "you cannot disrespect our country, our flag, our anthem, you cannot do that.""<br />
<br />
I must believe the President doesn't mean "cannot," proven by the fact that people often do. So, at best, he either means "may not" or "should not." If the former, then he's at odds with Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), which concludes that flag burning is "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.*<br />
<br />
Yet if all the POTUS means is "should not," then I'm fine with him holding to that opinion, which I share strongly, as long as he realizes that people *can* commit incendiary acts, even under the protection of the law. They can and they may.<br />
<br />
What possibly amuses me most in all this chatter, maybe aside from the partisan imprecision I sometimes (sometimes often?) find with Sean Hannity, is that such extreme forms of protest are typically found only among *extreme* liberals; yet mainstream media refuses to admit that such behavior is at least a bit outside the norm, let alone completely out of step with what America stands for in principle. How did such truthfulness become only a conservative virtue? Or is it situational? If conservative athletes took a knee during the previous eight years, would it have been the protesting athletes or Obama's policies that would have received the blame by conservatives? There's good reason to think the latter. Yet should being right on an issue afford sympathy toward those who'd protest in objectionable ways? I should say not. As Michael Corleone aptly stated to the infamous senator from Nevada, "We're both of the same hypocrisy..." Until either side admits hypocrisy applies at least minimally to their own dealings, good luck.<br />
<br />
What's at play here is both parties and the networks won't give an inch on the political field. Their fear is the moral equivalency factor. I won't acknowledge my wrong doing in fear that you won't acknowledge yours and yours is much worse! The moral equivalency factor gives way to "justifying" eclipsing of truth and telling outright lies in order to win an argument. Bias reporting is now somehow justified as long as the other side is behaving more unseemly than we. (No doubt, the ungodly are more comfortable among liberals. There isn't a moral equivalency between the parties, but that's not the point. Read on...)<br />
<br />
Christians are governed by a radically different standard. A standard that often calls us to give up yardage in this world. A standard that requires us to acknowledge guilt, regardless of how little we think it compares to that of our opponents.<br />
<br />
At the very least, all conservatives are to be about Rule of Law, but too often Rule of Law doesn't enter into the discussion when it undermines the point we'd like to make. Expedience trumps integrity. (Apropos Rule of Law - disrespecting our country is legal, whether we like it or not. Yet the Right is conspicuously silent on the constitutional rights of these juvenile knee-takers. Just like the Left refuses to acknowledge the inappropriateness of such outrageous behavior.)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is much is permitted in this great country of ours under the rubric of "freedom of speech." For instance, we have this "American" idea that even blasphemy should be legal lest we become like a Muslim state. Where did that come from? False dilemma, obviously, but our schools don't teach critical thinking. Maybe that's where it comes from? No, bad reasoning is an ethical matter more than one of aptitude or education. Intelligent people can appear quite foolish when on the wrong side of an issue. Stephen Hawking. <br />
<br />
Well, I'd say states' rights got swallowed up by the Federal Government long ago. I'd also say Texas pretty much had it right on this issue of flag desecration back in '89. (Though their criminal appeals court did rule contrary to the states' original ruling and subsequent appeal, as did the SCOTUS.)<br />
<br />
Given the perpetual erosion of states' rights, maybe we can at least uphold NFL owners' rights? While I'm hoping, maybe players might one day consider taking a knee in church on Sunday - before heading off to work, of course. *sigh*<br />
<br />
Truth may and can triumph over party. And, it most certainly should.<br />
<br />
(*Antonin Scalia was in the 5-4 majority. Yet interestingly enough, what ended up being a defining moment in legalizing U.S. defiance took place during the 1984 Republican National Convention due to "disagreement" over certain Reagan policies. Be careful whom you appoint I guess. Oh well... If only man-on-the-street Jesse Watters could've interviewed the communist activist that night in '89 on the depth and breadth of his ideology.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-87696218854944112312017-08-18T20:41:00.002-04:002017-08-18T20:41:45.940-04:00Ridding Cities of Statues and MemorialsAs a general rule we shouldn't make hasty decisions over night, especially by mob consensus, that are irreparable. The recent rage to discard monuments meets all three tests of poor judgement.Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-20046198030061184352017-06-24T10:25:00.000-04:002017-06-25T21:16:49.063-04:00Strict Justice vs Pactum Justice <br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">I've been considering afresh the relationship of pactum justice with respect to Adam in the CoW and how that relates to strict justice in redemption. With Adam the reward would've been disproportionate to the work. The justice would not have been according to <i>strict</i> justice but rather according to an agreement to over pay Adam, a <i>pactum</i> justice if you will. The value of the work would not have intrinsic value. No problem there I trust. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">I do find that in redemption our reward though received by grace alone is according to strict justice. The passive obedience part that deals with our demerit is more obvious perhaps, but I think some who focus on active obedience have no place to ground strict justice with respect to our right standing before God. Let me frame the dilemma and then try to solve it, but before that I'll try to address the easier part having to do with strict justice as it relates to our demerit. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">The one time sacrifice was sufficient payment to satisfy God’s strict justice. The divine nature was required so that satisfaction could be actually intrinsic to the work. Our demerit needed the incarnate Son of God to pay for the sins of His people, for one thing to keep his human nature from sinking under God's infinite wrath. Christ being God could render God propitious and truly provide full satisfaction, a strict just payment for our sins. That's the more obvious part. No issues I trust.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">The dilemma:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">The Son assumed the terms of the covenant that offered a disproportionate reward for works done as a human being. So, regarding the active obedience part, I don’t see how pactum justice can be avoided and strict justice obtained if our positive merit is predicated solely on Christ fulfilling the original terms of the covenant and we grant that those original terms were according to pactum justice. I think that’s the necessary implication of a position that limits our positive standing to that which we receive only by the active obedience of Christ. If the Son took on the terms of the original covenant and if those terms offered disproportionate reward via pactum, then it stands to reason that our right standing is not according to strict justice. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">We should look at this from another angle:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">Although the required work was essentially* (footnote) the same for both Adams and, therefore, disproportional to the reward, in our receiving of the whole person of Christ and not merely His obedience in the economy of redemption we do find strict justice. In other words, by union with Christ we are by grace rightful co-heirs to the heavenly Jerusalem etc. Not by His work only but by our union with the architect himself. I think if we want to speak of our reward of all things in Christ being strictly just, then I think we need to abandon the notion of merely obedient-merit imputed and start thinking in terms of Christ’s perfection being imputed in union. I fear this is eclipsed in certain quarters. Where do we ground strict justice if all Christ did for us was obey as the Second Adam in our stead as opposed to taking us into union with Himself? We have by grace what the Son has by nature and we receive that in union with Christ. I think some constructs that emphasize active obedience fail to do justice to the implications of union with the perfections of Christ – the whole Christ, which includes yet exceeds his work of obedience. There's not a strict parallel to Adam, nor is there one in Romans 5.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">Footnote:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; font-size: 16px;">*Of course Christ had a harder task. Adam had to be obedient in a world with the serpent but not in world with human disciples of the serpent. </span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-19284147195468614982015-09-09T20:22:00.000-04:002018-06-27T19:09:08.416-04:00Blind Followers, Inconsistencies, Double Standards and More Confusion <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GjRRYE0obkB04QiU-Fue4ZwLOyhlhwkt0pXwXfBSFirOX0qflfjPcpBevH2OnZUlM6MgDJ2BVySmqx026hKf52IzrKt02br6BTmaWFiWyyeW7T9fSRU0IL6vrb9-6FsPJgwN/s1600/Blind+followers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GjRRYE0obkB04QiU-Fue4ZwLOyhlhwkt0pXwXfBSFirOX0qflfjPcpBevH2OnZUlM6MgDJ2BVySmqx026hKf52IzrKt02br6BTmaWFiWyyeW7T9fSRU0IL6vrb9-6FsPJgwN/s400/Blind+followers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Roman Catholics often assert that Protestantism operates
under the principle that Scripture is open to private interpretation because
Protestants deny the need for an infallible magisterium to interpret Scripture. Is historic Protestantism really a religion of "me and my Bible?" Do the tenets of
historical Protestantism really deny 2 Peter 1:20, which informs that no prophecy of
Scripture is of private interpretation?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands that
Protestants do not think that Scripture has no need for an interpreter. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">1. An honest and informed Roman Catholic understands and
will gladly concede that historic Protestantism affirms that <em>Scripture</em> is the
interpreter of Scripture. This is often referred to as the analogy of faith.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">2. Even for the Roman Catholic, Scripture interprets
Scripture with respect to the magisterium's basis for Christian doctrine. In turn the magisterium is to relay its interpretation of
Scripture to the laity. Even Marian doctrines are alleged to be derived from
Scripture. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">3. Even when a Roman Catholic lay person offers an argument
from Scripture, say to reconcile James with Paul, they too operate under the
principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. At the very least, won’t a Roman
Catholic appeal to Scripture’s interpretation of Scripture to derive and offer proof of Rome's
doctrine for an infallible magisterium? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rarely does one find a Roman Catholic assert “the
pope has said so and that settles it.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Roman Catholics not only often impugn Protestantism unjustly; they maintain a double standard in the process. I am not suggesting ill intent. I'm just pointing out what is commonplace. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<strong>More inconsistencies, double standards and confusion</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Another common objection levied against the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture is that since there are so many denominations that hold conflicting
views we simply cannot know what Scripture teaches without an infallible
magisterium. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); font-family: "calibri";">easy refutation of this
argument is that Christ held the Jews
responsible to know the Scriptures even in spite of the error of the teaching
magisterium of his day. Moreover, there is no Old Testament precedent for the need or
establishment of an infallible magisterium. In fact, those that would set themselves above Scripture were often to be disregarded utterly and completely. If the New Testament abrogates this principle then it should be demonstrable from Scripture, which of course would undermine the absolute need for an infallible magisterium. In any case, allowing for the premise that Peter was the first pope (and all that entails), how does one reach the grand conclusion of an unbroken lineage of infallible popes that would reside in Rome?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Indeed, the doctrines that exist within the entire set of
Protestant denominations cannot all be correct given that contradictory doctrines
exist within Protestantism. Yet that’s a far cry from substantiating the need for
an infallible magisterium, especially in light of Old Testament precedence as noted above. Nor do conflicting Protestant denominations imply that Rome has true doctrine. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><strong>A Fresh Polemic?</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Although in one sense
Rome has a greater chance of being correct than any given <em>set </em>of conflicting
doctrines, Roman Catholics are not able to argue successfully that Roman
Catholicism has any more chance of being correct than any<em> particular</em>
denomination that has not contradicted itself. Rome likes to compare herself with the whole of Protestantism rather than with a single Confession that is internally consistent with itself, like the Westminster standards. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Coming at this from a non-Trinitarian unbelieving perspective, we can
just as easily lump Roman Catholicism in with all other Trinitarian
denominations making the set even more inclusive. Given such a cataloging of
Trinitarian denominations and by employing the Roman Catholic's way of reasoning, one may just as easily ask in the spirit of Roman Catholic skepticism how truth can be known given all the opposing doctrines
within Trinitarian theology (Roman Catholicism included). In other words, Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity (and apply her reasoning) then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don't. But h</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">ow does the <em>claim</em> of infallibility establish<em> actual</em> infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><strong>In Conclusion</strong></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If Scripture does not inform the Roman Catholic magisterium
about what Scripture has to say, then who or what does? To deny that the popes
affirm the analogy of Scripture for the magisterium is to reduce Scripture to
brute particulars that have no discernible coherence, which would mean that the magisterium with respect to interpreting Scripture must be making things up as they go along and that any appeal to Scripture is disingenuous at best. Therefore, it’s not that Rome so much
denies the intelligibility of Scripture. Rather, Rome would have us believe
that Scripture is only intelligible <em>to the magisterium</em>. Consequently, individual Roman
Catholics should not appeal to Scripture to justify the Roman Catholic
communion and the church's need for the popes. Rather, Roman Catholics should be consistent by simply pointing to the
authority of the popes to defend the claims of the popes. That's viscously circular. And, it's an admission of being a blind follower of something other than Scripture, which is an embarrassment for Roman Catholics yet a necessary implication of their view of the church and Scripture. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. </span></div>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-7725957172019483602015-08-01T00:00:00.000-04:002015-07-31T22:49:21.342-04:00Deduction, Induction, TAG and Certainty<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAUfDMjiw9oJ6vCIBqm7RPUp53GB3HEUNusfvUh_dMk63TIdG9h03dThfjytjjX-_qXMw0B98rXTVKrT4-i5a1TIJAJNFwhnmcjJ-Z9srBt2rztlOzaf0WwHtGqmQjKa5hdVVv/s1600/bible_sprit.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5458547962236163858" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAUfDMjiw9oJ6vCIBqm7RPUp53GB3HEUNusfvUh_dMk63TIdG9h03dThfjytjjX-_qXMw0B98rXTVKrT4-i5a1TIJAJNFwhnmcjJ-Z9srBt2rztlOzaf0WwHtGqmQjKa5hdVVv/s200/bible_sprit.jpg" style="cursor: hand; float: right; height: 150px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
Deduction as a construct does not bring forth certainty any more than induction. Inductivists try to move from what might be thought to be known, or considered most probably the case, to what is not yet believed with the same veracity. Induction is “open ended” we might say, because induction as a process is never fully exhaustive. Rather, it comes to an end once one is satisfied with his personal pursuit. To put it another way, once cognitive satisfaction has been achieved the inductive pursuit is over, but it always stops short of philosophical certainty due to the nature of induction.<br />
<br />
The deductive process on the other hand often leaves people with the impression that as a construct deduction brings forth knowledge. This would only be true, that deduction yields knowledge, if epistemic certainly was only a matter of construct, which it is not. Indeed, if the deductive process is valid, then the conclusion certainly follows from the premises. Whether the premises are reliable, however, is another matter altogether that requires further investigation having nothing to do with the deduction at hand. Deduction <i>itself</i> does not bring forth knowledge because for one to know the conclusion for what it truly is, he would first have to justify the premises that lead to the conclusion, which the immediate deduction in view does not achieve. That does not mean that deduction cannot aid in obtaining knowledge. The justification of many propositions that can be known comes by way of deduction.<br />
<br />
Akin to those common errors, people often require a "philosophically certain" proof. I understand what epistemic certainty is, and appreciate what people mean by psychological certainty. I also understand what constitutes a valid and invalid argument, and what distinguishes those types of arguments from sound and unsound arguments. But what is a “philosophically certain argument”? People are certain, not arguments. Whether sound arguments will persuade someone to any degree of certainty is the job of the Holy Spirit, not the apologist.<br />
<br />
Deduction is not a sufficient condition for knowledge. First, there is the "garbage in garbage out" consideration. The conclusion of a valid deduction need not be true; it only needs to follow from the premises. Accordingly, further investigation into the truth of the premises must occur for there to be the possibility of knowledge; yet that lies beyond the scope of the deduction at hand. Added to that, the Holy Spirit must grant justification for beliefs, which truth and structure alone cannot produce. Finally, the Holy Spirit must grant the knowledge that a valid deduction is reliable given true premises, which deduction cannot do. In short, God produces knowledge. He might even use weak inductive inferences in the process, but when knowledge is attained, the justification for what is believed to be true is through the illuminating power of God. Knowledge does not rely upon the induction or deduction that might have been employed in the process, but rather when one knows he has been taught by God.<br />
<br />
A word or two might be in order regarding transcendental arguments (TAG in particular). TAG has a distinctly inductive aspect to it because with TAG the Christian investigates what must be true in order for some experience to be intelligible. Such explorations are inductive in emphasis. Notwithstanding, the manner of the investigation is not "open ended" because the premises within TAG do not merely support the conclusion, they ensure it. That point is missed by those who think TAG is inductive: <a href="http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/impropriety-of-trying-to-prove.html">http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/impropriety-of-trying-to-prove.html</a> The aspect of "closure", where the premises ensure the conclusion, is unique to deduction, not induction. Moreover, the conclusion from TAG is not a mere hypothesis, but rather a sound conclusion derived through a deductive process that justifies its premises authoritatively. Finally, TAG falls short of being fully inductive because there is no asserting the consequent with TAG, as there is with all scientific inference, the playground for induction. Nonetheless, TAG has an inductive aspect to it because of the exploratory nature of TAG.<br />
<br />
Of course TAG is deductive, but it is unlike all other deductive arguments. What sets TAG apart from garden variety deduction is that with the latter we begin with some truths (or inferences) and reason to others - but that to which we reason is not presupposed as a necessary precondition for the intelligible experience of the original fact of experience. More on that here: <a href="http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-us-only-thing-of-great-significance.html">http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-us-only-thing-of-great-significance.html</a><br />
<br />
As Bahnsen often quipped, "The proof of God's existence is that without Him one could not prove anything." That is nothing other than "Proof presupposes God" (or "If Proof, then God" since God is a necessary precondition for proof). Bahnsen's deduction and a defense of it can be found here:<a href="http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2010/04/bahnsen-misunderstood-servant-of-lord.html">http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2010/04/bahnsen-misunderstood-servant-of-lord.html</a><br />
<br />
(Given the inductive and deductive aspects of TAG, we shouldn't find it at all strange that Van Til said that in what he called the "Christian method" of apologetics, we find "elements of both induction and of deduction in it, if these terms are understood in a Christian sense.”)<br />
<br />
Pastorally it should be said that we do not come to know the truth through cleverly devised proofs. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know God by nature (through revelation and conscience), and we must justify <i>that</i> knowledge by Scripture, the Christian's ultimate authority. I know my Savior lives because God has revealed that to me in His word. That is not my defense of the Christian worldview, but it's certainly a defensible fact. In other words, we don't "reason" ourselves to God, but our belief in God is indeed reasonable. In fact, it is not just reasonable; it is justifiable and true, which is to say it constitutes as <i>knowledge</i>.<br />
<br />
Apologetically speaking, belief in God is the only reasonable position to hold if for no other reason, it is unreasonable to argue against God's existence because to do so one must first presuppose those tools of argumentation that only are defensible given God's existence. The precondition of intelligible experience is God. The justification for the precondition of intelligible experience is God’s <i>word</i>. An elaboration of that distinction is for another day.<br />
<br />
Ron<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com99tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-48042570328881525952015-07-31T02:13:00.000-04:002015-09-07T12:39:38.673-04:00Bahnsen, One Misunderstood Servant of The Lord<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZsYDamBR-cQlDQCSJzLbDSomtYdqKQFg1mBcVgWmSh-C6k05HcUPXPQ8RiTU1Eq0kWgqtF9iL9PEj-wdgJAFBGcPA7-F02ncVNT31cLw7y3MvNTLQnkWr9KLw7gHb7q4quu7X/s1600/0.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5458027231597014450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZsYDamBR-cQlDQCSJzLbDSomtYdqKQFg1mBcVgWmSh-C6k05HcUPXPQ8RiTU1Eq0kWgqtF9iL9PEj-wdgJAFBGcPA7-F02ncVNT31cLw7y3MvNTLQnkWr9KLw7gHb7q4quu7X/s320/0.jpg" style="float: right; height: 240px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
<blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<br />
“A transcendental argument begins with any item of experience or belief whatsoever and proceeds, by critical analysis, to ask what conditions (or what other beliefs) would need to be true in order for that original experience or belief to make sense, be meaningful, or be intelligible to us. Now then, if we should go back and negate the statement of that original belief (or consider a contrary experience), the transcendental analysis (if originally cogent or sound) would nevertheless reach the very same conclusion.” (<b>Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 501-502.</b>)</blockquote>
<br />
<div align="left">
That quote by Bahnsen has been misunderstood, abused and hijacked by those who would claim Bahnsen and those who would have nothing to do with his apologetic. </div>
<div align="left">
Let’s take this quote of Bahnsen’s step by step.<br />
<br />
<b>1.</b> <i>“A transcendental argument begins with any item of experience or belief whatsoever”</i><br />
Let’s assume as our belief that there is causality. That it is intelligible.<br />
<br />
<b>2.</b> <i>“…and proceeds, by critical analysis, to ask what conditions (or what other beliefs) would need to be true in order for that original experience or belief to make sense, be meaningful, or be intelligible to us.”</i><br />
<br />
Let’s assume that what must be the necessary precondition needed to make sense of causality is God’s existence. We are now left with: If Causality, then God.<br />
<br />
<b>3.</b> <i>“Now then, if we should go back and negate the statement of that original belief (or consider a contrary experience), the transcendental analysis (if originally cogent or sound) would nevertheless reach the very same conclusion.”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
Now let’s do as Bahnsen suggests and <i>“negate the statement of that original belief”.</i> In other words, let’s negate causality (the statement of that original belief) and see if we reach the same conclusion.<br />
<br />
At this juncture we have two choices. The first one is a bit strange but let’s run with it and see where it takes us. <b>(A)</b> We can first interpret the instruction in such a manner as to introduce a minor premise thereby denying the antecedent of the major premise while affirming the consequent in the conclusion. Does Bahnsen mean this?<br />
<br />
<i>If Causality, then God (because causality presupposes God)<br />~Causality<br />Therefore, God.</i> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
<i></i>What is the problem with such a rendering of Bahnens’s words? To argue as above is to draw a conclusion that does not follow from the premises in any logical sense! The argument is invalid (and no appeal to transcendental arguments can save a formal fallacy.) Whenever possible, we should not interpret someone’s words in such a way that makes him out to look foolish or inept.<br />
<br />
Therefore, let’s consider another way to heed the instruction to “<i>negate the statement of that original belief”.</i> <b>(B) </b>Let's interpret the instruction in such a manner as to deny the statement of that original belief not in the minor premise but in the major premise. Again, we are told to go back and negate the statement of that original belief in order to see if both the first belief <i>and</i> its denial lead to the same transcendental conclusion. When we do that, we are left with <i>two</i> different major premises that both are to lead to the same conclusion. We're left with the original premise (or belief): <i>If Causality, then God</i>; but also we’re left to consider the negation of that original belief with another premise: <i>If ~Causality, then God</i>. That rendering with respect to <i>form </i>is consistent with Don Collett's rendering of CVT and TAG in the WTJ: </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
<i>C presupposes G if and only if both 1 & 2:</i></div>
<div align="left">
<i>1. If C then God exists</i></div>
<div align="left">
<i>2. If ~C then God exists</i> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
Whether we predicate: <i>If Causality, then God</i> (or) If ~<i>Causality, then God</i> the same conclusion, <i>God</i>, obtains. In other words, God is the necessary precondition for <i>all </i>predication. Or to put it in Bahnsen’s terms, whether we affirm or deny the original belief, the transcendental analysis nevertheless reaches the very same conclusion given <i>both </i>premises. {<b>NOTE WELL:</b> We are not negating the metaphysicality of causality but rather the truth value of the predication of the metaphysicality of causality! In other words: ~causality (which is chaos) does not presuppose God(!), but indeed the belief or assertion of ~causality does! In other words, the <i>concept </i>of non-causality presupposes God.} </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
The second way ought to be considered the most reasonable way in which we ought to interpret the instruction. There are two reasons for this. First, the second way is not an invalid argument as is the first way; and if we are able to interpret someone’s words in a way that is cogent rather than foolish, then we should. Secondly, it has not been shown that the author of the quote <i>ever</i> demonstrated in his many lectures and debates a single instance of fallaciously denying the antecedent while affirming the consequent. Yet on many occasions he labored the point that to argue against the Christian worldview, the Christian worldview must first be presupposed. And that is to argue both:<br />
<br />
If sound argumentation, then God (since sound argumentation presupposes God)<br />
<i>and</i><br />
If unsound argumentation, then God (since unsound argumentation... God) </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
When we work these arguments through, we find:<br />
<br />
If sound arguments, then God...<br />
~God<br />
Therefore, no sound argument... <i>but there are sound arguments, therefore, God</i><br />
<br />
and<br />
<br />
If unsound arguments, then God...<br />
~God<br />
Therefore, no unsound arguments... <i>but there are unsound arguments, therefore, God</i></div>
<div align="left">
Accordingly, whether we affirm sound arguments "or go back and negate" sound arguments, <i>the same transcendental conclusion obtains - God! </i></div>
<br />
<div align="left">
<b>Therefore:</b><br />
<br />
If sound <i>or </i>unsound arguments, then God<br />
~God<br />
Therefore, no sound or unsound arguments (but there as such arguments, therefore<i>, God)</i><br />
<br />
The <i>deductive</i> argument, which is <i>transcendental</i> in nature, establishes God as the necessary precondition for both sound and unsound arguments. TAG, however, must be distinguised from garden variety deduction, as I show here: <a href="http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2010/04/deduction-certainty.html">http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2010/04/deduction-certainty.html</a> </div>
<div align="left">
<br />
<i><b>Finally, TAG and Bahnsen has nothing to do with anything so silly as:</b></i><br />
<i><b></b><br />If sound argument, then God<br />Not sound argument<br />Therefore, God</i> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div align="left">
<i></i>In the final analyses, Bahnsen’s statement need not lead us into fallacious reasoning, as some who would like to claim Bahnsen do. Added to that, it is only when we interpret Bahnen’s statement in such a manner as not to be fallacious are we able to reconcile his summary statement with his many demonstrations of what the statement contemplates. Why not, therefore, let Bahnsen not be fallacious, especially if it allows him to be consistent with himself? </div>
<div align="left">
<i><br /></i>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><i><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></i></a><i><br /></i></div>
</blockquote>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-7118295298255999242015-07-22T21:46:00.000-04:002015-07-22T21:59:15.260-04:00Question Begging From Another Radical 2 Kingdom ProponentI'm publishing this piece again because I've been reminded of late that the Escondido crowd remains loud and a problematic force against the reasonableness of Reformed epistemology and morals.<br />
<br />
More <a href="http://oldlife.org/2011/10/epistemological-self-consciousness-intellectual-theonomy/">question begging</a> from the Radical 2 Kingdom camp, this time by Darryl Hart.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs6_0PnqlhYQdQZkjJntY3wnVZKXr1YEV_XysDQEnxdXn61fFQzwFq-1Cek-DtTWsx4ocwQ84xLFz-axa05NILwwOrdt2bQYQPgtY3-_jFrokisM2STKHSwr41jwEE-ZU2udFJ/s1600/leap+of+reason.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs6_0PnqlhYQdQZkjJntY3wnVZKXr1YEV_XysDQEnxdXn61fFQzwFq-1Cek-DtTWsx4ocwQ84xLFz-axa05NILwwOrdt2bQYQPgtY3-_jFrokisM2STKHSwr41jwEE-ZU2udFJ/s320/leap+of+reason.jpg" width="305" /></a></div>
Indeed, one can have a justification for x while not being able to offer it. So, to use Darryl Hart’s example, one can have a justification for discerning curves from fastballs while being incapable of articulating that justification. In such cases what one lacks is the ability to articulate a justification - he does not lack <i>having</i> a justification. Notwithstanding, we ought not to think that because one can know something apart from being able to articulate a justification that, therefore, giving a justification is superfluous, or that those true beliefs that are not self-consciously justified must be as credible as those that are self-consciously justified. Let's not pretend that the ability to justify a belief is morally irrelevant, or that a robust justification lends no force to a rational defense of a belief.<br />
<br />
The article leaps from (a) the premise that people do know things they aren't prepared to justify to (b) the grand implication that offering a robust justification for beliefs is of little use if only we can muddle through without having to give one. In the final analysis, the article begs the question of whether there actually exists an epistemic justification for laws in general and civil laws in particular and whether that justification is available to us, let alone useful for society. So, once again, R2K confounds the ability of societies to function apart from Scripture with the question of whether there is a moral imperative to apply Scripture to society whenever possible. In essence, R2Kers reason in the same fashion we see in the comic above. They have a preconceived conclusion that they'll arrive at any which way they can. <br />
<br />
I might as well mention here that the Bahnsen reference employed by Darryl Hart is terribly misapplied. Bahnsen (with Van Til) thought that men know things that they are unwilling, even incapable of justifying. Accordingly, the reference with respect to one being reduced to absurdity does not speak to the question of whether men know how to count, or whether men know there should be degrees of punishment for transgressions. Nor does it pertain to the reasonableness of men holding to such beliefs they aren't prepared to justify. Certainly Bahnsen did not count it foolish for secular governments to dish out harsher punishments for rape than driving five miles over the speed limit. Not at all, for there is nothing contained in Bahnsen's theonomic thesis that would have prevented him from appreciating that societies can and do function apart from any sort of self-conscious epistemic warrant. What Bahnsen deemed foolish was not the implementation of law by unbelievers but rather the mindset that would abandon any hope in the only ultimate justification of such abstract entities. His issue was with the arbitrary and inconsistent manner in which unbelievers oppose themselves in their reasoning. The Bahnsen reference pertains to men not giving an account (an articulated justification) for their counting - it does not imply that men, unaided by Scripture, do not know how to count or aren't justified in their counting. <br />
<br />
R2K might be the most unifying movement today within the Reformed tradition.<a href="http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-non-theonomic-reviews-of-david.html"> Non-theonomists</a> and theonomists alike oppose R2K. It reminds me of Dwarves and Elves uniting against Orcs. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-24799276442810099392015-07-06T11:05:00.003-04:002015-07-06T18:25:57.517-04:00Demeanor toward homosexualityFrom the <a href="http://theaquilareport.com/5-biblical-responses-to-homosexuality/"> Aquila Report </a> :<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOEUDSGE2fr62EdfctFo7Aw6Y61w4GtwRWfL_a7URHqBLTmS5Zx6tWol7W4MLJmRKKlNRYr5LNSkFzd5w3998uP49C3TVxTtLjfl6tumuwon_cecIFYz9Zt2JJws7uNfFbu4Nb/s1600/alg-rev-mary-glasspool-jpg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOEUDSGE2fr62EdfctFo7Aw6Y61w4GtwRWfL_a7URHqBLTmS5Zx6tWol7W4MLJmRKKlNRYr5LNSkFzd5w3998uP49C3TVxTtLjfl6tumuwon_cecIFYz9Zt2JJws7uNfFbu4Nb/s200/alg-rev-mary-glasspool-jpg.jpg" width="200" /></a>We must also respond with love. Even as we articulate the truth of marriage we must take great care to do so with the right demeanor. A counter-cultural message will not be compelling without a counter-cultural tone. We must not be condescending or resentful in the face of the cultural shift going on around us. We must extend the very same patient grace that God has extended to us. When Jesus saw the lostness of the crowds around Him, it moved Him to compassion, not hectoring. </blockquote>
<br />
The above quote has to do with our response toward homosexuals and homosexuality. It’s a common sentiment.
I’m OK with the sentiment if what is meant by “demeanor” is in some ways really no different than the God-honoring demeanor we ought to show toward ax murders, wife beaters and child molesters.<br />
<br />
We are always to speak the truth in love, as self-conscious redeemed sinners. Maybe some might be surprised to see the correct, humble and loving “demeanor” toward an ax murder – or just maybe, some might be surprised to know what a loving demeanor toward a homosexual would truly look like. In all such cases, there should be no coddling. A sense of urgency must pervade all counsel, which should look more like a clarion call to repentance than a carefully constructed argument for why homosexuality is sin. Or, have we bought into the culture’s invention that this matter of homosexuality is somehow trickier than old fashioned, premeditated acts of sin and rebellion? How did these waters become so difficult to navigate in such a relatively short span of time? I don't know. But, I do think the church adopted a demeanor that was not in accord with the truth she should have been striving to convey all along.<br />
<br />
The article goes on to address the supposed thorny question of whether one should attend an illegitimate marriage between two of the same sex. Thankfully, the article came down on the right side of the issue, but what I think the article does not convey is that the answer to that question is really no different than the question of whether one should attend or lend legitimacy to any of the aforementioned acts.<br />
<br />
I’m finding a growing fear within the church that we might lose this particular battle if we don’t cultivate a certain kind of demeanor. (Maybe it's a good time to remind ourselves that the battle belongs to the Lord; our task is to obey in word and deed). That said, I can go along with that notion as long as we have the correct demeanor in mind. That is to say, as long as the demeanor is the same loving demeanor that should emanate whenever dealing with the most heinous sins imaginable – yet with one crucial caveat…<i>this sin is in many ways worse! </i>Most blatant acts of sin are not misconstrued as an expression of "love"! This one is different. This one is more insidious. This one is celebrated by liberal protestants and is practiced by Roman Catholic clergymen. (Though at least Roman Catholicism is still "on record" as being ashamed of the sin, unlike the Episcopal Church and PCUSA who have jettisoned such truth altogether.) Let's worry about demeanor once we've internalized what we're even talking about! Read on...<br />
<br />
Those in a position to minister in these areas are to speak the <i>entire t</i>ruth in love, which means both (i) cultivating a demeanor suitable to the transgression and (ii) distinguishing the transgression from other transgressions. In both cases, if we don’t sound like Jesus, they won’t hear Jesus. We must strive to influence in word and deed; so, not just with pure demeanor but also with true doctrine. Key point: the latter will inform the former, indeed it must - for our demeanor must be consistent with the truth we hope to convey (lest we eclipse the truth). What we believe to be true about a particular sin will dictate how we behave toward those who practice such things! We must recognize not just the fall of humanity in Adam, but also its ensuing downward trajectory, manifested in the outright rejection of the gospel leading unto full blown apostasy that would eventually culminate in repudiation of the created order. In a word, what we are witnessing is deep seated enmity without guise. What we're also witnessing is a church that is not being normed by God's word.<br />
<br />
Regarding the truth, we are under obligation to declare two things on the authority of God. First off, this particular sin is on a different order all together, for it is <i>unnatural</i>. It is unique in its degeneration. Secondly, this sin very often constitutes a turning over - an <i>abandonment by God</i> - (something the average evangelical has not considered I'm afraid). Exchanging the natural use of the created order in this way is not just sin but <i>judicial consequence </i>for persistent rebellion against the light of nature. Get this Christian. Homosexuality is not to be thought of in terms of that which might beget punishment. Rather, it is to been seen <i>as </i>divinely appointed punishment. Homosexuality is a nation’s judicial recompense for racing toward idolatry and glorying in overt, fist-shaking rebellion against God our Maker. Nothing less than willful heathenism can provoke God to render such justice against a nation. This must be said <i>without apology</i>, but first it must be understood and believed. Once we get that right, our demeanor will at least have a chance of looking "godly". <br />
<br />
So, yes indeed, we must not just speak the truth… “We must also respond with love. Even as we articulate the truth of marriage we must take great care to do so with the right demeanor.” Let’s just make sure we bring our demeanor in line with the full-orbed implications of the transgression we hope to address.
There are those who are angry and militant in their practice; whereas there are others who are dabbling in confusion and falling deeper into the clutches of sin. One size doesn’t necessarily fit all with respect to demeanor, but it does with the truth that must be declared on the authority of God. As Calvin reminds, “He, who is ashamed, is yet healable…” Yet our leaders along with many who have been photographed in "victory" take pleasure in this evil– even calling it a gift from God. Let that too inform our demeanor. But before chiding our elected officials and judges, maybe we might begin by rebuking, with an informed demeanor, the liberal "clergy" that promote such evils. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></span></a>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-76651684652670631272015-06-27T13:14:00.000-04:002016-02-14T20:55:55.230-05:00God is not mocked...the fool is confounded once again Easily, less than five percent of the U.S. population is homosexual. So, why is it that being pro-homosexual is advantageous for one seeking public office? I think the answer is simple. The average person is autonomous in his reasoning and is, therefore, easy prey.<br />
<br />
Although all men know by nature that homosexuality is sin, it’s only through Scripture that one can prove in any robust, epistemic sense that it is sin. (All over this site I draw the distinction between knowledge and the justification of knowledge.) Since most Americans are autonomous in their reasoning, then it stands to reason that most Americans are incapable of justifying any moral claim they even know to be true. Recognizing that something is abnormal, even unnatural, doesn’t make it immoral, let alone something that should be deemed illegal. And if not illegal, then worthy of government protection.<br />
<br />
Although many straight people still find homosexuality unnatural - unnatural does not imply moral deviance. God’s general revelation of sin has grown dim in the minds of most Americans, but even when it was shining more brightly, it was never to be interpreted apart from special revelation, God’s word. With the rejection of the Bible, Americans are left to grope in the dark. Christians can rejoice in at least this: God is not mocked!<br />
<br />
Apart from invoking Scripture one is left with two unhappy alternatives. Rather than appear arbitrary and hateful toward someone who is merely different than us, the "open minded" (to everything but God's word!) are left to defend deviant behavior even when “it’s not my cup a tea.” The more noble must even fight for it! Apart from a commitment to Scripture, the only way to avoid arbitrariness and bigoted rejection of such a perversion (that comes to us under the guise of "love" and "equality" no less) is to accept it - even defend it. Apart from Scripture one is left either approving, at least tacitly, ungodly behavior or else undergoing the self-inflicted guilt of arbitrary hatred toward a practice one simply doesn't prefer. Righteous disapproval is not available to us apart from values informed by Scripture. The fool (one who rejects God's word) is confounded once again.<br />
<br />
It takes God’s word to justify the premise that homosexuality is sin, absolutely. Yet even among those who see this plainly in God’s word, it’s only a minority who see that the practice of homosexuality should be deemed illegal.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></span></a>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-58823637501167979792015-06-26T16:01:00.000-04:002015-07-06T13:43:51.269-04:00Triablogue on SCOTUS's recent ruling <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/06/watching-lions-at-kill.html?m=1">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/06/watching-lions-at-kill.html?m=1</a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-4800946834333668522015-06-14T00:21:00.000-04:002015-05-17T21:13:17.106-04:00Sanctification and Moralism<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho8ogJfaQq3vN_pABHzWN_uw5p0m9f5vmrXx1p9SR1BQtohk8soBqPx8TfyYlDtmJ2hPbINiGGkQ8hIyC9lKPQkU1EAU2buZtPnJ9fa_zFqxVs1rQnleIKEkkvmtESbxL76C2R/s1600/john_murray_picture1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho8ogJfaQq3vN_pABHzWN_uw5p0m9f5vmrXx1p9SR1BQtohk8soBqPx8TfyYlDtmJ2hPbINiGGkQ8hIyC9lKPQkU1EAU2buZtPnJ9fa_zFqxVs1rQnleIKEkkvmtESbxL76C2R/s320/john_murray_picture1.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Sanctification
is too often only thought of in terms of that process whereby a converted sinner is gradually transformed in mind and affections according to the preceptive-will of God and
consequently into the image of Christ. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At best, too often sanctification is merely seen
in terms of becoming truly Christ-like, and if truly Christ-like then truly
human (since Christ is the perfect image of God in man). Yet when speaking of
sanctification the New Testament speaks more in terms of a one-time break with
sin, a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">definitive</i> act of
sanctification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this light,
sanctification is more akin to effectual calling, justification and adoption -
a one-time act never to be repeated or undone. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, that God will complete a progressive sanctifying
work in all his children should be a source of confidence and joy for every believer. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Notwithstanding, we should expect that the
degree of understanding of God’s finished work of definitive sanctification in
the life of the believer will, to some extent, influence the attainment of progressive
sanctification in the experience of the believer. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, to think Christ’s thoughts after
him, as we walk in him, includes thinking true thoughts about God’s work of
definitive sanctification. Moreover, to think wrongly about sanctification is
to “obey” in our sanctification not according to the truth of our sanctification. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">At the very
heart of sanctification is life from the dead. The believer is delivered once
and for all from the bondage of sin and raised to walk in newness of life. In
that great familiar hymn, Charles Wesley put it this way: </span><span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Long
my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound in sin and nature's night; thine eye
diffused a quickening ray; I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; my chains
fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee...”<b> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Is it not
true that he that is dead is freed from sin? Hasn’t the believer truly died
with Christ? Accordingly, as dead and raised in union with Christ, isn’t the
believer freed from sin and, therefore, no longer under its bondage and
dominion? Isn’t it true that the believer has been crucified with Christ and it
is no longer the believer who lives but Christ who lives in and through the
believer? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Isn’t the very imperative not
to let sin reign in our mortal bodies premised upon the incongruity of what the
contrary contemplates, sin having reign over the believer’s body? Doesn’t the
incongruity presuppose the reality of resurrected life in union with Christ? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, sin indwells every believer, but the
truth of the matter is the believer is no longer in the flesh <i>but in the
Spirit</i>; so it is as the Westminster Divines rightly wrote, “…the saints grow in
grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord.” Indwelling sin is not
enslaving sin, for the Christian<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> is </i>a
slave to Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Falling into
the error of perfectionism is hardly a danger in Reformed circles, but what is
at risk is building a doctrine of sanctification upon personal experience, observation
and Christian testimony. I fear that sentimental
fundamentalism along with moralism has made its way into Reformed churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Being saved” is understood primarily in
terms of justification, which is all that God does; and we must do the rest.
After being justified, the believer must respond by living a moral life in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">gratitude</i> for God’s saving work in
Christ, or so it is often told without remainder. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To whip up devotion to God and his ways by
exciting gratitude for Christ’s atoning work on the cross, (even pity for the
Savior in Romanist and many Fundamentalist circles), is often what is preached as the impetus for living the Christian life.
Obligation to obey because of the Savior's sin bearing, life giving death upon the cross is all we have to move us. The very fact that every believer is a new creation in Christ
and as such<i> actually desires to run in the ways of the Lord</i> is not a reality
that is preached - if it is not also denied, at least implicitly. Devotion ends up becoming a
work of the flesh, a dead moralism as it were. It even can become that
which ultimately must cause one to differ from another, as there is little expectation
that the Spirit <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">will </i>cause every
believer both to will and to do of God’s good pleasure as he so determines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> God actually inclining the wills of his subjects so that they desire to p</span>articipate in his foreordination of good works in
the orbit of family, work, community and church is no longer in view. Sadly, it's
exchanged for man, in the flesh, determining the good works that God has
somehow mysteriously foreordained man to walk in <i>through obligation, not sovereign transformation</i>. In the end, it is we who determine our sanctification,
and lip-service is given to biblical Calvinism as it relates to the divine initiative and subduing grace. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">When sheep are taught over and over again that they<i> are</i> slaves to sin and under its bondage, as little children they lose the joy of salvation and begin to believe there is no hope other than through the arm of the flesh. Moralism and legalism begin to set in, and eventually the weary are tempted to give up.
This is not good news. The self-effort and "good works" that once plagued the new convert, having been a source of robbing him
of the joy, wonder, awe and sheer profundity of his justification through faith alone, becomes an hindrance to enjoying and participating in God’s saving work in sanctification.
Justification and sanctification have been rent asunder as God is portrayed as being operative in the former, leaving the latter a matter of self-effort <i>alone -</i> a kind of saved by grace, kept by works - a despairing thought indeed. Have I gone too far? Well, note well that if God does not take the divine
initiative of causing the believer both to will and do of his good pleasure and, also, fulfill his promise of
completing a work of <i>grace</i> until the day of Jesus Christ, then the Christian is as alone
in his sanctification as he possibly can be. What must be grasped is that anything short of pure Reformed theology
in this regard is not the teaching of biblical sanctification. The message of grace should be so abundant - appear so one sided, that onlookers will mistake the truth for license to sin! <i>"Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"</i></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, where do we
go from here? Well, I think these are some starting points that the Christian
church might begin to regain in emphasis as opposed to what is widely found in
the evangelical church today…</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1. More
preaching and teaching on union with Christ in election, incarnation, atonement,
resurrection, and ascension must take center stage.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2. A
realized eschatology – (e.g. God made us alive with Christ; God raised us with
Christ; God seated us in heavenly places with Christ -> i.e. “we have been
saved”)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">3. The
divine intention to sum up all things (in heaven and earth) in Christ (i.e. the
eschatological and cosmic dimensions of God’s plan for the ages…)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">4.
Salvation, not merely justification and conversion</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">5. Ministers must preach to the church, those in union with in Christ, not the supposed lost that might be members or attending.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">6.
Inauguration & consummation (i.e. already not yet paradigm)</span></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">7. The
relationship of the imperative to the indicative must be regained, with the
indicative taking priority and laying the foundation for the imperative. (e.g.
Behave this way, because you <i>are </i>this person in Christ; the unity of the Spirit
exists, therefore, maintain it… as opposed to: create peace because Jesus died
for you…)<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-77030050218518219132015-04-04T13:46:00.001-04:002015-06-13T11:29:25.071-04:00Matthew Slick / CARM on Theonomy <blockquote class="tr_bq">
“This movement rose out of Calvinism. It is an extremist Christian movement, not held by very many people. The concern is that when a religiously dominated society has control of family, moral, and governmental regulations, who is to govern the governors?”<i> <a href="https://carm.org/christian-reconstructionism-theonomy">Matt Slick</a> </i></blockquote>
<br />
<a href="https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607987569413918183&pid=15.1&P=0" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" id="yui_3_5_1_4_1428169342237_767" src="https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607987569413918183&pid=15.1&P=0" style="height: 195px; width: 151px;" width="247" /></a>Aside from mistakenly equating Reconstructionism with Theonomy, with respect to Matt Slick's superficial question certainly another question comes to mind - or at least to the mind of any minimally discerning<i> </i>reader: "Who is to govern the governors” in an increasingly secular society? More specifically, who currently governs our irreligious God-hating, would-be autonomous governors? If Slick says, "God", then why not the same answer for a "religiously denominated society"? If Slick says "no one", then according to his view of things, he places secular government in the same boat as "religiously dominated" government. Either way, Slick's question doesn't bolster Slick's position. It only shows that Slick is not terribly concerned with consistency, which gives me hope that he (and others like him) will see how bad their arguments are - <i>even if they don't end up agreeing with the theonomic thesis.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<i> </i>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-25051984828826057142015-03-29T17:21:00.000-04:002015-03-29T17:27:46.190-04:00A Christian Reason for Celebrating Easter<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipU1LLcns_ZYol-awNh_kB9_2488-8hvG1TGuhztMnZPLg1-bDAzp4FEqonejfrVt1WRTyFMnJPBNn5L8im2PO5X3eVdCOROTf31nnFFyCdj9uDBt0K-L8p0R3b2Od9-6k6JC4/s1600/Empty_Tomb-750089.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipU1LLcns_ZYol-awNh_kB9_2488-8hvG1TGuhztMnZPLg1-bDAzp4FEqonejfrVt1WRTyFMnJPBNn5L8im2PO5X3eVdCOROTf31nnFFyCdj9uDBt0K-L8p0R3b2Od9-6k6JC4/s320/Empty_Tomb-750089.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5453864489509685218" style="cursor: hand; float: right; height: 229px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
Induction, the basis for all scientific inference, presupposes the uniformity of nature, which is to say it operates under the principle of the future being like the past; yet the resurrection of Christ from the dead is contra-uniform since it does not comport with past experience. Our experience is that people die and are not raised three days later. Also, we’ve all met plenty of liars and those deceived into embracing false beliefs (even dying for false beliefs!) but we have never observed a single resurrection of the body. Accordingly, the lives and martyrdom of zealots need not lead us to conclude that Christ has risen. Consequently, drawing an inference based upon past experience as it pertains to the question of the empty tomb is not very useful. Evidentialism indeed fails as an apologetic. After all, given only the uniformity of nature coupled with personal experience, a more <i>probable</i> explanation for the empty tomb is a hoax put on by liars rather than a miracle put on by God. The same reasoning applies all the more to the virgin birth I would think.<br />
<br />
The fact of the matter is that we do not come to know that our Savior lives by examining the evidence according to some alleged neutral posture, for the facts do not demand the conclusion that Christ has risen. The facts are indeed <i>consistent</i> with the resurrection but the facts do not speak for themselves let alone lead us to the Christian conclusion, which is no conclusion at all but rather a starting point for apologetical discourse and belief. God speaks in order that we might interpret the facts aright. The fact of the empty tomb, therefore, is not what leads us to the "conclusion" of the resurrection but rather the empty tomb corroborates what we already know from God, that Christ is resurrected.<br />
<br />
Similarly, we read in Scripture that a man named Saul who once opposed Christ became the chief apologist for the Christian faith. The way in which one will interpret the transformation of Saul to Paul will be consistent with one’s pre-commitment(s). Christians take the fanaticism of the apostle as corroborating what they already know to be true about the resurrection. The fanaticism of the apostle no more “proves” the resurrection of Christ than does the empty tomb. Moreover, neither the empty tomb nor the life of Paul proves the resurrection any more than it can <i>disprove</i> it by proving that a conspiracy to overthrow ancient Judaism took place evidenced by the <i>hoax</i> of the resurrection. The point is simply this. Naturalists will find their explanation for the apostle’s transformation and the empty tomb elsewhere, outside of the Christian resurrection interpretation. Similarly, the way in which one interprets the facts surrounding Joseph Smith will be according to one’s pre-commitment(s). If one is committed to a closed canon, then the claims of Mormonism will be deemed false.<br />
<br />
Of course the tomb is empty, for Christ has risen. Of course the apostle Paul preached the resurrection of Christ with all his heart, soul and strength, for Christ has risen. Of course the Mormon religion is a cult, for Jesus is God and the canon is closed. Do we come to believe these things by evaluating supposed brute particulars in an alleged neutral fashion or are our beliefs already marshaled according to our pre-commitment to God’s word in general and the resurrection in particular? Do the “facts” speak for themselves or has God already exegeted the facts for us?<br />
<br />
The reason one believes that Christ has risen from the grave is because God has revealed the truth of the resurrection. In fact, we don’t just believe God’s word on the matter, we actually <i>know</i> God is telling the truth. Yet, unwittingly, often times Christians do not speak the truth with respect to why they believe in the resurrection. Too often Christians will say that they believe in the resurrection <i>because</i> of such evidence, which if true would reduce one’s confidence in God’s say-so to speculation based upon supposed brute facts that (would) readily lend themselves to suspicion (when God’s word is not presupposed as reliable, true and one's ultimate authority). Christians need to lay hold of the fact that the “Word of God” is <i>God’s word</i>, and God cannot lie.<br />
<br />
With the resurrection the former days of ignorance are gone (Acts 17:30); so our belief in the truth couldn’t be more justified since our justification comes from the self-attesting Christ of Scripture working in accordance with the internal witness of the Holy Ghost. We do not come to know Jesus lives by drawing inferences from uninterpreted facts in the light of past experiences but rather by believing with maximal warrant the word of truth. Indeed, we have a more sure word of <i>knowledge</i>. (2 Peter 1:19)<br />
<br />
The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 1 paragraph 5) could not have been more on target in its reason for why Scripture's testimony should be believed: <br />
<blockquote>
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: <b>yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts</b>."</blockquote>
<br />
Ron<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-52130231280222210432015-03-29T17:00:00.000-04:002015-03-29T17:23:41.892-04:00Gospel and Easter<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPvC7ChT4l2g8rxGrRzZX0bJTO1ihPPPlOoBdq_S1EIkLrfsBdNlajC4VHBFc6Zz39hvHy220sy1XYdR3FNlWcIB35RCARKguzMEsGMD3IPcLeENiA_eitFCmF0XD2fQigb0ua/s1600/cross1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPvC7ChT4l2g8rxGrRzZX0bJTO1ihPPPlOoBdq_S1EIkLrfsBdNlajC4VHBFc6Zz39hvHy220sy1XYdR3FNlWcIB35RCARKguzMEsGMD3IPcLeENiA_eitFCmF0XD2fQigb0ua/s320/cross1.jpg" height="239" width="320" /></a></div>
The gospel is the central theme of the New Testament and consequently central to Pauline theology. In particular, Christ is risen, with all its implications, is the primary message of the Bible. It <i>is</i> the good news. Not justification through faith alone (through an <i>alien</i> righteousness) but <i>intimate</i> union with the risen Christ, which envelopes the glorious reality of justification, is Paul’s message to the church. It is not merely how one might receive pardon for sins and acceptance from God but rather <i>all the benefits</i> in this life that proceed from effectual calling is Paul's message, the gospel. <br />
<br />
This gospel is not delivered in some atomistic, compartmentalized sense but in all its fullness, as a unit with many parts, which corresponds with all the benefits that occur all at once through one baptism into Christ. Notwithstanding, certainly Paul distinguishes (for instance) sanctification from justification but he never separates the two from union with the resurrected and ascended Christ. Paul does not detract from the eschatological implications and sheer profundity of the believer’s participation in the first resurrection and age to come. It’s not that Paul was not a systematic theologian. He was. Yet Paul had a more pressing message than "Justification"- a message from which other theological intricacies can (and should) be derived. Yet the Reformed church, possibly through the influence of conservative Lutheranism and Evangelicalism, has lost hold of the already-not yet reality in Christ that is so prominent in Paul’s soteriology. The Reformed church is missing the most essential part of what God would have us know about redemption. <br />
<br />
Paul’s soteriology is eschatological in nature, for when was the new age inaugurated but at the resurrection! Accordingly, when one is united to Christ by the conduit of faith he is united with the firstborn from the dead, thereby entering into the <i>new creation</i> – Christ’s body, the church. When the many brothers are raised in the first resurrection they are made partakers of the new age not only in and through Christ but with him, their brother, the Lord and forerunner of his people. Accordingly, Paul does not see glorification at the second resurrection as the only aspect of the believer’s eschatological-salvation. Rather, Paul sees the entire process of salvation (and it is a process!) as receiving <i>all </i>the benefits of redemption and entering into the already inaugurated age that awaits its final consummation in Christ, the first fruit of the one harvest.
<br />
<br />
That's the year round message of Easter. Christ the King and Savior of men is risen! The inaugurated King of Kings is subduing the nations, placing all his enemies under his feet, making them his footstool. Then comes the end, that is the consummation of all things, when Christ turns the kingdom over to the Father after
destroying all dominion, authority and power, even the last enemy - death itself. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-73192467589851623362015-03-17T00:27:00.001-04:002023-09-20T13:34:16.915-04:00Homosexuality and the Church<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Could you imagine starting a small group at your church for
those struggling with being a rapist? How about a struggling murderer? No, because the antidote is
simply repent and come to Christ. There’s nothing more to talk about. Don’t
murder and don’t rape. Period! Repent or perish. <b>NOTE: </b>I am not speaking against ministries that preach the gospel to the homosexual community and are trying to build bridges to that end. I have something much different in mind. This should become more clear later in this post...</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why then does the church feel the need to have ministries aimed at
professing Christians, which focus on “same-sex attraction”? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has become an obsession. Why coddle the
homosexual and not the murderer? Is it possible that a Christian’s life can be
marked by a sin that God identifies as only belonging to the unbeliever? <b>And if
the person’s life is not marked by the sin, then why minister as if it is?!</b> Let the man grow in grace normally, forgetting the past (Philippians 3:13-14). The
increase in focus can only harm the believer – especially the young believer
who would have never entertained such a practice if such sinful depictions were
not paraded before him or her in the church –<i> in God’s holy church!</i><br />
<br />
For some reason sexual sin <i>of all sorts </i>(e.g., porn) has gained a unique standing in the church. The culture has worn down the church. Such sin is no longer shocking but that's because people are more saturated with the world than the word of God. We've become desensitized and the truth is at best a vague memory. The church actually now believes there are practicing homosexual Christians. My own
children have been exposed to X-rated word-pictures from God’s pulpit (not at my home church). They would
have been better off in “junior church” and it would have been better for a millstone to be hung around one's neck if a youth within the hearing of that word was led astray. (Matthew 18:6)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s get it out of our minds that there is such a thing as
the Christian homosexual. If thousands of people say they love Christ yet God
has not seen fit to grant them repentance from this sort of sin, who should we
believe - God’s word about who will not inherit the kingdom of God or the
people God’s word says live in darkness and will not own the truth? At the very
least, why is it no longer “disgraceful even to speak of the things which are
done by them in secret”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Ephesians
5:12) </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How many ministries to homosexuals tell their subjects that
such a life style is depicted in Scripture as punishment for being abhorred by
God? How can a long and drawn out book study for such sin not undermine the
urgency that such a person is sealing his destiny with temporal judgment (Romans 1). Such coddling of the impenitent portrays
the lie that this is a common struggle in the church. No, it’s not a struggle
<i>in the church</i>, let alone a common one; it’s a “struggle” for those outside the church,
and the struggle is due to a decided unwillingness to repent. What, God can save us –
He just cannot keep us from such unspeakable sin? What is salvation, after all? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hear more about this sin than
gossip. I hear more about this sin than Sabbath breaking! Why is the sin that God
turns men over to for hardened unbelief – that of degrading passions and
unnatural functions (Romans 1: 26) – been the focus of so much attention? It’s
because many leaders in the church do not believe the Bible is relevant for
this day, though they’ll never say it that plainly. I guess "sex sells" is now true for the church too.<br />
<br />
For those who have been saved out of sexual immorality (or any class of sin), the sanctified path does not enter through doors of meeting with people who had, let alone still have, the same struggles. I befriended one man who was eventually put outside the church for such
sin, and then was reclaimed by the mercies of God. His testimony was
that the renowned focus group he attended was no more than a pick-up spot. Such groups are of often led by young and immature Christians rather than mature Christians who have learned to buffet their bodies. Moreover, the path of light that leads unto life is through the study of the whole counsel of God - and exercising oneself unto the ordinary means of grace in the church. The Bible knows nothing of special focus groups that are often time an occasion to stir up sinful passions with graphic testimony. (Divorce and porn groups have similar problems.) What all Christians need is integration into the body! And the last thing they need to do is recite their past to the church or small group for "the glory of God"! Again, it is disgraceful even to speak of these former things that were done in secret.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]--><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>Or do you not know
that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who
practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such <u><b>were</b></u> some of
you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. <b><i>1Corinthians 6:9-11</i></b>
</blockquote>
<br /></div>
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" hspace="4" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" vspace="2" /></a><script src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/script.php?u=rondigiacomo">
</script><br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/step2.php" target="_top"><span style="color: #666666;">Hit Counters</span></a>
Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-1152222519118998262015-03-09T00:00:00.000-04:002015-03-09T07:37:54.216-04:00A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRfKcGI1Y5nZvjv1l2H6Zx6aD7qMi8l7FF3fs40xEZ3eYOSX2sc30KmVueEmCa_FLbjGBMz3pqK0Ziakp6V7cLx26-OULLHPNqMrphR_4_vWzABAn4p642p9AQAQLqgWthnzaQ/s1600-h/WestminsterAssemblyPortrait.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRfKcGI1Y5nZvjv1l2H6Zx6aD7qMi8l7FF3fs40xEZ3eYOSX2sc30KmVueEmCa_FLbjGBMz3pqK0Ziakp6V7cLx26-OULLHPNqMrphR_4_vWzABAn4p642p9AQAQLqgWthnzaQ/s400/WestminsterAssemblyPortrait.jpg" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5024851484270172578" style="float: right; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px;" /></a><br />
Immediately after the fall of man God promised that he would inflict a deep seated hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of the Satan. That promise, which would come to fruition being a <i>promise</i>(!), included the <i>good news</i> that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15). Then the Lord of the covenant covered with skins the two who were naked and ashamed (Genesis 3:21).<br />
<br />
God later expanded upon his promise with respect to the seed, saying that he would establish his covenant between himself and Abraham; but not only would God establish his covenant promise with Abraham, he would also establish it with Abraham’s <i>seed</i> after him. This promise that was made to Abraham and his seed was that God would be a God to them and that they would occupy the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:7, 8). In response to the promise of God, which was one of redemption of a people and land for them to occupy, Abraham pleaded that his son Ishmael might live before God in faithfulness. (Genesis 3:18) God refused Abraham’s request, saying “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee… <b>but my covenant will I <i>establish</i> with Isaac</b>” not Ishmael (Genesis 17: 20, 21).<br />
<br />
God’s promise of redemption of the seed would come to fruition; yet it did not apply to all of Abraham’s physical descendents. In fact, it even applied to those who were not of physical descent. Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, <b>as if they themselves were partakers of the promise of God</b>. Even more, those within a professing household who did not receive the sign and seal of the covenant were to be considered outside the people of God and covenant breakers. In other words, infants who did not receive the sign of the covenant due to a parent’s spiritual neglect were to be considered lost and, therefore, under the dominion of Satan (Genesis 17:13, 14). This sign of the covenant was so closely related to the covenant that it was actually called the covenant by the Lord (Genesis 17:10). Consequently, those who had received the sign were to be <i>considered</i> in covenant with God; whereas those who had not received the sign yet qualified to receive it were to be treated as covenant breakers. We might say that the invisible church was to be found within the visible church, "out of which there was no ordinary way of salvation" (Acts 2:47b; WCF 25.2).<br />
<br />
When we come to Galatians 3 we learn something quite astounding. The promise was made to a single Seed, who is the Christ; and it is by spiritual union with him, pictured in the outward administration of baptism, that the promise is received by the elect (in Christ). <i>“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”</i> (Galatians 3:16, 26-29) The apostle in no uncertain terms teaches that the covenant promise is <i>established</i> with the God-man - the incarnate Christ, and by covenantal extension with all who would be truly, <i>by the Spirit,</i> buried and raised with him in baptism.<br />
<br />
Although God’s covenant was <i>established</i> from the outset with the elect in Christ, it was to be <i>administered</i> to all who professed the true religion along with their households. The theological distinction of the visible and invisible church was well in view, even at the time of Abraham. Although this was the theology of the Covenant, the apostle still had to labor the point to the New Testament saints at Rome. After telling his hearers that nothing could separate God’s people from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39), the apostle had to explain how the people of God who had an interest in the covenant could have fallen away. How, in other words, could the people of God become apostate if the <i>promise </i>of redemption had to come to fruition <i>being a promise from God</i>? With his pedagogical background in place, the apostle explained the timeless Old Testament <i>Covenant</i> Theology, which is that although God <i>established</i> his covenant <i>only</i> with the elect in Christ, it was to be outwardly <i>administered</i> to the non-elect as long as they were of the household of a professing believer and had not demonstrated visible apostasy. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine that they are not all true Israel who are from external Israel (Romans 9:6); and that all the New Testament church is not the true church. “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but <b>the children of the promise are counted for the seed</b>” (Romans 9:8).<br />
<br />
With respect to the promise of the land of Canaan, it too was a <i>type </i>as were the sacrifices that have passed away. And also, the land was a microcosm (i.e. part-for-whole) of that which would be realized in the consummation of the earthly eschaton. The promise was seen as part-for-whole even by Abraham, who in his own time was looking not for the dirt of Palestine but the streets of gold, “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:10). In fact, all the “heroes of the faith” died without receiving the promises, “but having seen them afar off…confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth… For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called <b>their God</b> [the very essence of the covenant! “I <i>will</i> be your God...”]: for he hath prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16)<br />
<br />
In sum, God’s promise was that he would redeem a people that he would place in his recreation, the church. The church’s final destiny is the consummated New Heavens and New Earth, wherein righteousness dwells. Until God separates the sheep from the goats, the visible church will contain unbelievers and hypocrites. Upon consummation, the visible church and the elect will be one and the same.<br />
<br />
<b>From a proper view of the covenant, we can now take a look at the practice of covenant baptism.</b><br />
<br />
As we just saw, under the older economy, although the covenant of promise was established solely with the elect in Christ it was to be administered to the households of professing believers. This means that the children of professing believers were to receive the mark of inclusion and, therefore, be counted among the people of God prior to professing faith in what the sign and seal of the covenant contemplated. Covenant children, even if they were not elect, were to be<i> treated</i> as the elect of God and heirs according to the promise based upon corporate solidarity with a professing parent.<br />
<br />
When we come to the New Testament nothing has changed with respect to the heirs of the promise. The promise remains established with the elect in Christ, as it always was. The question Baptists ask is whether the children of professing believers have somehow lost the privilege of receiving the sign of entrance into the New Testament church. They say YES, which places a burden of proof upon them to demonstrate such a conclusion by good and necessary inference if not explicit instruction. <br />
<br />
<b>Quick Review</b><br />
<br />
By way of review, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any preconditions (Genesis 17:7) that had to be met by those prior to God establishing his promise with the elect. Abraham responded to God's promise of salvation in faith, which was first issued in Genesis 12, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). Accordingly, God's precept was that his covenant sign be <i>administered</i> to the household of Abraham, even though God <i>established</i> his covenant solely with the elect in Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, the apostle explicitly tells us that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Accordingly, all those who would believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham, that we become seeds of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."<br />
<br />
<b>Some misguided arrows, continuity and discontinuity</b><br />
<br />
With respect to national implication as it pertains to circumcision, we must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Indeed, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of <i>many </i>nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). Consequently, contrary to what so many evangelicals think, the sign of circumcision primarily had spiritual significance as opposed to national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, <i>a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith</i>..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin. God always had an elect people, which he so happen to form into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Nonetheless, the promise both precedes and transcends the nation and could, therefore, not be abrogated upon the apostasy of the nation. God has now taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project, the church. The church is the <i>international</i> people of God, a "nation" bearing the fruit of the covenant. Consequently, when one is converted to Christ he need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of <i>all </i>nations.<br />
<br />
God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign of entrance into the people of God has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded his covenant principle concerning the subjects who were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are<i> by precept</i> to place the sign of covenant membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God – which was never rescinded or abrogated.<br />
<br />
<b>The disagreement and the error of both groups, Baptists and Paedobaptists</b><br />
<br />
Here's the problem that many paedobaptists run into when dealing with Baptists, especially so-called "Reformed" Baptists. "Reformed" Baptists argue that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and reprobates in professing households since many who were to receive the sign of the covenant fell away. Then they rightly show that the New Covenant is established only with the elect. Accordingly, they reason: if the covenant has changed from including non-believers to including only true believers, then baptism should be reserved only for professing believers in order to ensure (as best as possible) that the visible church resemble the true regenerate church of the New Testament. The paedobaptist gets tripped up by that argument when he tries to argue that both the New and the Old Covenants are established with both the elect and non-elect within professing households, which Randy Booth tries to do in his book "Children of the Promise." Such paedobaptists are certainly correct with respect to the continuity from Old to New but they cannot argue effectively that the New Covenant is established with certain unbelievers because Scripture doesn't support it. Consequently, the Baptist argument often goes like this: "Hey Mr. Paedobaptist, you and I agree that the Old Covenant was made with the visible people of God, which includes believers and unbelievers (since many Israelites fell away from the true religion); therefore, we can agree that circumcision was to be administered to all males, elect or not, within a professing household. However, since the New Covenant is clearly made with the elect in Christ who will persevere in the faith (unlike unfaithful Israel), then it is reasonable to maintain that the covenant has changed with respect to inclusiveness. Therefore, the sign of the covenant should be reserved for those the elders are persuaded are actually believers." In other words, the Baptist argues that since the people of God fell away under the older economy, then the Old Covenant promise must have been made with at least some reprobates; yet the elect of God will not fall away in the New Covenant, therefore, the New Covenant promise must be made with the elect alone. There is a flaw in reasoning that must be considered. The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church. By using a faulty comparison, the Baptist is trying to prove whom the Old Covenant was established with by showing who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate); then he argues for the proper recipients for New Testament baptism on the basis of God establishing his NT covenant with the elect alone. By changing their criteria in this way, they arrive at logically unsubstantiated conclusion. <span style="color: #3333ff;">In other words, our Baptist brethren establish with whom the covenant was established under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign; then they try to establish who is to receive the sign under the new economy by looking at with whom the New Covenant was made! That's simply fallacious.</span><br />
The one, single covenant of promise was established with the incarnate Christ and all who were elected in Him; yet this covenant, although established with the elect in Christ, was to be administered even to the reprobate who qualifies, by precept, even by birth.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Now, for those who like formal proofs:</i></b><br />
<b>The Best Baptist Argument Out There:</b><br />
<br />
<b>1.</b> In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)<br />
<br />
<b>2.</b> It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established<br />
<br />
<b>3.</b> Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)<br />
<br />
<b>4.</b> The new covenant is established only with those who possess saving faith<br />
<br />
<b>5.</b> Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism<br />
<br />
<b>The Baptist argument has many problems:</b><br />
<br />
1 is False: The old covenant was <i>established</i> only with the elect.<br />
<br />
2 is True: The question is <i>who qualifies?</i><br />
<br />
3 is True: The conclusion is true but it is logically <i>unsound </i>because premise 1 is false. The reason the mark of the covenant was to be placed upon the households of professing believers is not because the covenant was established with them but because due to the head of household’s professed faith it was to be <i>administered</i> to them by biblical precept.<br />
<br />
4 is False: Both covenants are established with the elect and the sign is to be administered to those who profess faith, along with their households<br />
<br />
5 is False: The falseness of 4 is sufficient to make 5 false.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>A Sound Paedobaptist Argument:</b><br />
<b></b><br />
<b>1.</b> An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people<br />
<br />
<b>2.</b> Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant<br />
<br />
<b>3.</b> Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)<br />
<br />
<b>4.</b> God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference<br />
<br />
<b>5.</b> God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant<br />
<br />
<b>6.</b> The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism<br />
<br />
<b>7.</b> God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)<br />
<br />
<b>8.</b> God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)<br />
<br />
<b>A Reformed Baptist use of Jeremiah 31</b><br />
<br />
Baptists, of course, will disagree with point 5. They will say that the abrogation of the principle in view is implicit in Jeremiah 31:34: "...they will all know me....”, which they say means that the New Covenant is made only with believers who know the Lord. Accordingly, they reason that we should ensure as best as possible to administer the New Covenant only to those who profess faith in Christ, which infants cannot do. The problem they run into with this line of reasoning is that the verse does not teach that the covenant is only made with those who posses belief! The promise of Jeremiah 31 is a promise of greater fidelity (verse 32), greater empowerment (verse 34), and a greater depth of knowledge (verse 34). It does not address the qualification for covenant entrance. (I’ll address “depth of knowledge” later). Verse 34 does not speak to the question of with whom the covenant will be established. It merely teaches that those with whom the covenant will be established will indeed “know the Lord.” Before considering what it means in that context to “know the Lord” we must first appreciate that verse does not teach us that the covenant will be made only with true believers <i>after</i> they believe. At the very least, if Baptists were correct, then the knowledge of the Lord would not be a blessing of the covenant but rather something that first must be obtained in order to enter into the covenant! Moreover, the verse cannot possibly exclude infants from covenant entrance who will grow up to “know the Lord” because the verse does not imply a change in qualifications for covenant entrance, but rather it speaks to the increase of blessings that will be received by those with whom God establishes the New Covenant. The verse is not speaking of a new qualification for entering into the covenant; rather it is speaking about something different that will occur under the newer economy as compared to the older economy for those who will be in covenant.<br />
<br />
<b>The glory of the New Covenant</b><br />
<br />
Since the Old Covenant was established with the elect alone, we may safely say that a saving knowledge was granted to all with whom God established the Old Covenant, barring no early deaths that would preclude saving <i>knowledge</i>. Consequently, the verse must be speaking to the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed Canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than increase of blessings. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exclusion of infants!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/stats.php?site=rondigiacomo" target="_top"><img align="middle" alt="Free Website Counter" border="0" src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/index.php?u=rondigiacomo&s=fdg" hspace="4" vspace="2" /></a><script src="http://beta.easyhitcounters.com/counter/script.php?u=rondigiacomo">
</script><br />
<br />
<a href="http://easyhitcounters.com/step2.php" target="_top"><span style="color: #666666;">Hit Counters</span></a>Reformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com50